Deer shot by a bow hunter in downtown Gig Harbor

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

Probably figured he'd put it in his own freezer. Be interesting to look in his freezer.  Or maybe he has an illegal grow on his property and doesn't want anyone stumbling onto it.

[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.

Probably figured he'd put it in his own freezer. Be interesting to look in his freezer.  Or maybe he has an illegal grow on his property and doesn't want anyone stumbling onto it.

Militant anti-hunter.

Once I was told which property it was on I knew it was not going to end well.  I have never been caught up in that mess, but have witnessed it for decades. 

The hell of it is a guy trespassed another property and killed a deer about a quarter mile from that very spot this week.  It is dealing with these idiots that makes it so damnably frustrating for those who have developed long term relationships in that area. 

The good thing is most every other property owner feels much relieved when we are actively hunting their properties, AND TELL US SO.  What is even better is that those who do not allow access, for whatever reason, have said the same thing.  When we are active they know that nothing goes unnoticed and so do the local yahoos who pull a lot, if not most, of these stunts.   

[snake]

kind of confusing, if the land owner let it waste he would be liable, but if he processed the animal himself wouldn't he technically be poaching if he didn't have a tag?  I know recently washington allows salvage o road kill , not sure if a landowner can get a salvage permit for something like this. 

[pd]

Totally not smart

Sorry, I disagree.  The warden stated on record that the hunter had permission of the land owner to shoot the animal, and the hunter had the proper documents.  Perfectly legal.

You don't like it?  Your opinion.  I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion.  The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.

[Humptulips]

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.

I remember when that came about. I believe it was a Minister and his son legally killed two deer in the Ministers back yard. Same thing, bow hunting, in that case though I believe no one was the wiser until a dog dug up the entrails they buried there. Neighbors complained and before you know it all weapons including bows are outlawed from use within the city limits.

[spin05]

Totally not smart

Sorry, I disagree.  The warden stated on record that the hunter had permission of the land owner to shoot the animal, and the hunter had the proper documents.  Perfectly legal.

You don't like it?  Your opinion.  I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion.  The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.

I agree. Totally legal. What i dont like is them calling him a bow hunter.  He is a rifle hunter,in a rifle season using a bow in a firearm restricted area.  NOT a BOW hunter. Unless maybe he has the multi-season tag.  Just something else to make bowhunters look bad.

[X-Force]

From the article it sounds like the hunter did everything right.

Hopefully he did.

[JDHasty]

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.

I remember when that came about. I believe it was a Minister and his son legally killed two deer in the Ministers back yard. Same thing, bow hunting, in that case though I believe no one was the wiser until a dog dug up the entrails they buried there. Neighbors complained and before you know it all weapons including bows are outlawed from use within the city limits.

Ending up with laws like that passed, wherein you cannot practice with a bow in your own back yard is exactly this kind of idiocy leads.

FWIW, i learned of this from a neighbor who spends a lot of time in The Harbor and there are meetings being set up "to prevent this from happening ever again" and it would not surprise me if the outcome were the same response that Hoquium had.  Gig Harbor is much less accepting of hunting in general than is Hoquium.   

[jvt]

If permission wasn't given then it is poaching. They should be fined for that and kept from ever hunting. Look up the definition of poaching. That way this will stop and be good for the hunters.

[idahohuntr]

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.

I also don't agree the landowner would be liable.  I've asked that exact question of wardens in my area and they say no, I do not have to allow anyone on to retrieve game and i would not be cited for waste by not giving access.  I have heard of wardens in Idaho using this threat as leverage for hunters to retrieve game...but have not seen any examples or heard of any going through the legal process.

[beav1980]

He legally harvested a deer what's the issue? Although this isn't my style he got permission and did it legally.  No charges so this is news that is lame. 

[bobcat]

Totally not smart

Sorry, I disagree.  The warden stated on record that the hunter had permission of the land owner to shoot the animal, and the hunter had the proper documents.  Perfectly legal.

You don't like it?  Your opinion.  I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion.  The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.

I agree. Totally legal. What i dont like is them calling him a bow hunter.  He is a rifle hunter,in a rifle season using a bow in a firearm restricted area.  NOT a BOW hunter. Unless maybe he has the multi-season tag.  Just something else to make bowhunters look bad.

He was hunting with a bow. He's a bow hunter. Period. They were 100% correct in calling him that. What makes him a "rifle hunter" and not a bow hunter, when he actually was in fact hunting with a bow?

[Curly]

“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 hope the reporter mis-quoted the warden in that quote above. He is spreading misinformation with that quote. It's sad if the warden is actually misinformed in the law....

[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.

I remember when that came about. I believe it was a Minister and his son legally killed two deer in the Ministers back yard. Same thing, bow hunting, in that case though I believe no one was the wiser until a dog dug up the entrails they buried there. Neighbors complained and before you know it all weapons including bows are outlawed from use within the city limits.

I also knew of a few deer being taken back in the 70s out on Rennie Island which is in the city limits. Usually with a shotgun or a bow. That was a popular duck hunting place too. There may have even been a couple taken with rifles but I don't remember anybody ever getting bothered for hunting out there. Maybe after I moved to Alaska.

As for the boom in deer in the city, I personally believe they were lurking about but loose dogs running around kept them from relaxing out in the open. With leash laws being enforced like they are now, the deer are free to go where they want and they brought cougars into town with them. I remember a nice buck made it's way into Hoquiam back in the 70s and was running around down by Swansons and you'd have thought an alien landed from all the publicity it got. That was unheard of in those days.

[JDHasty]

He legally harvested a deer what's the issue? Although this isn't my style he got permission and did it legally.  No charges so this is news that is lame.

It is totally classless and short sighted and may very well result in nobody being able to set up an archery target in their backyard and practice within the City limits in the future.  It is in the news because it is what residents of Gig Harbor are talking about.