Trespasser On Cam

[jmscon]

Is there a difference in the WAC from just plain trespassing to trespassing while hunting? Don't have time to look it up but I thought that the trespassing while hunting the property didn't need to be posted or anything.

[Knocker of rocks]

i couldnt prosecute for trespassibg since i wasnt posted, hence CHRIS ANDERSON getting a ticket for no hunter orange in the pic.

All it takes is a photograph for a ticket to be issued?

How do you prove that it was even taken in Washington?

Cary on.

[Special T]

Number one, I think everyone knows that he didn't have permission from the new land owner to be there.  He may have said that he had permission from the old land owner, who knows.  For some reason the officer didn't write him up for trespassing.  There could be a lot of reasons for that.  The officer onsite needed to do something to appease the landowner that felt wronged by the trespassing and charged the trespasser with not wearing hunter orange.  My guess is he felt that there was enough evidence to charge and make the charges stick on the hunter orange.

Of course all of this is speculation, none of us were there.

People need to understand that there is what the law says, and then there's what prosecutors want. The law may say you can't do X, but the prosecutor may say "well...is all they did is do X and nothing more??"

I typically patrol a couple counties and I know in each county there are laws that prosecutors will and won't prosecutors. Heck, the Snohomish County Prosecutor has listed on their website which offenses they will not prosecute.

The hunter orange ticket is just that a ticket, trespass is a misdemeanor and not a ticket. Hunter orange is an infraction which is basically between a parking ticket and a traffic ticket on the level of importance or severity.

So with the new law about trespass while hunting is that a separate law or just a separate punishment?

So if a county won't enforce no trespassing then does that mean they won't enforce the wildlife portion of it?

[Doublelunger]

Maybe start another thread to discuss Chris Anderson.

Just my 

Thread stil discussing a person on cam.  Still on topic.  Go find another cause.

Far from the original intent of this thread.  You want to call someone out by all means go right ahead, but start your own thread for it instead of ruining this one for the rest of us. 

I'm confused...didnt he start this thread???

Yes this is the thread all of this discussion should have been in.  The thread jack comment was in another thread and got moved to this thread when we edited it all out.  The OP in this thread had started the most recent dialogue in the people on cams thread.  The mods moved it all over to this thread for him to carry on the discussion here rather than keep it in the people on cams thread.

gotcha, thanks

[bigtex]

Number one, I think everyone knows that he didn't have permission from the new land owner to be there.  He may have said that he had permission from the old land owner, who knows.  For some reason the officer didn't write him up for trespassing.  There could be a lot of reasons for that.  The officer onsite needed to do something to appease the landowner that felt wronged by the trespassing and charged the trespasser with not wearing hunter orange.  My guess is he felt that there was enough evidence to charge and make the charges stick on the hunter orange.

Of course all of this is speculation, none of us were there.

People need to understand that there is what the law says, and then there's what prosecutors want. The law may say you can't do X, but the prosecutor may say "well...is all they did is do X and nothing more??"

I typically patrol a couple counties and I know in each county there are laws that prosecutors will and won't prosecutors. Heck, the Snohomish County Prosecutor has listed on their website which offenses they will not prosecute.

The hunter orange ticket is just that a ticket, trespass is a misdemeanor and not a ticket. Hunter orange is an infraction which is basically between a parking ticket and a traffic ticket on the level of importance or severity.

So with the new law about trespass while hunting is that a separate law or just a separate punishment?

So if a county won't enforce no trespassing then does that mean they won't enforce the wildlife portion of it?

Separate law with virtually the same punishment. Both are misdemeanors. The only difference is that the trespass while hunting law is a wildlife violation which gives officers the ability to seize the gear and game, as well as possible license suspension. Plain old trespass is not a wildlife violation so officers couldn't seize gear and game if trespass was the only offense committed. This is why WDFW pushed for the law. You had people shooting big bucks and bulls on private land without permission, but as long as they didn't violate a wildlife law (season, tag, etc) they would keep the animal.

As far as your county question, that is really up to each individual prosecutors office. Some may take only the wildlife trespass law, others may just want the 'general' trespass one, and others it won't matter.

[Rainier10]

i couldnt prosecute for trespassibg since i wasnt posted, hence CHRIS ANDERSON getting a ticket for no hunter orange in the pic.

All it takes is a photograph for a ticket to be issued?

How do you prove that it was even taken in Washington?

Cary on.

My guess is when the officer confronted Mr Anderson about trespassing a question was asked about "where was your hunting orange?" and Mr Anderson didn't give the correct information.

Again all speculation.

[Knocker of rocks]

i couldnt prosecute for trespassibg since i wasnt posted, hence CHRIS ANDERSON getting a ticket for no hunter orange in the pic.

All it takes is a photograph for a ticket to be issued?

How do you prove that it was even taken in Washington?

Cary on.

My guess is when the officer confronted Mr Anderson about trespassing a question was asked about "where was your hunting orange?" and Mr Anderson didn't give the correct information.

Again all speculation.

Or wishful thinking by the OP.

[huntnnw]

pretty interesting reading this.

[huntingfool7]

i couldnt prosecute for trespassibg since i wasnt posted, hence CHRIS ANDERSON getting a ticket for no hunter orange in the pic.

All it takes is a photograph for a ticket to be issued?

How do you prove that it was even taken in Washington?

Cary on.

My guess is when the officer confronted Mr Anderson about trespassing a question was asked about "where was your hunting orange?" and Mr Anderson didn't give the correct information.

Again all speculation.

Or wishful thinking by the OP.

Knocker- The trail camera photo with date and time stamp clearly shows two guys with rifles dragging a buck out.  One with orange, one without.  I don't follow how that is wishful thinking by the OP.

[bobcat]

If the guy who killed the deer is the one without orange, then he'd be legal. Notched his tag, he's no longer hunting. Must have been the other way around.

[Badhabit]

"What if", Anderson could have said he wasn't "deer" hunting but coyote hunting or just exercising his open carry rights? Is there a requirement to wear orange coyote hunting? We know there's no requirement for open carry. He was protecting his friend from having someone try to steal his deer.

[bobcat]

He was protecting his friend from having someone try to steal his deer.

 

That would have been my excuse.

[Bob33]

Is there a requirement to wear orange coyote hunting?

If there was a modern firearm deer season open, the answer is "yes."

[Badhabit]

Thanks Bob33, Then open carry it is.