Deer shot by a bow hunter in downtown Gig Harbor

[JDHasty]

Totally not smart

http://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/local/communities/gig-harbor/2017/10/23/deer-shot-bow-hunter-downtown-gig-harbor/792374001/

[Blacktail Sniper]

Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...



"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.

“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.

“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."

[constructeur]

On one hand the fella put it all together, obtained permission, etc.; on the other hand this is such an easy way to stoke the anti hunting folks, or turn middle of the road folks into antis.

In the end the hunter 'got his' and I'm sure that's all he concerned with at the moment, which is typical.

[Stein]

Yeah, legal but surely not advancing the hunting cause any time you kill an animal with a name.

[JDHasty]

On one hand the fella put it all together, obtained permission, etc.; on the other hand this is such an easy way to stoke the anti hunting folks, or turn middle of the road folks into antis.

In the end the hunter 'got his' and I'm sure that's all he concerned with at the moment, which is typical.

[Bob33]

Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...



"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.

“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.

“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."

I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.

[Blacktail Sniper]

That is why I am curious to see how this shakes out. 

Reading the wastage RCW, the first part, regarding being in possession of big game and allowing it to recklessly go to waste:

"RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife—Penalty. (Effective until January 1, 2018.)
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted...."


A) Is it enough to meet the definition of possession by the landowner knowingly having it on his property even though he did not place it there?

B) Does refusing permission for a hunter to remove it, (thus preventing spoilage), meet the definition of recklessly allowing it to be wasted?

C) Why would WDFW Officer Summit make the statement about charging the landowner if he would not be able to follow through?


That is why I would be interested to hear if the hunter was able to recover his deer or if the owner refused and was in fact charged...

[Bob33]

That is why I am curious to see how this shakes out. 

Reading the wastage RCW, the first part, regarding being in possession of big game and allowing it to recklessly go to waste:

"RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife—Penalty. (Effective until January 1, 2018.)
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted...."


A) Is it enough to meet the definition of possession by the landowner knowingly having it on his property even though he did not place it there?

B) Does refusing permission for a hunter to remove it, (thus preventing spoilage), meet the definition of recklessly allowing it to be wasted?

C) Why would WDFW Officer Summit make the statement about charging the landowner if he would not be able to follow through?


That is why I would be interested to hear if the hunter was able to recover his deer or if the owner refused and was in fact charged...

By that line of thinking a landowner would be required to salvage any game animal that happened to die on his property. I don't believe he does.

[Blacktail Sniper]

That is why I am curious to see how this shakes out. 

Reading the wastage RCW, the first part, regarding being in possession of big game and allowing it to recklessly go to waste:

"RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife—Penalty. (Effective until January 1, 2018.)
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted...."


A) Is it enough to meet the definition of possession by the landowner knowingly having it on his property even though he did not place it there?

B) Does refusing permission for a hunter to remove it, (thus preventing spoilage), meet the definition of recklessly allowing it to be wasted?

C) Why would WDFW Officer Summit make the statement about charging the landowner if he would not be able to follow through?


That is why I would be interested to hear if the hunter was able to recover his deer or if the owner refused and was in fact charged...

By that line of thinking a landowner would be required to salvage any game animal that happened to die on his property. I don't believe he does.

I will say it again, that is why I am curious to see how this works out.

What you, I, or anyone outside of the LEO and the Courts think or believe does not matter.

This just seems like a pretty good test case if the officer were to follow through with charges and it make it into and through the court system, thus giving us all an answer from those whose opinion truly does matter on situtations like this!

Nothing more, nothing less....

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Here in Hoquiam, you can't shoot any weopans in the city limits, bows included. Not even target practice in your own yard.  It didn't used to be this way. Back in the day we'd set up targets in a safe location and shoot our bows to our hearts content.

But I'm now curious about the city of Ocean Shores' no hunting law. Evidently they don't have that authority according to this article.

https://oceanshores.civicweb.net/document/3995

[Blacktail Sniper]

Good question! 

Interesting that, in certain areas they do allow bird hunting.

[trophyhunt]

Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...



"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.

“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.

“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."

I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.

disagree, the landowner if notified about what happened, should be liable if he doesn't let the hunter retrieve their game.  Just my 2 cents!

[JDHasty]

Good question! 

Interesting that, in certain areas they do allow bird hunting.

IMHO these individuals are a menace. 

By some people's way of thinking:  We are all hunters and we need to stick together.  This is a prime example of why I am very cautious and discerning  when it comes to being another blinded subscriber to that theory. 

It seems to me that common sense would dictate that this would not reflect well on the hunting fraternity with 95% or more of the public at large. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Good question! 

Interesting that, in certain areas they do allow bird hunting.

And bow hunting for carp.

[JDHasty]

Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...



"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.

“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.

“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."

I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.

disagree, the landowner if notified about what happened, should be liable if he doesn't let the hunter retrieve their game.  Just my 2 cents!

We have been there and the law is at the minimum, vague. 

The property owner we dealt with, me just trying to help a fellow hunter who didn't know how to handle this mess, the property owner, even when he was told by WDFW enforcement officer: the hunter still will have a valid tag and will kill another deer if you don't let him retrieve the one laying dead on your property.  Flat out Refused.

Go figure.

The guy sits on ten acres surrounded by hundreds of acres 80% of which allow hunting.