Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[Shawn Ryan]

Shawn, since 1(a) is disjunctive, I would not quibble over the definition of "take."  "Hunt" and "possess" are sufficient and much harder for the defendant to state that he did neither. Further, 1(a) and 1(b) are also disjunctive and the violations alleged are what are enumerated in 1(a) and (b).

State v. Stoken seems to hold that "knowing" is the standard and the Court of Appeals had no trouble finding that "knowing" applies to the act of hunting or possessing, not to the defendant's state of mind regarding violating the law.  Further, the Court of Appeals found that "whether [the] hunting season was open"... "is a question of fact."

I've yet to see a legal reason for a deal.  Efficient use of court resources might lead a deal, but maybe not. There might be some court house conversation between the visiting judge, the prosecutor, and J. Chmelewski, who might just have an opinion about the case since she reportedly gave the elk his name while he was living on her land.

[Curly]

Here's a letter from a Kittitas County resident:

http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/letter-as-a-hunter-disgusted-with-killing-of-bullwinkle/article_af72f16e-1e09-11e6-af5a-134c6e038aed.html


Letter: As a hunter, disgusted with killing of Bullwinkle

    Jan Osmonovich 19 hrs ago (1)

To the Editor:

As a county resident and avid elk hunter, I am so outraged and disgusted with all those involved in the shooting of “Bullwinkle” by Mr. Reichert.

This is a man who has used his fortune to buy hunting tags in several states and used his money to pay his way to be able to shoot “trophy” elk yearly. This is the sort of activity that has given hunting such a bad reputation nationwide.

This elk was a local celebrity, in a GMU that did not allow branched antler permits and yet Mr. Reichert not only shot the elk, but had help to move it to the adjoining GMU which was covered by his tag. The fact that this is not his first illegal kill, that he has simply bought his way out of previous charges, and gone on his merry way to purchase new “raffle” tags.

When the raffle system first started in this state, those of us who are law-abiding hunters knew that this would become a rich man’s ticket. The fact that Mr. Reichert has purchased tags year after year and that the WDFW and RMEF condoned this because he added many dollars to their “coffers” is disgusting.

I hope that Mr. Reichert is not able to buy his way out of this situation and that plea bargaining is not an option here in Kittitas County.

I know that the locals who have enjoyed the presence of Bullwinkle for years have to be as sickened as I am with this situation.

The norm for this should apply to Mr. Reichert, seizing his weapons, the pickup he used to transport the elk to the next GMU, and his hunting privileges for life. Harsh? I don’t think so. Justified? You bet.

Unfortunately, he will more than likely get off with a plea bargain and once again, buy his way out. I guess I am hoping that the legal system in Kittitas County will not allow a plea bargain for this repeat offender and hold him legally responsible for his actions and revoke his hunting privileges in this state for life.

Wishful thinking? I hope not. As an ethical hunter and county resident, I hope not.

Jan Osmonovich

Cle Elum

[Coastal_native]

My opinions are general in nature and aren't necessarily a perspective on this particular case.

Organized, commercial poaching rings and repeat offenders should have the heat turned up.    IDK whether that's this case or not.

I'm with you on this one.  I have a hard putting the alleged offense in the same category as those that I feel deserve the harshest penalties.  If this had been any other over the counter tag purchased by a blue collared person and the same offenses were being alleged, I don't think we'd even know about it.  He's rich and the elk was a local celebrity...seems to be driving it.  With as many hunters as we talk about (and witness) testing limits and breaking the game laws (antler restrictions, legal boundaries, legal hunting hours, legal hunting equipment, etc...), I'm having a hard time not putting this in the same category as someone who shoots an illegal animal and tries to convince himself and everyone else that it was "borderline" legal from his perspective.  Although, I probably won't be surprised either way. 

[JDHasty]

"In December 2007, Reichert killed a trophy elk in the Umatilla National Forest with Wick's assistance outside the area the Forest Service had authorized Wick to provide outfitter-guiding services."

"Reichert hired Wick, who operated an outfitter-guiding service known as Outback Outfitters, to provide outfitter-guiding services for the hunt."

"Reichert also hired a helicopter service that Wick used to spot elk in aide of the hunt, which is unlawful in Washington State."

"Reichert later falsely claimed that Wick had provided no professional services during the hunt or been paid any money for his services."

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2012/jul/23/trophy-elk-hunter-tagged-lying-hiring-helicopter/

"According to Micheal C. Ormsby, U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Washington, Reichert bought the 2007 Eastside any-elk Governor’s Auction Tag for around $47,000.  He hired Wick to provide guide services for his hunt, and apparently just to make sure, also hired a helicopter to spot animals — illegal in Washington."

 

Here is the Reichert side of the story as published in his hometown paper:

A headline and story published on July 21, 2012, incorrectly suggested that Salkum resident Tod Reichert pleaded guilty to illegal hunting activity in connection with a 2007 hunt in the Umatilla National Forest. In fact, Reichert’s plea deal only involved him admitting to providing information that ended up being false during a law enforcement investigation of a commercial guiding service. At the time Reichert made the first statement in question, he believed it was true, and the other statement was made in sarcastic frustration with the manner in which he was being questioned by federal officers, according to his Spokane attorney, Steve Hormel. Reichert did not admit to illegal hunting, and all federal charges related to accusations of illegal hunting activities were dropped. Reichert harvested the bull elk legally in December 2007. Reichert and his guide used a helicopter to track the elk the day before the hunt; prosecutors’ claims that this was illegal were dropped. Hunting regulations on the issue are ambiguous, Reichert said. He notes that the state hunting guide that year included an advertisement for an aerial scouting service, further reinforcing his belief that he was acting legally. “I sincerely believed I could hire a helicopter because of the way the regulations were written in the official hunting rules,” Reichert said in a statement provided by his attorney. “I have always worked to hunt legally. I have a great respect for the animals and the law.”

http://www.chronline.com/records/corrections-hunting-in-umatilla-national-forest-death-notice-misspelling/article_e9372910-8b36-11e2-a800-0019bb2963f4.html

OK, so Mr Reichert hired Wick, and Mr Reichert hired a helicopter service AND Wick used the helicopter service to spot elk in aid of the hunt and then Reichert later falsely claimed that Wick had provided no professional services during the hunt or been paid any money for his services.

But... Mr Reichert sincerely believed he could hire a helicopter because of the way the regulations were written in the official hunting rules....

Really???

 

[Curly]

I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal.  I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter.  I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting.

[JDHasty]

I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal.  I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter.  I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting.

There are also ads for four wheelers in the Game Regs, does that introduce any confusion regarding the legality of operating them on Green Dot roads? 

[JDHasty]

Th quote Scooby Doo:  Ruht Roh!

http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/32020046/photos-bullwinkle-the-ellensburg-elk

[Curly]

I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal.  I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter.  I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting.

There are also ads for four wheelers in the Game Regs, does that introduce any confusion regarding the legality of operating them on Green Dot roads?

No.  But I think the green dot road rules were/are very clear.  I didn't get the impression that the flying rules were that clear (or easy to find).    I just think it is possible to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the helicopter deal.

The bullwinkle case, I still can't understand why he would even want to shoot a tame elk (and in a closed unit).  Why even ask for permission to shoot him when it was obviously illegal?   

[Bango skank]

I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal.  I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter.  I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting.

There are also ads for four wheelers in the Game Regs, does that introduce any confusion regarding the legality of operating them on Green Dot roads?

No.  But I think the green dot road rules were/are very clear.  I didn't get the impression that the flying rules were that clear (or easy to find).    I just think it is possible to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the helicopter deal.

The bullwinkle case, I still can't understand why he would even want to shoot a tame elk (and in a closed unit).  Why even ask for permission to shoot him when it was obviously illegal?   

This guy has a history of claiming not to understand rules that are pretty universally understood by others.  If hes as dumb as he tries to act, why not show the regs to his lawyer and consult him before the fact?  Probably because he knows damn good and well what the answer will be.

[PlateauNDN]

So, he plead guilty and was convicted of lying? And not poaching or wildlife related offense for the 2007 offense?

[turbo]

Are we all getting sued now? "IF" this is all true.... What a loser hunter. Disgusting!

[JDHasty]

I believe that he could have thought the helicopter was legal.  I do remember the ad in the regulations for hiring a helicopter.  I'd even given it some thought (not serious thought, but a little thought) about using a helicopter to access some land for elk hunting.

There are also ads for four wheelers in the Game Regs, does that introduce any confusion regarding the legality of operating them on Green Dot roads?

No.  But I think the green dot road rules were/are very clear.  I didn't get the impression that the flying rules were that clear (or easy to find).    I just think it is possible to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the helicopter deal.

The bullwinkle case, I still can't understand why he would even want to shoot a tame elk (and in a closed unit).  Why even ask for permission to shoot him when it was obviously illegal?   

My buddy has an airplane we could have been flying out to the islands and hunting blacktails after work for decades and not have to pay the ferry fare.  The chances of spotting a trophy blacktail are pretty slim.  But the law was absolutely unambiguous to us.  But I do get your point.  I actually did give the benefit of the doubt re: Was Reichert aware of what Wick was doing w/the the helicopter? ... until this came up. 

[JDHasty]

So, he plead guilty and was convicted of lying? And not poaching or wildlife related offense for the 2007 offense?

Yes. 

[Curly]

Here's a "What If"........

What if a guy had an "any bull" permit for a neighboring GMU and he calls wdfw and asks "Hey, I have a "any bull" permit for GMU 328 but I see a real nice bull in GMU 334.  Can I go ahead and shoot that bull instead of finding one in 328?

I would hope the answer would be "no".......or a laugh followed by "hell no!".

But what if that same guy calls up and says "I have an 'any bull' permit and I see a bull in a firearm restricted area, can I go ahead and shoot him with my muzzleloader?" 

Well, then I could see the wdfw employee saying sure "a muzzleloader is allowed in a firearm restricted area".  The employee might not ask or connect the dots that the firearm restricted area is in the wrong GMU.

Could it have been an honest mistake?    I don't know.  Maybe.  Could the phone call to WDFW have been purposely stated to be misleading into getting permission?  I don't know........maybe.

The case is definitely interesting though.........and no jealousy at all here.   

[M_ray]

Are we all getting sued now?

Yes kiticaashunter cleared this up for us 


DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are not those of HW Management, Admins, Mods or myself... But they are the opinions of Elvis who has revealed them to me through the medium of my pet hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...