Deer shot by a bow hunter in downtown Gig Harbor

[Bob33]

“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....

Officer Summit is clearly wrong.  The landowner can prohibit the hunter from entering his (or her) lands to retrieve the animal.  What they likely cannot do is prohibit WDFW from retrieving the animal, but WDFW cannot then give it to the hunter because the animal is then property of WDFW and employees cannot give away government property.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1627&Year=2015

Yeah,  my hope is that the author misquoted Summit. It's scary that a wdfw officer would get an issue like this wrong but we know he is wrong with what he said in that quote. I hope someone has educated Summit on the law after reading that article.

The landowner can restrict WDFW from his property to retrieve the animal. The question is whether the landowner could then be charged with wastage. If he were I believe he would win the case.

[ctwiggs1]

“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....

Officer Summit is clearly wrong.  The landowner can prohibit the hunter from entering his (or her) lands to retrieve the animal.  What they likely cannot do is prohibit WDFW from retrieving the animal, but WDFW cannot then give it to the hunter because the animal is then property of WDFW and employees cannot give away government property.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1627&Year=2015

Yeah,  my hope is that the author misquoted Summit. It's scary that a wdfw officer would get an issue like this wrong but we know he is wrong with what he said in that quote. I hope someone has educated Summit on the law after reading that article.

The landowner can restrict WDFW from his property to retrieve the animal. The question is whether the landowner could then be charged with wastage. If he were I believe he would win the case.

I've heard several stories about land owners telling hunters and WDFW employees to "pound sand", and nothing happening.  The animal rots and no charges are issued. 

It's frustrating but if you think about the land owners perspective, they should be allowed to determine who comes on their property regardless of circumstance.  WDFW should not have instant access because they have a badge.... That's one of our constitutional rights.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Makes you wonder, why would anyone want a large dead animal rotting on their property and drawing in scavengers?

[ctwiggs1]

Makes you wonder, why would anyone want a large dead animal rotting on their property and drawing in scavengers?

Probably just bury it while chanting "Hands up Don't Shoot!"

In all honesty, depending on the circumstances... I know there are times when I wouldn't let people come on my property.  We had guys that used to come onto my dads property growing up and jump shoot ducks on fields we were trying to keep cold throughout the week.  Pretty irritating.  The few really do ruin it for the many.

[pianoman9701]

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 don't know. If he refuses to allow the hunter to retrieve it, he needs to let the WDFW know so the animal can be salvaged.

"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..."

He possesses the game even though he didn't "take" it. If he allows it to be wasted, he's in violation.

[pianoman9701]

Had Permission To Hunt The Land
Had A Legal Tag
Shot It During Season
Shot It With A Legal Weapon

What is the %@$#% is the issue!
Good for him, and I hope it was a wall hanger to boot. To all the city folk or others that have an issue with it, they can stay indoors and watch Animal Planet !

You really don't see an issue? Or is it that you've got your feet so firmly set in concrete, the damage to the image of hunting is completely lost on you?

I get it. We're being attacked from all sides. They want our guns. They want to bring in wolves to kill of all the game animals to end hunting. PETA just put up a billboard across the street from your house which draws a confusing line between a horse and a cow (I would think about including the horse and rabbit to the right of the red line). It won't ever end until it ends. If we're not careful, we can certainly hasten the demise of our hunting heritage by utterly refusing to see the damage that a high profile kill like this can cause. I guarantee that the city council will now vote for a rule which prohibits hunting within city limits. Before the highly publicized, downtown death of their favorite hand-fed ungulate, no such rule was being considered. We have to use good judgement if we wish to keep the non-hunting 96%+ of the WA population on our side. I personally don't believe this was good judgement.

[JDHasty]

Had Permission To Hunt The Land
Had A Legal Tag
Shot It During Season
Shot It With A Legal Weapon

What is the %@$#% is the issue!
Good for him, and I hope it was a wall hanger to boot. To all the city folk or others that have an issue with it, they can stay indoors and watch Animal Planet !

You really don't see an issue? Or is it that you've got your feet so firmly set in concrete, the damage to the image of hunting is completely lost on you?

I get it. We're being attacked from all sides. They want our guns. They want to bring in wolves to kill of all the game animals to end hunting. PETA just put up a billboard across the street from your house which draws a confusing line between a horse and a cow (I would think about including the horse and rabbit to the right of the red line). It won't ever end until it ends. If we're not careful, we can certainly hasten the demise of our hunting heritage by utterly refusing to see the damage that a high profile kill like this can cause. I guarantee that the city council will now vote for a rule which prohibits hunting within city limits. Before the highly publicized, downtown death of their favorite hand-fed ungulate, no such rule was being considered. We have to use good judgement if we wish to keep the non-hunting 96%+ of the WA population on our side. I personally don't believe this was good judgement.

I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears a jerk who was invited by a third party to shoot rockchucks on another individual's land get into an argument with the property owner whether or not it was OK for him to shoot there w/a high-power, semi-auto rifle.  "Why's that?  If it's legal, I don't understand what your problem is."

Before telling entire entourage to get the ______  off his property and never come back the property owner did offer an explanation as to why... which is a heck of a lot more than I would have done. 

As things stand today, thanks to attitudes like that, the entire ten mile stretch of land fronting both sides of the canal (almost entirely owned by six or seven family members) is "we don't allow any shooting here except longtime friends and family."   

The property owner also told me that he had allowed a group of hunters to jump shoot waterfowl along the canal that runs through the property, but not quail or pheasant.  After his son witnessed the guys hunting pheasants the "hunters" proceed to tell the property owner that since pheasant season is open and they have the proper license so there was "no harm-no foul."  This family used to be very generous when it came to access, particularly given that their property is so close to one of the larger towns in central WA.   Today if you haven't known them  for decades there is no use in asking. 

[Skillet]

I hate the idea of game wastage, but my first thought is for property owner's rights.  The property owner should NOT be compelled to allow trespass for game retrieval, or any other reason.  I would hope he could be reasoned with to allow retrieval, but that apparently was not possible here. It could have something to do with an ill-informed game warden's handling of the situation.

This is exactly the type of poor decision making by hunters that causes the non-hunting public to say "There oughtta be a law!"

And there will be a law that prevents this specific type of wastage, but it will be one that also prevents practicing with his bow in his own yard.   

But hey - it was legal, and he got his deer, right? 

Oh, wait...

[DOUBLELUNG]

Urban wildlife is one of the most challenging and frustrating aspects of game management - especially big game.  Archery is a discrete way to control urban and suburban wildlife.  The other realistic ends for urban deer?  Vehicle collision, mauled by dogs, poached, or enticing predators into the same areas where little kids play.  From a herd management perspective, a deer legally harvested from a conflict area is preferable to one way out in the woods.  Even with the best of skills and intentions, wounded animals cross property lines.  I disagree with the philosophy that this guy acted poorly even though it is not my kind of "hunt". 

When I worked in game management, I can't even recall the number of p.o.'ed nonhunting wildlife lovers I talked to who were enraged at what the deer had done to their landscaping and gardens, who demanded a solution from the state that didn't involve hunting.  And, get a dog and build a high fence were not acceptable solutions.  Like it or not, legal hunting is still the best way to control wildlife populations - even where people live who might get upset by hunting.

[idaho guy]

Urban wildlife is one of the most challenging and frustrating aspects of game management - especially big game.  Archery is a discrete way to control urban and suburban wildlife.  The other realistic ends for urban deer?  Vehicle collision, mauled by dogs, poached, or enticing predators into the same areas where little kids play.  From a herd management perspective, a deer legally harvested from a conflict area is preferable to one way out in the woods.  Even with the best of skills and intentions, wounded animals cross property lines.  I disagree with the philosophy that this guy acted poorly even though it is not my kind of "hunt". 

When I worked in game management, I can't even recall the number of p.o.'ed nonhunting wildlife lovers I talked to who were enraged at what the deer had done to their landscaping and gardens, who demanded a solution from the state that didn't involve hunting.  And, get a dog and build a high fence were not acceptable solutions.  Like it or not, legal hunting is still the best way to control wildlife populations - even where people live who might get upset by hunting.

Well said and a realistic perspective from someone who has "been there" and understands wildlife management thanks for posting!

[mkcj]

I'm going to bet that ALL hunting and use of all weapons will be BANNED in Gig Harbor very soon and once other small cities hear about this they will follow. I hope it was worth it....but then again shooting a tame deer clearly was in that "hunters" mind

[JDHasty]

I'm going to bet that ALL hunting and use of all weapons will be BANNED in Gig Harbor very soon and once other small cities hear about this they will follow. I hope it was worth it....but then again shooting a tame deer clearly was in that "hunters" mind

I concur.  I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is inevitable when you have individuals running around who have no regard for the sensibilities of the majority of the voting public.  It is a shame the "bow hunter's" name and photo did not accompany the article so that he gets proper attribution for what will be his legacy.   

[Bob33]

It's arguably not legal for a municipality to ban hunting; hunting is regulated by WDFW. They can ban the discharge of firearms and the use of archery equipment, which effectively does the same thing.

[Humptulips]

I understand the downside to this but I wonder if we should be thinking about a way to put a positive spin on harvest of urban wildlife.
I say this coming from seeing what has happened with trapping. Most people have no exposure to trapping and generally speaking people are pretty dismissive of things that are foreign to them. So it has been with trapping but then a few years ago we started seeing some of the reality TV shows that show trappers.
It has spurred a lot of interest even though I am aghast at some of the things they show.
Perhaps an article about harvesting, butchering and preparing one of these deer might be a good thing if done properly. Maybe a can of worms but sounds like a good PR project for a sportsmans group.