Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[kiticaashunter]

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."

Ya, ok 

[huntnphool]

I guess the answer on the other end of the line shoulda been a pretty simple no then huh? I mean if some dumb red neck locals must know then surely a professional at f&g must

 Why do you solicit answers to your questions, sometimes twice, and then not read them, are you simply here stirring the pot?

[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."

Ya, ok  :ok

truth hurts sometimes. You keep referring to this as a witch hunt. Not the case my friend. I'm going to beat a dead horse. South central raffle open in any 300-500 GMu except those units that aren't open the branched antler elk hunting. Not hard to comprehend.

[coachcw]

Well only the guy that made the call knows what questions he asked . If they are trying to say they didn't know it was illegal to harvest a bull there they are just pulling wool / the guy that helps him lives there and is a hunter and has hunted other bull tags in the bordering unit.

[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.

Must have been an assumption. But its worth a try to pass it off as factual!

[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.

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.

Must have been an assumption. But its worth a try to pass it off as factual!

Your right must have been an assumption. Just like I must have assumed the two calls with WDFW were exactly 14 minutes apart......

[jackelope]

I've deleted all my posts from today, just like I would for anyone else. they were not reasonable and did not express those opinions of the hunting-Washington forum. I apologize.

[NOCK NOCK]

lord grizzly & kiticaashunter,

Please enlighten us on the context of these supposed phone call(s)

Early on in this thread it was stated that a call was made to WDFW, then a call was received back from WDFW

Now it is sounding like 2 calls were made to WDFW   

Were there more than 2 calls made ?

[kiticaashunter]

lord grizzly & kiticaashunter,

Please enlighten us on the context of these supposed phone call(s)

Early on in this thread it was stated that a call was made to WDFW, then a call was received back from WDFW

Now it is sounding like 2 calls were made to WDFW   

Were there more than 2 calls made ?

It has been talked about on here before. A call was made to the regional office asking about the legality of shooting that bull in that unit with that tag. The officer told them he was going to check with Olympia. 14 minutes later on the second call they were told they would need to use a bow or muzzleloader to harvest that bull under the circumstances.

It's not just now sounding like two calls happened,  this is what actually happened. Many on here talk about "a call", these are the people that don't the facts of the situation and have wildly speculated about what was discussed.

[Dan-o]

Hmmmmmm....   

Just got interesting again.

I wonder if those that think they know ALL of the pertinent facts about a situation where they were not present will continue to play internet judge/jury/exrcutioner.

[Dan-o]

(I'm betting yes)

[benhuntin]

This thread is really taking away from the results thread!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curly]

I'm wondering why the case is even being prosecuted if wdfw gave permission. Why would they even investigate? Is it simply because wdfw really had no legal authority?  Sure would be nice to know the exact wording of the questions and conversation with wdfw. Too bad there isn't anyone in the know responding to this thread to put and end to the speculation. ..........

[huntnphool]

I'm wondering why the case is even being prosecuted if wdfw gave permission. Why would they even investigate? Is it simply because wdfw really had no legal authority?

 Compelling yes?

[kiticaashunter]

I'm wondering why the case is even being prosecuted if wdfw gave permission. Why would they even investigate? Is it simply because wdfw really had no legal authority?  Sure would be nice to know the exact wording of the questions and conversation with wdfw. Too bad there isn't anyone in the know responding to this thread to put and end to the speculation. ..........

I think the last thing the WDFW wanted was for this case to get prosecuted.  That was a decision made by the county due to outside pressure they were receiving i believe . As far a the WDFW investigation, to the best of my knowledge not a single person in the party was even interviewed. That seems really strange to me if there truly was a investigation done.