Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[mfswallace]

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.

So, who were the people in the party?

Sounds like Wdfw was trying to protect itself from the illegal preferential treatment it gave to this wealthy individual and in so doing helped him on his way to officially becoming a poacher after other shady practice
At the very least suspensions should be handed out if not termination to those who usurped the "power of the people" who elected the officials who write the laws.

[teanawayslayer]

Ok if we're sticking to the facts here is what we know 100% a bull was taken in a closed unit. Permission given by wdfw? Pure speculation. The courts will do the rest to figure out what really went on. Pretty simple really. i think everyone would agree with this statement. Am I wrong?

[Tbar]

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."

I would hate to see a "case building" due to pressure end up with an officer getting Brady'd. Just sayin'.

[HntnFsh]

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.

interesting. So was that bull described as a branch antler bull in the questions asked of WDFW during the phone calls?

[Tbar]

Where does it say 334 is closed?  I would still say that if it is not true spike,  it could be argued that there is branch bull hunting.  It would be tough to convict  (for me) given all the circumstances.

[Curly]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/

If you take a look at the regs, no where do they say branched bulls are allowed. Modern firearm is true spike, archery and muzzleloader are spike or antlerless. I don't see any special permits that allow branched bulls....

So, looking at the raffle tag requirements, they shouldn't have even been thinking about that bull (except maybe they were confused as to which GMU they were in. But that doesn't seem likely that they wouldn't know they were in 334).

I'm not sure why I'm even posting here.......

[Blacktail Sniper]

Where does it say 334 is closed?  I would still say that if it is not true spike,  it could be argued that there is branch bull hunting.  It would be tough to convict  (for me) given all the circumstances.

Hope this answers your question. Pretty sure these were posted eariler in the thread but are buried way back.

Shots from the 2015 regs covering all three methods of hunting elk, and the raffle page rules for elk. 

[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 ?

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.

1. The ? I was asking was the directions (incoming vs outgoing) of the 2 calls.

2. As far as the phone calls....I don't really care WHAT was discussed, TR knew he could not shoot that bull, to even make that 1st call reeks of a poor attempt to twist the rules in his favor...very un-sportsman like, and definitely not the actions of a person who calls himself a "hunter" (To me, He is just a killer)

3. This right here in bold, from you kiticaashunter, has convinced me 100% that Mr. Reichert and/or his crew are 100% guilty of; 
 
a.  Knowing they could not shoot this animal in 334, thus the call. That is SAD!!! For a guy who has hunted/shot many animals in his lifetime, and calls himself a hunter/sportsman. I agree with JDHasty, HOW COULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A HUNTER and expect this scenario to EVER end well?

b. Being the stereotypical wealthy big game shooter, "Money will buy me everything, and in the end whether right or wrong, ethical or not, fair chase or not, I (___________________) will have the animal that I WANTED hanging on my wall" 

c.  Zero respect from TRUE sportsman who actually hunt



I personally would rather be remembered for being a good guy, not one who twisted things around to get his way, those are the actions of a spoiled child, not a grown man who is supposed to be a sportsman. 

[Tbar]

So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions.  (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?

[fishngamereaper]

So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions.  (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?

No
Yes
No

[chester]

So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions.  (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?

No
Yes
No

How is this relevant ? Pretty sure the bull this thread is about had forks above the ears on both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tbar]

So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions.  (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?

No
Yes
No

Thats not a branched bull?  I would love to see a jury of six come to agreement on your answers. 

[Tbar]

So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions.  (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?

No
Yes
No

How is this relevant ? Pretty sure the bull this thread is about had forks above the ears on both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The department has some more than confusing management schemes that shape the regulations.  WDFW gets what they asked for, a PR nightmare and a bunch of wasted public funds.  I would guess the money spent, from investigation to prosecution nullifies any proceeds from the raffle.

[lord grizzly]

So if I'm defending I would ask simple yes/no questions.  (Photo from this thread http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=101806.0)
Is this a branched antler bull?
Is this legal in 334?
Is 334 open to branch bulls?

No
Yes
No

How is this relevant ? Pretty sure the bull this thread is about had forks above the ears on both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The relevance is there's a bull with branching antler that would be legal to harvest in that unit since it's not a true spike unit. Yes it's a fine print argument but couple it with the go ahead from olimpia and you've got a case a good lawyer can win. Pretty sure that's where Tbar is going with it.  Correct me if I'm wrong tbar

[Tbar]

It's a case that should not even be tried in my opinion.  What I would like is clarity from a department that can't answer (definitively) many questions about their own rules and regulations.  This same scenario has played out before and should have played out on another 2015 hunt.  The department doesn't know their own rules, how can they expect ANYONE else(except JD) to definitively understand them.