Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[Curly]

It will be interesting to find out (hopefully we will) what was asked of the wdfw employee and what his answer was. 

[2MANY]

From what I can see the temporary insanity defense might be appropriate in some cases.

It would appear some go crazy when they see hot women or ponder the thought of wrapping their hands around large bone.
They just cannot control themselves.

When the brain cannot control the bodies actions one could be termed........Temporarily Insane.

[teanawayslayer]

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.   

hypothetically there might have been several phone calls. Hypothetically many no's. Hypothetically many baiting questions to get a twisted answer  that someone wanted to hear. I don't know but I had a damage permit for my son. The land owner gave me the permit they recieved from the game department. Stating what unit and what weapon could be used. IT WAS IN WRITING! If it were me with the raffle tag and that was the bull I wanted I would have drove to Yakima to mr grant and had in writing that it was ok to shoot the bull. But that's just me.   

[M_ray]

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.   

More than likely you second scenario is right  Allegedly  ...

[Curly]

Hypothetically.........that is funny.

 

[huntnphool]

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?   

 If I'm the judge, or on the jury, I believe the previous case clearly establishes a pattern of Tod Reichert not only completely understanding the rules laid out in the regs, he recognized the potential conflicts/grey areas, and laboriously looked for ways to subvert them.

 Take the helicopter conviction first, he knew full well that he himself could not fly and hunt so he sent someone else up, clearly in a conscious effort to get around the law.

 This case looks to have much the same effort put into finding some way, any way to be able to kill this bull and get away with it, right down to setting up a excuse to fall back on. I believe Popeshawnpaul and his colleagues may refer to this as premeditation!

 

[coachcw]

My assumption is the fellas who possibly took the brown bags and helped out knew the rules since they live there  and are hunters . hypothetically speaking of course .

[PlateauNDN]

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

Yes.

Not that I have experience as a judge but I see this not affecting the current case as much. He plead out for 2007 for lying. Sure there were other incidents involved but that's not what he was convicted of. There's no legal pattern of behavior for wildlife convictions so it presents itself as this being the first offense and he'll probably drag this out and fill this year's tags then plead out and get a slap on the wrist.

Just saying, not agreeing

[JDHasty]

It looks like NBC et all are not too much worried about being sued for defamation by libel. 

[Woodchuck]

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

Yes.

Not that I have experience as a judge but I see this not affecting the current case as much. He plead out for 2007 for lying. Sure there were other incidents involved but that's not what he was convicted of. There's no legal pattern of behavior for wildlife convictions so it presents itself as this being the first offense and he'll probably drag this out and fill this year's tags then plead out and get a slap on the wrist.

Just saying, not agreeing

Just where do you get off making logical statements like that? Allegedly... There is no room for that sort of thing around here. Allegedly...

[JDHasty]

Teen mistakenly kills Idaho grizzly; famed elk shot in Washington

http://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/playing-outdoors/article78719782.html

[PlateauNDN]

I think my cd player is scratched because same things keep playing over and over.    wait, since it's being called a "pet" does that mean he shot a nuisance pet that trespassed on someone else's property? I mean, the argument is sound, all the news articles and even on here its been clearly argued that this was a "pet" for a decade? 

[huntnphool]

I think my cd player is scratched because same things keep playing over and over.  wait, since it's being called a "pet" does that mean he shot a nuisance pet that trespassed on someone else's property? I mean, the argument is sound, all the news articles and even on here its been clearly argued that this was a "pet" for a decade?

 Let's not spin things Plat, nobody has argued, in any of the threads, that trespassing was involved. It has been made clear that he paid a trespass fee to the landowner, and I believe you know that.

[Skillet]

I think Plat meant the pet trespassed onto someone else's property and got shot because of it.

I'm not liking the whole "this guy shot a famous elk in a field and that's what we're mad about" vibe in these articles.  The fact remains you can shoot the friendliest, cutest, nicest most photogenic elk around, provided it is in an open unit. 

Let's not confuse the attempt by the media to get clicks by pulling on the heartstrings of bunny huggers with the real issue here - that the accused is charged with killing a branch bull closed to all branched bull hunting.

 

[huntnphool]

I think Plat meant the pet trespassed onto someone else's property and got shot because of it.

I'm not liking the whole "this guy shot a famous elk in a field and that's what we're mad about" vibe in these articles.  The fact remains you can shoot the friendliest, cutest, nicest most photogenic elk around, provided it is in an open unit. 

Let's not confuse the attempt by the media to get clicks by pulling on the heartstrings of bunny huggers with the real issue here - that the accused is charged with killing a branch bull closed to all branched bull hunting.

 

 Got it, at first it sounded like he was interjecting trespass into it, I see where he is going now.