Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[PlateauNDN]

It went the way of the recurve compound bow.  Disappeared altogether.

The YAR...I will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such an organization. Thank you that will be all, no questions (stepping off my podium).

[PlateauNDN]

Wait.....   Was this bull killed in a GMU that's closed to the hunting of branch antlered bulls?

WHAT?  Now that changes EVERYTHING...

I hadn't stopped laughing from Dan-O's post when I got your yours.

You guys are a deadly one two punch.  Thanks for bringing some humor to this train wreck.

I think they were serious...........

Of course he is, he's a member of the YAKASESSFGG...or whatever we call ourselves these days

 

Well then...... are we sure it was really a branch antlered bull?

It was a world record spike that self - identified as a branched bull, therefore legal.

[PlateauNDN]

  disappeared as I went to quote...must've been that super - secret - black organization - that doesn't exist-3 letter agency.......

[jackelope]

One last time, then this thread will go the way of the compound recurve bow. It'll disappear all together. This is the last warning regarding this subject.


Posting the personal information of other members is not allowed.  Don't do it. You'll get banned. It will get nuked.
Don't post insults or personal attacks.
Don't post innacurate information. Anything that is not a true statement regarding the topic of this thread and/or anything directly related to it will get nuked.



Posting the personal information of other members is not allowed. Don't do it. You'll get banned

[PlateauNDN]

As I was going to add, I don't think he cared. I'm not sticking up for or defending him, just stating what I believe to be the honest truth. He knew there might be some controversy and just didn't care.

Also, I think someone confirmed on here that the 2007 incident resulted in a conviction for lying and not any game related convictions so this in a sense would be his 1st offense, if it holds up.

He's obviously got some extra money to spend and I don't think he really cares what people so why do people insist on continuing to state he should care or do something to show remorse or give back if he really cared...that's just wishful thinking.

He's a self - made type of man and if he didn't care in the past what's left to expect a change now?

I'm sure if the alleged approved authorization from wdfw pans out he's not going to care and go out and find some more monsters. If not, I'm sure he's going to drag this out as long as he can, possibly another couple of years just to continue buying up the exclusive tags he's used to and not bat an eye.

Like I said, face some reality and get over the idea he's going to do something to feel good for everybody else.

I'm not defending or supporting him, just stating the obvious.  It's just crazy watching this train wreck continue as it doesn't matter what we say or think, it matters what actually happens in court and he's convicted of.

[h20hunter]

Good points Plat. I think you are correct that he simply may not give a hoot. IF he did get permission,  right or wrong, this whole mess will simply go away and left to be argued on Internet forums.

[jackelope]

Dare I ask.......

What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.

[Woodchuck]

 

[PlateauNDN]

Dare I ask.......

What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.

As the incident occurred I heard from 2 people in the know and so far one of those people's story is starting to take shape and reveal itself to be accurate.

Right or wrong ethically doesn't matter in this incident. Legal vs illegal and what a jury or judge thinks is what's going to matter. If permission was given and the person(s) that gave that permission stick to their words then whether it was actually legal by the WAC or RCW isn't going to matter because the judge/jury are going to be swayed by the official (s) that authorized it.

Pope's posted already that it doesn't matter if they had the authority by law or not, with the officer telling an inebriated person to drive further down the road. Pope clearly stated he pushed that issue and it didn't work out for his client. The officer didn't have the authority per WAC/RCW to make that call but he did.

We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.

[Ghost Hunter]

Dare I ask.......

What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.

We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.

He walks WDFW might need an unlisted information phone number

[bearpaw]

This applies to several members on both sides of these Reichert topics, you will know in what manner this message applies to you.

Please keep your facts straight and follow the forum rules. H-W is an internet service provider, members publish topics that they wish to discuss and other members publish comments regarding their own thoughts on various topics. Courts have ruled that publishers (members) on internet service providers are responsible for their own comments. Hunting-Washington forum (which I own) attempts to allow as open family-friendly discussion as possible and has a neutral position on the Reichert issue. I don't know what the facts of the case are but I have made several statements in numerous Reichert topics asking members to only post factual information on this issue, yet we have had to remove numerous individual comments and even whole topics about this issue that are obviously speculative and potentially untruthful or slanderous, or that contain names or personal info about members, or due to name calling (all of which is not allowed).

In return for trying to be fair to all sides I have been threatened with law suits or criticized from both sides. A few members who continue to ignore the forum rules and or post unsubstantiated info are about one step away from being banned from this forum as myself and several other moderators are tired of trying babysit certain members posting in these topics. If you wish to remain on this forum please follow the rules and don't post unproven accusations that are false or defamatory, or personal information, or you will be banned from this forum. Please read the forum rules again, read the underlined portion twice:

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163263.0.html

Forum Rules & Policies
This forum is intended to be a family friendly and helpful venue for hunters, fishers, trappers, and other sportsmen. Unauthorized advertising is not allowed, contact forum management for available advertising opportunities. Forum management reserves the right to remove any member who violates the forum rules/policies or who in their opinion is actively working against the common interests of hunters or other sportsmen. This is a privately owned site with the following rules and policies:

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, name calling, belittling, threatening, negativity in success topics, unproven accusations, obscene, profanity or intended profanity, sexually oriented, adult material, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of any International, State, or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. You further agree that you are granting Hunting-Washington perpetual unrestricted use of your material. Spam, flooding, unauthorized advertising, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are not allowed on this forum.

Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of material. Please remember that we do not actively monitor all posted material, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, authenticity, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted material expresses the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that posted material or a private message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to edit or remove any content, if they determine that removal is needed it is a manual process so removal or editing may not occur immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.

You remain solely responsible for the content that you post. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint, legal, or lawful action arising from your use of this forum.

You have the ability, as you register, to choose a username under which you may post your material, only appropriate usernames will be allowed. You may only have one username and any change to your username requires preapproval by an administrator. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason.  We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.

After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile and post content on the forum. It is your responsibility to present acceptable information and material. Your IP address is recorded and may be used in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted due to a major violation of this agreement.

Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.

All forum rules and policies are subject to administrative discretion and may be changed without notice at any time.

Thank You,
Forum Management Team

[huntnphool]

Also, I think someone confirmed on here that the 2007 incident resulted in a conviction for lying and not any game related convictions so this in a sense would be his 1st offense, if it holds up.

 As a result of a plea, any good attorney will get his client a lesser charge in the end, than the one they are originally facing.

 Don't think for a second a judge does not have all the facts/history in front of them while hearing a case.

[257 Wby Mag]

Dare I ask.......

What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.

As the incident occurred I heard from 2 people in the know and so far one of those people's story is starting to take shape and reveal itself to be accurate.

Right or wrong ethically doesn't matter in this incident. Legal vs illegal and what a jury or judge thinks is what's going to matter. If permission was given and the person(s) that gave that permission stick to their words then whether it was actually legal by the WAC or RCW isn't going to matter because the judge/jury are going to be swayed by the official (s) that authorized it.

Pope's posted already that it doesn't matter if they had the authority by law or not, with the officer telling an inebriated person to drive further down the road. Pope clearly stated he pushed that issue and it didn't work out for his client. The officer didn't have the authority per WAC/RCW to make that call but he did.

We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.

Easy now platt, common sense will getcha flamed!!

[Rainier10]

Dare I ask.......

What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.

We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.

He walks WDFW might need an unlisted information phone number

Great question, reply and comment. All three of you nailed it.

If that is what happened focus of anger over this incident will shift to the WDFW.

[jackelope]

Dare I ask.......

What if he did make the calls and get the permission from WDFW to shoot this bull? Who would be the bad guy at that point? This has been burning in the back of my head since the beginning of this hot mess.

We get it, or at least I do, they don't have the authority by law but If it turns out authority was given then he's walking.

He walks WDFW might need an unlisted information phone number

Great question, reply and comment. All three of you nailed it.

If that is what happened focus of anger over this incident will shift to the WDFW.

My prediction if this goes down. You'll still have the crowd who remains pissed off at Mr. Reichert for even calling for permission in the first place.
(stand by. I'm putting on my flame retardant suit)