Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[kiticaashunter]

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.

#1. Mistake on WDFW part. When the calls were made WDFW gave the ok after looking into it.

#2. Was clear before on that. How many would it take to be ok in your mind. One or five I think personally shold be enough when they come up with a crystal clear answer?

#3 both

#4  no,  but witnessed by several.

#5  no a day later.

#6 was moved to  3 dressed per request of the landowner that didn't want a gut pile in his field.

#7 not sure. Don't know? 

Go ahead and ask #8, 9 and 10.

[kiticaashunter]

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.

Time will tell?  Easy to prosecute.  Especially when when a small few have the phone ringing off the hook. Makes people happy. Think it will turn out to be a mistake for the county, I'm sure they figured they could get a deal done that made both sides look ok. Don't think that's going to happen in this case. No point walking away with even a hint of guilt when you should be 100% innocent in the situation.

[kiticaashunter]

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.

Be careful what you say on here Rainier10. Many have made thier minds up on a situation they don't know much about. Would hate to see you get labeled on here just because you are keeping an open mind.

[kiticaashunter]

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. 

And sadly far to often don't get that protection when they need it. As the guy or gal that got into an argument with thier spouse can't legality touch there firearms. I don't know the answer either?  Do know what we have now is not a solution.

[NOCK NOCK]

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.

#1. Mistake on WDFW part. When the calls were made WDFW gave the ok after looking into it.

#2. Was clear before on that. How many would it take to be ok in your mind. One or five I think personally shold be enough when they come up with a crystal clear answer?

#3 both

#4  no,  but witnessed by several.

#5  no a day later.

#6 was moved to  3 dressed per request of the landowner that didn't want a gut pile in his field.

#7 not sure. Don't know? 

Go ahead and ask #8, 9 and 10.

Kiti,
Thank you very much for answering the questions. I get the answer of #6, but, it does not answer the original question of where the bull was tagged

Forgive me but I do not understand your reply of "Go ahead and ask #8, 9, 10" 

[Boss .300 winmag]

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.

Time will tell?  Easy to prosecute.  Especially when when a small few have the phone ringing off the hook. Makes people happy. Think it will turn out to be a mistake for the county, I'm sure they figured they could get a deal done that made both sides look ok. Don't think that's going to happen in this case. No point walking away with even a hint of guilt when you should be 100% innocent in the situation.

Its not about making both sides look ok, its about the wrong thing was done, and know the right thing needs to be done according to the laws that all hunters must abide by or pay the consequences! 

[Elkaholic daWg]

NOT going through 48 pages to find out.......has he been charged?  (please)

[Boss .300 winmag]

NOT going through 48 pages to find out.......has he been charged?  (please)

yes he has.

[Elkaholic daWg]

NOT going through 48 pages to find out.......has he been charged?  (please)

yes he has.

Thank you

[h20hunter]

My understanding  is charges have been filed and the first court date has been postponed once for .....cough cough .......health reasons. My assumption ,  and this is only an opinion, is that was done to minimize  the possibility  of losing the chance to fill tags this year that he has already spent many thousands of dollars on.

[greenhead_killer]

Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)

[bearpaw]

Sort of a side question but I think was asked a few pages ago. Why did he not lose truck/rifle/elk head/etc....didn't rt lose everything when he was accused of poaching a few years ago?? And that was just on a two pt md! Not even for what the state claims as a trophy! Just curious if this were a serious offense why the same isn't being done with this current case? (Rt was found NOT GUILTY to any new readers btw)

That's a very good point. It seems I heard that if you voluntarily give them your weapon they take it, but they can't take if you say no. Is that correct?
Another question, I've heard of wardens entering a home and taking all sorts of things, how does that work?

[Tbar]

This might clarify a little.  http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.070

[Tbar]

This is the line that resonates with me, only speaking from opinion.
"However, fish and wildlife officers or ex officio fish and wildlife officers may not seize any item or article, other than for evidence, if under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the violation was inadvertent."

[Colville]

They also were not at the scene. How would the know the rifle and truck used. They would be relying on witness statements. If arrested at the scene, confiscation may have happened.