unique 1x6

[Michelle_Nelson]

I'd say the first officer made a judgement call...

The one Michelle talked to made a judgement call...

Actually the first officer was the one who realized he had made the brain fart a few days later.  The WDFW officer I talked to saw the picture and sent out an E-mail trying to figgure out which officer was the one that checked the animal in the field.  His intent was to correct the first officer and let him know infact it wasn't a legal bull.  When the officer I talked to found out who it was and asked hm about it he said that he realized he had made the mistake before he was told. 

The first officer just had a minor brain fart.  It sounded like he was busy and he probably had 20 other things on his mind.   

[300UltraMagShooter]

I understand what your saying.

I'm just thinking that the law is subjective even for GW's.  Him saying he later realized it was illegal makes me wonder if he truly just had a brain fart or if he later learned some new info that made him change his mind.  Either way, just because any GW says it is illegal doesn't make it so, especially with such a vague law.

If you strickly go by what is written in the regs (by what I saw posted because i havn't read them fully), a decent defense lawyer could easily make the bull legal IMHO. 

[Jerome]

I have had a similar issue with a gw telling me i cant shoot grouse with .17 and another saying its perfectly legal. 

[snowmojim]

Just to add a tad bit more fuel to this discussion: I actually called the Game department to clarify another issue.
A point more than 4" up the beam and less than 1” is legal,  a point 1-2” is an “infraction” and a point greater than 2” is a violation. What is the difference between an “infraction” and a “violation”?

I was told an “infraction” will garner you a ticket. A “violation” may result in a fine, the confiscation of your animal, confiscation of your gun, confiscation of your vehicle and loss of hunting privileges. And all may be determined upon the mood of your enforcement officer.
 
And people wonder why a spike with the dreaded 2” devil point is shot then left to waste.

[Boss .300 winmag]

Wow, just like I thought, it pays to understand what you read and interpet it correctly! The regulations need fixed (more pics of what the game dept. wants us to abide by). Im in the navy and spend half my day interpeting what others write for us as regulations and guidence, its not allways easy. We as hunters need to let animals walk if we are not 100% sure if the animal is legal. Yes that is painfull, but its better than being charged with infractions, (I had to let a buck walk this year) or taking away from the gene pool/building the herd.  Rightfully the WDFW is not going back on the officer's first decision.  

[C-Money]

All this confusion is why I did not shoot the true spike I had in front of me. The law is just to crazy, to many rules that are all to much in the gray. A guy needs to get on his horse, rope the elk, verify its legal, let it go and then shoot it. 

[dscubame]

Don't rope the elk that would be harassing wildlife and illegal. 

[C-Money]

Crap! You are right!

[Skillet]

Dang, I came in late on this one.  I think the law as stated is very clear - any branching higher than 4" above the burr (resulting in a measureable point) is illegal.  This bull has that, if that point on the browtine is over 1" long and higher than 4" (pretty sure that's the case).  I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way?  
Nice bull, but no way would I have shot it because of the branching.

[300UltraMagShooter]

Dang, I came in late on this one.  I think the law as stated is very clear - any branching higher than 4" above the burr (resulting in a measureable point) is illegal.  This bull has that, if that point on the browtine is over 1" long and higher than 4" (pretty sure that's the case).  I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way?  
Nice bull, but no way would I have shot it because of the branching.

Is it "above the bur" or is it a point coming off the bur unrelated to the main beam? 

These kinds of laws always have some guess work to them IMHO... especially when dealing with an antler that didn't know it was suppose to grow a certain way.


Obviously I/we know what your saying...  but it is still subjective.

[Skillet]

Dang, I came in late on this one.  I think the law as stated is very clear - any branching higher than 4" above the burr (resulting in a measureable point) is illegal.  This bull has that, if that point on the browtine is over 1" long and higher than 4" (pretty sure that's the case).  I'm not sure how it can be interpreted any other way?  
Nice bull, but no way would I have shot it because of the branching.

Is it "above the bur" or is it a point coming off the bur unrelated to the main beam? 

These kinds of laws always have some guess work to them IMHO... especially when dealing with an antler that didn't know it was suppose to grow a certain way.


Obviously I/we know what your saying...  but it is still subjective.

Agree, it's confusing - even a WDFW enforcement officer didn't get it right and he had the animal right in front of him - but I don't think it's as subjective as people want it to be.  The mainbeam has nothing to do with it - that's a red herring.  It simply says any branching 4" above the burr.  That's a branch, and it's 4" above the burr.  Doesn't matter where the tine (or mainbeam) originates... as long as it's all connected to the same pedicle. 
Could you imagine how confusing this would be if they tried to define "mainbeam" vs. "tines"?  They didn't, though...

[300UltraMagShooter]

My previous post was simply meant to ask, "is it above the bur or coming off the burr?"  

You know when they make these laws they have the picture in their heads of a textbook antler...  not one with a freaky point coming off the base.

I know I'm playing with words here, but so do GW's and prosecutors and everyone else...

I'm not even suggeting it is coming off the burr...  or who is right or who is wrong.  

Simply saying that it is subjective when such a crazy critter is taken.

[agchawk]

 IMO they game department did the right thing in the end. Can the regs be confusing?...certainly. However, I think it's pretty clear in this case as far as the extra point is concerned. (4" and above and 1" inch long).

 They decided that they will not turn around and charge the hunter with any infraction/citation. They are just as falible as we are and it looks like both the hunter and the officer made mistakes in this case.

 We are told in hunter's safety and by any sage hunter "Always be sure of your target before leveling your firearm." If you are not sure, don't shoot...and if you do and find out you are wrong, pay the piper. Simple as that as far as I am concerned.

 

[WDFW Hates ME!!!]

agchawk, i agree with you. verify your target, know the rules and you will never be in trouble...

Problem is with past and current rules and interpretation of the rule. When i started hunting in the late 80's early 90's it was a branch originating on the upper half of the main beam or any bull. And i think people are reading the regs but they are still thinking main beam when it states nothing about main beam anymore. I think the Officers did the right thing, glad they let it go on this one.

[TikkaT3-270Shortmag]

When in doubt dont shoot!!!