Stevens County issues warning RE: Wolves

[idahohuntr]

I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.

Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2.   

Statements of the obvious.  Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.

I posted that too.  100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
 

If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.

We all understand that ^ above and I don't think anyone is looking for a legal loophole in order to shoot wolves and get away with it 

My issue is that its all policy, and according to how endangered the species is the policy varies  <-- I have a problem with this because why should we have an easier time shooting a cougar and a much harder time shooting a wolf or grizz regarding our own self defense in the courts.   

What we don't want is people hesitating to defend themselves because they aren't sure what the "law" is, and now we find out there really isn't a law, just a broad all encompassing authority for WDFW to make up policy as they see fit. 

When the rubber meets the road, yes I'll defend myself laws be dammed, but what happens next?  Do I get drug through the coals because it was a wolf? or do I get off easy because it was a cougar? 

What happens if I shoot a grizz!!??   

I'd really get drug through the ringer, maybe I should hesitate. one.. more....second...... just in case the bear veers off at the very last moment.....oh wow!!!  too late I'm mauled!!! that hurts!!!...dangit!

I don't know why folks continue to try and make this hard.  There is not a damn bit of difference whether it's a cougar, a grizzly, a wolf, a meth head, a unicorn with rainbows shooting out its ass - if it is going to attack you and harm or kill you - you are 100% legal to defend yourself.  Could there be greater scrutiny for an endangered animal? An investigation? Sure.  Follow step 2 that I outlined above...but there is no difference in law or policy or anything...protect yourself.   

[Fl0und3rz]

I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.

Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2.   

Statements of the obvious.  Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.

I posted that too.  100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
 

If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.

Could you also see the need to know the letter of the law to prevent being made example of in marginal cases, where your personal feelings or gut reaction matter less than a prosecutor's interpretation of the circumstances you faced.  I think you can.

I don't understand the need to argue for ignorance is bliss.

[Ghost Hunter]

Hope I never have to be the court guinea pig.  That worry won't be a factor if the need arises.   

[KFhunter]

I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.

Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2.   

Statements of the obvious.  Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.

I posted that too.  100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
 

If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.

We all understand that ^ above and I don't think anyone is looking for a legal loophole in order to shoot wolves and get away with it 

My issue is that its all policy, and according to how endangered the species is the policy varies  <-- I have a problem with this because why should we have an easier time shooting a cougar and a much harder time shooting a wolf or grizz regarding our own self defense in the courts.   

What we don't want is people hesitating to defend themselves because they aren't sure what the "law" is, and now we find out there really isn't a law, just a broad all encompassing authority for WDFW to make up policy as they see fit. 

When the rubber meets the road, yes I'll defend myself laws be dammed, but what happens next?  Do I get drug through the coals because it was a wolf? or do I get off easy because it was a cougar? 

What happens if I shoot a grizz!!??   

I'd really get drug through the ringer, maybe I should hesitate. one.. more....second...... just in case the bear veers off at the very last moment.....oh wow!!!  too late I'm mauled!!! that hurts!!!...dangit!

I don't know why folks continue to try and make this hard.  There is not a damn bit of difference whether it's a cougar, a grizzly, a wolf, a meth head, a unicorn with rainbows shooting out its ass - if it is going to attack you and harm or kill you - you are 100% legal to defend yourself.  Could there be greater scrutiny for an endangered animal? An investigation? Sure.  Follow step 2 that I outlined above...but there is no difference in law or policy or anything...protect yourself.   

Did you read the whole thread?  See reply #16

You see we've already moved beyond what you're saying and started a new conversation, but you seem to be stuck in the past.  Catch up man.


Everybody knows you don't have to let a predator chew on you.   

[jstone]

It just shows what a bad state this state is in. The politics are getting out of hand. When you need to ask your self if you will get in trouble for protecting yourself or your family. Pure madness

Stupidity.!!!! At its finest

[rasbo]

Bad guys,predators, still better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.. all these laws will do us get you hurt or worse, if you mind %$#& it..

[KFhunter]

If we had a law like Utah, we could better craft a defense in court AND know what is expected of us before hand. 


R657-63-3. Self Defense.
(1) A person is legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal when the person reasonably believes such action is necessary to protect them self, another person, or a domestic animal against an imminent attack by the wild animal that will likely result in severe bodily injury or death to the victim.

Notice that it doesn't specify any difference from one wild animal to another, the law applies equally to all wild animals regarding defending yourself, your pet, your livestock or another person. 


(2)(a) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:

Ok below are the challenges to determine if it was justified or not, if we knew these challenges ahead of time we could better articulate what happened to the responding officers, we could run down the list

(i) the nature of the danger;  Officer, the bear was approaching, we were shouting and waiving but the bear kept coming closer

(ii) the immediacy of the danger;  Officer, the bear was close enough that it could have been on us in seconds

(iii) the probability that the threatening wild animal will attack;   Officer, the bear ignored a warning shot and kept coming closer

(iv) the probability that the attack will result in death or serious bodily injury; Officer it was a big nasty bear capable of killing us

(v) the ability to safely avoid the danger;   Officer, we were caught out in the open with no vehicle or escape possible

(vi) the fault of the person in creating the encounter; and   Officer, we had no idea this bear was in the area



This next one is awesome, it lessens the weight of the above challenges and makes self defense less restrictive.

(vii) any previous pattern of aggressive or threatening behavior by the individual wild animal which was known to the person claiming self defense.  Officer, this bear has charged us before  (boom! case closed)



(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (2)(a), a person who is legally located or traveling in a place where attacked or approached by a threatening wild animal is not required to retreat.

(c) In all cases involving a reasonably plausible assertion of self defense, it is presumed the life and safety of a human being is paramount to the life or safety of a wild animal.


Ok the challenges having been listed above, we move on to the after action reporting requirements below


(3)(a) A person shall notify the division within 12 hours after killing or wounding a wild animal under Subsection (1).

(b) No wild animal killed pursuant to Subsection (1) or the parts thereof may be removed from the site, repositioned, retained, sold, or transferred without written authorization from the division. (4)(a) A person is not legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly provokes or attracts the wild animal into a situation in which it is probable it will threaten the person, another person, or a domestic animal. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(a), a person lawfully pursuing a cougar or bear with dogs may seriously injure or kill that cougar or bear when they reasonably believe such action is necessary to protect them self or another person against an imminent attack that will likely result in severe bodily injury or death.

A blanket that covers any and all attacks within a domicile.

(5) A person that kills or seriously injures a wild animal that enters a home, tent, camper, or other permanent or temporary living structure occupied by a person is presumed to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear the wild animal's entry presented an imminent threat of severe bodily injury or death to an occupant of the structure, provided the intruding wild animal is:

(a) reasonably perceived as an animal physically capable of causing severe bodily injury or death to a human being; and

(b) killed or injured while attempting to enter, entering, or occupying the involved structure.

[KFhunter]

I don't know why folks continue to try and make this hard.  There is not a damn bit of difference whether it's a cougar, a grizzly, a wolf, a meth head, a unicorn with rainbows shooting out its ass - if it is going to attack you and harm or kill you - you are 100% legal to defend yourself.  Could there be greater scrutiny for an endangered animal? An investigation? Sure.  Follow step 2 that I outlined above...but there is no difference in law or policy or anything...protect yourself.   

I think your issue is you don't want people defending their furbabys from wild animals, especially large predators like wolves or grizz.

[idahohuntr]

I don't know why folks continue to try and make this hard.  There is not a damn bit of difference whether it's a cougar, a grizzly, a wolf, a meth head, a unicorn with rainbows shooting out its ass - if it is going to attack you and harm or kill you - you are 100% legal to defend yourself.  Could there be greater scrutiny for an endangered animal? An investigation? Sure.  Follow step 2 that I outlined above...but there is no difference in law or policy or anything...protect yourself.   

I think your issue is you don't want people defending their furbabys from wild animals, especially large predators like wolves or grizz.

Tell that to the coyote I shot this afternoon...392 yards is closer than my wife likes them to her dog.

I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.

Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2.   

Statements of the obvious.  Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.

I posted that too.  100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
 

If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.

Could you also see the need to know the letter of the law to prevent being made example of in marginal cases, where your personal feelings or gut reaction matter less than a prosecutor's interpretation of the circumstances you faced.  I think you can.

I don't understand the need to argue for ignorance is bliss.

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.

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? 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

(a) reasonably perceived as an animal physically capable of causing severe bodily injury or death to a human being; and

I'd say that would include any mammal. They are all capable of having rabies and the only way to know for sure is to kill them and have them tested.

[KFhunter]

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.

Oh ya, my favorite past time is trying to sneak up to wolves and grizzlies so I can set up a forced self defense scenario, then after I force the grizzly to charge me I shoot it.  Sometimes they don't want to charge me and just run off, so I gotta chase em down and poke em with a sharp stick.  Wolves are really hard though, I have to get nekked on my hands and knees and mew like a calf then they'll come in close and I can 'defend' myself... 

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?

That's exactly right, knowing the law is always encouraged, knowing it before an attack occurs removes a lot of doubt and hesitation on when and how you should react. 
All persons engaged in outdoor activities should be prepared to take care of themselves in case of accident, injury or wild animal attack and they should know the laws.

You throw this in my face as if I want to somehow 'massage' my story to make sure I get off, the opposite is true.  I want the law clear and concise so I don't do something contrary to it.

Are you seriously arguing in favor of ignorance? 



Currently our law does not cover pets at all, the right to defend a pet rests solely upon WDFW's discretion, which depends on the animal doing the attacking.  So I could defend my beloved dog against a mt lion but not a wolf depending on where I'm at in the state??  How retarded is that?  So all you Western Washington folks you have to watch a wolf shred your dog,  but over here in Eastern WA I can shoot that wolf (but only one wolf, the others can still chew my dog)   If it's a Grizz is chewing our dog...we're hooped!

I know that most any dog lover is going to defend their pet law be dammed, a law like Utah's makes no difference between human, pet or livestock, and that IDHntr is why you're attacking this idea with everything you have. 

The idea of some rancher shooting a wolf to save their calf appalls you, it's well known you hate cattle and hate them even more when they're on public land. 

[Fl0und3rz]

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.

[Skyvalhunter]

 

[CAMPMEAT]

I just love how the government decides if you can protect yourself from the APEX predator in the animal kingdom.....

[hunter399]

I say just use some rambo first blood .
Common sense.