Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[TheHunt]

Sounds like he's screwed.


He broke the law, killed a bull in an area he wasn't allowed to.

His defense that someone told him it was ok isn't flying.....and the defenders on this site have gone quiet.   

Who you going to believe, a bunch of new members who magically appear and basically only post in the defense of someone who has already been convicted of lying?

LOL

hahahahaha

[Bob33]

Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Wildlife_Violator_Compact


"If a person's license or permit privileges which come under the scope of the Compact are suspended or revoked in one member state, they are subject to suspension or revocation in all member states. "

[JimmyHoffa]

How would it affect all the record book entries?

[OutHouse]

Lots of good questions to answer here with this new info.

He now has a condition of release to not hunt.  This is not just in WA, but would be a condition anywhere in the world as part of his release in this case.  If he did hunt, he would violate conditions of release and the judge could set bail or take him in custody while the case is pending.  That puts out the fact that he likely will not hunt until this matter is resolved.

He did not turn down the Stay of Proceedings.  He continued the pre-trial scheduling conference.  He can likely still accept the Stay at a later date or try and negotiate the conditions.  One of the conditions is that he not hunt.  This would likely be anywhere unless he negotiated something different with the prosecutor.  That means he likely will not be hunting up until he enters a deal and likely won't hunt if he takes the deal on the table.  Anywhere!




Unless the Stay is negotiated differently, the only way he is going to use his 2016 tag is if he goes to trial and is acquitted before the season is up.  I think the deal is a good one, and he should think about entering it in July.  First, the Stay prevents him from having a conviction on his record.  There will be no further hunting consequences after the year is up.  The one year provision starts when he enters the Stay/deal so July or August.  He would not be able to use his tag this year but could hunt in time for the 2017 season.  If he drags this out past this hunting season and ends up getting convicted or accepts the Stay in January, he would miss the 2016 and 2017 season.  There is benefit to entering this deal sooner rather than later.  The 12k is nothing for him. 

With the scrutiny of a trial, I don't think anyone would want that.  The benefit of a trial is he could try and walk on the case.  He has a guaranteed dismissal through the Stay but the no hunting condition might be important to him.  If he went to trial and was convicted, the loss of hunting rights would extend likely to the states that give reciprocal suspensions.  It's a good legal question whether he could hunt in another country like Canada under the conviction scenario...  He would likely be able to buy a license but would he violate the sentence by hunting in Canada?  I don't know the answer to that question but will look into it.

If he then wants to sue the WDFW or individuals based on the advise they gave him for the 12k and attorney fees plus loss of reputation, so be it.

Excellent points, you sound like someone who understands the local criminal procedure well. With regard to your question, the court can order conditions of release, but it must have jurisdiction in order to prevent him from hunting in a foreign country. I'm not sure they have that, unless their is some inter-nation compact that provides the court with power to do so---- or if his foreign hunting would prevent his appearance at a hearing.

[bigtex]

How would it affect all the record book entries?

it doesn't

[popeshawnpaul]

But you can contract to do anything including no hunting.  I agree it seems likely the court has no jurisdiction over out of state offenses but for a Stay or SOC it's different.  If the contract doesn't specify, I would think it doesn't matter the jurisdiction.   I had a Stay that was revoked in WA on a new violation for a federal license violation in Yellowstone.  Case law says they can.  You always have jurisdiction to revoke a contract if it's violated.  I don't believe it's where the contract is violated unless specified.  Whether wildlife compact or not, if a judge orders no hunting then if he does it in another state they have jurisdiction to find a violation if they have a sworn report with officer observed conduct or they can produce witnesses at a hearing subject to cross to allege the violation.

[teanawayslayer]

Pope do you know if there was any property or antlers seized? Or does he have to be found guilty before he has to forfeit the antlers?

[OutHouse]

Pope do you know if there was any property or antlers seized? Or does he have to be found guilty before he has to forfeit the antlers?

I am obviously not Pope, however, a recent commenter says he knows for fact that the antlers were not seized, but if the investigating agency was doing their job they would have seized the head and meat as evidence. The Kittitas County Sheriff's Office (or whatever investigating agency) should have that in their possession as evidence in the criminal case.

[Dan-o]

Why?

What kind of evidence is that?

The exact bull and the exact location are not at issue in this case.

[popeshawnpaul]

If they know where it is they will seize it.  You have to get a warrant for it.  I dont know if it's seized but it would seem they would if they know where it is.

[92xj]

If they know where it is they will seize it.  You have to get a warrant for it.  I dont know if it's seized but it would seem they would if they know where it is.

Is it assumed that they are hiding or being hidden? I don't feel that's the case at all, but then again have no idea about pretty much everything relating to this case.

[Bango skank]

I hope the judge drops the fine, but raises the loss of hunting to 6-10 years.  A 12k fine for a guy who pays 75k for an elk tag is pointless.

A one year loss of hunting privileges for a 76 year old with cancer may represent a significant portion of his remaining hunting opportunities: perhaps like a ten year suspension for someone in his 40s or 50s.

Well he knew how old he was and decided to poach an elk.  He shouldnt get a reduced punishment cause hes old.  If he lost 5 years yeah thats a lot of water under the bridge.  He should have thought of that before he did what he did.

[popeshawnpaul]

If they know where it is they will seize it.  You have to get a warrant for it.  I dont know if it's seized but it would seem they would if they know where it is.

Is it assumed that they are hiding or being hidden? I don't feel that's the case at all, but then again have no idea about pretty much everything relating to this case.

Well, if WDFW knew where it was you can bet it would be seized.  I'm not assuming anything other than that.

[Colville]

No one needs to find this stuff.  The judge could order them surrendered at any time as evidence.

[OutHouse]

Why?

What kind of evidence is that?

The exact bull and the exact location are not at issue in this case.

Because the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a bull was in fact killed. Now, officer/witness testimony might be enough. However, If I was a juror and they couldn't show me the body/head/antlers there could be doubt that a bull was even killed. It also depends on what the defendant told the officers---his admissions could prove the death as well. I don't know all the facts, admittedly.