Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[DaveMonti]

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.

I heard people were feeding the bulls (all 4 of them) by hand.  Someone said a gorilla shot one and it got everyone's knickers in a knot. 

[huntnphool]

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?

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.

 Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right!

[teanawayslayer]

Kiti was the bull killed the same day as the supposed phone call?

[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?

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.

 Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right!

Maybe I should have been more clear. That was part of what was talked about. First was the legality of weapons,  second was what was legal with that tag. Nobody was looking for a loophole, just clarification on what was legal. I get you will never accept that,  the truth.  I'm betting the court will if it ever actually gets that far.

[kiticaashunter]

Kiti was the bull killed the same day as the supposed phone call?

Why are you asking questions you know the answer to?

[PlateauNDN]

If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.

[teanawayslayer]

Kiti was the bull killed the same day as the supposed phone call?

Why are you asking questions you know the answer to?

just a question. I wasn't there how would I know. I thought you were here to clear things up.

[huntnphool]

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?

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.

 Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right!

  second was what was legal with that tag.

This is still vague and leaving wiggle room.

 Are you stating that Mr Grant was asked directly if a branched antler bull could be killed with that tag in unit 334, yes or no?

 And he gave authorization to kill a branched antler bull in 334, yes or no?

[huntnphool]

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?

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.

 Seems the pertinent question would have been to ask if he could kill a branched antler bull in unit 334 with his tag.........but then that would have closed any loopholes right!

I get you will never accept that,  the truth.

 I think you have me confused with someone else, all I've done is state that the regs clearly show that it was illegal to kill a branched antler bull in unit 334.

 If Mr Grant gave authority to kill that bull, then I'd like to know what/who gives him that authority, and if he authorized that without legal authority to do so, then he should lose his job.

[DaveMonti]

If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.

I know one thing.  It will be years before this is cleared up.  His plea for the 2007 incident was when, 2012?  I hope nobody is holding their breath for a conclusion to this one. 

Just think, we have until about 2019 to thrash this over and over and over and over....then the post trial/plea commentary! 

[Buckmark]

If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.

I know one thing.  It will be years before this is cleared up.  His plea for the 2007 incident was when, 2012?  I hope nobody is holding their breath for a conclusion to this one. 

Just think, we have until about 2019 to thrash this over and over and over and over....then the post trial/plea commentary!

So basically this thread has the potential to surpass the Bigfoot thread 

[DaveMonti]

I think the whopping 3 participants on the Bigfoot thread will disagree with you.  Then they will sully your name for speaking so negatively about the Bigfoot thread being overcome. 
I think if you combine all the threads on this topic, it has already surpassed the BF thread.  I'm sure there is a contract out on me right now for saying this.

[PlateauNDN]

If he's found guilty I'm positive the masses will say "slap on the wrist". If he's exonerated it's because he bought his way out. Either way nobody's going to be happy.

I know one thing.  It will be years before this is cleared up.  His plea for the 2007 incident was when, 2012?  I hope nobody is holding their breath for a conclusion to this one. 

Just think, we have until about 2019 to thrash this over and over and over and over....then the post trial/plea commentary!

So basically this thread has the potential to surpass the Bigfoot thread 

Blasphemy, outrageous,  NEVER!!!

[DaveMonti]

I told you so!!!

[PlateauNDN]

I told you so!!!

3?! There's close to 10, get it right. We all pop in at different times and some have more time then others.