Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[Tbar]

Criminal charges are filed by a prosecutor, not a state agency like WDFW.

Bob33,
Was an outside agency brought in to investigate and process this case? Is there potential involvement by officers?  At first I was a little confused but understood what the poster meant by saying the WDFW pressed charges . Is there more to the charges internally with the department?

[JimmyHoffa]

Criminal charges are filed by a prosecutor, not a state agency like WDFW.

Bob33,
Was an outside agency brought in to investigate and process this case? Is there potential involvement by officers?  At first I was a little confused but understood what the poster meant by saying the WDFW pressed charges . Is there more to the charges internally with the department?

I just kind of think about the issues UCwarden had when you bring up internal WDFW investigations.

[TheHunt]

I have no dog in this fight. 

1.  As of today charges were filed against Tod. 
2.  He has a great lawyer out of Spokane
3.  There was some legal stuff with this going to court.

Other than that nothing else has happened.  Correct?

[JLS]

Lest I be accused of not bringing anything productive to this diseased mess, let's dispel some misinformation here:

Class action suits are for a large number of folks who have been aggrieved in the same manner, so unless 100 other folks shoot a Bullwinkle in GMU 334 under the same auspices that the defendant did, there will be no class action suit.

A county prosecutor makes the INDEPENDENT decision to file charges or not.  An agency can refer/forward them to the prosecutor, but the cannot compel or force a prosecutor to file charges.  The agency CAN request the AGs office to intervene, but this is not common practice.

Unless an agency's officer was materially involved in the case, there would be no outside agency doing the investigation.  Thus far there have been no allegations of criminal conduct by any of the WDFW officers, correct? 

A law enforcement officer authorizing an unlawful act would be considered misconduct.  Have any complaints of official misconduct been filed?

. I don't know all the facts

Prefacing comments with quotes like this, and then asking for class action lawsuits doesn't lend a lot of credibility to some folks.

[Odell]

No such thing as exonerating circumstances phool?

  You asked for evidence of guilt, of this there is no question, he killed a branched antler bull in unit 334........period, can't spin that!

 As I said, everything else is up to the courts.

Guilt is decided at the end of the trial, not the beginning. Even with a confession

Presumption of innocence is not the same thing as being innocent.

[WAPatriot]

Class action lawsuits are not lawsuits that necessarily harm lots of people. They are awarded to punish wrongdoers in such a harsh way as that it will deter others from making the same mistake.

[WAPatriot]

Ostensible authority look it up it has everything to do with this case. Its been a long time since I took law classes.

[JLS]

Class action lawsuits are not lawsuits that necessarily harm lots of people. They are awarded to punish wrongdoers in such a harsh way as that it will deter others from making the same mistake.

The term "class" in class action means that a collectively large group of defendants are being represented in the pursuit of a claim.

Are you thinking of punitive damages?

[Colville]

.....So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting...   


Pope, there may be some people butt hurt about his money.  And you are right, most will have broken game laws somewhere along the line.

This is a Clintonian what’s the definition of “is” type of argument that is being made. It’s a legalistic bit of maneuvering, a charade. People aren’t dumb. They can read the regs.  It’s plain as day that  this discussion of true vs regular spike was an attempt to thread a legal needle.   They were hoping, angling and prying to get someone at WDFW to contort the regs into a pretzel in order to claim the unit was open to branch bull hunting. Not caring that even if they would say it’s “ok” that it should never be done.  That particular bull, where it lived, should not have been shot as a matter of good public relations and decency.

To the others that think his reputation is at stake in the court case.  No, it isn’t.  A very popular animal, open to public view and regularly photographed, safe from any legal hunting pressure, living in wide open alfalfa fields, no longer behaving like a wild elk in or out of elk season was shot with the ease of a killing a heifer by a someone who paid $50k+ for the privilege, observed now by hunters who see the rules as clear as water.  The harm to reputation has nothing to do with the case outcome. Many legal, yet repugnant, things can be done.  If you know that bull has notoriety and is loved in the community and you wiggle around a way to shoot it anyway right on that open field, you are putting a stick right in those people’s eye.  There’s no way around that fact. A call may insulate you from legal penalty, but it can do nothing to protect someone from the public’s judgment.

A satirical description of the hunt:

I drove up on the black top and parked.  A school bus and a mom in her minivan passed by.  Still in the cab, the wily creature was hard to make out as it stood in the thickest cover, the deepest 10 inches of alfalfa this field was choked with.  I put down my road mug of starbucks and the second half of my bear claw on the dash. I pulled up my Swaro 10x50’s, yep, that’s the bull. He was a bit faint, but at 100 yards I was able to pick him out through the thick stuff.  My door closing behind me with a thud I made for the back of the truck.  My buddy Zeb helped and loaded the gun.  My friends and I all wore jeans and flannel shirts so that we would fit in the bull’s natural environment. Just another farmer  over here, no worries mr elk (at least that’s the theory). I could hear traffic and children’s voices in the distance of this wild place.  Next we came up with a plan to get on this beast.  After much debate…. I began to walk straight at him.  One, two, three steps, stopped.  Forgot my hat on the hood of the truck. Darn it!!! I hope this doesn’t spoil the stalk.  I went back for my hat when it occurred to me that I hadn’t finished my danish so I opened the rig and stuffed the 2nd half in my mouth and pulled my hat down tight for the stalk.  My pulse rate was easily 70 now with the anticipation. I pulled up my Swaros again, there he was, now laying down and chewing cud in the gnarly thicket, looking straight at me.  Though he was unable to see me in the extreme farmer break up pattern we’re wearing.  Two, three, four steps.  I’m getting sweaty now and a little nervous so I take a couple minutes to calm down.  Five…. That oughta do it. BANG. Flop.

YEAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!  WHAHOOO!!!!!  What a hunt, what a great animal…!!   Hi Mrs Johnson, we’ll get it out of the field in just a minute, nice dress you have on, is that paisley?

[kiticaashunter]

In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots  a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?

It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.

Was that really a serious question?

And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.

Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?

[92xj]

In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots  a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?

It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.

Was that really a serious question?

And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.

Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?

Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.

[JDHasty]

In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots  a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?

It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.

Was that really a serious question?

And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.

Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?

Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.

  they should be cited and "it depends" whether or not they should be labeled a poacher.   If it was negligence, as in an oversight or just poor judgement in failing to read and understand the restrictions on the tag they are holding and/or the Unit they are hunting in, then it could be that they just screwed up.  It could be an isolated case of using poor judgement. 

However if they participated in a deliberate and systematic orchestration of a scheme by which they could take an animal they know (like have been told numerous times), or should know (like in have been told numerous times but are too thick headed), is not legal in the GMU they are hunting in...  then they are a poacher and an unrepentant poacher at that. 

[kiticaashunter]

Speaking for myself...

I see a lot of hatred of the fact that the guy has been successful in life. This is America, we all have a choice in what direction we take with our lives and we all have the option of doing what it takes to make a better living so we can afford to buy these tags. The irony that nobody considers is that the money from these special tags helps fund wildlife management and ultimately keeps the price lower for everyone else to hunt cheaper. 

FACT, many comments involve: his wealth; that he got a big bull most thought was off-limits; or that it was easy to shoot the bull, he didn't have to hike 20 miles and summit a dozen mountains to kill it. We all have different reasons why we hunt and we all have different methods how we hunt, but none of that should be a part of this conversation, ethics is a different conversation.

It sounds like he had landowner permission and WDFW permission to shoot the bull, unless that is proven false in court it may be pretty hard to convict him of breaking the law. The question is did he violate the law or not, in my opinion we should let the court figure out the truth!

(These comments are my personal opinion, Hunting-Washington is an internet service provider and has taken no official position on this issue.)

Hunters just like to bring down other hunters for some reason.  They claim it's not jealousy but I see that in many responses on this thread.  The moral hunt police are the most hypocritical people I meet.  Those that claim and preach they follow the law and bash someone that makes a mistake only makes me more suspicious of them.  It's no different than the preacher or politician railing against gay people.  Yep, they are gay.  I see it time after time in my profession with hunting charges.  They get up and say to the judge they teach hunter ed, work for WDFW,, never break the law, etc. in front of the judge.

Unlawful Big Game hunting encompasses a lot of different types of conduct.  Whether you have a tag but are just out of the unit, tag an animal later, tag it for someone else, etc.  I'm still maintaining probably half the people calling out TR have done this or a Title 77 charge at some point in their life.  Those that preach the loudest are probably the biggest offenders.  I've hunted with zillions of people over the years and tons on Huntwa.  So has Bearpaw and I bet he sees small issues daily.  Maybe they don't have their hunter orange on, have their clip loaded in the car, etc.  Most guys cut a corner here and there but maybe not that serious of a crime.  Do the best you can and they are so confusing your bound to error into an issue you didn't realize.  Lots of archers don't have the proper arrow for their bow under the law.

So, preach to me about how you have never broke a law before hunting...   

Pope, you seem to be a very reasonable guy. I don't recall seeing a post you made that I don't agree with. I think you nailed it on this one. I have been told a guy who has been very vocal on this and many other forums on this issue has had more than one legal issue himself with game laws. Is that type of thing public information? I don't know where to find it? If it is public info I would like to know how to find it so if it was posted here no rules were broken by posting personal information.

[Curly]

I'm still wondering why the call to wdfw was made? What in the regs would lead anyone to believe that the tag in hand might be valid for where they were? We're they unclear as to what unit they were in or were they unclear if 334 was available for the taking of branched bulls? I know I read about the question being asked about if a modern rifle could be used, but what else was asked?

[kiticaashunter]

In the 2016 regs unit 334 is listed under modern firearm for true spike bull. So should the guy that shoots  a spike bull with a rifle in that unit be ticketed because it is actually a firearms restricted area? Should he have known this is a restricted area even though the regs have it listed for modern firearm?

It's always the hunter's responsibility to know ALL the rules and regulations for the unit he is hunting.

Was that really a serious question?

And for the record I agree it is the hunters responsibility to know the laws. For me personally if I have a question on legality I would think I did my due diligence if I called the WDFW and got an answer to my question.

Let's say someone this season Looks at the regs and sees unit 334 says it's open for modern to shoot a spike. Then calls WDFW to verify they can shoot a spike with a centerfire rifle in that unit, and are told it's fine. Do you believe A, they should be sited for that, and B be labeled all over these forums a poacher?

Yes,
It's also in the regs that its restricted. You can't choose which regs your want to read and follow. If they can read certain parts of the regs they can read the whole thing. I don't understand the selective reasoning by you.

  they should be cited and "it depends" whether or not they should be labeled a poacher.   If it was negligence, as in an oversight or just poor judgement in failing to read and understand the restrictions on the tag they are holding and/or the Unit they are hunting in, then it could be that they just screwed up.  It could be an isolated case of using poor judgement. 

However if they participated in a deliberate and systematic orchestration of a scheme by which they could take an animal they know (like have been told numerous times), or should know (like in have been told numerous times but are too thick headed), is not legal in the GMU they are hunting in...  then they are a poacher and an unrepentant poacher at that.

By saying they "knew" and we're told is dishonest at best, but more like slanderous in reality. But it your repeat it enough a few of the other city guys might believe another city guy.......