Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[kiticaashunter]

Or should that be part of the narritive? The pro got it wrong too. Who should be held to the higher standard ? The hunter did ask after all. No such thing as a stupid question but there are stupid answers

These few westsiders on their witchhunt don't like it when pesky facts like that are brought up.

[lord grizzly]

Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess

[Bullkllr]

I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!

If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.

Do you find the rule unclear?

What is unclear to me is what transpired in the supposed phone call(s).

Was there a 'grassy knoll' near the hunt location?

[Tbar]

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?

Indeed. This shoot was planned ahead of time. There were locals involved who surely knew the laws for the specific GMU. It was not a surprise to them that killing big bulls in the GMU they were hunting in was not legal.

How do ASSUMPTIONS hold up in court? Or do you personally know the locals involved and have received their confessions. 
This is an unreal witch hunt coming from many levels on this forum(not bearpaw).

[Tbar]

I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!

If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.

Do you find the rule unclear?

What is unclear to me is what transpired in the supposed phone call(s).

Was there a 'grassy knoll' near the hunt location?

I  do find many rules "unclear" and fyi so did Mick Cope.  More assumptions.

[kiticaashunter]

Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess

The few urban cowboys on here that have been going on and on abut this on here have no clue about the details. And don't seem to have any problem coming up with lies to support thier witchhunt.

[h20hunter]

I think I have read many assumptions and very few lies. Some new members have joined with broad proclamations on clearing things up but have not done so.

[kiticaashunter]

I find it hard to imagine that the locals didn't know the rules to the area as mentioned. Especially this particular rule. I don't find it hard to imagine them saying they didn't know the rules though. Are they that dumb? Or just playing that dumb? My guess would be the latter. Which probably isn't a bad idea given the circumstances!

If the rules on this tag were that clear one would think WDFW would know them. Yet after a call into the them and a call back from then after they researched it they determined it was legal.

Do you find the rule unclear?

What is unclear to me is what transpired in the supposed phone call(s).

Was there a 'grassy knoll' near the hunt location?

Actually seems real clear to me. If your unsure about something call the experts and ask. And at that point a clear answer was givin.

[lord grizzly]

Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess

The few urban cowboys on here that have been going on and on abut this on here have no clue about the details. And don't seem to have any problem coming up with lies to support thier witchhunt.

I think it may be time for one of my all time favorite sayings

The truth is like poetry, and everybody hates poetry 

[kiticaashunter]

I think I have read many assumptions and very few lies. Some new members have joined with broad proclamations on clearing things up but have not done so.

I gave you the name of the person at WDFW who said it was legal. For most  rational people that would clear things up.  Your twin brother Hasty has said over and over again that other neighbors told the group to stop asking about that bull on their property. That is a flat out lie.

[Kazekurt]

I'm in the process of buying a house and their is a page I had to sign that says something to the effect of,"this written agreement supersedes any other verbal agreements."  Perhaps we have gotten to the point that this world has become so Litigious that they will have to put a line like this in the hunting pamphlet.  In my profession, we deal with DOT and enforcement officers  all the time when we need clarification on issues that are not clear.   We, however, always  ask for a Written response  and we do not question rules and laws that are painstakingly clear.  Law enforcement  officers are good people, but it is very hard for them to remember every single law and all of its applications all the time.  Believe me, I can ask DOT officers the same question and get Several different answers.  For this reason alone,  it is best to research the printed regulations first and the hunting pamphlet is not even that large compared to the RCW's and WAC's.  IMHO,  I believe the accused in this case knew the law  and was simply fishing for a way around it  and in that regard he may have perhaps succeeded.   WHat is not up for dispute is that he has given the hunting community a black eye by choosing to shoot a bull of great notoriety under  questionable circumstances.   Sometimes it is best to refrain from even the appearance of wrongdoing, even if it could possibly be legally justified .  I suspect the accussed is probably more upset by the damage to his reputation than  he is about any civil penalties that the outcome of his trial could bring  and all the money in the world won't fix that, nor will  The eventual outcome of his proceedings.   My only question is this, was That bull worth it?

[JDHasty]

Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess

The few urban cowboys on here that have been going on and on abut this on here have no clue about the details. And don't seem to have any problem coming up with lies to support thier witchhunt.

I think it may be time for one of my all time favorite sayings

The truth is like poetry, and everybody f*n hates poetry 

And right here we have an excellent example of your blatant disregard for the rules.  You read the rules when you signed up for an account here, and if there was any clarification needed the site owner has ask the rules be followed and he has repeatedly stated that contractions or substitutions of symbols for letters in profanity are rule breaking. 

This just illustrates that your ilk does not regard rules as parameters that are to be respected, you see them as something to get around and in the case of poaching this elk you guys were too clever by half. 

[Boss .300 winmag]

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?

Indeed. This shoot was planned ahead of time. There were locals involved who surely knew the laws for the specific GMU. It was not a surprise to them that killing big bulls in the GMU they were hunting in was not legal.

No the locals were not sure about the rules for that tag. That is why the call was made to ask. You 206er's will not listen to the truth because it's not what you want to hear. Now go ahead and carry on  with your false statements..........

The locals didn't need to know the rules of the tag, the guy pulling the trigger needed to though, and most likely did know the rules! 

So who made the call, the locals or the trigger puller? Did the trigger man set up the locals as the fall guy? 

[JDHasty]

I think I have read many assumptions and very few lies. Some new members have joined with broad proclamations on clearing things up but have not done so.

I gave you the name of the person at WDFW who said it was legal. For most  rational people that would clear things up.  Your twin brother Hasty has said over and over again that other neighbors told the group to stop asking about that bull on their property. That is a flat out lie.

I have said that at least one individual who was involved in the hunt had been told in the past to leave those elk alone.   

[lord grizzly]

Your telling me there were 2 phone calls! But everybody here "knew" there was 1! How could it be? Just like they know he's guilty I guess

The few urban cowboys on here that have been going on and on abut this on here have no clue about the details. And don't seem to have any problem coming up with lies to support thier witchhunt.

I think it may be time for one of my all time favorite sayings

The truth is like poetry, and everybody f*n hates poetry 

And right here we have an excellent example of your blatant disregard for the rules.  You read the rules when you signed up for an account here, and if there was any clarification needed the site owner has ask the rules be followed and he has repeatedly stated that contractions or substitutions of symbols for letters in profanity are rule breaking. 

This just illustrates that your ilk does not regard rules as parameters that are to be respected, you see them as something to get around and in the case of poaching this elk you guys were too clever by half.

Take a breath, I sent the mod an apology when I saw he edited it. But for all you know I meant freakin and your minds just in the gutter. Didn't mean to wind ya up there was trying to lighten the mood. Sorry I offended you or anybody else