Buckley Elk shot in city limits

[Mandownitis]

I heard about this from a co-worker.  So I looked it up.  

 http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ech/news/105217779.html[/url]

[PolarBear]

While I think that shooting it in city limits was not the smartest thing legal or not, the bigger issue is the fruitcake who wrote the article!  That dude is nuttier than a squirrel turd and needs to lay off the disney and PETA shows!

[gasman]

If it was legal, then who cares.

This guy is just pissed that his pet is gone 

[TheHunt]

I know that bull as I have driven by that bull many times.   The funny part of that story is that same bull have been there for six years.   NOT...    There is always a good bull with those cows. 

[woodrat]

well, yeah, poorly written article for sure. I think that "gaming laws" have more to do with gambling than hunting, for example. 

But that was NOT a legal hunt, obviously, or he wouldn't have been cited for municipal firearms violations. Not tagging and keeping the animal would be wasting it, but I'm still confused as to why should he be allowed to keep an animal he shot on someone else's private property without permission, in violation of local laws. As far as I'm concerned, anyone shooting in a residential neighborhood, while trespassing, in city limits, in violation of city law, should have the book thrown at him. Anyone who is shooting an elk, while trespassing, unaware that there are houses in the line of fire, is a first class jerk, and this is exactly the kind of event that turns public opinion against hunting.

Look at page 86 of your WDFW regs and read "hunter's code of conduct".

[Michelle_Nelson]

If it was legal, then who cares.

This guy is just pissed that his pet is gone 

I'd be pissed to if they trespassed on to my land witout permision to shoot my pet elk!

I know exactly where that elk was shot. 

[krout81]

Boy oh Boy, I wonder what the fine is for shooting in the city limits?  He should have know better then to shoot a high powered rifle where people live, and he probably knew he was tresspassing.  

[thurman]

i heard that he shot it with a muzelloader during muzelloader season and thats why the game department didnt get involved.

[rasbo]

he was tresspassing and should get full penalties for that,and fined big time for shooting in the city limits..If the story is true, he admitted he didnt know what was past the trees..I will be curious as to what the fines will be..Will they be enough to keep idiots from tresspassing again or will they be so little that its worth it to bag a nice bull...

[Fl0und3rz]

Boy oh Boy, I wonder what the fine is for shooting in the city limits?  He should have know better then to shoot a high powered rifle where people live, and he probably knew he was tresspassing.  

As pointed out by some, it was a muzzleloader.

If this was in Pierce County then it would be one or more misdemeanor(s).  Note that muzzleloaders are firearms within the Pierce County Code.

From the Pierce County Code:

9.32.070 Discharge of Firearms Prohibited or Restricted. Pursuant to RCW 9.41.300(2), the Pierce County Council may designate certain areas of Pierce County where the discharge of firearms shall be prohibited or restricted. Citizens may petition the County Council for the formation, dissolution or amendment of an area where the discharge of firearms shall be prohibited or restricted or the Council may initiate the creation, dissolution or amendment of such an area by passing a resolution declaring its intent to do so. Under no circumstances shall the County Council designate a prohibited or restricted area until the Firearms Advisory Commission, created pursuant to Chapter 2.79 of the Pierce County Code, has had an opportunity to review the proposal and make its recommendation to the Council. No single proposal for an area where the discharge of firearms shall be prohibited or restricted may exceed 160 acres. (Ord. 2004-72s § 1 (part), 2004; Ord. 90-45 § 1 (part), 1990; Ord. 84-172 (part), 1984; prior Code § 35.28.010)

9.32.080 Discharge Near Buildings. In all areas of Pierce County where the discharge of firearms is not prohibited or restricted pursuant to 9.32.070, it shall be unlawful to discharge a firearm within 500 feet toward any building occupied by people or domestic animals or used for storage of flammable or combustible materials. It shall be unlawful to discharge a firearm within 1,000 feet toward any K-12 school within the County. (Ord. 2004-72s § 1 (part), 2004; Ord. 90-45 § 1 (part), 1990; prior Code § 35.28.020)

9.32.090 Violations of Sections 9.32.070 and 9.32.080. Any person who violates any of the provisions of Sections 9.32.070 or 9.32.080 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Prior Code § 35.28.030)

[gasman]

Did I miss some tthing 

I seen no info to state that he was trespassing. Where are you getting this info from 

What is he had permisson to hunt a farmers field, then what.

[MIKEXRAY]

You must of missed it in the story, it said he was trespassing and the owner actually had the police come back and site him for it. I also don't agree that he should be allowed to trespass, kill an animal on private property & then keep the animal. I don't care about " pet elk ", I just know that if I had property with elk on it ( my dream ) I would be pissed if someone was on my property killing elk. I hope the hunter gets the max. Mike

[huntlakewood]

 I also don't agree that he should be allowed to trespass, kill an animal on private property & then keep the animal. I don't care about " pet elk ", I just know that if I had property with elk on it ( my dream ) I would be pissed if someone was on my property killing elk. I hope the hunter gets the max. Mike
[/quote]

I think the meat should have been given to the land owner at the expense of using that guys tag and the trespasser should get the book.

[stormin85]

I wondered when this would show up on here, as far as trespassing, he was and the owner has had a lot of problems this year alone with that, do i think he should put up signs, yeah, but to each their own, the statement about the pet elk i am suprised by, i didn't hear it that way, the owner was upset that this person obviously knew elk were on his property frequently, or at least enough to be out there looking for them, and then waited for this bull to come out, if you know where this is you know how obvious it would be that you are within a very close distance of houses and the city, his family members and grand kids play on the property and the last few incidents that happened there was nothing done about the hunters who were trespassing, i guess the statement could have been made to further along the damage the guy caused beyond just endangering the people around there?

Is it really his pet no, but it ends up being like one, do i still want to shoot it? sure. taking a bull that easy would be nice. but thats not really hunting and that is what was frustrating, its his property the hunter should have been at least smart enough to ask someone if it was private land, i find it hard to believe that the guy was truly unaware that he was not on public land, he lives in Bonney Lake, its not like he is out of state, i know where there are elk in Enumclaw, they cross private and public land if i ever had the inclination to hunt them, i would get permission from as many property owners around there as possible to make sure i wasn't going to end up in the same boat, but then hunting these elk is very similar to hunting cattle, their still skiddish but they are used to people, bowhunting them might still be a challenge, any type of gun is not.

[gasman]

Yeah, I missed it. There was two links before and i only read the first one, thinking they were both to the same place.


He should have the book thrown at him for breaking the law