Gross Misdemeanor

[bigtex]

so my question to you, how do we go about streamlining the bull$hit. and have them focus on things that wont start a pissing match and maybe save face for the agency? right now it sounds like their superiors arent happy with what they are doing, and neither is the public. should we just *censored*can the whole deal and give it over to wsp? because they arent going in any useful direction.

I will point out this. In the 2008 staffing study there were officer comments and many of them wanted to be doing things that many on here say they should be doing, such as night time poaching patrols and sitting in the hills "protecting" animals. In fact the Enforcement Program as a whole would rather be working on those things.

The problem is the legislature. They come up with new laws and say "WDFW, enforce this" but don't give any money or personnel for them to enforce it. In the past couple years the legislature has assigned the regulation of pet stores, aquatic invasive species, cold storage facilities, and deleterious wildlife to WDFW. But they haven't provided any additional $ or manpower to do so, in fact they have decreased the $. They really are doing more with less.

Moving WDFW enforcement to WSP would only worsen things. In the two states which have wildlife enforcement with the state patrol the wildlife enforcement division always takes the brunt of budget cuts. Do you really think the WSP chief who spent his entire career doing traffic enforcement and has never stepped a day in the woods  would really care if 5 wildlife officers were laid off? Probably not, but if 5 road troopers were to be laid off all hell would break loose.

well this is what its coming too. they are acting like traffic cops. so what punishment would an officer get  if he nodded his head and just went out in the woods anyway? actually did something useful like say caught some guys shooting elk in a spotlight. would the dept come down on him because he didnt show up in the pet store that day? seems like they all said they wanted more time in the woods but did any of them step up and do it? if there isnt additional money to fund it, why cut into what their main job was in the first place? why not say we dont have time to do that either, add another guy to do that or put it on the back burner?

What would happen if you went against your boss?

I think you need to be blaming the legislature and not WDFW. In fact WDFW is usually against the creation of the new regulations such as pet stores because they don’t provide $ for it. But WDFW’s boss is the legislature, what the legislature says WDFW needs to do they must do.

WDFW can complain all they want, and they actually do. But it comes down to the legislature. 2009 was a great example. In 2008 the staffing study was done and said in order to provide adequate coverage WDFW enforcement needed to double. In 2009 the legislature which received the report cut WDFW enforcement by seven positions….

[ICEMAN]

Guys, the season is only so long. Do you want any hunter checked at all for anything? Crap, pretty soon nobody would buy a license or tag and alot of guys would skirt the laws.   The simple fact is that wildlife officers patrol and make field contacts with us because the are obligated to enforce laws and that the only time they will ever meet you is in the field, after you drop game off at a butcher, or at your friendly taxidermist. The year is 365 days long, your hunt is much shorter. What do you think wildlife officers are doing the other 300 days of the year?

How many poachers are out "poaching" during hunting season? I bet alot of field interviews/investigations turn into poaching cases....

I think people on here should really read the WDFW Enforcement quarterly reports they put out. Many of them explain how simple casual field stops turn in to huge violations.

Just because it looks good on paper doesnt mean much. Im sure the OPs case will show up as a great success on their part just for the charges brought. regardless if the judge throws them out or not.

What does this mean? A great success? Law enforcement is just a job. You go out and enforce laws. Nobody is setting around an office comparing "successes on infractions". Cops/gamies actually like making the big arrest, but part of the job is the mundane small stuff as well. When a case is "thrown out" officers usually review what they may have done improperly and learn from their mistake.

[chester]

Thats a fair point.  Bigtex and Iceman   so right now, we are damned if we do, damned if we dont. Lets all just sit back and watch the outdoor community die before our very eyes. and keep all your things in order or they will take one last swipe at your wallet on the way down.  

Ice to be more specific the GW in quetion could have wrote any one of 3 citations. instead he is being called into court on a gross misdemeanor. Making it some worse then it was. Could be the prosecuters fault. either way its *censored*

[ICEMAN]

It is not BS. Please recite what he should have been cited for? What RCW? 

[chester]

You are correct on the fine. However unnotched tag is not considered failure to tag. There are three different crimes in regards to tagging. 1- Failure to tag 2- Intentional failure to notch tag 3- Unintential failure to notch tag.

1&2 are $361. 3 is about $160.

this is as far as im gonna go on this. dont happen to have my law library handy, seems number 2 or 3 would have been sufficient.

[bigtex]

It is not BS. Please recite what he should have been cited for? What RCW? 

Here is the thing about WDFW violations, they require both a RCW and WAC. There are tons of violations that can be cited for under one RCW and can have a range of fines. For example Unlawful Fishing 2nd Degree can be:
No License
Closed Waters
Exceed Daily Limit
Exceed Posession Limit
Violate ANY rule of the comission

So it is hard to tell what the person was exactly cited for without the WAC. If I received a letter from the court for fishing without a license it would not say "fishing without a license" it would say "Unlawful Recerational Fishing 2nd"

[ICEMAN]

Chester, sorry if I sound whiny, but the RCW which was broken was 77.15.410.  He will most probably be prosecuted under subsection (b) of this law. A violation of any provision of this law is a Gross Misdemenaor. This law is a catch all....

RCW 77.15.410
Unlawful hunting of big game — Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of big game in the second degree if the person:

     (a) Hunts for, takes, or possesses big game and the person does not have and possess all licenses, tags, or permits required under this title;

     (b) Violates any rule of the commission or director regarding seasons, bag or possession limits, closed areas including game reserves, closed times, or any other rule governing the hunting, taking, or possession of big game; or

[bigtex]

You are correct on the fine. However unnotched tag is not considered failure to tag. There are three different crimes in regards to tagging. 1- Failure to tag 2- Intentional failure to notch tag 3- Unintential failure to notch tag.

1&2 are $361. 3 is about $160.

this is as far as im gonna go on this. dont happen to have my law library handy, seems number 2 or 3 would have been sufficient.

We really need to know the WAC that the individual was cited for. The OP told us it was RCW 77.15.410 but that only provides us with half of the requirement for a fishing and hunting offense.

[chester]

Chester, sorry if I sound whiny, but the RCW which was broken was 77.15.410.  He will most probably be prosecuted under subsection (b) of this law. A violation of any provision of this law is a Gross Misdemenaor. This law is a catch all....

RCW 77.15.410
Unlawful hunting of big game — Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of big game in the second degree if the person:

     (a) Hunts for, takes, or possesses big game and the person does not have and possess all licenses, tags, or permits required under this title;

     (b) Violates any rule of the commission or director regarding seasons, bag or possession limits, closed areas including game reserves, closed times, or any other rule governing the hunting, taking, or possession of big game; or

Your right it is a catch all. so why prosecute under that law instead of a lesser infraction? he had no intent to break ANY law. Discretion should be used. But somebody working for the state decided to go big on this one.

[ICEMAN]

Ok, I will share. When you cite someone, you cite the RCW or WAC on the citation and hand it to them. The officer has no say in the final charge really as the prosecutor has ultimate decision making power with the charging document in court. In this case, the officer sounds like they selected the correct RCW, as the WAC most probably refers to the RCW....This is why the RCW sounds vague to you. It is a broad RCW designed to cover most all of the WAC's.

IF the prosecutor decides to take a plea and amend the charge, that is their perogative. In the mean time, officers will use this code on the infraction.

No intent. So if you did not intend to shoot an extra duck is that OK? How about not intending to shoot a 2 point deer in a three point area, that OK too?

[bigtex]

Chester, sorry if I sound whiny, but the RCW which was broken was 77.15.410.  He will most probably be prosecuted under subsection (b) of this law. A violation of any provision of this law is a Gross Misdemenaor. This law is a catch all....

RCW 77.15.410
Unlawful hunting of big game — Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of big game in the second degree if the person:

     (a) Hunts for, takes, or possesses big game and the person does not have and possess all licenses, tags, or permits required under this title;

     (b) Violates any rule of the commission or director regarding seasons, bag or possession limits, closed areas including game reserves, closed times, or any other rule governing the hunting, taking, or possession of big game; or

Your right it is a catch all. so why prosecute under that law instead of a lesser infraction? he had no intent to break ANY law. Discretion should be used. But somebody working for the state decided to go big on this one.

After having contacted the OP I now know some very important info. This incident occured in Snohomish County. In Snohomish County officers do not issue citations on the spot. An officer will make a report and send it to the prosecutor. It is then up to the prosecutor to decide what charges to file against the individual, if any. If this occured in any other county I can guarantee you the individual would have received one of the $162 or $361 fines because that is what the WDFW Officer would have cited for. But in Snohomish County it is the prosecutors decision on what charges to file. I will also add that this is not well liked by WDFW or any other agency that uses the Snohomish County system. It takes a lot of the power away from the officers who usually know the regulations better then the prosecutors and gives them to the prosecutor.

[chester]

Thank you for that Bigtex that actually sheds alot of light on the situation. 

[GEARHEAD]

If the story of this incident is accurate as told, i would say he will walk if he chooses to fight. the reason being intent. he, as he stated, had  already reported the kill, after dropping the deer at the butcher. there should be proof of this. this goes a long ways to proving he was attempting to follow the law, furnishing a tag to the butcher, (even though not properly notched), then following up and reporting it. frankly, i would recommend contacting the prosecutor prior to trial and advising of this asap, as the prosecutor may feel the battle is not worth it. it does not hurt to start a conversation with him/her. the accusation is a violation, however the spirit of the law was not broken, and his actions after the kill reflect that.