Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[boneaddict]

Would it be ethical if you shot an elk in a legal area but it was injured and ran into a non leagal area to finish it off.

Is that what happened here, or did it get loaded into a truck and moved to an open unit.

[BULLBLASTER]

Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 grams

Can you explain why anyone would or could want to hunt with a 6600 grain arrow? 

[Curly]

When did they go to grams?

[huntnphool]

Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 grams

 Wait, it's a minimum 430gr now?

 When did they change it from 6gr. per pound of draw weight?

No just an example

 In that case, one could argue that the arrow was correct weight when you exited your nice wam vehicle and stepped out into the cold. While warm your bow limbs were more limber, creating 70 pounds of pull, but as the day cooled they became increasingly stiffer, sending your draw weight to 71.5lbs, thus the 10gr difference.

[Rainier10]

Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 grams

My guess is most if caught with an arrow 10 grams under weight would argue that it was a simple mistake but take the ticket and move on if the officer wrote them up.  They might take it to court and try to get it reduced but in the end technically they broke the rules.

Hunting the old muzzleloader 911 years ago someone pushed a herd of elk out of the ML911 area across the road we were driving out on.  The elk stopped on the left side of the road and we didn't shoot.  The elk were out of the area by 60 feet.  Could we have shot and said we shot on the correct side of the road and it died on the opposite side?  Yes, but if we were going to do that why wouldn't we just shoot one way out of bounds and out of everyone's view?  Same thing, out of bounds is out of bounds.

Would it be ethical if you shot an elk in a legal area but it was injured and ran into a non leagal area to finish it off.

What we teach in hunter education is to call enforcement and let them know what has happened before entering the closed area.  Way easier to explain what happened and much more believable when you call versus having someone else report seeing you in a closed area and then trying to explain to enforcement what happened.  Same applies if you shoot it on private/public land that you have access to and it dies on private land that you don't have access to.  Call enforcement.

[WAPatriot]

Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 grams

My guess is most if caught with an arrow 10 grams under weight would argue that it was a simple mistake but take the ticket and move on if the officer wrote them up.  They might take it to court and try to get it reduced but in the end technically they broke the rules.

Hunting the old muzzleloader 911 years ago someone pushed a herd of elk out of the ML911 area across the road we were driving out on.  The elk stopped on the left side of the road and we didn't shoot.  The elk were out of the area by 60 feet.  Could we have shot and said we shot on the correct side of the road and it died on the opposite side?  Yes, but if we were going to do that why wouldn't we just shoot one way out of bounds and out of everyone's view?  Same thing, out of bounds is out of bounds.

Would it be ethical if you shot an elk in a legal area but it was injured and ran into a non leagal area to finish it off.

What we teach in hunter education is to call enforcement and let them know what has happened before entering the closed area.  Way easier to explain what happened and much more believable when you call versus having someone else report seeing you in a closed area and then trying to explain to enforcement what happened.  Same applies if you shoot it on private/public land that you have access to and it dies on private land that you don't have access to.  Call enforcement.

Call enforcement and ask them if it's legal

[huntnphool]

I'd say TR is definitely not innocent.  He shot an elk in a closed unit.  That is an undisputed fact. 

Now, whether or not he ends up having to pay the price for the crime is another thing.  By calling wdfw and asking about firearm restrictions in the Ellensburg unit, they did cast a gray area on the case.  They may have found a scapegoat in the wdfw employee that answered their question about being ok to shoot an elk with a muzzleloader.

I guess the question that a judge or jury will likely have to think about is whether TR and his accomplices knew the rules and were just trying to find a way around them by calling wdfw and hoping to get someone that didn't know the specific rules for that permit. 

They might also have to think about how the rules are worded.  I do think it would leave less room for confusion when the rules didn't say "Any 300 or 500 series GMU open to elk hunting, except GMU's not open to branch antlered bull elk hunting".  Instead, why not just list the couple of GMU's that are off-limits?  That would help the officers being called and asked the question instead of them having to look for 20 minutes to see if there are any branch bull hunting in the unit.

I would think he would have a decent chance at being found not guilty in court.  But I wouldn't bet on it either.   And even if he is found not guilty sure doesn't mean he is innocent........just means the court found mitigating circumstances to let him get away with it.

(That's my 2 cents.  I'm nobody though, so my 2 cents is not worth much.  My opinion is only based on what I've read on the court of Hunt-Wa and Incident Report by WDFW).  And BTW - I'm in no way jealous.....not the least bit jealous in any way.  Just an interesting case to me so I'm following along.)

 Again Curly, they never asked the only relevant question surrounding this entire case, "is it legal to kill a branched antler bull in GMU334?"

 Any other question or discussion is pure window dressing!

 Don't fall victim to their ploy of muddying the waters, nothing else in this entire case matters.

 The only question now is, will a judge/jury hold Reichert accountable for not knowing first hand if he could or could not kill a branched antler bull in that unit, claiming ignorance as his defense. "They told me they got permission from WDFW"

 Is that a viable excuse?

[Curly]

I'd say TR is definitely not innocent.  He shot an elk in a closed unit.  That is an undisputed fact. 

Now, whether or not he ends up having to pay the price for the crime is another thing.  By calling wdfw and asking about firearm restrictions in the Ellensburg unit, they did cast a gray area on the case.  They may have found a scapegoat in the wdfw employee that answered their question about being ok to shoot an elk with a muzzleloader.

I guess the question that a judge or jury will likely have to think about is whether TR and his accomplices knew the rules and were just trying to find a way around them by calling wdfw and hoping to get someone that didn't know the specific rules for that permit. 

They might also have to think about how the rules are worded.  I do think it would leave less room for confusion when the rules didn't say "Any 300 or 500 series GMU open to elk hunting, except GMU's not open to branch antlered bull elk hunting".  Instead, why not just list the couple of GMU's that are off-limits?  That would help the officers being called and asked the question instead of them having to look for 20 minutes to see if there are any branch bull hunting in the unit.

I would think he would have a decent chance at being found not guilty in court.  But I wouldn't bet on it either.   And even if he is found not guilty sure doesn't mean he is innocent........just means the court found mitigating circumstances to let him get away with it.

(That's my 2 cents.  I'm nobody though, so my 2 cents is not worth much.  My opinion is only based on what I've read on the court of Hunt-Wa and Incident Report by WDFW).  And BTW - I'm in no way jealous.....not the least bit jealous in any way.  Just an interesting case to me so I'm following along.)

 Again Curly, they never asked the only relevant question surrounding this entire case, "is it legal to kill a branched antler bull in GMU334?"

 Any other question or discussion is pure window dressing!

Yeah, I know. It does seem like they were purposely trying to get away with it, but I know that sometimes juries will feel sorry for an old disabled guy so he could skate.

[JimmyHoffa]

Or for that matter what if someone's arrow only weights 420 grams instead of the the legal 430 grams

My guess is most if caught with an arrow 10 grams under weight would argue that it was a simple mistake but take the ticket and move on if the officer wrote them up.  They might take it to court and try to get it reduced but in the end technically they broke the rules.

Hunting the old muzzleloader 911 years ago someone pushed a herd of elk out of the ML911 area across the road we were driving out on.  The elk stopped on the left side of the road and we didn't shoot.  The elk were out of the area by 60 feet.  Could we have shot and said we shot on the correct side of the road and it died on the opposite side?  Yes, but if we were going to do that why wouldn't we just shoot one way out of bounds and out of everyone's view?  Same thing, out of bounds is out of bounds.

Would it be ethical if you shot an elk in a legal area but it was injured and ran into a non leagal area to finish it off.

What we teach in hunter education is to call enforcement and let them know what has happened before entering the closed area.  Way easier to explain what happened and much more believable when you call versus having someone else report seeing you in a closed area and then trying to explain to enforcement what happened.  Same applies if you shoot it on private/public land that you have access to and it dies on private land that you don't have access to.  Call enforcement.

Call enforcement and ask them if it's legal

after this case, I'd guess they would forward you on to some legal beagle in Olympia to handle all the phoned in questions.  I can't imagine why.....

[WAPatriot]

Has anyone heard a recording of the phone call? I know I haven't so I can say for sure that the state granted him permission to shoot the bull but as a hunter and Christian I give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's not the first and won't be the last guy the state try's to screw.

I hope the state has to pay him money lots of money.

[Curly]

Has anyone heard a recording of the phone call? I know I haven't so I can say for sure that the state granted him permission to shoot the bull but as a hunter and Christian I give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's not the first and won't be the last guy the state try's to screw.

I hope the state has to pay him money lots of money.

How would the state be trying to screw him when he is the one that broke the law and shot the tame bull?

[huntnphool]

 Actually there is another question regarding this case. Are *censored* in any way culpable in the case?


(names removed due to request)

[Curly]

It's too bad the state doesn't require guides to be licensed in some way. The so called guide is at much or more at fault than Reichert.  Hopefully Reichert will sue his guide for leading him down the wrong path.

[WAPatriot]

By giving someone permission and then when a bunch of liberals get there panties in a wad charging him even though they gave him Permission.   And shooting a tame bull isn't a crime.

[huntnphool]

Hopefully Reichert will sue his guide for leading him down the wrong path.

 Can he do that?

 Wouldn't Reichert say they told me it was okay, and then they simply deny it?