Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[Dan-o]

I am.


I can't get the tune out of my head.


I'm even making up new verses:

Oh, I wish I were a bullwinkle bonker
That is what I'd really like to beeeeeee-e
Cause if I were a Bullwinkle bonker
Everyone would be accusing me!

[Alchase]

Kiti, I believe you were the one who's post was nuked that was comparing a members failure to purchase a new license for the new year ticket to the Bullwinkle killing, suggesting they were both mistakes.

Forgive me if I missed them, but searched through many pages and did not find a direct answer to several questions that have been asked of you. You have stated you are here to clear things up, sooooo please give me some insight on these basic questions.

1. Was TR's shooting this particular bull a mistake, or was it all legit per the WDFW phone calls?

2. I know you have stated "2 calls were made", were there only 2,or more?

3. Were these calls all out going from TR's group, or did a WDFW employee call back?

4. Were any of these calls recorded?

5. Was the bull killed the same day the calls were made?

6. Was the bull tagged at the kill site, or at the processing site? 

7. What unit was listed as the place of kill on the hunters report?

8. You and a couple others are very defensive of this situation. Are you defending TR, or just trying to CYA?


I believe that a simple yes or no, or a couple words can answer all of these, and will help you clear things up (which is why you are here correct) for a lot of folks on here.
Thank you for your time.

I will add two more you have not responded to or said you won't answer for "clarity of coarse"

9. Were you present when the bull was killed?

10. If you were not present when this bull was killed, who is providing you your information?

[Rainier10]

Questions 5,6 and 7 are the ones I am most curious about.  I have sent some pm's to previous raffle tag holders to find out how the tag and reporting work.  From what they remember you do get a tag that says raffle elk, deer, sheep or whatever you won.  They don't recall having to report the harvest like you would with your general or permit tag.  That seems odd to me and maybe it is an oversite by WDFW.  I know with my second deer and elk tags I still have to report, not sure why a raffle tag would be different but it sounds like it might be.  Maybe a call to WDFW for clarification would be good.  That is not a joke that is a serious statement by the way.

As for the timing of the phone calls I have been going round and round about that.  When were they made.  Were they made that day with the bull in the cross hairs?  Were they made the day before?  Were they made after the bull was shot and they realized they were on the wrong side of the canal?

I am not sure if Kiticaas will be answering any of these questions you have asked.  After the lock down of the thread and warnings that were issued I think everyone is treading a little lighter right now and that is probably a good thing.

I am sure during the legal proceedings it will all come out, we may just have to wait until then.

I do think that there can be some good dialogue on "what ifs" in this case, there certainly have been enough of them raised.  In reality that is all we can deal with, it's not like anything we come up with here is going to decide the final outcome of this case.

Just my 

[Curly]

11. When will cboom be posting again.

12. Are you in the #NeverTrump camp?

[M_ray]

Kiti, I believe you were the one who's post was nuked that was comparing a members failure to purchase a new license for the new year ticket to the Bullwinkle killing, suggesting they were both mistakes.

Forgive me if I missed them, but searched through many pages and did not find a direct answer to several questions that have been asked of you. You have stated you are here to clear things up, sooooo please give me some insight on these basic questions.

1. Was TR's shooting this particular bull a mistake, or was it all legit per the WDFW phone calls?

2. I know you have stated "2 calls were made", were there only 2,or more?

3. Were these calls all out going from TR's group, or did a WDFW employee call back?

4. Were any of these calls recorded?

5. Was the bull killed the same day the calls were made?

6. Was the bull tagged at the kill site, or at the processing site? 

7. What unit was listed as the place of kill on the hunters report?

8. You and a couple others are very defensive of this situation. Are you defending TR, or just trying to CYA?


I believe that a simple yes or no, or a couple words can answer all of these, and will help you clear things up (which is why you are here correct) for a lot of folks on here.
Thank you for your time.

You forgot the other question that was asked that Kiti never answered ...Was the question when calling? (the real #11 & 12)

11 "What weapon can I use in 334?"
                or
12"Can I shoot this bull in 334?"

I'd bet it's the first which makes perfect sense why the County would move forward and file charges. A clear attempt to cast a grey area over the use of the tag considering there is a Master Hunter cow hunt in there at that time.

[REHJWA]

My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?

I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?

If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?

[bearpaw]

My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?

I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?

If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?

Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.

[JimmyHoffa]

My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?

I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?

If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?

Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.

But in many cases, your 2nd amendment rights are suspended until after being found not guilty.  For example a woman can claim domestic violence and the police will come take all the firearms and he can't purchase anything until after a trial clears him.

[REHJWA]

My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?

I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?

If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?

Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.

Unless we get the state to pass an amendment to the constitution hunting is a privilege not a right.

[Bob33]

My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?

I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?

If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?

Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.

I agree with Dale. Until he is legally found guilty I don't believe he should lose hunting privileges.

[Rainier10]

My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?

I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?

If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?

Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.

I agree with Dale. Until he is legally found guilty I don't believe he should lose hunting privileges.

Especially in this case, the water is so muddy who knows what really happened?  He has the right to defend himself from the charges and that takes time.  He shouldn't be penalized for trying to defend himself.

The domestic violence charge is a completely different thing altogether, you are talking about personal safety of another human being potentially being at risk.

[JimmyHoffa]

No, it's still punishment before any verdict.  If personal safety is really an issue, the person should be held in jail.

[Rainier10]

No, it's still punishment before any verdict.  If personal safety is really an issue, the person should be held in jail.

Okay.  I am thinking taking the guns away is cheaper than putting them in jail, in both cases they don't have access to the firearms.  In my case they can still injure the person with a  knife, hatchet, baseball bat or whatever.  I like your solution better lock them up then everyone is safer.  It would just suck to get locked up because somebody said you assaulted them.  I personally would rather just loose my guns for a while as I fought through the allegations.  Sounds like you think we should lock them up as soon as an allegation is made. We will have to agree to disagree.

This has got the thread totally off track though. If I were accused I wouldn't want my right to hunt taken away, I would want my day in court first.

There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.

[2MANY]

A little song for you today....in my best singing voice;

"Ohh I wish I was a auction/raffle tag holder
That is all I truly want to be
Cause if I was a auction/raffle tag holder
Everyone would be so jealous of me

Oh I'm glad I'm not a auction/raffle tag holder
That is what I'd never want to be
Cause if I were a auction/raffle tag holder
There would soon be nothing left to hunt for me"

Question #13
Why did Oscar Mayer have so many wieners?

Question #14
What bathroom did he use?

[bearpaw]

My question is why can a person charged with a wildlife violation continue to hunt until the situation is resolved?

I understand innocent until proven guilty, however once a charge has been filed why would the PRIVILEGE to continue to hunt not be suspended until the situation is resolved?

If there is enough evidence to file charges, shouldn't there be enough to suspend privileges?

Because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can you lose your hunting rights until you are proven guilty. Try to look at it in other perspectives and you will understand.

But in many cases, your 2nd amendment rights are suspended until after being found not guilty.  For example a woman can claim domestic violence and the police will come take all the firearms and he can't purchase anything until after a trial clears him.

I don't agree with the current system involving domestic violence because some people will falsely claim DV just to get at the person they are accusing. I'm not sure what the best answer is because in real cases of DV innocent abused people need protection.