Klickitat Sheriff Swears in Hound Hunters to pursue Cougars & Bears

[ctwiggs1]

I think there is enough precedence in WA to show that WDFW isn't the only game management authority in town. 

[pianoman9701]

Good on the Sheriff for taking the initiative.  Sadly it won't take anything more than a phone call to shut the whole thing down.  If WDFW chooses to take that action they would be well within their rights as the WDFW agency to do so, as well as to seek prosecution of the Sheriff's deputized hound hunters. 

Everyone has a lane they are suppose to operate in, and the Sheriff's lane isn't game control.  Maybe thats something they would be willing to allow the county to take on, but as of now it's not part of the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office.

The sheriff is the highest LE official in Klickitat. He's the one who allows WDFW LE to operate within his county. He's also the responsible party for any of his deputies' actions. The duty of the sheriff is to protect his constituents. If that means killing wildlife which has threatened the safety of those constituents, that falls under the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office. Since the sheriff has made these statements, I see zero indication that anyone feels he's abused his position and pursued dangerous wildlife in a reckless manner.

Not entirely accurate. 

The WDFW is known as a general authority law enforcement agency which basically allows them to enforce all laws of the state from traffic to drugs to wildlife. The only other state agency that is general authority is the state patrol. Yes the WDFW as well as the DNR also seek to be commissioned by the County Sheriff's throughout the state but in order to conduct law enforcement duties and enforce state laws the CO Sheriff is not required to "deputize" them.

I don't believe that's true in WA. They act within any county at the invitation of the sheriff, the only elected LEO in his jurisdiction. They may be working under a previous understanding with the sheriff's department that allows them to operate in his jurisdiction. But, were they to come down on his actions to protect his constituents, he could disallow their activities within his county. That goes for WSP, WDFW LE, FBI, DEA, etc.

[boneaddict]

Just shoot the SOB yourself and call it good.

But I applaud the sheriff for doing his job.   

[KFhunter]

public safety > wildlife management 

The sheriff isn't managing wildlife, that would be WDFW's purvue.  We need to divorce those two very different concepts here.

The Sheriff is keeping the public safe from a threat which is right up in his wheelhouse.   It could be anything, if its a threat he can act.  It doesn't have to be a human threat, it can also be a dangerous pitt bull marauding through town mauling good women just trying to get gas, or it could be a mt lion. 

I challenge you to show me where the sheriff can only work towards public safety in a limited scope....his authority is very broad when it comes to public safety.   

[KFhunter]

Good on the Sheriff for taking the initiative.  Sadly it won't take anything more than a phone call to shut the whole thing down.  If WDFW chooses to take that action they would be well within their rights as the WDFW agency to do so, as well as to seek prosecution of the Sheriff's deputized hound hunters. 

Everyone has a lane they are suppose to operate in, and the Sheriff's lane isn't game control.  Maybe thats something they would be willing to allow the county to take on, but as of now it's not part of the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office.

The sheriff is the highest LE official in Klickitat. He's the one who allows WDFW LE to operate within his county. He's also the responsible party for any of his deputies' actions. The duty of the sheriff is to protect his constituents. If that means killing wildlife which has threatened the safety of those constituents, that falls under the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office. Since the sheriff has made these statements, I see zero indication that anyone feels he's abused his position and pursued dangerous wildlife in a reckless manner.

Not entirely accurate. 

The WDFW is known as a general authority law enforcement agency which basically allows them to enforce all laws of the state from traffic to drugs to wildlife. The only other state agency that is general authority is the state patrol. Yes the WDFW as well as the DNR also seek to be commissioned by the County Sheriff's throughout the state but in order to conduct law enforcement duties and enforce state laws the CO Sheriff is not required to "deputize" them.

I don't believe that's true in WA. They act within any county at the invitation of the sheriff, the only elected LEO in his jurisdiction. They may be working under a previous understanding with the sheriff's department that allows them to operate in his jurisdiction. But, were they to come down on his actions to protect his constituents, he could disallow their activities within his county. That goes for WSP, WDFW LE, FBI, DEA, etc.

WDFW and other state LE can enforce state law anywhere within the state with or without the sheriff's OK,  federal can enforce federal anywhere in the state without or without the Sheriff or the State's say so.   ICE does it all the time in sanctuary cities.   

[pianoman9701]

Good on the Sheriff for taking the initiative.  Sadly it won't take anything more than a phone call to shut the whole thing down.  If WDFW chooses to take that action they would be well within their rights as the WDFW agency to do so, as well as to seek prosecution of the Sheriff's deputized hound hunters. 

Everyone has a lane they are suppose to operate in, and the Sheriff's lane isn't game control.  Maybe thats something they would be willing to allow the county to take on, but as of now it's not part of the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office.

The sheriff is the highest LE official in Klickitat. He's the one who allows WDFW LE to operate within his county. He's also the responsible party for any of his deputies' actions. The duty of the sheriff is to protect his constituents. If that means killing wildlife which has threatened the safety of those constituents, that falls under the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office. Since the sheriff has made these statements, I see zero indication that anyone feels he's abused his position and pursued dangerous wildlife in a reckless manner.

Not entirely accurate. 

The WDFW is known as a general authority law enforcement agency which basically allows them to enforce all laws of the state from traffic to drugs to wildlife. The only other state agency that is general authority is the state patrol. Yes the WDFW as well as the DNR also seek to be commissioned by the County Sheriff's throughout the state but in order to conduct law enforcement duties and enforce state laws the CO Sheriff is not required to "deputize" them.

I don't believe that's true in WA. They act within any county at the invitation of the sheriff, the only elected LEO in his jurisdiction. They may be working under a previous understanding with the sheriff's department that allows them to operate in his jurisdiction. But, were they to come down on his actions to protect his constituents, he could disallow their activities within his county. That goes for WSP, WDFW LE, FBI, DEA, etc.

WDFW and other state LE can enforce state law anywhere within the state with or without the sheriff's OK,  federal can enforce federal anywhere in the state without or without the Sheriff or the State's say so.   ICE does it all the time in sanctuary cities.   

If WDFW or Federal enforces county ordinances, he needs the approval from the Sheriff.


The Sheriff can't preempt state or federal law.

He most obviously can and is with regards to hounds and cougars without WDFW approval. 

[KFhunter]

he's doing it under public safety laws, not wildlife laws.


It's kinda like Archery hunters couldn't carry concealed pistols for the longest time, but then the courts said that hunting laws can't preempt or nullify 2a laws. 


2a law >  RCW's

[pianoman9701]

It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.

[birddogdad]

looking forward to his like response when Wolves come into the public safety mix@!!!

[ctwiggs1]

It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.

I think you're wrong:
(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the hunting of black bear, cougar, or bobcat with the aid of a dog or dogs by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245

I'm not a lawyer... So I fully acknowledge that my armchair lawyering may be off a bit 

[KFhunter]

It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.

It's illegal to drive an armored vehicle through a house too, but yet they do that...

When it comes to responding to a threat pretty much anything goes, so I say again...the sheriff isn't using hunting laws or managing wildlife, they are responding to a public threat.

There is nothing saying a sheriff can't use a blood hound to track a fleeing pedo through the woods, or hounds to track a dangerous lion, or a Belgian Malinois to take down a barricaded madman. 

[KFhunter]

It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.

I think you're wrong:
(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the hunting of black bear, cougar, or bobcat with the aid of a dog or dogs by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245

I'm not a lawyer... So I fully acknowledge that my armchair lawyering may be off a bit 

 

affirming the Sheriff's authority to protect the public safety and property, but it isn't granting that authority, they already had it.  This is an affirmation.

[pianoman9701]

It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.

It's illegal to drive an armored vehicle through a house too, but yet they do that...

When it comes to responding to a threat pretty much anything goes, so I say again...the sheriff isn't using hunting laws or managing wildlife, they are responding to a public threat.

There is nothing saying a sheriff can't use a blood hound to track a fleeing pedo through the woods, or hounds to track a dangerous lion, or a Belgian Malinois to take down a barricaded madman.

You're making my overall point, KF.

[KFhunter]

I guess I don't get what you're asking and feel like we're talking in circles 


just go with it pman, just let it happen

[pianoman9701]

OK, I feel the positive vibe returning.