Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[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 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.

That's a good point. But hey, at least there not spending it on wolves

[jackelope]

What is WDFW's definition of a spike bull and what is their definition of a branch antlered bull? By definition, I'm pretty sure that bull in the picture is  a spike.

[Tbar]

I don't know the tag holder in any way shape or form, but feel the only thing he should get from the WDFW is an apology.

[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

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

If you killed that bull in 334 you going to call it a 5 by 2 or a spike by 5 . By definition its a legal spike. Calling it a branched antler bull for the sake of trying to justify hunting branched bulls in 334 is just trying to twist the wording in the regs to suit the hunting needs of one individual.

[Tbar]

What is WDFW's definition of a spike bull and what is their definition of a branch antlered bull? By definition, I'm pretty sure that bull in the picture is  a spike.

Jackalope, it's definitely a fine print and interpretation  argument.  That does not take away from it's validity.

[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

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

If you killed that bull in 334 you going to call it a 5 by 2 or a spike by 5 . By definition its a legal spike. Calling it a branched antler bull for the sake of trying to justify hunting branched bulls in 334 is just trying to twist the wording in the regs to suit the hunting needs of one individual.

You may have just explained it the best on how unclear the regs and peramiters of the raffle tag are. The way there written could not even been interpreted by the department that wrote them, thus the situation we have here. Just as clear as mud

[JLS]

This thread has reached the level of a bad case of gonorrhea, with a side case of herpes.

[RELV]

That Bull in the picture is also legal in a 3PT or better area, like GMU 652.  So, I would call it a branch antlered Bull and not a spike.

[lord grizzly]

This thread has reached the level of a bad case of gonorrhea, with a side case of herpes.

How does this add to the thread. I e seen a few posts taken down in the short time I've been on here and even had one of mine edited. This should come down . It's far more offensive than what's already been taken down

[Tbar]

This thread has reached the level of a bad case of gonorrhea, with a side case of herpes.

JLS maybe you can provide clarity?  How do you quantify your analysis?

[teanawayslayer]

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.

If you killed that bull in 334 you going to call it a 5 by 2 or a spike by 5 . By definition its a legal spike. Calling it a branched antler bull for the sake of trying to justify hunting branched bulls in 334 is just trying to twist the wording in the regs to suit the hunting needs of one individual.

You may have just explained it the best on how unclear the regs and peramiters of the raffle tag are. The way there written could not even been interpreted by the department that wrote them, thus the situation we have here. Just as clear as mud

its not hard to figure out at all. We all abide by the same rules if not we face the penalty of the law. Ignorance is bliss.

[JDHasty]

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.

If you killed that bull in 334 you going to call it a 5 by 2 or a spike by 5 . By definition its a legal spike. Calling it a branched antler bull for the sake of trying to justify hunting branched bulls in 334 is just trying to twist the wording in the regs to suit the hunting needs of one individual.

I covered that topic in depth yesterday and a bull elk must be able to be defined as a spike in GMU 334 in order to be legal.  By default then GMU 334 is not open for branched antler elk

[JLS]

This thread has reached the level of a bad case of gonorrhea, with a side case of herpes.

JLS maybe you can provide clarity?  How do you quantify your analysis?

Because at this point it has gravitated to a continued back and forth of hypotheticals, allegations, and pictures of bull elk that have no direct bearing on the case at hand.  It's continued speculation about a telephone conversation when we know full well that the other party isn't going to take part in the conversation.  All of this will come out, under oath, in a courtroom.  To continue to speculate and make one sided allegations is ridiculous.

[Tbar]

I was hoping you could provide legal clarity (rcw, wac,case law).

[JLS]

I was hoping you could provide legal clarity (rcw, wac,case law).

for what?