Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[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.

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

Just pointing out that even though you signed that you have read and understand the rules, you still went looking for a way around the rules. 

[h20hunter]

Don't get personal folks .

[lord grizzly]

Was not looking for a way around any rules. I made a mistake, admitted it, and apologized to the appropriate party and then publicly on this thread. Your attempt to somehow relate that to the topic of this discution  I think speaks more volumes of your intent than mine. We should leave this alone now and respect the moderators request of not getting personal or petty. I'm willing to, and agin I'm sorry if I offended you.

[HntnFsh]

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.

So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?

[h20hunter]

Your post was a direct  attack on another member. You last post was unnecessary . 

[kiticaashunter]

Your post was a direct  attack on another member. You last post was unnecessary .

How was that an attack?  I stated a true fact and asked him a question?  And now you are deleting "unnecessary " posts, well mine was far from the first on this thread alone. But the rest seem to remain.  You just didn't like what I said and used your moderator "power" to remove it even though no rules were broken. Yes that is bias by definition.

[Boss .300 winmag]

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.

So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?

Wouldn't it be cool if the department recorded that call and it comes out in court.   

[lord grizzly]

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.

So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?

Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...

[HntnFsh]

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.

So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?

Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...

That is why I made that statement. I guess I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence though. I would like to see his reply to my question.

[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.

So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?

Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...

That is why I made that statement. I guess I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence though. I would like to see his reply to my question.

All I will say is what I said is 100% factual and no assumptions were made.

[bigtex]

I've gotten a couple messages regarding the prosecutors role in this case, which in reality is now the case for all criminal cases.

Prior to 2012 an officer could role up on a natural resource crime (say a poaching) and in 95% of the cases hand a guy a criminal citation with a fine on it and drive away. At that point the individual was charged with the crime(s) on the ticket, he could either pay up or go to court. At that time natural resource crimes were the only criminal offenses that could be handled via a ticket bail forfeiture (fine). For all other crimes (drugs, alcohol, driving, etc) you had to go to court.

Starting in 2012 ALL criminal offenses had to have a mandatory court date. Starting in the early to mid 2000s as courts really started to get backlogged you had a lot of prosecutor offices telling officers to not issue criminal citations with mandatory court dates because is if an officer hands you a criminal citation with a mandatory court date you must have your first appearance within 15 days. In comparison if the officer doesn't give you a citation but rather sends a report to the prosecutor the prosecutor has 1 year to file misdemeanor charges and 2 years to file gross misdemeanor charges. This also helps with the scheduling of court dockets. Court dockets were always packed after summer holiday weekends because people had to appear within 15 days.

What this also means now is that someone in the prosecutors office is reviewing every single case that gets charged, no more Officer Smith cited a guy with a natural resource misdemeanor and it's a shaky/iffy case so lets see if he just pays it. Those iffy cases aren't being prosecuted anymore (in most cases) because you now have to have prosecutor support for everything. So in reality if you are charged in WA now with a criminal offense (anything other than an infraction/ticket) the officer has essentially shown the prosecutor that it's a good case and the prosecutor is agreeing to charge.

Some of the smaller prosecutor offices (fewer every year) in WA are still operating under the old system of letting officers hand people criminal citations which means they must appear in 15 days, but the majority are operating under the system of contact the violator and send the prosecutor the report and wait and see if they charge.

[HntnFsh]

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.

So you must have been on 1 end of that call to know exactly what was said by both parties Or are you also making an assumption?

Funny thing about the Internet is you never really know who your talking too. Could be he's making no assumptions at all and was part of that conversation. Could be...

That is why I made that statement. I guess I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence though. I would like to see his reply to my question.

All I will say is what I said is 100% factual and no assumptions were made.

For you to be able to make that statement you would have to have been able to, at the very least heard both sides of the conversations of the phone call(s)? Otherwise its just an assumption. So apparently you were directly involved in this whole thing in some way. Or heard recordings of the phone call(s) after the fact.

[HntnFsh]

I've gotten a couple messages regarding the prosecutors role in this case, which in reality is now the case for all criminal cases.

Prior to 2012 an officer could role up on a natural resource crime (say a poaching) and in 95% of the cases hand a guy a criminal citation with a fine on it and drive away. At that point the individual was charged with the crime(s) on the ticket, he could either pay up or go to court. At that time natural resource crimes were the only criminal offenses that could be handled via a ticket bail forfeiture (fine). For all other crimes (drugs, alcohol, driving, etc) you had to go to court.

Starting in 2012 ALL criminal offenses had to have a mandatory court date. Starting in the early to mid 2000s as courts really started to get backlogged you had a lot of prosecutor offices telling officers to not issue criminal citations with mandatory court dates because is if an officer hands you a criminal citation with a mandatory court date you must have your first appearance within 15 days. In comparison if the officer doesn't give you a citation but rather sends a report to the prosecutor the prosecutor has 1 year to file misdemeanor charges and 2 years to file gross misdemeanor charges. This also helps with the scheduling of court dockets. Court dockets were always packed after summer holiday weekends because people had to appear within 15 days.

What this also means now is that someone in the prosecutors office is reviewing every single case that gets charged, no more Officer Smith cited a guy with a natural resource misdemeanor and it's a shaky/iffy case so lets see if he just pays it. Those iffy cases aren't being prosecuted anymore (in most cases) because you now have to have prosecutor support for everything. So in reality if you are charged in WA now with a criminal offense (anything other than an infraction/ticket) the officer has essentially shown the prosecutor that it's a good case and the prosecutor is agreeing to charge.

Some of the smaller prosecutor offices (fewer every year) in WA are still operating under the old system of letting officers hand people criminal citations which means they must appear in 15 days, but the majority are operating under the system of contact the violator and send the prosecutor the report and wait and see if they charge.

Interesting. Thank you for the input bigtex!

[bobcat]

The information bigtex posted is exactly why I don't believe the story about a call being made to the WDFW and permission being granted to hunt in an area for which the hunter's tag was not valid. If that was the case, the WDFW surely would not have done an investigation and turned it over to the county prosecutor.

[teanawayslayer]

On multiple occasions there were phone calls made to these officials. The same ones you said gave out the permission. asking if the case was going to the prosecutors office. End response " we are interviewing a few more people that will make the case rock solid."