Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[blackveltbowhunter]

The aforementioned group did waaaaay more to hunting, game populations than Tod ever dreamed of. Folks didn't become so emotional about it simply cause the $$$ wasn't there and 400" bulls weren't gettin smacked. That's facts, not apples or oranges....

Not arguing who did more damage. If you think other hunters weren't PO'd then your wrong. I was extremely PO'd!!! I hunted alot of those areas and know it affected game populations. I know plenty of hunters who were furious, none were members here. Folks outside the hunting community didn't become as emotional cuz they couldn't see it. They didn't personally lose their pet deer. Or see it get shot.  Or if they did it was unbeknownst to them. When they cant put a "face" to it, it doesn't create as big of a reaction. I remember a legal hunt a few years ago up skagit way that attracted ALOT of media attention and it was not a "big bull" or "big money" hunt. The deparment shut it down if I remember correctly.

[JDHasty]

The aforementioned group did waaaaay more to hunting, game populations than Tod ever dreamed of. Folks didn't become so emotional about it simply cause the $$$ wasn't there and 400" bulls weren't gettin smacked. That's facts, not apples or oranges....

Not arguing who did more damage. If you think other hunters weren't PO'd then your wrong. I was extremely PO'd!!! I hunted alot of those areas and know it affected game populations. I know plenty of hunters who were furious, none were members here. Folks outside the hunting community didn't become as emotional cuz they couldn't see it. They didn't personally lose their pet deer. Or see it get shot.  Or if they did it was unbeknownst to them. When they cant put a "face" to it, it doesn't create as big of a reaction. I remember a legal hunt a few years ago up skagit way that attracted ALOT of media attention and it was not a "big bull" or "big money" hunt. The deparment shut it down if I remember correctly.

I came to this topic having already formed an opinion:  Even if legal, it was a stupid thing to do.  How could anybody get the notion this would end well? 

I don't hunt east side elk so I looked at the 2015 Game Regs, and it doesn't look good from a defense standpoint. 

So then I hear, through the grapevine, that Mr Reichert in his initial contact with WDFW had said: It was "an oversight."  So OK, it was just simple negligence.   So "self report" and say you used poor judgement by not being 100% certain.  Take the same lumps that a guy who had a "shoot through" and killed a second elk and admitted a mistake would get.  Small fine and two years.  Life if you are a Mater Hunter though. 

But then it morphed into a very convoluted story of phone calls and *censored*, we know how to  minimize the damage.  And since I was familiar with the name I am saying "self report" poor judgement and take your lumps. 

But no.  We did nothing wrong.  Yea maybe legally, but:  How could anyone get the notion that killing this particular elk within GMU 334 could possibly end well?

But then when it becomes apparent that legalities are even being considered....  "self report" and gt a PR firm on board.  Pronto. 

Lay out a scenario in which this could end well.  Charges/no charges.  Please do. 

About the time I first commented here "Bullwinkle" was already on the table.  And guess what friends, locals were pissed. 

"Self report" and just accept an isolated instance of "poor judgement."   Do what politicians do in these circumstances, "self report" and get a PR firm on board and get in front of "the story."  Then take your lumps. 

Even if eventually found not guilty, remember there is no innocent finding, this killing of "Bullwinkle" was never going to end well.  Too many residents of ground zero were thoroughly pissed about it. 

The story had been being developed before I posted a message that "telegraphed" that "Bullwinkle" was going to be the headline. 

Without a "lethal removal" order from WDFW, Bullwinkle was just hanging out in GMU 334 and would show up  for his apple soon. 

For the love of God man - what could ever give anyone the notion that this was going to end well? 

   

[klickman]

Kiticasshunter, you clearly seem to know the tag holder so I have a question for you.  When it comes to this individuals hunting exploits is the size of the bull the end all?  Did he ever consider that shooting a bull that was darn near as tame as domestic livestock, well known, and oft photographed might generate  anemosity towards all hunters?  I'm very surprised he choose to burn that tag in this manner considering the opportunities that tag offered him.  Personally, I find little satisfaction in canned hunts but I recognize that not everyone is like me so I won't begrudge another hunter from enjoying the sport in any manner as long as it is legal and ethical.  As a sportsman, however, I always feel an obligation to do my best to represent hunters in a positive  light.  We, hunters, are often our own worst enemy.  When we waste game, make poor ethical decisions involving game, display kills in an undignified manner, hunt in an unsportsmanlike manner, etc we jeopardize the future of hunting.  I figure that roughly 10% of voters hunt.  Another 10% are against hunting so the future of hunting rests with the 80% of voters who don't have a dog in the fight.  I try to always consider how my actions may influence that 80% and do my best to make sure it is for the better.  Anyway, I'm just curious if any of this crossed his mind before he took that shot.  It is my prayer that all of us will do a better job of this in the future so that our grandkids will get to enjoy the same types of hunting experiences that we did.

I agree with everything you said. But I'm not going to tell a man in his 70's with health  issues what a real "hunt" is. As long as it's legal everyone can make thier own decisions on what they do.when a ranking official from the game department says it's ok,  most rational people would assume it is. This bull was shot in a more wild situation than the bull the teanawayslayer guy on this forum was involved in killing last season.  That situation would make most hunters furious.  But it was legal, so I can't say baiting in a front yard is wrong....,

Why do you, cboom, and --- ---
Keep throwing out the hunt Tanawayslayer was on?  There's no comparison. You are making false statements.

[BAR C3]

Can someone point me to the RCW or WDFW enacting legislation that grants WDFW enforcement officers the authority to suspend, temporarily or situationally, the issued regulations of the department?

Oh, and is there anything but a "he said" that mr Grant gave his permission verbally? Anything that documents his action? Recording? Text? Email? 

Assuming this permission could be documented, it seems to me it would only be evidence that the Sgt and the hunter should both be prosecuted, rather than a basis that the hunter is without fault. If a police officer gives me "permission" to steal a car, I'm pretty sure I'm still going to jail if another officer arrests me for it.  Primarily because I don't hear anyone claiming that the legality was in question, only whether or not they tried to get someone to give them extrajudicial Okee Dokee.

Feel free to correct me if that's wrong. But I have seen nothing that suggests that anyone misunderstood the unit the game was in or if it had any branch antlered season that would make it open to the tag holder.  I'd have a slightly different opinion if someone was making a reasonable claim that the unit location was unclear or that a reg was ambiguous and they needed WDFW to clear it up, haven't seen that.

If the game warden gave permission via any of the above in the authority of his position, it's all subject to public disclosure. Any Joe blow can ask for it. Won't be long and the media will be. This is going to upset the bunny huggers after being in multiple news sources today.

[M_ray]

Kiticasshunter, you clearly seem to know the tag holder so I have a question for you.  When it comes to this individuals hunting exploits is the size of the bull the end all?  Did he ever consider that shooting a bull that was darn near as tame as domestic livestock, well known, and oft photographed might generate  anemosity towards all hunters?  I'm very surprised he choose to burn that tag in this manner considering the opportunities that tag offered him.  Personally, I find little satisfaction in canned hunts but I recognize that not everyone is like me so I won't begrudge another hunter from enjoying the sport in any manner as long as it is legal and ethical.  As a sportsman, however, I always feel an obligation to do my best to represent hunters in a positive  light.  We, hunters, are often our own worst enemy.  When we waste game, make poor ethical decisions involving game, display kills in an undignified manner, hunt in an unsportsmanlike manner, etc we jeopardize the future of hunting.  I figure that roughly 10% of voters hunt.  Another 10% are against hunting so the future of hunting rests with the 80% of voters who don't have a dog in the fight.  I try to always consider how my actions may influence that 80% and do my best to make sure it is for the better.  Anyway, I'm just curious if any of this crossed his mind before he took that shot.  It is my prayer that all of us will do a better job of this in the future so that our grandkids will get to enjoy the same types of hunting experiences that we did.

I agree with everything you said. But I'm not going to tell a man in his 70's with health  issues what a real "hunt" is. As long as it's legal everyone can make thier own decisions on what they do.when a ranking official from the game department says it's ok,  most rational people would assume it is. This bull was shot in a more wild situation than the bull the teanawayslayer guy on this forum was involved in killing last season.  That situation would make most hunters furious.  But it was legal, so I can't say baiting in a front yard is wrong....,

Why do you, cboom, and -
Keep throwing out the hunt Tanawayslayer was on?  There's  no comparison. You are making false statements.

A select few that are friends of the hunter or were party to the hunt making a poor attempt to muddy the waters.  It shows the mentality we're dealing with that can't tell the difference between a legal hunt and illegal poaching. Even while their friend is being charged and investigated they are if nothing else loyal and willing to go down with the ship!

[JDHasty]

Kiticasshunter, you clearly seem to know the tag holder so I have a question for you.  When it comes to this individuals hunting exploits is the size of the bull the end all?  Did he ever consider that shooting a bull that was darn near as tame as domestic livestock, well known, and oft photographed might generate  anemosity towards all hunters?  I'm very surprised he choose to burn that tag in this manner considering the opportunities that tag offered him.  Personally, I find little satisfaction in canned hunts but I recognize that not everyone is like me so I won't begrudge another hunter from enjoying the sport in any manner as long as it is legal and ethical.  As a sportsman, however, I always feel an obligation to do my best to represent hunters in a positive  light.  We, hunters, are often our own worst enemy.  When we waste game, make poor ethical decisions involving game, display kills in an undignified manner, hunt in an unsportsmanlike manner, etc we jeopardize the future of hunting.  I figure that roughly 10% of voters hunt.  Another 10% are against hunting so the future of hunting rests with the 80% of voters who don't have a dog in the fight.  I try to always consider how my actions may influence that 80% and do my best to make sure it is for the better.  Anyway, I'm just curious if any of this crossed his mind before he took that shot.  It is my prayer that all of us will do a better job of this in the future so that our grandkids will get to enjoy the same types of hunting experiences that we did.

I agree with everything you said. But I'm not going to tell a man in his 70's with health  issues what a real "hunt" is. As long as it's legal everyone can make thier own decisions on what they do.when a ranking official from the game department says it's ok,  most rational people would assume it is. This bull was shot in a more wild situation than the bull the teanawayslayer guy on this forum was involved in killing last season.  That situation would make most hunters furious.  But it was legal, so I can't say baiting in a front yard is wrong....,

Why do you, cboom, and -
Keep throwing out the hunt Tanawayslayer was on?  There's no comparison. You are making false statements.

If "Bulwinkle" had wandered up into Shnebley Canyon no one here would have a problem with him getting shot. 

[Kazekurt]

I know it would be impossible to enforce but in IMHO certain animals should be off limits.  The Nosler buck in Bend Oregon is a great example.  He more or less lived in the city, was  photographed by literally hundreds  of people over a  prolonged period of time , and become sort of a pet and source of pride to that community.  That buck was  ridiculous, far superior to anything I have ever killed, but I would not have shot that buck even if I legally could have.   If I didn't know his backstory, and he  crossed paths with me in a legal area  I would absolutely have shot him, but  I would never have done it  if I was aware of his notoriety before the encounter.   Certain animals sort of become "local treasures;" especially if they dwell  primarily in urban areas and killing one of those animals can unleash a boatload of problems on the hunting community.   I value my right to hunt, more than I value any particular animal so I wouldn't want to  jeopardize that even for the grandest of trophies.   Bullwinkle may  not yet have reached this type of status but he certainly was close. 

[popeshawnpaul]

IF Sgt. Grant did get or give the ok, I'm sure this will lead to others "making a call" and doing what they want.

PopeSHawn
If TR gets off because of this "call" will case law precedent be set or will it just be a first instance and it needs more actual cases to be hard and fast??

if so you can bet it will be happening more often!!

It actually happens all the time.  I have two recent cases where it happened.  Before this case I informed the GMAC and new Chief Crown this was happening, especially with the licensing division.  I advised he had a problem with employees giving bad legal advise.  I didn't feel they took my concerns seriously. 

Think of difficult to understand WAC's and RCW's that conflict with one another.  Everyone on this forum seems to think the regulations are easy to understand and who wouldn't know the law?  Well, the regulations are long and complicated and I know if a few instances where the regs, WAC, and RCW conflict.  What would be the prudent thing to do before you buy a license if you are unsure of the law?  Email or call WDFW.  Everyone that thinks this is a good ploy to go poach animals after getting faulty advise speak of relative nonsense.  I can't see someone that wants to do something illegal doing this.  The call is difficult to ascertain what was said.  If I were to give advise on the situation, I advise clients to email WDFW or get it in writing.  While it might still not be a defense, it's great stuff to have.  If they give you bad advice, is the burden on you?  Depends on the charge and whether intent is an issue.  It will not create case law because it has happened many times and there is no legal issue to appeal that a court could look to overturn. 

This is akin to a DUI case I had about a decade ago.  The trooper came upon my client on the side of the road.  He advised him to drive up to the nearest gas station about a mile away and followed him there.  He then arrested him for DUI.  Why would he advise my client to violate the law and drive drunk and then cite for DUI?  I lost that case but still think it's BS.

[M_ray]

IF Sgt. Grant did get or give the ok, I'm sure this will lead to others "making a call" and doing what they want.

PopeSHawn
If TR gets off because of this "call" will case law precedent be set or will it just be a first instance and it needs more actual cases to be hard and fast??

if so you can bet it will be happening more often!!

It actually happens all the time.  I have two recent cases where it happened.  Before this case I informed the GMAC and new Chief Crown this was happening, especially with the licensing division.  I advised he had a problem with employees giving bad legal advise.  I didn't feel they took my concerns seriously. 

Think of difficult to understand WAC's and RCW's that conflict with one another.  Everyone on this forum seems to think the regulations are easy to understand and who wouldn't know the law?  Well, the regulations are long and complicated and I know if a few instances where the regs, WAC, and RCW conflict.  What would be the prudent thing to do before you buy a license if you are unsure of the law?  Email or call WDFW.  Everyone that thinks this is a good ploy to go poach animals after getting faulty advise speak of relative nonsense.  I can't see someone that wants to do something illegal doing this.  The call is difficult to ascertain what was said.  If I were to give advise on the situation, I advise clients to email WDFW or get it in writing.  While it might still not be a defense, it's great stuff to have.  If they give you bad advice, is the burden on you?  Depends on the charge and whether intent is an issue.  It will not create case law because it has happened many times and there is no legal issue to appeal that a court could look to overturn. 

This is akin to a DUI case I had about a decade ago.  The trooper came upon my client on the side of the road.  He advised him to drive up to the nearest gas station about a mile away and followed him there.  He then arrested him for DUI.  Why would he advise my client to violate the law and drive drunk and then cite for DUI?  I lost that case but still think it's BS.

That sounds great Shawn if the party involved didn't know where they were at? I would believe your argument if it were two guys from out of state that didn't know where they were at but these guys didn't just stumble upon some bulls in a field by chance. The fellas helping TR grew up in the valley and there wasn't a day out of 365 before this bull was shot that you couldn't come around the corner and see 5-10 cars stopped and a dozen people taking pics of these 5 bulls posing, eating apples out of their hands and the day in question there was a crowd gathering too, all well below the canal I might add.
This part of the area description is not hard to understand even for those who are not from Kittitas. So for some guys that have spent their whole lives there and another who has a boat load of experience buying Auction and Gov tags this is a very lame excuse given the high profile of these animals. They knew exactly where they were and the magnitude of the situation before them, they just wanted to kill that bull at any cost.

I believe a call was made ... but honestly? 
Was the question...
 "can I kill this bull in 334?" 
or
"can I use a rifle in 334?"

BTW given the experience of all involved they shouldn't have had to make a call in the first place cause they know the answer to these questions 

Not in a million years are you going to convince me that they didn't know where they were at AND that they needed to make a call to ask permission!!! 

 

[popeshawnpaul]

IF Sgt. Grant did get or give the ok, I'm sure this will lead to others "making a call" and doing what they want.

PopeSHawn
If TR gets off because of this "call" will case law precedent be set or will it just be a first instance and it needs more actual cases to be hard and fast??

if so you can bet it will be happening more often!!

It actually happens all the time.  I have two recent cases where it happened.  Before this case I informed the GMAC and new Chief Crown this was happening, especially with the licensing division.  I advised he had a problem with employees giving bad legal advise.  I didn't feel they took my concerns seriously. 

Think of difficult to understand WAC's and RCW's that conflict with one another.  Everyone on this forum seems to think the regulations are easy to understand and who wouldn't know the law?  Well, the regulations are long and complicated and I know if a few instances where the regs, WAC, and RCW conflict.  What would be the prudent thing to do before you buy a license if you are unsure of the law?  Email or call WDFW.  Everyone that thinks this is a good ploy to go poach animals after getting faulty advise speak of relative nonsense.  I can't see someone that wants to do something illegal doing this.  The call is difficult to ascertain what was said.  If I were to give advise on the situation, I advise clients to email WDFW or get it in writing.  While it might still not be a defense, it's great stuff to have.  If they give you bad advice, is the burden on you?  Depends on the charge and whether intent is an issue.  It will not create case law because it has happened many times and there is no legal issue to appeal that a court could look to overturn. 

This is akin to a DUI case I had about a decade ago.  The trooper came upon my client on the side of the road.  He advised him to drive up to the nearest gas station about a mile away and followed him there.  He then arrested him for DUI.  Why would he advise my client to violate the law and drive drunk and then cite for DUI?  I lost that case but still think it's BS.

That sounds great Shawn if the party involved didn't know where they were at? I would believe your argument if

I never made an argument on anyone's behalf.  I just stated the game regs are very convoluted in many instances but I didn't cite the one relevant in this case.

The only thing I "tried to convince" you of is the regs in many instances are convoluted and the WDFW does and will give bad advise if requested from time to time. 

[2MANY]

"I know it would be impossible to enforce but in IMHO certain animals should be off limits.  The Nosler buck in Bend Oregon is a great example.  He more or less lived in the city, was  photographed by literally hundreds  of people over a  prolonged period of time , and become sort of a pet and source of pride to that community.  That buck was  ridiculous, far superior to anything I have ever killed, but I would not have shot that buck even if I legally could have.   If I didn't know his backstory, and he  crossed paths with me in a legal area  I would absolutely have shot him, but  I would never have done it  if I was aware of his notoriety before the encounter.   Certain animals sort of become "local treasures;" especially if they dwell  primarily in urban areas and killing one of those animals can unleash a boatload of problems on the hunting community.   I value my right to hunt, more than I value any particular animal so I wouldn't want to  jeopardize that even for the grandest of trophies.   Bullwinkle may  not yet have reached this type of status but he certainly was close."


Very well said and I agree 100%.

[PlateauNDN]

With Pope's warnings and now this case I think they need to follow up with a policy that states only certain employment positions are authorized to give information to the public. So in the future Joe schmo employee has to refer anybody calling in to another person with more knowledge of the regs.

[Odell]

The unit is closed to branch bull hunting.

It is the individuals responsibility to know the law.

Those are facts.

[2MANY]

State agencies are full of people that couldn't make it on the private side.
They suckle the government's tut until retirement and are protected by the government's inability to fire them.
Obviously they screwed up when they were called and asked a question.
Ask em where the break room is located and you will get a correct answer.
Ask them a hunting or fishing question and they will transfer you to a guy's answering machine.
When he, she, or it gets back from a sick leave day spent fishing the Cowlitz he, she, or it just might call you back even.

The entire agency should be sub contracted out so there could be some level of financial accountability. .

[Magnum_Willys]

The unit is closed to branch bull hunting.

It is the individuals responsibility to know the law.

Those are facts.

These facts are undisputed