Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[walt]

I'm curious how many times he's bought the tag in the past and what are the credentials of the "guides" involved?  I find it really hard to believe none of them knew the regs for the tag and gmu and therefore had to call wdfw. 

[Rainier10]

I'm curious how many times he's bought the tag in the past and what are the credentials of the "guides" involved?  I find it really hard to believe none of them knew the regs for the tag and gmu and therefore had to call wdfw. 

Me too, but........none of that will matter if someone really did give them the go ahead and is willing to admit to it.

[PlateauNDN]

   "IF" permission was granted, that's what it's going to boil down to. It says per rcw/wac who can and can't but the enforcement/regulatory arm of the State allegedly gave permission whether they had the authority or not.

"IF" they own up to it then the argument is they did and why should he be held at fault "IF" they did. WDFW is in my opinion the at-fault party in this for allegedly authoring this incident. 

Sure, this gentleman had a part in this, but the fault lies with the agency for allegedly authoring it knowing full well rcw/wac stated they didn't have that authority.

Essentially, he's got a "get out of jail" free card and he's using it. This gentleman and his "guides" knew the regs, knew the boundaries, knew what weapon, but the alleged permission is what's the turning point.

[trophyhunt]

  "IF" permission was granted, that's what it's going to boil down to. It says per rcw/wac who can and can't but the enforcement/regulatory arm of the State allegedly gave permission whether they had the authority or not.

"IF" they own up to it then the argument is they did and why should he be held at fault "IF" they did. WDFW is in my opinion the at-fault party in this for allegedly authoring this incident. 

Sure, this gentleman had a part in this, but the fault lies with the agency for allegedly authoring it knowing full well rcw/wac stated they didn't have that authority.

Essentially, he's got a "get out of jail" free card and he's using it. This gentleman and his "guides" knew the regs, knew the boundaries, knew what weapon, but the alleged permission is what's the turning point.

Exactly, and that should be the end of this thread, period.  Simple in my mind.

[257 Wby Mag]

Me too jerry, but the whining will continue ...

[trophyhunt]

Me too jerry, but the whining will continue ...

lol, amen brother!

[huntnphool]

 Should be a piece of cake for him to prove, all he has to do is hand over the recording or get the WDFW agent to admit it under oath.

[Rainier10]

Should be a piece of cake for him to prove, all he has to do is hand over the recording or get the WDFW agent to admit it under oath.

There so many "if's" to this but "if" that happens this thread will absolutely blow up. There will have to be two mods assigned to this thread just to cover it around the clock.

The only thing that will save it is "if" they provide proof draw results are released the next day.

[Bullkllr]

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.

Somehow I doubt the information they gave you was in direct contradiction to what is available other places, but I could be wrong.

[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.

Somehow I doubt the information they gave you was in direct contradiction to what is available other places, but I could be wrong.

It made sense with what I was reading in the regs the way they were able to explain it true, but I do not think the same way everyone else does. There are alot of thing people can't quite figure out that I can. I am no smarter than the average person.

The question is where should you go if you clarification? If not WDFW then where?
 

[PlateauNDN]

  they should learn from this incident and create a policy that addresses this issue so it won't happen again. Have a designated dept or person (s) be the ones to provide regulatory answers and not just Joe Schmoe employee that guesses because they don't understand themselves. I don't think all the wdfw employees know and understand the regs much less are outdoors type people.

[mfswallace]

No clarification needed on this simple issue! Closed gmu for branched antler bulls. My 6 year old understands it, why can't 257 and everyone excusing this poaching incident understand no call was needed in the first place. How many gov tags has he had and he's dense enough to not understand something so simple

[Ghost Hunter]

No clarification needed on this simple issue! Closed gmu for branched antler bulls. My 6 year old understands it, why can't 257 and everyone excusing this poaching incident understand no call was needed in the first place. How many gov tags has he had and he's dense enough to not understand something so simple

Tell us how you really feel.

[PlateauNDN]

It is that simple. That's not the issue, what I'm raising is the strong possibility that "IF" he got the okay from wdfw he's more than likely walking. Not denying he nor his "guides" didn't know as I'm sure they knew but the fact that "IF" he allegedly got permission from an official that was legally per rcw/wac not authorized to do so then the brunt of the responsibility is wdfw's. A judge or jury that hears from an wdfw official that they authorized it willfully knowing that per rcw/wac they couldn't but still did are accepting the responsibility for changing the tag requirements. Even though they can't per rcw/wac. Any judge/jury is going to say it was his responsibility to know, but he was given permission by an official of wdfw and he should share the responsibility on his behalf but again, he was authorized to.

[mfswallace]

It is that simple. That's not the issue, what I'm raising is the strong possibility that "IF" he got the okay from wdfw he's more than likely walking. Not denying he nor his "guides" didn't know as I'm sure they knew but the fact that "IF" he allegedly got permission from an official that was legally per rcw/wac not authorized to do so then the brunt of the responsibility is wdfw's. A judge or jury that hears from an wdfw official that they authorized it willfully knowing that per rcw/wac they couldn't but still did are accepting the responsibility for changing the tag requirements. Even though they can't per rcw/wac. Any judge/jury is going to say it was his responsibility to know, but he was given permission by an official of wdfw and he should share the responsibility on his behalf but again, he was authorized to.

By all means they should share the responsibility and said wdfw employee/employees should be held responsible on a criminal level just like tod and crew