Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[trophyhunt]

I woulda much rather seen "Bullwinkle" ironed out on I-90 by a semi!!

agreed, it would have been the end of the story.

[Magnum_Willys]

I simply cannot get my mind around what could have given anyone the notion that this was going to end well. 

Let's hear it:  Walk me through a scenario in which this was going to end well.

Lips shut.  Animal on wall not facebook.  Taken at firstlight. Landowner paid and happy, state paid and happy, hunter with trophy happy.  Old elk musta finally passed away.  End of story.   

Imo not right nor legal but thats the scenario you would think he woulda followed.

[turbo]

I cant believe some of you on here are defending this guy. Shameful and embarrassing for the hunting community. Thanks..

[dscubame]

I simply cannot get my mind around what could have given anyone the notion that this was going to end well. 

Let's hear it:  Walk me through a scenario in which this was going to end well.

Lips shut.  Animal on wall not facebook.  Taken at firstlight. Landowner paid and happy, state paid and happy, hunter with trophy happy.  Old elk musta finally passed away.  End of story.   

Imo not right nor legal but thats the scenario you would think he woulda followed.

You left out the part where you move the whole now dead animal to a legal unit to open it and leave the gut pile.

[Alchase]

No. He was wrong for shooting an animal in a closed unit. Quit trying to change the subject...

This and only this!

If this single part, had not happened none of this discussion would be happening.

Be responsible for your own dang actions, quit twisting and tweak the details to try to make it seem he was not at fault.

I cant believe some of you on here are defending this guy. Shameful and embarrassing for the hunting community. Thanks..

Honestly, this bothers me as much as the poaching incident itself.

What it boils down to is:

Poaching and defending a poacher.

Everything else is just:

 "trying to pick up a piece of poo by the clean end"

[Curly]

Actually it boils down to whether or not it's "poaching" if given permission by someone in WDFW.  Also whether or not that person had the authority to authorize the "hunt".

I'd still like to know exactly what the question was when they supposedly asked for permission.

[PlateauNDN]

  somebody else gets it. "IF" permission was given/authorized I honestly see him walking whether or not the official was legally authorized to by law.

As I said in every post I'm not defending, supporting or condoning his actions just stated what I believe will occur.

[huntnphool]

"IF" permission was given/authorized

 But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!

 So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.

 He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!

[bearpaw]

"IF" permission was given/authorized

 But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!

 So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.

 He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!

I think only the commission, the governor, and possibly the director have the authority to change what units are open or not open. However, I still think it's a reasonable defense for the defendant that he was given permission to hunt by the regulating agency. From the beginning of this topic I've thought that's how this will all boil down.

[jackelope]

"IF" permission was given/authorized

 But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!

 So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.

 He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!

But as I mentioned earlier...and hypothetically, if there was a phone call, and a WDFW game warden told Mr Reichert he had the approval and to go ahead and shoot the bull, who's fault is it at that point?

[bearpaw]

"IF" permission was given/authorized

 But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!

 So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.

 He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!

But as I mentioned earlier...and hypothetically, if there was a phone call, and a WDFW game warden told Mr Reichert he had the approval and to go ahead and shoot the bull, who's fault is it at that point?

I would imagine there will be a reprimand to whomever gave the ultimate OK to go hunt with the muzzy!

[257 Wby Mag]

somebody else gets it. "IF" permission was given/authorized I honestly see him walking whether or not the official was legally authorized to by law.

As I said in every post I'm not defending, supporting or condoning his actions just stated what I believe will occur.

Not really I've gotten it all along..

[Jpmiller]

When I was looking into purchasing a new hunting bow I called WDFW for some clarifications on what were and weren't legal. They were surprisingly helpful and took their clarifications an purchased a bow.

Should I have not trusted the word of the WDFW employee who answered the phone? I know it's not exactly apples to apples and it's the individuals responsibility to know the law but when you don't know the law how else should you get clarification.

Whether or not he was told by a game official that it was ok doesn't seem to be known for a fact yet but if he was told it's ok it is hard for me to condemn him.

[bearpaw]

When I was looking into purchasing a new hunting bow I called WDFW for some clarifications on what were and weren't legal. They were surprisingly helpful and took their clarifications an purchased a bow.

Should I have not trusted the word of the WDFW employee who answered the phone? I know it's not exactly apples to apples and it's the individuals responsibility to know the law but when you don't know the law how else should you get clarification.

Whether or not he was told by a game official that it was ok doesn't seem to be known for a fact yet but if he was told it's ok it is hard for me to condemn him.

  That's exactly where I'm at, I've asked questions many times in multiple states and have trusted the responses that I get.

[trophyhunt]

"IF" permission was given/authorized

 But what you fail to understand is that there is nobody within the WDFW that has that authorization, spin or no spin, that is fact!

 So his, and his fans "defense" is nothing more than slight of hand, an attempt to lead everyone into a false direction.

 He killed the bull in a closed unit. According to state law, there is nobody with authority that can change the regs with a phone call........everything else is spin!

But as I mentioned earlier...and hypothetically, if there was a phone call, and a WDFW game warden told Mr Reichert he had the approval and to go ahead and shoot the bull, who's fault is it at that point?

WDFW's fault I would say.  That seems pretty simple to me, especially if they admit giving him permission.