Washington Griz Poached

[bearpaw]

Sounds unintentional to me.

Maybe they should have something like the montana bear id test before you get a bear tag. Oh gotta hear the response to that 

Ray I agree with your comment.....Many hunters who especially live in areas of the state with no grizzlies have no idea they are really in the woods in NE WA. I have been all over these mountains and have never seen one, but some idiot shot one less than 10 miles from my house a few years back and I think had to pay $10,000. The state should require a bear test like MT does. Only takes a few minutes to do it from any computer.

you guys know I am normally against any extra laws, but I think this would help educate those who need it the most....

[bearpaw]

There's no excuse for not knowing how to ID your bear species. However I believe the punishment should be lesser if there was no evidence that it was intentional. I agree completely that it is illegal and punishable. Who bets these guys get more punishment for accidentally killing a grizzly bear than the kid who killed the lady on Sauk Mountain?

Ray, I agree with you here too.....they are in far deeper doodoo....sad thing is, it sounds like they innocently made a mistake, but then used poor judgement in their reaction to the mistake. I simply can not imagine anyone moving anything they thought was illegal from truck to truck in a motel parking lot....that in itself indicates it probably wasn't intentional, and indicates just how uneducated some hunters are about hunting....thus my reasons for saying there should be a bear test. 

[huntnphool]

I have wondered why there wasn't a test for a long time, I've also wondered how many mule deer get shot in the late whitetail hunt on the eastside. Last year on my moose hunt I saw a game warden with a 30"+ mule deer buck in the bed of his truck, it was late Nov. in 49DN, smoker of a buck going to waist.

[Machias]

Monetary fines won't bring this bear back nor will jail time and they're obviously not dangers to society so quit with the get a rope attitude.

Look don't be mad but this line is really funny coming from a guy with a name like hangumhi.     

[Kain]

We dont have to wait for Washington to implement the test just take it yourself and ask your friends to also.  Most of us have taken the test already. 

http://fwp.mt.gov/bearid/default.html

We could even ask WDFW to add the link to their site.  A little hunter proactive action might go a long way here.

[bearpaw]

Monetary fines won't bring this bear back nor will jail time and they're obviously not dangers to society so quit with the get a rope attitude.

Look don't be mad but this line is really funny coming from a guy with a name like hangumhi.     

thats good.....

[elkaholic]

Huntphool where exactly was that Muley?? hhahahahah

[DOUBLELUNG]

I would like to see the bear ID test required, but only for bear hunting in those GMUs where griz might be encountered (say, Whatcom, Kittitas, Chelan, Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille counties).  No need for the local hunters who don't leave the OP or SW or Blues to have the test). 

[spur_ride]

Did anyone hear what ever happened to those guys? did the get a fine or jail time?

[colockumelk]

Here's my Legal take on this.  I have a degree in Law and Justice but am not a lawyer by any means so Pope would have to confirm or deny what I'm about to say. 

  I'll try to explain it as simply as possible.  From what I understand in order for the prosecution to prosecute them they have to prove what's known as mens rea.  Which is criminal intent.  Basically this means in order to be convicted of a crime it has to be proved that you acted with the intent to commit a crime.  In this case the prosecution has to prove that they shot that bear knowing it was a grizzly and not accidentally shot it thinking it was a black bear.
A defense attorney should be able to do this given the story that I've read on here.

However, it will be easy for the prosecution to convict them of trying to hide the evidence by burying it.  They will have to pay the penalties and fines or jail time for that. 

[300UltraMagShooter]

Exactly! 

Some of you guys sure like the guilty before proven innocent approach.  As politicized as "endangered" species are, there is no chance in hell they would get a fair shake.  Just look at some of the other post made about people protecting their property and then still getting nailed.  Some sure are self-richeous when it comes to the law. 

FYI The law isn't everything. 

Sorry, but got looking at the site again after congratulating a member on a kill and saw this post.  Had to respond.   

shoulda taken it back and set it on fire lol, why on earth if you messed up and take it to them? so they can still nail you, This state sucks, u try to do the right thing and they will nail you no matter what. Then you wonder why people try to hide it  well no *censored*, they shot a grizz and didnt know,  thats why they frickin burried it!!! Did they screw up yes.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I'm no lawyer either, but after 20 years work around GWs, other LEOs and prosecutors, it is my understanding most hunting and fishing violations do not require an element of criminal intent, the criminal violation is the act itself and doesn't require intent, a.k.a. simple liability or absolute liability.  Actus reus, if you like Latin. 

For example, you shoot one animal, bag limit one, and two drop dead, it is a violation regardless of your intention to kill only one, or both animals.       

[colockumelk]

Yes Actus Reas is the actual criminal act.  But, in order to get a convinction you need to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt."  In order to get this you need the Actus Reas which is the criminal act, as well as prove the Mens Reas "guilty mind." 

That's all I'm saying.  DL I'll defer to you because I"m sure you have alot more experience than this.  I was just saying since they didn't intend to shoot a grizzly but intended to shoot a black bear;  If the defense attorney can prove that they did in fact intend to shoot a black bear and not a grizzly they can get the charges knocked down to something else, other than a massive $10k fine and jail time.  Just my  /2.  (That's one cent since it's not even worth 2 cents:)

[bobcat]

I think their biggest problem is the fact that they transported the bear after they were told it was a grizzly. If they wouldn't have done that and instead called the WDFW and confessed at that time then it wouldn't have been nearly so bad. Not to mention that they buried it after they got it home.

[bearpaw]

I think it was a big case of scared $hitless and just being stupid when they figured out they messed up. 

Sure they are guilty, but in my book, not the max fine.....

If they were trying to sneak it from the beginning then I would agree with the max penalty, but I think they were innocent until the guy at the motel scared them with reality and they didn't know what to do, so they headed for home and eventually buried it thinking the problem would go away....stupid for sure....