Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[lord grizzly]

 i didnt see that in the story i read. must have missed it, that would make casting preliminary judgement on this guy even worse. if a WDFW employee did in fact tell him he could shoot the bull i would hope all charges are dropped and that emplyee (if in the wrong) faces consiquinses. i would say f thats the case the hunter isnt guilty of anything more than being miss led. the anger should be directed towards the department.

[JDHasty]

Well, of course he's guilty. He was tried and convicted in the court of HW. That's the only court system that matters.

[huntnphool]

i would say f thats the case the hunter isnt guilty of anything more than being miss led.

 Misled? Absolutely not!

 If in fact a call was made asking for permission, which I highly doubt is the case, the fact that they even made a call at all suggests that they read the regs, understood the regs, and where looking for some way around them.

 There may have been a phone call made, but if indeed there was one, I would bet it was more in line in asking about firearm restrictions, and not with full disclosure that they were targeting a branched antler bull in a closed unit.

[Odell]

i didnt see that in the story i read. must have missed it, that would make casting preliminary judgement on this guy even worse. if a WDFW employee did in fact tell him he could shoot the bull i would hope all charges are dropped and that emplyee (if in the wrong) faces consiquinses. i would say f thats the case the hunter isnt guilty of anything more than being miss led. the anger should be directed towards the department.

That's not how it works. It's the individuals responsibility to know the laws, not to mention even if he did call, we have no way to know what he asked or what was said.

[Tbar]

i would say f thats the case the hunter isnt guilty of anything more than being miss led.

 Misled? Absolutely not!

 If in fact a call was made asking for permission, which I highly doubt is the case, the fact that they even made a call at all suggests that they read the regs, understood the regs, and where looking for some way around them.

 There may have been a phone call made, but if indeed there was one, I would bet it was more in line in asking about firearm restrictions, and not with full disclosure that they were targeting a branched antler bull in a closed unit.

The fact,  you assume.     

[lord grizzly]

I suppose the argument would then be the official with f&g must have known the regs better and told them they are good. Regardless it sure is a different story than loaded up and driven to another gmus like the herald wrote and then every one and there brother handed down a guilty verdict on.it is written word though so it must be true.

My origanal question stands. How do you guys know he's guilty? Trial over yet? Even start?

[h20hunter]

Is he guilty of taking a bull that was not legal per his tag? Yep.  That is pretty cut and dry.

Has ne been found criminally guilty in a court of law? Not yet, maybe will, maybe won't.


Lord Grizzly,  you have a bit of reading to do, unless you have already,  as most points of discussion have been beaten to death already.

[WAPatriot]

334 isnt a true spike unit.

[full choke]

I suppose the argument would then be the official with f&g must have known the regs better and told them they are good. Regardless it sure is a different story than loaded up and driven to another gmus like the herald wrote and then every one and there brother handed down a guilty verdict on.it is written word though so it must be true.

My origanal question stands. How do you guys know he's guilty? Trial over yet? Even start?

It is written in the regulations that the unit the bull was killed in was closed to branch antlered bull hunting. He had a tag that stated it was not good in units closed to branch antlered bull hunting. That is fact. That says he is guilty.
Loaded up and taken from the field to dress is not really part of the argument. That could be innocent as hell. Maybe the landowner didn't want the gutpile in his front yard? Not the issue at the center of this case.
You can speculate that permission from someone whom did not have the authority to give said permission frees him of his responsibility to obey the law. I would disagree. My daughter always asks for a cookie before dinner. I say no- that is the rule. She knows better- but she asks her brother if it is ok and he says "go ahead". You would reason she is not at fault and I should punish her brother? 

I guess we wait and see what the judge says... My gut tells me he walks. Again...

[lord grizzly]

I think the entire thing is speculation at this point. Not just me. I was just asking how everybody knew he was guilty. Seems like it's all based on hear say. Not sure about your son, daughter and the cookie jar. I'd defer to mom on that one 

[Alchase]

You can think all you want, the only "fact" of this that is even in question is if the call was made and if he was given permission.
I would suggest you go back and read the preceding 24 pages.
Then speculate away.

[Alchase]

Another "First" post again trying to muddy the waters?

[dscubame]

Another "First" post again trying to muddy the waters?

Agree and they don't stand a chance with this seasoned crowd.  This thread has been worked well and twice.  (smile).  Rookies they are. 

[lord grizzly]

Some first poster may know a little more than you think. Just seeing what everybody else "knew" is all. No muddy water

[chester]

Some first poster may know a little more than you think. Just seeing what everybody else "knew" is all. No muddy water

Seems the most important thing that's been established is a branch antler bull was killed in 334. It is illegal to kill a branch antler bull in 334.
I'd focus on that. None of the other stuff matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk