Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[Rainier10]

Yes, the field dress part of it.  First about the didn't tag it immediately.  So according to this article, they didn't even tag it until they were in the other field.

I would love to know if that is true.  I wish the tags were like a salmon punch card where upon harvest you have to mark down what it is you harvested and what marine area.

Does anyone know if with the raffle tags you have to report differently than normal?

[bobcat]

I know if you look at the 2015 harvest report it shows nothing but spike bulls being taken out of 334.

[Holg3107]

Just a question: On page 51 of the 2016 regs (I know this is this years so it may not apply) GMU 334 is listed under early archery as a spike only unit (not a TRUE SPIKE only). Would this constitute that it is open for branch antlered bulls as you could potentially shoot a 6x1? Would this then make the tag legal? Obviously ethically this situation is insane but legally I'm curious?

I also see that on page 49 GMU 334 is listed as True Spike only? Just wondering if this is a typo or what?

[Bob33]

Just a question: On page 51 of the 2016 regs (I know this is this years so it may not apply) GMU 334 is listed under early archery as a spike only unit (not a TRUE SPIKE only). Would this constitute that it is open for branch antlered bulls as you could potentially shoot a 6x1? Would this then make the tag legal? Obviously ethically this situation is insane but legally I'm curious?

I also see that on page 49 GMU 334 is listed as True Spike only? Just wondering if this is a typo or what?

A 6x1 is a spike, but not a true spike. A 6x1 could be considered a branch antlered bull. GMU 334 has different requirements for modern firearm and archery seasons.

[NOCK NOCK]

One new thing that I caught was in one of the lasts posts that got nuked,
The individual was comparing the actions of a member who received a ticket on Jan 2 because he inadvertently forgot to buy his new license for that year. It was stated that it was a simple mistake and compared it to Bullwinkle's killing as a mistake. All along it was claimed that TR had permission from WDFW to shoot.......now it was referenced as a mistake.      Interesting

Again, Regardless of ANY of the "He said/She said", legal or not, permission granted or not, understanding the regs. or not, jealous or not, hypocrite or not, spike or branched bull or not...........One simple thing should have really decided this crews choice of whether or not to shoot this bull....

Is this the right thing to do as a hunter? (Or a person that calls themselves a hunter)


This case has a few small similarities to something that affected myself 1.5 years ago.  By all standard reasoning I should be agreeing with the pro TR guys. I too did not understand a part of the regs. (Who may apply for any moose/sheep) so I called WDFW 3 times and received wrong info all 3 times)  So I went with their info and then lost an opportunity for a year. Sure I complained a bit on here, and took some heat on here as well, but I did the right thing. I used my talents & brain, made some calls and wrote some letters to Olympia. End result....I was successful in having the confusing language changed in the 2016 regs. This benefits ALL hunters.

So, regardless of all the legalities,  Did Mr. Reichert do the right thing by shooting this particular bull, in this particular scenario?
 

[Holg3107]

I understand that Bob, my question is since it is open during early archery season for Spikes, not True Spikes (which could be a branch antlered bull on one side) does that open the unit up for the raffle tag to shoot a branch antlered bull as it is "technically" open to branch antlered bull hunting and not only "True Spikes"?

[Rainier10]

I know if you look at the 2015 harvest report it shows nothing but spike bulls being taken out of 334.

  Maybe he reported late and is going to pay the additional fee for not reporting when he gets his 2016 license.  That will teach him. 

[Rainier10]

One new thing that I caught was in one of the lasts posts that got nuked,
The individual was comparing the actions of a member who received a ticket on Jan 2 because he inadvertently forgot to buy his new license for that year. It was stated that it was a simple mistake and compared it to Bullwinkle's killing as a mistake. All along it was claimed that TR had permission from WDFW to shoot.......now it was referenced as a mistake.      Interesting

Again, Regardless of ANY of the "He said/She said", legal or not, permission granted or not, understanding the regs. or not, jealous or not, hypocrite or not, spike or branched bull or not...........One simple thing should have really decided this crews choice of whether or not to shoot this bull....

Is this the right thing to do as a hunter? (Or a person that calls themselves a hunter)


This case has a few small similarities to something that affected myself 1.5 years ago.  By all standard reasoning I should be agreeing with the pro TR guys. I too did not understand a part of the regs. (Who may apply for any moose/sheep) so I called WDFW 3 times and received wrong info all 3 times)  So I went with their info and then lost an opportunity for a year. Sure I complained a bit on here, and took some heat on here as well, but I did the right thing. I used my talents & brain, made some calls and wrote some letters to Olympia. End result....I was successful in having the confusing language changed in the 2016 regs. This benefits ALL hunters.

So, regardless of all the legalities,  Did Mr. Reichert do the right thing by shooting this particular bull, in this particular scenario?

Even now that it has happened I still struggle with "what would I do" in this situation.  There is a lot to think about.  I would like to say I would have steered clear of this bull but I just don't know.  I don't think you can know until the decision is right in front of you.

Hind sight being 20/20 I think most would say he didn't do the right thing as far as public perception goes.  And the general public is who we really need to worry about, they outnumber hunters by a lot.

[Curly]

I understand that Bob, my question is since it is open during early archery season for Spikes, not True Spikes (which could be a branch antlered bull on one side) does that open the unit up for the raffle tag to shoot a branch antlered bull as it is "technically" open to branch antlered bull hunting and not only "True Spikes"?

334 is not open to the taking of branch antler bulls.  Just because they allow the occasional elk that happens to have screwy headgear to be taken (in the case of a 6x1) doesn't mean that the unit is open to branched bulls.  The 6X1 is still a spike.

[724wd]

I understand that Bob, my question is since it is open during early archery season for Spikes, not True Spikes (which could be a branch antlered bull on one side) does that open the unit up for the raffle tag to shoot a branch antlered bull as it is "technically" open to branch antlered bull hunting and not only "True Spikes"?

IF this bull could have been classified as a spike, it would have been fine.  In no universe could this bull be considered a spike, which is the only legal bull to take in the unit.  Mr. Reichert killed an illegal bull for that unit. 

[Colville]

There are branch bull seasons and there are spike seasons in the regs.  334 has no branch bull season and any bull with a branch has to be a spike on the other side.  It is, for the purpose of the reg, a spike.  That spike having more than one point on one side does not make that season a branch antlered bull season.

But yes, this is the kind of way a weasel might attempt to cloud the issue so that their greed can be fed. Trashing hunters reps and putting a bird right in the face of the locals. At least two birds were killed with one stone in that respect.

[Holg3107]

Agree Colville, Its the only thing I could think of as to why anyone would even think there was any chance of this being legal. I'm definitely not trying to justify just trying to figure out if there is any way someone could "legally" spin this in a way that could justify the action or in the very least justify making the initial phone calls.

[teanawayslayer]

Agree Colville, Its the only thing I could think of as to why anyone would even think there was any chance of this being legal. I'm definitely not trying to justify just trying to figure out if there is any way someone could "legally" spin this in a way that could justify the action or in the very least justify making the initial phone calls.

greed is a funny thing!

[Dan-o]

Why are you guys so upset over a legally taken elk?

[Colville]

ohhhh Dan-o...  stop stirring, soups done.