Stevens County issues warning RE: Wolves

[idahohuntr]

The only rationale I can come up with for knowing the nuance of the law is if you are not actually facing the threat of harm by the animal but you still want to kill it.

If you are wanting to shoot a wolf in WA in a situation that does not fit the requirements for defense against wild animals, you probably shouldn't be posting your rationale on the internet, and advocating for the same is against HW ToS.

Alternatively,  perhaps you are arguing that its critical to know the nuance of the law so you can explain yourself to the authorities afterwards in a way that minimizes being made an example of?

Eureka.  Through an attorney, of course.

And of course, to minimize encounters that would put myself and others in my charge in the heightened threshold of danger defined by WDFW for self defense against wild animals versus game animals.  Nobody wants that.

If faced with a real threat - we all agree, shoot first.  And it sounds like we all agree that you should communicate nothing except through a qualified attorney.  None of us non-attorneys should even think of trying to interpret and apply the law to a scenario we are involved in...thats how guys end up in more legal trouble than they ever bargained for!  A scarier scenario would be folks THINKING they understand and can apply/interpret the law and feel confident speaking to a legal authority about some incident they were involved in. 

[Fl0und3rz]

1/20/19. 

https://www.wfla.com/weather/super-blood-wolf-moon-what-to-expect/1700198968

Save yourselves!

[Fl0und3rz]

If faced with a real threat - we all agree, shoot first.

As defined by
1) Ignorance?
2) Some internet helpful person?
3) Knowledge of the actual law?

Your statement gets it wrong.  In WA, "actual physical attack" appears to be the standard for gray wolf self-defense compared to "threat" of attack, as you state, and which is the standard for "game animals" such as cougar and black bear.

I'll take #3, thanks.

[hunter399]

If faced with a real threat - we all agree, shoot first.

As defined by
1) Ignorance?
2) Some internet helpful person?
3) Knowledge of the actual law?

Your statement gets it wrong.  In WA, "actual physical attack" appears to be the standard for gray wolf self-defense compared to "threat" of attack, as you state, and which is the standard for "game animals" such as cougar and black bear.

I'll take #3, thanks.

I'm telling you first blood ,shoot to kill.

[idahohuntr]

If faced with a real threat - we all agree, shoot first.

As defined by
1) Ignorance?
2) Some internet helpful person?
3) Knowledge of the actual law?

Your statement gets it wrong.  In WA, "actual physical attack" appears to be the standard for gray wolf self-defense compared to "threat" of attack, as you state, and which is the standard for "game animals" such as cougar and black bear.

I'll take #3, thanks.

As defined by my personal evaluation of the situation.  If I feel I'm being put at risk of physical harm or death - I'm shooting.  I really, truly could not care less what WA says or doesn't say.  We all have an absolute right to defend ourselves.  My lawyer will respond to any inquiry by investigators - and he or she is going to know the law a whole lot better than me.  But I say that as someone who truly is only going to shoot when I'm faced with a real threat...not some bs I saw a wolf and it scared me so I shot it as it was running away. 

And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions?  Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite??   

[Fl0und3rz]

And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions?  Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite??   

No.  I will abide by the law as written, recognize the increased burden on me regarding the factors that the WDFW regards as an "actual physical attack," and I will seek to mitigate getting into such a situation.

You can proceed to operate on ignorance of the law, which, of course, is universally recognized as not a valid defense, and which, of course, is your perfect right.








For those who don't want to proceed on ignorance.

Here is the WAC generally on wildlife v. humans.

220-440-050
Killing wildlife for personal safety.
(1) The fish and wildlife commission is authorized to classify wildlife as game, as endangered or protected species, or as a predatory bird consistent with RCW 77.08.010 and 77.12.020. The commission is also authorized, pursuant to RCW 77.36.030, to establish the limitations and conditions on killing or trapping wildlife that is threatening human safety.
(2) The conditions for killing wildlife vary, based primarily on the classification of the wildlife species and the imminent nature of the threat to personal safety. Additional conditions defined by the department may also be important, depending on individual situations. Killing wildlife for personal safety is subject to all other state and federal laws including, but not limited to, Titles 77 RCW and 220 WAC.
(3) Killing wildlife for personal safety.
(a) It is permissible to kill wild animals engaged in the physical act of attacking a person.
(b) It is permissible to kill game animals posing an immediate threat of physical harm to a person.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-050

And

"Immediate threat of physical harm" means that animal-to-human bodily contact is imminent; and the animal is in attack posture/mode.

"Game animal" means wild animals that shall not be hunted except as authorized by the commission.

"Physical act of attacking" means actual or imminent animal-to-human or animal-to-animal physical contact.

"Wild animal" means those species of the class Mammalia whose members exist in Washington in a wild state.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-020


Here is wolves v. domestic animals in areas "where the gray wolf is not listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act."  Seems to be private property, though, or at least how WDFW reads it.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-080

[Cougartail]

Remember, the burden of proof that the attack wasn't "imminent" lies with the state. Most times the only evidence is foot prints.

Outside of that, it's story time. 

That being said, wild animals rarely attack full grown men as to harm them. False charges yes. And wolves are way down on that list. Better be a good storyteller if you shoot a wolf. The odds of winning the lottery is greater than being attacked by a wolf.

[Fl0und3rz]

I would be more worried about small children who look like an easy snack.

[KFhunter]

Remember, the burden of proof that the attack wasn't "imminent" lies with the state. Most times the only evidence is foot prints.

Outside of that, it's story time. 

That being said, wild animals rarely attack full grown men as to harm them. False charges yes. And wolves are way down on that list. Better be a good storyteller if you shoot a wolf. The odds of winning the lottery is greater than being attacked by a wolf.

I beg to differ, wolves chased a government worker up a tree and orders were sent to rescue teams to shoot any wolves still present around her tree. 

[KFhunter]

Remember, the burden of proof that the attack wasn't "imminent" lies with the state.

It sure won't feel that way when in court

[idahohuntr]

And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions?  Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite??   

No.  I will abide by the law as written, recognize the increased burden on me regarding the factors that the WDFW regards as an "actual physical attack," and I will seek to mitigate getting into such a situation.

You can proceed to operate on ignorance of the law, which, of course, is universally recognized as not a valid defense, and which, of course, is your perfect right.

You have this misguided notion that by reading the law you are going to have a more successful legal defense if it comes to that...and I'm telling you it will make no difference.  Defend yourself from the threat then hire a lawyer...trying to be Perry Mason is only going to get you in more hot water.  It's cute on an internet forum, but in a courtroom you better have kept your mouth shut and only let your lawyer talk - and your lawyer is not going to give a damn whether you read a law and did some google searches about self defense.   

[KFhunter]

I'll tell you whats cute, and that is putting your faith and trust in WDFW and the courts to come to the right conclusion.

[Fl0und3rz]

[Fl0und3rz]

And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions?  Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite??   

No.  I will abide by the law as written, recognize the increased burden on me regarding the factors that the WDFW regards as an "actual physical attack," and I will seek to mitigate getting into such a situation.

You can proceed to operate on ignorance of the law, which, of course, is universally recognized as not a valid defense, and which, of course, is your perfect right.

You have this misguided notion that by reading the law you are going to have a more successful legal defense if it comes to that...and I'm telling you it will make no difference. 

Keep arguing for ignorance is bliss.


I prefer to use knowledge of the law to avoid the problem entirely, which has been the point, articulated seven ways from Sunday.

[idahohuntr]

And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions?  Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite??   

No.  I will abide by the law as written, recognize the increased burden on me regarding the factors that the WDFW regards as an "actual physical attack," and I will seek to mitigate getting into such a situation.

You can proceed to operate on ignorance of the law, which, of course, is universally recognized as not a valid defense, and which, of course, is your perfect right.

You have this misguided notion that by reading the law you are going to have a more successful legal defense if it comes to that...and I'm telling you it will make no difference. 

Keep arguing for ignorance is bliss.


I prefer to use knowledge of the law to avoid the problem entirely, which has been the point, articulated seven ways from Sunday.

What problem are you going to avoid entirely with your knowledge of the law?   

Familiarity with the law won't matter in a legitimate self defense scenario - and it won't matter in the aftermath because you should not say anything to anyone other than your lawyer.