Elk shot on Conboy refuge

[TikkaT3-270Shortmag]

Ya they will escort I was wondering the same thing.  If u can show them the blood trail it's game on.  Not tracking a wounded animal I thought was illegal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Curly]

It's a common misconception that wdfw officers will escort hunters onto land for retrieval of game. The landowner is not obligated to grant permission.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

As I suspect, there is a lot of supposition as to what really happened, only those in attendance know the truth.
It really only matters what can be proved.
If it does turn out to be who I suspect, much like every other thread on EVERY internet forum regarding said outfitter, this one to will be locked, then disappear.
That is why I am waiting for the enforcement officers report to show up.
But it might not happen until after his day in court.

[Netminder01]

It's a common misconception that wdfw officers will escort hunters onto land for retrieval of game. The landowner is not obligated to grant permission.

I've been told more than once by DFW officers directly and by a guide that even if a landowner does *not* provide permission and as long as the DFW is with the hunter, recovery can occur. I've been cited a prevision that allows for recover of wounded/terminal animals so it does not go to waste.

My day is slammed, otherwise I'd dig into this more now - sorry. Is anyone else familiar with this or have I been entirely mis-informed for years??

[bobcat]

There is no law requiring that a landowner allow access for retrieval of game. It's been discussed on here many times.

[Netminder01]

There is no law requiring that a landowner allow access for retrieval of game. It's been discussed on here many times.

Grumble....  Ok, I'll stop with the thread hijack but will look into this more.

[bobcat]

Even if there was such a law, this would be different because it's not private property, it's a National Wildlife Refuge.

[LDennis24]

RCWs > Title 77 > Chapter 77.15 > Section 77.15.435

77.15.430  <<  77.15.435 >>   77.15.440

RCW 77.15.435
Unlawful hunting on or retrieving hunted wildlife from the property of another—Defense—Penalty—Forfeiture and disposition of wildlife.
*** CHANGE IN 2015 *** (SEE 1627.SL) ***

(1) A person is guilty of unlawfully hunting on, or retrieving hunted wildlife from, the property of another if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or on the premises of another for the purpose of hunting for wildlife or retrieving hunted wildlife.
(2) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense that:
(a) The premises were at the time open to members of the public for the purpose of hunting, and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining on the premises;
(b) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain on the premises for the purpose of hunting or retrieving hunted wildlife;
(c) The actor reasonably believed that the premises were not privately owned; or
(d) The actor, after making all reasonable attempts to contact the owner of the premises, retrieved the hunted wildlife for the sole purpose of avoiding a violation of the prohibition on the waste of fish and wildlife as provided in RCW 77.15.170. The defense in this subsection only applies to the retrieval of hunted wildlife and not to the actual act of hunting itself.
(3) Unlawfully hunting on or retrieving hunted wildlife from the property of another is a misdemeanor.
(4) If a person unlawfully hunts and kills wildlife, or retrieves hunted wildlife that he or she has killed, on the property of another, then, upon conviction of unlawfully hunting on, or retrieving hunted wildlife from, the property of another, the department shall revoke all hunting licenses and tags and order a suspension of the person's hunting privileges for two years.
(5) Any wildlife that is unlawfully hunted on or retrieved from the property of another must be seized by fish and wildlife officers. Forfeiture and disposition of the wildlife is pursuant to RCW 77.15.100. [2012 c 176 § 11.

[TikkaT3-270Shortmag]

So I guess we wound one we just move on and go find another lol.  What a joke!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[LDennis24]

The change in May of 2015 is to include animal parts, which to me means they are including shed antlers in the law now, so you will be prosecuted for collecting antlers on private land and they will be forfeited.

[bigtex]

The change in May of 2015 is to include animal parts, which to me means they are including shed antlers in the law now, so you will be prosecuted for collecting antlers on private land and they will be forfeited.

Correct. The change was talked about in great length on this forum this spring.

[motg9_6]

Well back on track talked with land owner, outfitter will not be back next year so if there was no issues and everything was hunky dory don't you think the land owner would keep collectin the $50000
Just my 

[h20hunter]

Any specifics from the land owner you can share?

[Patarero]

Well back on track talked with land owner, outfitter will not be back next year so if there was no issues and everything was hunky dory don't you think the land owner would keep collectin the $50000
Just my 

Yep, this was not an isolated incident/'slip-up'.

[Rainier10]

Tagging along.

Pretty sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

My guess is the bull was shot on private land, did run onto the refuge and this was just the straw that broke the camels back for the landowner that was leasing the land.

Pretty sure if we ever know the truth it will be after the case is settled in court and that will take a year or two.