Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[huntnfmly]

did I read a couple Pages back that the bull was disabled and had a sticker on it  :-)

[PlateauNDN]

You're not looking hard enough if you haven't seen pics of Bullwinkle or Bigfoot. 

   

This useless thread needs to be locked before I started finger pointing and name calling

[DaveMonti]

Wait, Bigfoot killed the bull???  This is becoming crazypants. 

[JDHasty]

To set the record straight:  The earlier thread was dormant for weeks, and I was perfectly content to leave it alone, until Cboom called me out, not once but twice.  Then he proceeded to post the most outrageous libel about another member who dared to cite fact. 

This individual was doing all he could to get the thread locked down, and then he was given the heave ho for a month. 

There was a time when certain individuals posting here disputed facts that neither side was contesting.  It now appears that they have given up on that tack.

If this bull had been dropped in his tracks, loaded into the bed of a pickup and then spirited out of GMU 334 leaving no trace and if there were no independent witnesses... then it might have "ended well."

If the only thing the locals knew was that the bull was shot, but they had no idea that he had not wandered (or been driven) up north into a legal branch antlered GMU, they would have missed him, but "no harm, no foul," and it might have "ended well." 

If certain participant(s) had not been "kicking sand in the face," by posting on facebook and bragging up the act in the favored watering holes of local hunters, who would have liked a shot at that bull if it were ever possible to catch him up north, then they too might not have "gone ballistic" when it came out that the bull had been killed well within GMU 334, then it might have "ended well."

But none of those conditions were realized.  None of those conditions were likely to materialize either.  I just don't recognize a scenario in which, from the very start, this "ended well."

I have been on the receiving end of more than my share of SNide remARKs, SNARK, and have responded with snark of my own.  But never have I done so without provocation. 

If I wanted to I could have responded to those who tried to set up a tenable case for taking this elk by referencing the well intentioned, but failed, attempt to implement non lethal means to deal with another bull elk by saying that if the WDFW had thought fast they could have propped up the dead carcass of the elk that died in that incident in the middle of a hay meadow.  Sold an Auction Tag to someone with money to burn and allowed them to put a patched roundball into that animal and tag a trophy that has as much trophy value associated with it as does this animal, give or take 75 points.   And that money would have gone to support elk habitat and conservation efforts too. But I did not. 

Even though, try as they might, I don't think anyone could ever get me to recognize one as a superior hunting trophy over the other.  If you accept that any mature bull of this class, taken in a fair chase hunt is a hunting trophy, I could have made a compelling case that there is greater equivalence in value of both as a hunting trophy than there is distinction.

What I am getting at is that I have a friend who functions as a "clearing house" for what is going on in the Kittitas Valley and what I have posted re: the who, what, when and where has been validated.  Not that I needed independent validation to have confidence in what I posted with regards to the facts. 

Just by coincidence the individual who others have said "dropped the green flag" happens to be a good friend of mine's brother and that lead me to post an opinion of skepticism.  I have also posted that it is my understanding that no one has authority to authorize what is being offered as a mitigating factor. 

And I have been attacked.  I have been subjected to mockery, I have been subjected to insult and character assassination.

Over and over I have stated that I do not know Mr Reichert, but I know of Mr Reichert.  I gave a rundown of what I know and what I recall of the earlier incident and have made a distinction between what I posted as fact and what I recalled. 

I have made it clear that:  To the best of my knowledge Mr Reichert has an excellent reputation in his community and that I think this was an oversight on his part, he used poor judgement if you will, but made it a point to say that that does not mean that I see Mr Reichert as a bad man.   

I have looked for an explanation that explains why Mr Reichert would put himself in a position of being within a mile of being in such a mess and have explored every thing that I could come up with.  I have shared my thoughts on that subject.

Like it or not, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, is a logical explanation.  I think we can all recognize and accept Mr Reichert's passion is elk and elk hunting in particular. 

I see the most logical explanation as Mr Reichert being oblivious to the potential risks involved.  I ask myself why?  Well Mr Reichert runs a large business and this could be explained as simple negligence.  Mr Reichert could have naively accepted what he was told by his hunting consultant and not fact checked it.  That implies poor judgement when it is you who is ultimately responsible to check, and double check.  Does it not? 

But given how well known this animal was and the likelihood that this would not end well even if legal, I also recognize that he may have a problem that seriously complicates him using sound judgement.  That would explain the recklessness of a man with a history targeting this particular bull given the fact that even if legal, killing it would not reflect well on him and maybe on hunting in general.

And then I stated why I don't think that is "somewhere anyone wants to go" in their defense.

I am looking at the charge,  Unlawful Hunting of Big Game II and I am confident of what I know are facts.  I have also considered the mitigating circumstances that are being offered in defense and to be perfectly honest, I am skeptical that any supposed phone call went down as it is being portrayed here, and even if it did I am unfamiliar with anything what so ever in the law that gives anyone the notion that anyone had the authority to give the thumbs up. 

And on top of every legal aspect of the case, by early this year this was headed toward Mr Reichert being the recipient of the Dr Walter Palmer DDS Lifetime Achievement Award in the Patio Elk Category in the press.  Early on I didn't know Bullwinkle the elk from Cleopatra Queen of the Nile the elk.  But once I was made aware that that is what the story was being pursued as....  Hell, that puts a whole new spin on this. 

I was told that reporters were asking pointed questions and obviously wanting to develop a story of a tame elk, Bullwinkle, being assassinated in cold blood.  By a hunter.  Hey, I telegraphed that and deliberately and systematically laid out a case for self reporting citing an oversight or poor judgement and doing what politicians do by getting "in front" of the story and thereby retaining some ability to determine the narrative. 

Once it was apparent that Bullwinkle was where this was headed, if Steve Hormel had been on the ball, a Public Relations firm, and a good one, should have been in charge. 

It is a mess now, it is a hot mess and it is out there. 

I have taken a lot of criticism for posting this on "hunting sites."  OK, fine - but my intention is to put something out there that distances hunters, and especially trophy hunters" from what went down here.  And if you look at what has been posted.... you do the math.  Reporters have work hard to find a quote that does not distance hunters from this act. 

 

       

 

 

[jmscon]

Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!

[JDHasty]

Italics not mine up thread!!  Tried to correct, but not happening. 

[Mfowl]

Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!

The last pic is a different bull from a different auction tag.

Keep fighting the good fight JD! 

[huntnphool]

Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!

Read the text in the post.

[jmscon]

Just saw that, thank you!

[kentrek]

JD....how does degrading the animal help your case ?

[emac]

Now I'm confused, the pics are not of the same bull?!!? The last pic has an atypical tin, a big one at that!

Read the text in the post.

The photos make it even more clear that this individual was not in any way going to ever show up in the field as a fair chase trophy elk. 

He is what he lived his life out as, a steer with bigger than normal elk antlers. 

This guy never fought for anything, much less keeping a nimrod from putting a bullet into his ribs. 

He lucked out when he was a spike.  There is no more glory in killing him with a muzzle loader that there is in holding the bolt gun in a feed bolt operation. 

No one goes home after converting a steer into tomorrow's offering at Whole Foods than they do when they send wieners off to Hormel.   For God's sake, let us put shooting a bull in a hay meadow into perspective. 

He never was a hunting trophy  and he never will be.  His place in Boone & Crocket holds no more significance than does a monster steer. 

He is, and never was going to be a "hunting trophy."

See this is where I finally have to disagree with you. I have followed this well before it even became a thread. And JD I have pretty much agreed with 99% of what you have said through all 3 threads.
But if this unit was open to branch antler bulls and was legal I would have no problem with how this hunt went down. Us as hunters can't dictate where the animals take up residency. We have to adapt to them. So if 334 was an open unit for branched antler bulls I wouldn't question this hunt. And if it was open to branched antler bulls we wouldn't even be having this conversation because someone would have shoot him before. My thought is if it is legal then it's good. It might not be the hunting style of some but each to their own. What if he was on the other side of the canal in a hayfield in an open unit and still a pet like he was would there still be the outrage...no there wouldn't. There would be some cause that is not some hunters cup of tea but still legal. The only 2 things that should matter in this case are the known is that it was shot in a closed unit and the unknown if the Wdfw gave him permission to shoot it or not. In my opinion those are the only two points that matter in this case. We know one is a fact and the second we don't know.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[KFhunter]

.

[huntnphool]

I'm a little late to the game but wasn't this a high fence hunt?

 No

[KFhunter]

I'm a little late to the game but wasn't this a high fence hunt?

 No

OK different bull then. 

Coulda swore I've seen that image somewhere and was trying to place it.  I read a thread here a few years back with a bull on a road like that and it was a high fence hunt.   

[JDHasty]

JD....how does degrading the animal help your case ?

How would attaching a hunter's name to taking this animal enhance Todd Reichert's standing as an elk hunter?  That is the question that I am trying to get my mind around.

But to answer your question, this guy never has ever been a fair chase elk.  He has been a plug since the day he was born.  He has always been as tame as a 4H steer and he has never been a fair chase trophy. His value, as such, as a trophy, is not incumbent on his genetics and his ability to evade other hunters for five years.  In fact if he was a fair chase elk he would have been in someone's freezer and this whole sad story would have ended there.  He is not a trophy elk he is an elk with exceptional genetics who would never have gotten to the point that he was recognized as anything but a stupid elk six years ago if GMU 334 was open, for any reason what so ever, to taking branch antlered bulls. 

Now, if his life circumstances were different, and he lived a life of....  By God, this elk among elk has evaded all comers and you finally outsmarted, or gone deeper into the wilderness, and "got er' done"  He is a then a hunting trophy.

Oh, he is a stud, when it comes to his antlers, but is he an elk stud?  Nope, he was a pug.

He's just a big ol' dummy that was thinking that the guy with a borrowed muzzle loader is bringing him another apple.   

But again, I digress.  Killing any branch antlered elk in GMU 334 constitutes Unlawful Hunting Big Game II.  And I say "hunting" because that is what the law says, and, unfortunately Boone & Crockett allows this as as 'fair chase." 

This was no more "fair chase hunting" than my offering to wrestle my mother would in me being recognized as my being a studly man.   

Lay out a scenario in which this could not have reflected ill on Todd Reichert and I will concede that Todd Reichert was not using poor judgement. 

I submit for consideration that Todd Reichert  just didn't give a tinker's damn, or that Todd Reichert said "the hell with the torpedoes, full speed ahead: I have Steve Hormel on retainer" and my shyster has already proven that he is more than a match for any legal issue that result.    I want another 400 plus elk as a feather in my head dress.   

Is he nuts, maybe.  But maybe he deliberately and systematically conspired to set up a scenario, or maybe he was just naive.  But my instincts say poor judgement.  And if a guy that has a shoot through and kills a second elk can live with that....  you do the math.