Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[bearpaw]

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.

There is a difference between someone accusing you...he said/she said stuff...and a Prosecutor filing criminal charges.  In this specific case, and many big game poaching cases, I would likely support suspension of hunting privileges when criminal charges are filed.  I bet Reichert wouldn't be filing all these extensions and trying to drag this out for 5 years like he did in his last criminal poaching case if all hunting privileges were suspended pending the outcome of his charges.  He has a right to a speedy trial...if he's innocent and wants his hunting privleges restored...then he should get on the ball.  If he wants to waive that right so he can milk the system and drive up costs to taxpayers...that's his choice...but he shouldn't be allowed to do it while maintaining hunting privileges.

If his story is true that WDFW gave him permission I've got a Benjamin that says the court finds him innocent. You are saying he should lose his privileges in the mean time? Sorry but that doesn't fly very well!

Happens all day long with driving privileges...licenses are suspended even before any criminal charges are filed. He has the right to a speedy trial.  If he's innocent he can move quickly to his acquittal.

I agree with you - if Morgan Grant gave clear permission for him to shoot this bull in GMU 334, a jury will not convict him.  If WDFW/Grant confirms this defense that the officer gave clear permission, I fully support the immediate termination of Morgan Grant and a recall vote for the County Prosecutor for wasting resources.  If WDFW disputes the call or pertinent details, given Reicherts previous convictions for lying, then I am inclined to believe the State and hope Reichert is punished.

Given most of us were not there, and those that were are likely biased, we are all left to our own life experiences to weigh the various stories, theories, defenses, and accounts of the event which have been published.  I don't see a Prosecutor in a million years filing charges if the States lead officer is going to testify in support of the defense that he gave clear permission to shoot that bull in that location. I will be the first to say the State and County really, really screwed up if this phone call went down as some on here are suggesting.

I think it's the county prosecuting, from pressure by locals according to the posts I've read if that's true, who knows. Maybe the county doesn't even know permission was "as claimed" granted by WDFW?

With driving offenses are you talking about DWI? I know that if you are drunk you go to jail. But most driving offenses do not result in loss of license or other punishment before going to court!

[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.

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

I will agree to disagree...

IF, and I do believe in our legal system, the prosecution has substantial evidence to proceed with filing charges I believe there is justification to suspend hunting privileges.

As I stated I do believe innocent until proven guilty and in no way am I proposing punishment before a verdict.
 
However I believe a situation like this should be resolved before anyone could hunt again. It is like rewarding bad behavior. If you know your going to be held accountable your less likely to push the limit....

When I have been accused of wrong doing I can't wait to clear things up. 1. If I'm wrong I want to learn from it and 2. If I'm right I can sleep better knowing I was cleared.

[HntnFsh]

I bet TR wishes he had the permission in writing. If he really did get permission to shoot a branched bull in 334 then it is bs that he was cited (even if shooting the bull might be ethically wrong in some people's minds). It may be a good lesson; hopefully in the future if a guy gets the okay from a wdfw employee for something, a followup text or email should be requested.

Kit hunter says that Grant was told that he was on speaker phone and others were listening. As I said before. This sounds really fishy to me! But that's just me. But if that's the case. And he was given permission over the phone. With more than 1 witness. I think he has all the proof of permission he needs! I also think a judge or jury will let him off if that's the case. I think they went in full well knowing this bull was strictly off limits. May have went on a fishing trip. May have hooked a big one. Time will tell.

[HntnFsh]

I also think the prosecutor already knows if Grant gave permission. And has weighed that aspect in regards as to whether to proceed with the case.

[full choke]

Maybe this question has been asked and I missed it:
If he was granted permission by an employee of WDFW (who actually had the authority to do so), and everything is as locked up and on the up-n-up as some people are claiming, why wouldn't he be pushing for a speedy trial? Get this whole mess behind him, clear his name? Why would he be delaying court dates and stalling the process? Just curious.

[bobcat]

Great question.

[HntnFsh]

Maybe this question has been asked and I missed it:
If he was granted permission by an employee of WDFW (who actually had the authority to do so), and everything is as locked up and on the up-n-up as some people are claiming, why wouldn't he be pushing for a speedy trial? Get this whole mess behind him, clear his name? Why would he be delaying court dates and stalling the process? Just curious.

My understanding is that there is no such person in WDFW.

[stew pidasso]

I think the question to wfdw was, can we shoot a bull in 334 with a muzzleloader? Wfdw says sure thinking they ment spike bull. Permission granted

[Alchase]

I am curious why there was no forfeiture of vehicles and firearms in this case?
RCW 77.15.070

[dscubame]

I think the question to wfdw was, can we shoot a bull in 334 with a muzzleloader? Wfdw says sure thinking they ment spike bull. Permission granted

Why he ask that question when the answer to his intended question would be and is clearly in the regs?

[Bullkllr]

I think the question to wfdw was, can we shoot a bull in 334 with a muzzleloader? Wfdw says sure thinking they ment spike bull. Permission granted

Why he ask that question when the answer to his intended question would be and is clearly in the regs?

Well, yeah; and that right there is a primary reason this thread is pushing 50 pages.

[bobcat]

GMU 334 wouldn't be open even for spike bull elk with the raffle tag.

[Reidus]

 .

[Reidus]

With all the people involved in this hunt, I can't believe that none of them would have missed this in the regs. Maybe they played dumb when the question came up, hoping for a big payday. Big horns and large sums of money has been known to have effect on people's thinking ability.

[jkthomps]

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk