Questions for WDFW LEO

[dreamunelk]

I have a question ,what is a person's rights on getting a bear out of your backyard that won't leave?

This topic should put more light on the reason for my question.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=218837.msg2912951;topicseen#new

Remove the food source!

[quadrafire]

tag

[bigtex]

I have a question ,what is a person's rights on getting a bear out of your backyard that won't leave?

This topic should put more light on the reason for my question.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=218837.msg2912951;topicseen#new

Remove the food source!

To the original question. It would have to fall under the legal hunting season, hours, rules, etc in order for the person to shoot the bear, or WDFW can issue a damage/depredation permit.

[hunter399]

I have a question ,what is a person's rights on getting a bear out of your backyard that won't leave?

This topic should put more light on the reason for my question.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=218837.msg2912951;topicseen#new

Remove the food source!

To the original question. It would have to fall under the legal hunting season, hours, rules, etc in order for the person to shoot the bear, or WDFW can issue a damage/depredation permit.

Thanks for reply.

[csaaphill]

But if we lived like this says then all these questions would never come up.
I don't see any exigent circumstances in those words Nor do I see any wording about having any kind of suspicion allowing for an unwarranted search.
Nor does it say Warrants are just giving willy nilly it say's none shall be granted unless two or more witnesses.
Everyone calls for law and order that there is your law and order anything else is Lawlessness.

[olyguy79]

But if we lived like this says then all these questions would never come up.
I don't see any exigent circumstances in those words Nor do I see any wording about having any kind of suspicion allowing for an unwarranted search.
Nor does it say Warrants are just giving willy nilly it say's none shall be granted unless two or more witnesses.
Everyone calls for law and order that there is your law and order anything else is Lawlessness.

And if you're a believer in the Constitution you should also be a believer in the SCOTUS which has authorized the acts you describe as being constitutional. Don't like it? Well blame our founding fathers for not outlining it in the constitution, and creating the SCOTUS to handle such matters.

Bigtex is correct, WA's constitution allows for more protections than the US constitution. I can name several situations that are 'legal' under the 4th Amend of the US Constitution but have been found to be illegal under the WA Constitution.

[csaaphill]

But if we lived like this says then all these questions would never come up.
I don't see any exigent circumstances in those words Nor do I see any wording about having any kind of suspicion allowing for an unwarranted search.
Nor does it say Warrants are just giving willy nilly it say's none shall be granted unless two or more witnesses.
Everyone calls for law and order that there is your law and order anything else is Lawlessness.

And if you're a believer in the Constitution you should also be a believer in the SCOTUS which has authorized the acts you describe as being constitutional. Don't like it? Well blame our founding fathers for not outlining it in the constitution, and creating the SCOTUS to handle such matters.

Bigtex is correct, WA's constitution allows for more protections than the US constitution. I can name several situations that are 'legal' under the 4th Amend of the US Constitution but have been found to be illegal under the WA Constitution.

No! they did well enough it's the peoples fault for allowing it to begin with. They also gave us countless quotes to fall back on when questions of Constitutionality arose: Of which no one has ever really cared to actually listen to to begin with it seems.
Jefferson or someone like him did mention to future Generations to look towards the reason and general thinking of why they made such protections in the first place when trying to define the Constitution, or bill of rights.
So no it wasn't their fault it was the succeeding Generations for not guarding and fighting harder to keep the absolutes absolute as it was designed.
I believe they purposely left the Bill of rights as is and not defined in hopes people wouldn't sell off to the highest bidders.
As for the question NO! I do not like it one bit but know there's more likely nothing I'm going to be able to do about it. Just putting forth knowledge I know for what it's worth regardless if people listen or not.
People harp about lack of knowledge as being one of the reasons why people get ignorant and compliant, but never fully address the fullness of what that means.
Actually here is the quote:
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
 the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us]
 conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

[smithkl42]

To the original question. It would have to fall under the legal hunting season, hours, rules, etc in order for the person to shoot the bear, or WDFW can issue a damage/depredation permit.

I was the original author of that thread. Leaving aside the joke with which I started the post, the context is that there was a bear that showed up in my backyard, after shooting hours, and was taking apart my compost pile.



I tried shooing it off, and it wouldn't leave. I've got young kids, and really didn't want it hanging around. So I grabbed my daughter's 15-lb toy bow and a couple of her dull target arrows, and landed a couple of them on the bear from a reasonably safe distance. As expected, they bounced off, but one thumped it hard enough that it must have surprised it, and it took off.

I explicitly was *not* hunting it, nor was I intending to injure it - if that had been my intent (as it would have been two hours earlier), my hunting bow was close at hand. I just wanted to haze it enough that it didn't feel necessary to come back anytime soon. (And I haven't seen it since.)

My strong belief is that this was legal - the bear was damaging my property, was representing a threat to my family, and I took reasonable, measured and humane actions to drive it off. That certainly seems within the spirit and indeed the letter of the regs as I've seen them. But because it was a toy "bow" (as opposed to, say, throwing a couple rocks at it), I think some folks were worried that a warden might think otherwise. Obviously I don't, as I'm here talking about it :-).

Any additional thoughts?

[Mudman]

If a bear was eating my camp food and I shot it in season and tag would that be baiting?  Its easy to say Know the area, do homework etc and we try but when you get arrested for a crime like that opinions change.  Must think both angles to understand. 

[Bob33]

If a bear was eating my camp food and I shot it in season and tag would that be baiting?  Its easy to say Know the area, do homework etc and we try but when you get arrested for a crime like that opinions change.  Must think both angles to understand.

Does your camp food meet the definition of "bait"?

(d) As used in this subsection, "bait" means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.

[ghosthunter]

You have some reasonable expectation of privacy in your tent or cook shack.  I assume (shame on me)that it is on public property you are asking about?  Generally speaking a LEO would need consent, a warrant, or a reasonable belief that some exegent circumstances require you to enter.  Court rulings are kinda all over, but much depends on whether it is state or federal law being enforced.  You have a greater degree of privacy under the WA state constitution than most other places. 

A question that comes up often is, Is the tent abandoned or just being left for a short period.  If it makes sense that it may be abandoned, a LEO could probably look in to see if anything potentially dangerous (firearms) needs safekeeping.  Seeing a violation without an immediate safety issue would require a warrant to search/secure.

Due to the mobility of vehicles, courts may give a little move leeway to LE than a tent or shack that isn't leaving the area.  But the courts are always making entertaining rulings, some make sense. some don't.  But privacy rights are a big deal and the courts do try to respect them,even if a few LEO's don't.  Sorry to be long winded.  Maybe BiGTex can provide more clarity.

Only thing I'd differ on is most cook shacks I've seen aren't in the sleeping or private areas and most are open air unless closed up at night or everyone's hunting, but during cooking it's usually open air?  Unless someone is cooking right next to their bunk inside their tent there'd be less issues poking through the coolers there in the "cook shack"

Not so fast, our cook shack is enclosed.

[pianoman9701]

This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.

True story right there.

That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. 

[baker5150]

This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.

True story right there.

That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. 

Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.

[pianoman9701]

This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.

True story right there.

That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. 

Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.

But that won't help someone else who's ignorant of the law and reading the post, though. Some people just immediately assume everything's an attack. They're wrong far more than they're right on this forum.

[baker5150]

This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.

True story right there.

That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. 

Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.

But that won't help someone else who's ignorant of the law and reading the post, though. Some people just immediately assume everything's an attack. They're wrong far more than they're right on this forum.

Can you blame them?  Things seam to be looking up, but the trolling has been out of control for some time now.
If someone assumes an illegal act, ask in a pm first.  Then start another informative thread to educate if they feel so inclined.
Too many good threads get ruined because someone needs to chime in without any factual information.