Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[NOCK NOCK]

Seems the common thought train is, "Wait until the court has done it's process before passing judgment"

Well how effective/just is the court system? Is it always 100% correct? OJ along with many others know that the court is not always right. Plenty of folks have gotten away with crimes because they had a good lawyer that found a way to twist the system in his clients favor. ...."He had a big name lawyer that got him off on a technicality" (from a Hank Jr. song  )
So the court lets TR walk....... does that mean he did not do something illegal?.....NOPE

Whatever the final outcome is from the courts, will have zero effect on my beliefs of what went down.
Not guilty=He got away with it.
Guilty= "Justice is served"    BUT, has or will he learn a lesson from it?......Again I would guess NOPE

Like was mentioned early on in one of these threads................  Play stupid games = Win stupid prizes

Flame away

[NOCK NOCK]

If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...

Do you read the regs?

[NOCK NOCK]

Here is a scenario,  Speed limit is 60mph from point A to point B, (point B is their destination)

1. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Did they break the law? Was this action illegal or legal?

2. A person drives their car from A to B @ 80mph. Before arriving at their destination, a cop pulls them over and cites them with a speeding infraction. Did they break the law???  Again, illegal or legal???

This is why I believe most on here are furious with the happenings of this killing.

1. Of course speeding is illegal, just because you got away with it....does not make it the right thing to do.
2. Of course they broke law by speeding.

What about person C who calls an officer before leaving on his trip and asks if it is okay to drive 80 from point A to B?  And the officer says go ahead?

And the officer was told he was on speaker phone when the conversation started and was told there were several people there listening to what he said........

 This comment is very interesting. If true, sounds like witnesses were wanted in case they got the answer they were looking for even if it was wrong. Why else would you need witnesses to a phone call about a question of the regs. I think most people that would make a phone call to try to clarify something WDFW would just make the call and then tell their buddies. "Yep, they said it was ok." Or "they said no, let go find another one." or something of the sort. Obviously some planning went into this one.

+!

[idahohuntr]

I provided you the facts of exactly who from the Wdfw gave the all clear to shoot the bull on the phone.  I have given details on what was discussed.

Really?  You actually have no facts or details regarding the "permission call".  You state that Mr. Grant "checked into it" and vaguely reference (as in no details of who participated, what was asked, why there was so much confusion) some other call where "permission" was granted.  Did Mr. Grant specifically tell you it was legal to kill that bull and to go ahead and shoot it? The very vague "another call was made" leaves a lot of doubt about the validity of your claim that WDFW granted permission...which fits the narrative of why a County prosecutor would file criminal charges...its all bogus.  So by all means, clear this up and tell us who specifically authorized/gave permission/confirmed it was legal to kill a branch antlered bull in GMU 334 with the Raffle tag?

I signed up to this forum to hopefully clear things up some. There has been a lot of false information posted on this site. A call was made to the game department asking if it was ok to shoot the bull where it located. After Morgan Grant from the game department checked into it another phone conversation took place and the hunters were told they absolutely could harvest that bull with that tag at that location. If in fact the info given was wrong the game department is the one to be blamed.

[kiticaashunter]

If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...

Do you read the regs?

I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching  it himself?

[Dan-o]

Was this hunt done on some kind of special tag, or just over the counter?

[kiticaashunter]

I provided you the facts of exactly who from the Wdfw gave the all clear to shoot the bull on the phone.  I have given details on what was discussed.

Really?  You actually have no facts or details regarding the "permission call".  You state that Mr. Grant "checked into it" and vaguely reference (as in no details of who participated, what was asked, why there was so much confusion) some other call where "permission" was granted.  Did Mr. Grant specifically tell you it was legal to kill that bull and to go ahead and shoot it? The very vague "another call was made" leaves a lot of doubt about the validity of your claim that WDFW granted permission...which fits the narrative of why a County prosecutor would file criminal charges...its all bogus.  So by all means, clear this up and tell us who specifically authorized/gave permission/confirmed it was legal to kill a branch antlered bull in GMU 334 with the Raffle tag?

I signed up to this forum to hopefully clear things up some. There has been a lot of false information posted on this site. A call was made to the game department asking if it was ok to shoot the bull where it located. After Morgan Grant from the game department checked into it another phone conversation took place and the hunters were told they absolutely could harvest that bull with that tag at that location. If in fact the info given was wrong the game department is the one to be blamed.

Morgan Grant did.

[PlateauNDN]

Was this hunt done on some kind of special tag, or just over the counter?

 

[Woodchuck]

Was this hunt done on some kind of special tag, or just over the counter?

Do you mean the kitchen counter?

[bobcat]

Approximately $16,000 invested in raffle tickets and he drew the South Central raffle, which includes a deer tag, an elk tag, and a bighorn sheep tag.

He also had the auction elk tag which was around $50,000.

He chose to use the raffle tag on the domesticated, large bull elk that he killed in an Ellenburg farmer's back yard. (And yes, in a unit for which neither elk tag was valid)

Does that answer your question, Dan-o?

[pianoman9701]

If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...

Do you read the regs?

I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching  it himself?

So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?

[kiticaashunter]

If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...

Do you read the regs?

I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching  it himself?

So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?

And this is how the truth gets twisted. Before I said he knew the restrictions on firearms in that area. And no I am not saying he made a mistake reading the regs. I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.

[Dan-o]

Is this the same bull that was shot outside Ellensburg?

If so, I heard that there were several bulls hanging out together in a field.

I think people even got pictures of the bulls.

[Bob33]

Is this the same bull that was shot outside Ellensburg?

If so, I heard that there were several bulls hanging out together in a field.

I think people even got pictures of the bulls.

It's probably not been disclosed yet but the bull was shot in a field owned by a Seahawk strong safety. That information will come out later.

[pianoman9701]

If I had the gov tag, or raffle tag, I'd think I could hunt in said units, but hey, I'm just a big dumb lewis county boy, not neatly as savvy as the city slickers up north....thank God for the pierce and king county folks...

Do you read the regs?

I would assume most read the regs. Contrary to what some of you geniuses think they can be confusing. If they were as simple as some of you imply you would think the local game warden and regional comander would not have come to the conclusion it was legal after researching  it himself?

So, what you're saying is that a guy who spent probably $100K in total to shoot an elk made a mistake reading the regs. Before you said he had called because he knew the restrictions in that unit and received permission from Mr. Grant to shoot the elk anyway. Which is it? And, if he didn't know it was illegal, why would he have called Mr. Grant at all?

And this is how the truth gets twisted. Before I said he knew the restrictions on firearms in that area. And no I am not saying he made a mistake reading the regs. I am saying the call was made to find out the legality for weapons and the unit. A crystal clear answer was given on both notes.

So, the regulations are so confusing that WDFW enforcement couldn't figure them out. Well then, you should have no trouble with the court system. Best of luck!