Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[mfswallace]

for all bearpaws and kiti excuses there is no legal authority  for this elk to have been shot where it was   

Now the court will decide

[grundy53]

Wow alot more keeps piling on since I looked at this site. Like I said I got on here to clear things up. I guess that didn't happen at all. The hunter seems to be judged worse and many of you discredited me. Do what you need to do.

The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys  mind  was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled.  He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.

I have been hunting for more than 3 decades. I miss the times when things didn't seem to change so much. I appaud the people on here that seem to know every rule all the time as thinges change. We all try to keep up on everything.  But are not afraid to call and ask for clarification when needed. In this case WDFG didn't just say it was ok, they went and double checked and again gave the ok.
This was a high profile tag, nobody involved wanted any issues in this case.

Worst part on this forum is the hunter has had some very bad things said about him. He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.

If this is true then Mr Grant should be reprimanded.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[kiticaashunter]

Wow alot more keeps piling on since I looked at this site. Like I said I got on here to clear things up. I guess that didn't happen at all. The hunter seems to be judged worse and many of you discredited me. Do what you need to do.

The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys  mind  was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled.  He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.

I have been hunting for more than 3 decades. I miss the times when things didn't seem to change so much. I appaud the people on here that seem to know every rule all the time as thinges change. We all try to keep up on everything.  But are not afraid to call and ask for clarification when needed. In this case WDFG didn't just say it was ok, they went and double checked and again gave the ok.
This was a high profile tag, nobody involved wanted any issues in this case.

Worst part on this forum is the hunter has had some very bad things said about him. He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.

If this is true then Mr Grant should be reprimanded.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Agree. I believe the department hoped this would go away. A few people that didn't know the details kept the pressure on and the county caved to that pressure.

[grundy53]

Wow alot more keeps piling on since I looked at this site. Like I said I got on here to clear things up. I guess that didn't happen at all. The hunter seems to be judged worse and many of you discredited me. Do what you need to do.

The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys  mind  was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled.  He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.

I have been hunting for more than 3 decades. I miss the times when things didn't seem to change so much. I appaud the people on here that seem to know every rule all the time as thinges change. We all try to keep up on everything.  But are not afraid to call and ask for clarification when needed. In this case WDFG didn't just say it was ok, they went and double checked and again gave the ok.
This was a high profile tag, nobody involved wanted any issues in this case.

Worst part on this forum is the hunter has had some very bad things said about him. He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.

If this is true then Mr Grant should be reprimanded.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Agree. I believe the department hoped this would go away. A few people that didn't know the details kept the pressure on and the county caved to that pressure.

I'm glad the county did the right thing.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[TheHunt]

Depending on the date when this "hunt" occurred, there is a antlerless hunt in that unit mid November until mid December. You could the WDFW office and say: I'm elk hunting and I'm not sure if I can hunt with a mod rifle or not, can you help me out? Response: Where are you? I'll check and call you back. Ring: You can hunt there but it's a firearms restricted area, so shotgun, muzzle loader or bow. Response: Thanks!

Thing is the other elk that was shot in a "yard" was legal. This elk was not, ever! Oh yea, it was shot in a yard too!

Mr. Grant knew the exact bull that was was going to be taken. There was no trickery or word's twisted  in this case. At the time he gave gave the good to go he was up for promotion. Since then he has gotten it and tried hard to distance himself from this. He is an honest guy and will tell the truth on the stand. And that will be that he double checked to make sure it was all good.

I'm curious are you testifying in the case. Your  giving the impression that you know specific details related to the case, which is interesting because generally open forum web conversation about "facts" of a case are normally not recommended by either side. And I'm sure Grant would not appreciate the nature at which he is being thrown under the bus in regards to his alleged involvement.

At this point I have not been asked to testify. I will have no problem doing so and telling them what I know if they do ask. But I really doubt this case ends up in court, the charge was a result of relentless pressure from a few.

I agree with you on your last comment.  I think there is the relentless pressure of a few. 

[bobcat]

Sorry but this makes no sense to me. Who calls the WDFW and asks about hunting in a unit that is closed? Why would that even be considered an option? I don't believe it happened that way. Not in a million years would I ever think to call and ask permission to illegally kill an elk.

[idahohuntr]

If Reichert had not been previously charged and punished for lying to investigators about illegal elk hunting...I might believe him.  I doubt seriously an officer gave clear guidance that it was legal to kill this bull...if he did, then once reichert is convicted and stripped of his hunting priveleges sportsmen need to seek removal of this officer for his involvement in this criminal activity.

Kitti, you still haven't answered my very simple question.  What about the regs caused you to call wdfw regarding the legality of shooting this bull?  Obviously you knew something wasn't right.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jackelope]

Sorry but this makes no sense to me. Who calls the WDFW and asks about hunting in a unit that is closed? Why would that even be considered an option? I don't believe it happened that way. Not in a million years would I ever think to call and ask permission to illegally kill an elk.

Entitlement?

[Curly]

The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys  mind  was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled.  He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.

So, why was the only question in anyone's mind about whether a modern rifle could be used. Did anyone not question if it was OK to shoot s bull in 334? Was that an oversight on everyone's part (maybe including Mr. Grant) that 334 was closed for the raffle or auction tags? That's what it sounds like to me........a mistake on everyone's part not knowing that 334 was closed. 

[Kazekurt]

He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.

 What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?

While I appreciate the  contributions this guy has made to conservation, One can certainly also argue that  by being involved in two high-profile cases  in which wildlife rules were violated,  (either knowingly or unknowingly,  it really doesn't matter the damage is the same) he has probably done more damage to the hunting community than 95% of the people on here.  It only takes one "Cecil the lion" to do a lot of damage.   Unfortunately, trophy hunting already carries a negative stigma with most of the non-hunting population  so when a trophy hunter violates rules  in an effort to take the biggest baddest animal around it provides them more ammunition to push for changes and  regulations that cripple the tradition and means of  subsidence that many of us cherish.   I am quite certain based upon Mr. Reichert  available resources , that he has lawyers on retainer and advisors that could know the game pamphlet backwards and forwards and advise him if he wanted that.  I personally hunt three states. I make an effort each year to read the pamphlet for each state  so I am aware of the rules and regulations I will be expected to follow.  The bottom line is That  with some hunters, the end justifies the means.  If they  have a certain animal targeted, they will do what it takes to get it.   There is no doubt in my mind Mr. Reichert could have chose 100 quality bulls to shoot legally with that tag But choose to push the limits on one that involved some gray area.  People on here can claim all they want that he did not know that he was in a unit not open to branch antler Bulls.  That is your right to claim that and probably smart  from a legal standpoint but recognize that the vast, vast majority of people who hear about this case will not believe you.  In the end, your "ignorance and permission granted" argument may suffice to stave of prosecution but the damage is already done.  The outcome of Mr Reicherts legal proceedings will do little to stem the black eye the hunting community has suffered as a result of this debacle.

[JimmyHoffa]

 
The bad press he's just generated has probably done more bad than the last decade of good by all elk hunters including him.

[Skillet]

The true fact is at the time the only question in anobodys  mind  was could a rifle be used, or did it need to be a muzzleloader. So they did what we were tought 30 years ago in the fire arms safety course and called and asked the question. Mr. Grant said that it could not be killed with a rifle in that unit. Then was asked if it could because the hunter was disabled.  He said he would figure it out. 16 minutes later (documented) he called back and told them they shouldn't use a rifle and muzzleloader was fine. That shows Grant knew the exact unit this was in.

So, why was the only question in anyone's mind about whether a modern rifle could be used. Did anyone not question if it was OK to shoot s bull in 334? Was that an oversight on everyone's part (maybe including Mr. Grant) that 334 was closed for the raffle or auction tags? That's what it sounds like to me........a mistake on everyone's part not knowing that 334 was closed. 

I tend to agree with Curly.  The wrong issue was being addressed in the calls between the wdfw and the accused, and the answer to the wrong question was used to justify the illegal take of this bull.  This demonstrates either a gross incompetence or deliberate attempt to skirt the law.

I liken it to a mugger calling a local police precinct if he can carry a pistol in a gun-free zone.  And, after being told no, he just conducts his muggings with a switchblade instead.

[Kazekurt]

I would like to issue a challenge to MR. Reichert.  Since your supporters on this site have clearly tried to  emphasize the numerous positive contributions you have made to conservation and hunting  over the handful of alleged indiscretions  you have been linked too; I'm assuming a champion of conservation like yourself would not want an animal in  his trophy room that had any stigma of indescretion associated with it.  If you are found innocent of all charges and allowed to keep the bull I challenge you to pay to have the bull taxidermied and then to donate it to the city of Ellensburg to be put on display in a public building and thereby enjoyed  in perpetuity by the local residents who have come to love that bull. I believe such an act would go a long way towards showing that you are in fact the man that your supporters  characterize you to be and would somewhat mitigate the negative stigma associated with your hunt; especially in the area in which the bull was taken.

[idahohuntr]

He is one of the most generous good people alive. And has done more for the elk than 95% of the hunters in this state combined.

 What more has he done than the bidder $1000 behind his bid wouldn't have done?

While I appreciate the  contributions this guy has made to conservation, One can certainly also argue that  by being involved in two high-profile cases  in which wildlife rules were violated,  (either knowingly or unknowingly,  it really doesn't matter the damage is the same) he has probably done more damage to the hunting community than 95% of the people on here.  It only takes one "Cecil the lion" to do a lot of damage.   Unfortunately, trophy hunting already carries a negative stigma with most of the non-hunting population  so when a trophy hunter violates rules  in an effort to take the biggest baddest animal around it provides them more ammunition to push for changes and  regulations that cripple the tradition and means of  subsidence that many of us cherish.   I am quite certain based upon Mr. Reichert  available resources , that he has lawyers on retainer and advisors that could know the game pamphlet backwards and forwards and advise him if he wanted that.  I personally hunt three states. I make an effort each year to read the pamphlet for each state  so I am aware of the rules and regulations I will be expected to follow.  The bottom line is That  with some hunters, the end justifies the means.  If they  have a certain animal targeted, they will do what it takes to get it.   There is no doubt in my mind Mr. Reichert could have chose 100 quality bulls to shoot legally with that tag But choose to push the limits on one that involved some gray area.  People on here can claim all they want that he did not know that he was in a unit not open to branch antler Bulls.  That is your right to claim that and probably smart  from a legal standpoint but recognize that the vast, vast majority of people who hear about this case will not believe you.  In the end, your "ignorance and permission granted" argument may suffice to stave of prosecution but the damage is already done.  The outcome of Mr Reicherts legal proceedings will do little to stem the black eye the hunting community has suffered as a result of this debacle.

Very well said!

I would also point out from a financial perspective...these raffle and auction tags are specks of dust in a budget.  Just us commoners in E wa combined pay more for conservation and wildlife in one year than reichert has in his lifetime...even if we include his criminal fines

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Landowner]

The issue for me is why this tag holder was intent on killing a bull that had a well known reputation of being tame under any reasonable hunting standard.  This bull appears to have let his natural guard and instincts down because he was  a part of the community, so to speak.     

And the landowner who let him do it, well, that's a another troubling matter in my book.   

Remarkable.  Time to find a new sport, maybe bird watching.