Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[huntnphool]

Is there a reason this unit does not allow big bull harvest? Just to give the elk a place to get domesticated?  Caught in fences, euthanized and wasted?  To create controversy and "grey areas" to possibly be exploited? Is this effective management?  Are they (WDFW ) not taking opportunity from all hunters by facilitating a "safe" zone for these bulls in an agriculture conflict area?

 Good question for another thread Tbar.

[lord grizzly]

back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.

 He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.

Was he told he could by the governing body of wildlife for the state of Washington? If so should he be punished for having the audacity to ask and get the answer of yes? Maybe so maybe not. Just doesn't seem so black and white

[JDHasty]

As before, I'm not defending, supporting or condoning Mr Reichert s actions just peering into all scenarios.

So, it's known that someone called and spoke with a well known, ethical and knowledgeable employee under the supervision of another such employee.

It's been identified that neither of them were legally able to authorize such a "hunt", but allegedly did. It wouldn't be the first time or last where someone without legal authority authorized an action they weren't authorized to do so.

How many times have people been let out with warnings? Was there a law created or passed that gave authority to the enforcement side to give warnings when people break the law and the law says otherwise?

Just saying.

You impress me as having the experience to have a valid opinion on how this plays out and I accept and respect your court room experience.   

I am looking at this case and threading the prosecuratorial needle is what animates me. 

I am confident that what I have shared as fact is valid.   I have a fairly good understanding of what the Controlling Legal Authority is and I just cannot get to the point at which any phone call could offer substantial mitigating evidence to sway the court. 

But, stranger things have happened. 

Everything else aside:  How could a well respected man in his home community, and a man who is well respected in the hunting community, allow himself to get into this predicament? 

For the love of God man, I gave Todd Reichert the benefit of the doubt, even though the investigators of the 2007 incident impressed me as adamant that they were convinced that "real time" elk spotting was being done by John Wick using a helicopter crew that Todd Reichert hired.  My God man, I gave the benefit of the doubt that Todd Reichert "did not know" that Wick was in real time radio contact. 

So.... no harm, no foul.  "I'll probably never hear the name Tod Reichert associated with any game law violation ever again."

So, what ever trophy Jon Wick is connected with is not 100% legit?  But how was Mr Reichert to know if Jon Wick was in real time contact with the real time aerial spotting that was, in my recollection, going on on his hunt?  I gave Mr Reichert the benefit of the doubt.

But as fate would have it, Mr Reichert's name comes up again and in a way that begs the question:  Is Mr Reichert...  An unrepentant poacher?  Totally naive?  Mentally unsuited to be in the field with an elk tag and a weapon?  Who the hell knows at this point. 

One thing I do know is that there is precious little to suggest that anyone could have ever got the notion that this scheme could ever end well. 

I am 100% confident of the what, when, where and who in this hunt.  I am confident that I can read and understand, interpret and apply the Game Regs and as such I have formed an opinion that is controversial with some - Mr Reichert should be prosecuted. 



         

[haus]

Is there any case history where an internet forum owner was successfully sued for unsubstantiated statements posted by a forum member?

This isn't Gawker, and these posts are child's play compared to anything you'd see on YouTube, Twitter, or hell even the foxnews comments section.

I'm the focus of the threats and I am confident I have libeled no one.  Let the chips fall where they may.

The topic is about Reichert, not you, and my post is in reference to the owner of the site and his stated concern over threatened legal action toward the site due to comments made in this topic and the previous.

[jackelope]

This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.

Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months  later it turns out there's some question  whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"

Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"

Ranger/Bullwinkle didn't "pop out of the woods" either.

[klickman]

This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.

Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months  later it turns out there's some question  whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"

Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"

If you had an archery tag. Yep you'd be in trouble because your tag isn't valid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord grizzly]

This is a good is discution and agin goes back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty. I'll admit I'm playing a little dumber than I am but I'll play a little longer.

Humor me. (Even though I'm a new guy ) let's say your standing next to a game warden. A buck pops out of the trees. You say " mr warden can I shoot that buck?" Mr warden says " you bet" but then Three months  later it turns out there's some question  whether or not you could or even that it was out right poaching. What would you say? I'm guessing when it came down to it you'd say "I was staniding next to a warden and he told me to shoot it"

Maybe on the internet some of you would tell that warden " no way" but I bet in the woods the answer would be " bang"

Ranger/Bullwinkle didn't "pop out of the woods" either.

Does that really matter?

[lord grizzly]

Are you telling me if this was a 5x5 rag horn that nobody gave a name to it would be different ?

[chester]

Shouldn't be any different. Not open to branch antler bulls so don't go there looking for branch antler Bulls.
He should be prosecuted the same if was a raghorn or a trophy .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jmscon]

Shouldn't be any different. Not open to branch antler bulls so don't go there looking for branch antler Bulls.
He should be prosecuted the same if was a raghorn or a trophy .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Colville]

Are you telling me you are an absolute random new hunter who found hunt wa? Hahahahahaha as they say on espn, come-on, maaaaan!

[chester]

Are you telling me you are an absolute random new hunter who found hunt wa? Hahahahahaha as they say on espn, come-on, maaaaan!

Just another new one sent to make a black and white situation seem like all the shades of gray. He will go away and another one will pop up before the next court date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord grizzly]

back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.

 He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.

Was he told he could by the governing body of wildlife for the state of Washington? If so should he be punished for having the audacity to ask and get the answer of yes? Maybe so maybe not. Just doesn't seem so black and white

Yup just a new guy. Still haven't seen this responded to yet.

[huntnphool]

back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.

 He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.

Was he told he could by the governing body of wildlife for the state of Washington? If so should he be punished for having the audacity to ask and get the answer of yes? Maybe so maybe not. Just doesn't seem so black and white

 Being new to the site and jumping into a conversation 25 pages in, not to mention 3 previously shut down threads, I'd suggest you start at page 1 and read through it, all these questions you are asking have been addressed, most more than once.

 Of course that's assuming you actually are looking for answers and not simply trolling.

 Post 379 answers your last question addressed at me. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,195504.msg2600032.html#msg2600032

[chester]

back to my question of how do you all know this guys guilty.

 He killed a branched antler bull in unit 334.

Was he told he could by the governing body of wildlife for the state of Washington? If so should he be punished for having the audacity to ask and get the answer of yes? Maybe so maybe not. Just doesn't seem so black and white

Yup just a new guy. Still haven't seen this responded to yet.

Here is a response. If all that is true it should end two professional careers and one hunting career. Seems like someone asking for and getting preferential treatment due to wealth. Rules should apply to all equally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk