Post by: pendoreilleadventures on September 25, 2008, 10:35:20 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi9.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa88%2Fbowhunter_4_life%2F092108072510.jpg&hash=abb1f1be733d9edd47cad192c6afd712dd5f1a72)
Post by: bucklucky on September 25, 2008, 10:40:58 AM
Post by: NW-Eric on September 25, 2008, 10:43:14 AM
Post by: jadeball1 on September 25, 2008, 10:47:03 AM
Post by: grizzlygibbs on September 25, 2008, 10:50:43 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on September 25, 2008, 11:01:38 AM
Id take them to small claims court to get my meat/Rack back too.
Post by: Bofire on September 25, 2008, 11:11:23 AM
It isn't right, it isn't a Law, it is a rule passed by the game commision.
I wish him luck but he is in for a fight. If he don't win he will be fined severely, lose his hunting "privilege' (it is not a Right in this state). Most likely the meat will be ruined by the time the case is over, win or lose.
That really sucks!!!!
Carl
Post by: WDFW-SUX on September 25, 2008, 11:15:26 AM
Id also document the number of pounds of meat delivered to the butcher and as many kill photos as you can for your records.
Post by: MichaelJ on September 25, 2008, 11:32:57 AM
Michael
Post by: tmike on September 25, 2008, 11:41:35 AM
Post by: yelp on September 25, 2008, 12:18:37 PM
Post by: Ray on September 25, 2008, 12:21:10 PM
Post by: NoBark on September 25, 2008, 12:28:50 PM
Maybe we have a butcher or taxi who actually found 'something that didn't look right' and noticfied the Game warden? I'd be glad to know they would do that.
There is much more to this story that needs to come out. :twocents:
Post by: Ray on September 25, 2008, 12:30:23 PM
Quote
Maybe we have a butcher or taxi who actually found 'something that didn't look right' and noticfied the Game warden?
Unlikely that someone from the butcher shop or taxi saw him with a spotlight and a gun shooting the bull. A lot more likely someone saw some action in the woods and drew too many conclusions. Happened to a friend of mine this year.
Post by: 12Gauge on September 25, 2008, 12:34:54 PM
Post by: NoBark on September 25, 2008, 12:53:27 PM
Post by: Ray on September 25, 2008, 12:55:49 PM
Post by: Gobble on September 25, 2008, 01:03:08 PM
QuoteMaybe we have a butcher or taxi who actually found 'something that didn't look right' and noticfied the Game warden?
Unlikely that someone from the butcher shop or taxi saw him with a spotlight and a gun shooting the bull. A lot more likely someone saw some action in the woods and drew too many conclusions. Happened to a friend of mine this year.
They can tell if a animal was shot at night with spotlights because the pupils freeze in place and thats why the game dept checks for that at game stops. A guy in a game check in front of me in E wa. shot a nice 7 x 7 buck, but the game dept checked the eyes and confirmed that it was shot at night, beside the idiot had an archery tag and shot it with a rifle during the modern season. What an idiot
Post by: Ray on September 25, 2008, 01:20:52 PM
Post by: Muleyslyr on September 25, 2008, 01:21:21 PM
Post by: Ray on September 25, 2008, 01:23:13 PM
Post by: Muleyslyr on September 25, 2008, 01:25:32 PM
Seems like weak evidence (pupils freezing) to me. I'd bet any half decent attorney could argue that off and even conclude that there are scenarios where that could happen. Her'es an idea - as the "sun rose" over the hill at daybreak and right into the deer's eyes or something like that.
Especially if he was in the timber, which it looked like he was, maybe his eyes had not gotten acclimated to first light. Just because it's daylight doesn't mean it's nice and bright in the thick stuff. :dunno: Don't know...never really checked out the pupils on any of my "first light" harvests.
Post by: Ray on September 25, 2008, 01:28:27 PM
Post by: Curly on September 25, 2008, 01:38:30 PM
They can tell if a animal was shot at night with spotlights because the pupils freeze in place and thats why the game dept checks for that at game stops.
Just one more reason not to take game to a butcher....................although, I realize in this case, this guy had to take the elk to a butcher because he was flying out of state and didn't have time to butcher it himself.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on September 25, 2008, 04:06:14 PM
Post by: Black Ghost on September 25, 2008, 09:10:43 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on September 25, 2008, 09:17:48 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 25, 2008, 09:51:40 PM
There is much more to this story that needs to come out. :twocents::yeah:
Did he come back from his new residence in OK to hunt on the resident license he purchased prior to moving? Or did he buy that expensive nonresident elk license? If the former, I believe he's toast. If he has OK resident hunting or fishing licenses, he IS toast.
I am highly doubtful the meat and antlers were seized for no reason at all, or based merely on someone's say-so. If that's true, that will be a short career in wildlife enforcement. Everyone hates poachers - even poachers. Nobody likes to be arrested. It is perfectly ok for a game warden to lie to get incriminating information from a suspect. It is absolutely not allowed to seize animals, equipment or anything else without evidence a crime has been committed. If you are in the right, and any kind of cop seizes your property (and once tagged, harvested game IS your property), fight like hell - administratively and legally.
Let us know how this plays out, I'm interested. If he's truly in the right, I hope he perseveres and straightens it out. However, if he broke the law, intentionally or otherwise, what is happening is exactly what is supposed to happen.
Post by: jackelope on September 25, 2008, 09:57:25 PM
Quote
Let us know how this plays out, I'm interested. If he's truly in the right, I hope he perseveres and straightens it out. However, if he broke the law, intentionally or otherwise, what is happening is exactly what is supposed to happen.
:yeah:
Post by: RightPlace-RightTime on September 25, 2008, 10:57:22 PM
Post by: RightPlace-RightTime on September 25, 2008, 11:03:20 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on September 26, 2008, 12:26:21 AM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on September 26, 2008, 02:24:11 AM
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on September 26, 2008, 03:31:27 AM
Post by: PA BEN on September 26, 2008, 05:17:32 AM
When taking meat in, cut it up yourself and bring only meat in and tags are not required. My neighbor is a butcher.You better read the regs!!!! ;)
2. Transporting wildlife
You must transport any big game
animal with the proper tag attached.
The properly validated tag must
remain with the meat until it is eaten
(including cold storage). If quartered,
the tag should remain with the carcass
or largest portion of the carcass. If you
need to take the head to a taxidermist
and the meat to be processed, you
can complete a taxidermy ledger or
invoice, providing information outlined
under "Possession and Use of
Wildlife" for the taxidermist, and keep
the tag with the meat at the processor.
The tag should remain attached to
the hide of a bear or cougar until it is
tanned.
Post by: TeacherMan on September 26, 2008, 07:20:38 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 26, 2008, 07:25:44 AM
I'm not sure what has happened to all of you that have such distrust for game officers...I still think they're doing the best job they can with limited resources and (apparently) a public that hates them... sounds like a tough job.
Post by: yelp on September 26, 2008, 07:35:08 AM
Post by: luvtohnt on September 26, 2008, 07:59:32 AM
Brandon
Post by: nate on September 26, 2008, 08:14:13 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 26, 2008, 08:47:27 AM
Game wardens are taught to ask questions quickly and commandingly. Basically, anyone truthful can keep up with that, someone lying will trip themselves up. Once that starts, a good investigator can usually unravel a violator's story. Forensic estimation of time of death requires establishing several conditions between time of death and investigation, and if the officer is suspicious that an animal was killed at an illegal time of day, they can quickly tell if they are getting the truth - or if someone is trying to figure out the motivation behind the question, and come up with the "correct" answer.
Often, the rapid fire questions are to determine a person's truthfulness; and the actual answer to only one in every several questions is of consequence. Having been present for hundreds of field interviews, it is pretty easy to determine 1) who broke the law and knows it, 2) who broke the law and doesn't know it, 3) who has no clue what the law is, and is paranoid they broke the law, and 4) who is legal and knows it.
I'm always amazed at how adamant so many of the same hunters are that they want poachers caught and prosecuted, yet get offended that they are questioned by game wardens trying to do that exact job, and who somehow can't detect the holier-than-thou hunter's halo. Contrary to media and stories, poachers aren't identifiable by appearance. That hostile-looking scruffy guy in the 1978 Jimmy, is no more likely (and no less likely) to be a poacher than the dressed-by-Cabela's guy in the $40,000 truck covered with decals. Good officers treat them all the same - and lean on the liars the same.
Chances are, if you've been leaned on by a game warden, it is because you've been evasive - even if you are legal. Like yelp indicated, some of the younger ones are overzealous - but can you really fault them for wanting to be good investigators, and trying to catch bad guys????? Observed violations constitute only a small fraction of arrests and citations - investigation, including field interviews and interrogation techniques, is what catches most violators.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 26, 2008, 08:49:33 AM
Within 30 minutes after death, the pupil is fully dilated. Over the next 10 hours, the pupil slowly narrows until it's about a third of it's fully dilated size. From pupil size, they can only approximate the time of death, not if artificial light was used.What he said - good job Nate.
Post by: bobcat on September 26, 2008, 08:51:28 AM
When taking meat in, cut it up yourself and bring only meat in and tags are not required. My neighbor is a butcher.You better read the regs!!!! ;)
2. Transporting wildlife
You must transport any big game
animal with the proper tag attached.
The properly validated tag must
remain with the meat until it is eaten
(including cold storage). If quartered,
the tag should remain with the carcass
or largest portion of the carcass. If you
need to take the head to a taxidermist
and the meat to be processed, you
can complete a taxidermy ledger or
invoice, providing information outlined
under "Possession and Use of
Wildlife" for the taxidermist, and keep
the tag with the meat at the processor.
The tag should remain attached to
the hide of a bear or cougar until it is
tanned.
I've never been asked for a tag when I bring in boned out meat, and I've done it that way for several years. The butcher only needs a tag when you bring in the entire carcass. Seems odd but that's just the way it is.
Post by: FALFire on September 26, 2008, 08:56:29 AM
You are required by state law to show positive Identification and proper license and tags for the game you are hunting. If you are in your vehicle you are required to show registration and insurance papers if you are stopped or contacted on a public right of way. Private land is different, so no vehicle papers are required but I would certainly suggest you have a written permission slip allowing you to hunt that land, even though they as law enforcement cannot order you to leave, unless they have a "No Trepass" letter on file at their office or a copy with them. It's still a good idea to have it if possible.
Don't offer any info....PERIOD. Don't cave to the harassment and don't ask any questions, you will not be given an answer. Most officers are fishing for any evidence so they can make the arrest, any arrest, ESPECIALLY game agents. They don't get enough good violations to support their cause and are looking to puff up their chests anytime they can to show their buddies they are doing their job.
I spent way too many years in law enforcement and I know for a fact there are lots of real good solid crimes occurring out there daily, but the Game dept. is looking to turn a minor seatbelt infraction into the largest game violation in the past 100 years. Yes, they can stop you for not wearing a seatbelt on a county or state maintained road regardles of road surface. Game agents in Washington are State certified law enforcement officers, just as any City of Auburn or Seattle officer is commissioned.
Don't get me wrong, we need the State Game Dept. but they do sometimes over extend their duties and do nothing more then cause frustration with lots of sportsmen.
I would like to think of them as being helpful and curtious when you need them, arrest the criminal when they have evidence of a crime and support our sport but so many are just plain rude and unprofessional, mostly the young but not always the case.
NOTE:
This is not legal advice, it's purely common sense, use it if you choose.
I think there is a lot more to this story than what is being told here, it sounds as though the info is distorted in some way and has been filtered down through frustration and anger and maybe even ignorance on maybe the butcher or taxi.
If someone believes a crime has been commited, then the Game Dept. must act. What they do during their investigation is often times misunderstood by non LEO. So I would not get to carried away with rumors and false accusations without knowing first hand the real truth.
I worked with cops that did everything in their power to develope a crime out of nothing and end up with nothing once done, so it happens. In this case it sounds as though the hunter may never see any part of his elk again and have only photos of a good hunt and a bad memory.
Post by: Bofire on September 26, 2008, 09:39:10 AM
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may seize without warrant boats, airplanes, vehicles, motorized implements, conveyances, gear, appliances, or other articles thay have probable cause to beleive have been held with intent to violate or used in violation of this title or rule of the commission or director."
"The property seized is subject to forfeiture to the state under this section regardless of ownership."
"Property seized may be recovered by its owner by depositing with the department or into court a cash bond or equivelent security equal to the value of seized property but not more than one hundred thousand dollars."
This is the law folks.
Falfire is correct KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
Carl
Post by: Opportunist on September 26, 2008, 09:53:24 AM
I have many friends in law enforcement and don't feel this way towards WSP, County Sherriffs and local city cops, just game wardens. I've met and been checked by game cops in other states Idaho and Colorado that were very professional I don't know what the difference would be why this state's warden's act and treat hunters/fisherman the way they do. An old friend of mine used to work as a bio for WDFW while he was going to college and he would be with game wardens when they checked fisherman, we got into this discussion one night while drinking beer and he felt fisherman were smartasses and lots of times were doing there best to try and get away with something illegal. So maybe it's one of those deals that you have to have walked in the other guys shoes. I don't know, but I still keep my mouth shut. That and alot of gamies are hunters so I don't like giving away my hunting spots.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 26, 2008, 10:01:51 AM
This is the law folks.
Falfire is correct KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
Carl
Good Avice Carl- I'll offer one more piece...DON'T BREAK THE DAMN LAWS.
Post by: Fullabull on September 26, 2008, 10:34:10 AM
This must have to do with a witness or other evidence they have as that is all that would stand up.
Let's hope that it's just a miss understanding or someone was mistaken.
This is why there should be no other firearm season going on at the same time any archery season is open. If you want to hunt cougar or bear during archery season, use that appropriate weapon. I have already heard to many times about people shooting elk with a firearm and then sticking it with an arrow to say they killed it with a bow. Anyone caught doing this sort of thing should "never" be allowed to hunt again as they obviously have no respect for wildlife or the sport of hunting.
PLEASE....my last paragraph has nothing to do with the person this thread is about, it's just a statement about how I feel regarding one of our many regulations.
Good luck to your friend.
Fulla
Post by: SilkWWU on September 26, 2008, 10:42:39 AM
OK...let's at least get off of the time of death thing!!! That can not be used as evidence for this at all.... You can shoot an animal before dark and have it still stay alive for hours before it dies and you find it.
This must have to do with a witness or other evidence they have as that is all that would stand up.
Let's hope that it's just a miss understanding or someone was mistaken.
This is why there should be no other firearm season going on at the same time any archery season is open. If you want to hunt cougar or bear during archery season, use that appropriate weapon. I have already heard to many times about people shooting elk with a firearm and then sticking it with an arrow to say they killed it with a bow. Anyone caught doing this sort of thing should "never" be allowed to hunt again as they obviously have no respect for wildlife or the sport of hunting.
PLEASE....my last paragraph has nothing to do with the person this thread is about, it's just a statement about how I feel regarding one of our many regulations.
Good luck to your friend.
Fulla
Your opinion concerning eliminating firearms during archery season is unrealistic and selfish. What about the person who can only go during those seasons and does not shoot a bow. While I agree that those people should be punished, don't punish the rest of us for someones actions.
I leave for my RIFLE bear hunt tonight.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on September 26, 2008, 11:19:09 AM
I firmly believe the WDFW is totally inept. We could cut there budget by 95% and there would be no perceptible difference. FEDZILLA need's a diet.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 26, 2008, 11:25:51 AM
Determining the time of death vs time of shooting is laughable at best....so many factors and the JUDDGMENT of the warden............ good luck with that :chuckle:
I firmly believe the WDFW is totally inept. We could cut there budget by 95% and there would be no perceptible difference. FEDZILLA need's a diet.
what about all the wildlife areas they manage...the research that goes into season setting...are you going to go volunteer to snoeshoe into Pend Oreille County in February to count deer and figure a sex ratio? Are you going to do snowshoe hare scat surveys all summer to determine the amount of prey for lynx? I doubt it.
I disagree with your statment. They have a tough job and are trying to please too many groups, but they're not inept. :twocents:
Post by: Fullabull on September 26, 2008, 11:30:06 AM
Regards,
Fulla
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2008, 11:35:41 AM
Post by: buckhorn2 on September 26, 2008, 11:56:56 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 26, 2008, 12:24:50 PM
Post by: GoldTip on September 26, 2008, 12:47:22 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on September 26, 2008, 01:00:06 PM
I stand by WDFW being a bloated entity.
Post by: Ray on September 26, 2008, 01:05:22 PM
Post by: Bofire on September 26, 2008, 01:05:54 PM
Post by: shorthair-on-point on September 26, 2008, 02:06:26 PM
Post by: 300rum on September 26, 2008, 02:10:29 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on September 26, 2008, 02:13:08 PM
Quote
Later we ran into him again as we were walking back to my truck this time and he checked us a third time.
:chuckle: Paranoid?
Post by: demontang on September 26, 2008, 02:52:56 PM
Post by: Rhinoron247 on September 26, 2008, 03:48:26 PM
I hope it all works out for the best for everyone involved.
Post by: luvtohnt on September 26, 2008, 04:27:55 PM
Brandon
Post by: FALFire on September 26, 2008, 07:17:38 PM
A police officer has to have Probable Cause to stop someone driving a motor vehicle. They do not need Probable Cause to make a "Social Contact" but social contacts are not usually made while operating a motor vehicle, only for an in person, one on one contact. Say for example, you are on the street and you happened to be walking towards the officer and he/she says "Hey how are you today? Where are you going?, that is defined as a social contact and you are not required to stop and answer that question. If the officer stops you walking down the sidewalk going the other direction, waves you down and orders you to cross the street to meet with him/her then asks for Identification and begins asking incriminating questions you are technically being detained and should at that point be advised of your rights. Basically your "Freedom of Movement" has just been seized.
A social contact means your Freedom of Movement has not been seized, you can walk away without saying a word or providing ID. If you are stopped and detained for a suspicion of a crime or a traffic offense or defective vehicle equipment, you are required to show ID, otherwise, you could be facing "Failure to Comply or Obstrucing a Public Sevant" charges and from there they can seize all of your properties with you at the time.
If you are arrested inside of your vehicle your vehicle can be seized and lawfully searched, " Search Incident to Arrest". Game agents are authorized to look into any container that is capable of holding game animals, fish and birds. So don't get bent when they look through your vehicle, they are allowed to do that, even without the arrest thingy. That is about the only thing I'm aware of that is different from standard policing. A City of Tacoma Police Officer cannot stop you in the parking lot to check your bags from Walmart without Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion but a State Game agent can check your coolers and containers for birds, game or game fish without either when you are parked in an area open to hunting. It goes deeper than this so do your reading.
If you are arrested outside of your vehicle, the officer can impound the vehicle if it is creating a traffic hazard or leaking oil or fluids into the ground surface which would be an "enviromental hazard" and then they can go through the vehicle to do an inventory of all items. Those items need to be included on the impound form for review at a later date and to add to the validity of the item in the vehicle at the time of impound. Basically, it's a search, it's just not called a search. However, if they find anything unlawful during their "inventory" you can be charged with the crime of possession or depending on whatever they come up with.
Checking you three times with-in one hour is a little unreasonable and you may have a case of officer misconduct if you pressed it. But the most that would happen to the officer is a note from his supervisor telling him to bring back some pizza before the end of shift or he gets to buy the beer later.
Again follow their instructions and don't say a word. If you feel your rights have been violated then by all means contact an attorney that is versed in civil violations and go from there.
Otherwise keep yer piehole shut and smile like a baby.
Officers after making a traffic stop are allowed to ask all parties inside the vehicle to exit, it's called "Officer Safety" and they can do that. However, if you are driving down the road, any road and your buddy is seated in the passenger seat and not wearing a safety belt, you as a driver can be lawfully stopped but the officer can only ask for the passengers ID, not the operator of the vehicle unless he see's the the driver is not wearing a seat belt upon contact with the passenger. Now the driver is fair game. Keep the seat belt on at all times and make damn sure everyone else is wearing theirs.
Commiting a simple violation you are fair game to all officers but to the Game Agent it pure bliss and they will ruin your day if you give them crap. However you do have lawful recouse if you believe you have been treated.
All anyone needs to do is some reading, it's all available online under Title 9 and 9A of the Revised Code of Washington RCW and you also need to know a little about the Washington Administrative Code WAC.
Happy hunting :rolleyes:
Post by: andrew_12gauge on September 26, 2008, 09:18:06 PM
Post by: andrew_12gauge on September 26, 2008, 09:20:49 PM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on September 26, 2008, 09:26:39 PM
Post by: Ray on September 26, 2008, 09:29:36 PM
Quote
I do agree that the three stops made by the game officer was overly excessive especially if the hunters involved had been cooperative to begin with.
Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along. No harassment or abuse of authoritative powers. Just officer Byrd doing his job.
Post by: FALFire on September 26, 2008, 10:43:19 PM
Falfire you got most of it right. However, an officer does not need probable cause to stop a vehicle. A stop can be made based solely on reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is basically defined as a set of facts or circumstances which leads an officer to reasonably believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Depending on the circumstances an officer could stop someone within a vehicle when a crime has not been committed and conduct a temporary detention to determine if criminal activity is afoot. However, state game can conduct checks to verify licenses, animals, etc. I do agree that the three stops made by the game officer was overly excessive especially if the hunters involved had been cooperative to begin with.
Wonky,
I thought I had put that in there.
"A City of Tacoma Police Officer cannot stop you in the parking lot to check your bags from Walmart without Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion"
Post by: ICEMAN on September 27, 2008, 06:03:39 AM
My issue is; (I have heard of this, but not seen or experienced it personally...) when a gamie has hunters completely unload their entire canopy or camper of hunting gear onto the ground, the whole camp... in search of a loaded rifle or game. I am going to object to this one, and ask for his PC for the search of this degree. I will follow up, and I will let them know in advance.
Post by: robb92 on September 27, 2008, 03:52:45 PM
Post by: andrew_12gauge on September 27, 2008, 07:25:17 PM
Post by: robb92 on September 27, 2008, 07:57:10 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on September 27, 2008, 08:14:06 PM
I understand that, but even if you move to Washington state and are in the military you have to wait a certian amount of time before you can buy a WA resident license. If this guy moved to OK, and still kept WA as his home of residence then that should not be a problem.
Straight from the regs.
Military personnel permanently stationed at a military installation with in the state of Washington, regardless of length of time in the state, are entitled to purchase a resident license.
Post by: robb92 on September 27, 2008, 08:50:20 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on September 28, 2008, 07:05:58 AM
its changed then because it was 90 days, I guy I was stationed with in England got orders to Fairchild and he looked up the regs on line and it said 90 days. He even contacted the game department and they told him 90 days.
As far back as I can remember it has been the same in WA. Dependants do have to wait 90 days.
Post by: FALFire on September 28, 2008, 07:22:12 AM
Post by: FALFire on September 28, 2008, 09:07:00 AM
You should be able to go to the Wa DOL website and update everything there.
Post by: high country on September 28, 2008, 12:11:00 PM
I have been stopped pretty agressivly once, the gamey passed up on a dirt road in okanogan co and turned it sideways in front of us......VERY close to an accident. he was out of his rig yelling for us to get out. he was in a jeep cherokee and it was unmarked. he damn near got two college linbackers for lunch. he was going for our guns and we were pretty agressive twards him, explaining about the differnent places his head was going to be shoved when he pulled his ID. he found nothing and went on his way. he was obviously looking for something and we were not it....but the way he came at us just about got his ass beat.
Post by: SunniCutt on September 29, 2008, 07:59:55 AM
Post by: Chesapeake on September 30, 2008, 03:50:47 PM
So a guy fly's in from somewhere and kills an elk. Takes the elk to the butcher, head to the taxi, and then gets a call from a gamey when he is back home out of state.
So how did the gamey get his number? If it was a person that witnessed the kill, where did he get the number. The guy likely wasnt driving his own vehicle, so they didnt trace the plates. Seems like they could have only got the number from the taxi or butcher. Why would a gamey do that? Did the Taxi or butcher find something? A bullet in the meat? Why the comment about the spotlight? The taxi or butcher wouldnt have known that? Did the hunter hunt on a resident tag? Did he tell the taxi or butcher he flew in from out of state to hunt?
Sounds to me, like the butcher or taxi found a fresh bullet wound, or the guy hunted a resident tag and said too much about being from out of state. The gamey is likely just fishing for a slip of the tongue. If he realy took the meat, then he likely has some evidence.
Post by: 12Gauge on September 30, 2008, 04:19:14 PM
Most butchers will call game warden if they see something that is not right.
Post by: brokenbone on October 01, 2008, 02:12:14 PM
if he did not shoot it illegally and i don't KNOW if he did then time and money will get him off.
EDITED know insted of think.
i am not acusing any one of wrong doing. it was late. ;)
Post by: Ray on October 01, 2008, 05:50:56 PM
Quote
i think some one had a axe to grind
I agree! Some guy on here says his buddy shot a critter fair and square and people are all dancing around painting that he's done something wrong without coming out and saying it. Way to go. And you wonder why people would rather talk about politics :chuckle: instead of hunting experiences...
Post by: Silent-one on January 23, 2009, 07:18:45 PM
Here is a short version.
A guy that lives close by watches these guys drive in the area one morning. "By the way he knows them" About an hour later he hears a single gunshot in the area. He doesnt really think nothing of it and goes to town. The next day this guy is showing off his elk rack to everyone and bragging about how good a shot he made on it the previous day.
Well this guy puts two and two together and calls the local warden. They in turn show up and speak with the guy that claims to have shot the elk. The elk which is hanging at the butchers just happens to be chopped up pretty good in a certain area! The area that the arrow supposedly went in has been cut out and removed as well as a pretty good area around it. This was not done by the butcher, this was the way it was when the elk was brought in already skinned. The are still some areas on the elk that have bruising and damage that is consistent with that of a gunshot wound.
The wardens then ask the guy about everything and of course he claims to have shot it with an arrow. He refuses to take the wardens to the kill site or provide any proof that it was shot with an arrow.
So my question is this and I have shot many elk with my bow&arrow, why would you cut out the area that the arrow entered and exited since an arrow usually produces very little trauma to the area. If it was my elk and my livelihood and name to uphold I would gladly jump in the truck and take the wardens to the kill site and let them inspect the organs, gutpile what ever they wanted to prove my innocense. Heck I would have still had the hide in the back of my truck to get tanned. This guy claims it was skinned out in the woods and he left the hide there. THEN WHY NOT GO PROVE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE!
As of right now it looks like this case will be going to Jury Trial. Hope they pick me as a Juror.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on January 23, 2009, 08:11:22 PM
Post by: TheKid#10 on January 23, 2009, 08:18:49 PM
KID
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on January 23, 2009, 08:26:28 PM
Post by: Silent-one on January 23, 2009, 11:42:57 PM
Kid,
That is exactly what happened, there was a ton of meat removed from the impact area. You dont get that much trauma from an arrow.
Post by: bowhuntin on January 23, 2009, 11:48:26 PM
Post by: dbllunger on January 24, 2009, 12:15:24 AM
Post by: Hoytstaffshooter83 on January 24, 2009, 07:44:38 AM
Post by: Gutpile on January 24, 2009, 09:01:46 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 24, 2009, 09:19:57 AM
they drug the elk out close to a mile with a atv and they didnt tell the warden where it was shot because he has worked hard to find the spot the warden is also a hunter and he didnt want anyone knowing were he killed it
I was suspending judgement until I read this. I've never met a game warden yet who was a hunter and didn't have more good spots to hunt than he had time to occupy them, including private land!
However, if what POA has claimed is all totally correct, I expect a charge of obstructing will be filed even if the case is dropped. In Wyoming and Idaho, that refusal to reveal the kill site is considered sufficient evidence to charge the noncompliant hunter with the crime being investigated, the game is seized, and judges and juries convict routinely on that basis; in Wyoming the holder of a hunting license is legally obligated to take an officer to the kill site, refusal to do so is a separate crime that can be charged. In Washington it is my understanding it is a separate crime, but still a crime.
I'm happy to be proven wrong - always interested in learning facts. Love to learn the legal process outcome. But when I weigh the assertions stated in this thread, the
Post by: Backstraps on January 24, 2009, 09:20:49 AM
It is really starting to look like your buddy killed an elk that was previously shot by a poacher or the previous season and survived; the butcher sees the bullet and calls the game warden.This might have happened. My brother is a butcher and we have seen this a few times.
Most butchers will call game warden if they see something that is not right.
Post by: luvtohnt on January 24, 2009, 09:27:00 AM
I am no expert but usually an arrow leaves almost no bloodshot meat, because there is no blunt force trauma like with a bullet. A broadhead is designed to slice through the hide and cut internal organs. Whereas a bullet can not cut, it simply forces it's way through the skin resulting in massive hydrostatic shock, or bloodshot meat. I am not going to say wether I think the guy is innocent or guilty I will let the invetigators and courts decide if that is where it goes.
Brandon
Post by: huntnphool on January 24, 2009, 09:35:47 AM
I am no expert but usually an arrow leaves almost no bloodshot meat, because there is no blunt force trauma like with a bullet.
After hanging all the pieces from my moose this year that was one thing we noticed, there was absolutley zero bloodshot meat, gotta love archery gear :tup:
Post by: Gutpile on January 24, 2009, 09:42:36 AM
Quote
I personally have the utmost respect for all game wardens.
I don't. I talk to them when ever I get a chance. Asked one one time if leaving a yote was considered waste back in the 90's when a lot of buyers didn't want coyotes anymore. "Well, I wouldn't but I can't speak for other wardens." Whats that? Seems like a black and white question for me. Had another game warden who had no idea there were "hunting with written permission signs down south." He tried to tell me there were only the green feel free to hunt. The last time I talked to a gamy I asked if I had to have the blue permission card for coyotes if the landowner gave me permission but said I didn't need the card. He didn't know. I mean come on!! Whats the friggin law? If they don't know who does? I've had lots of landowners say yes to me for yotes but say I don't need the card but they don't know for sure. Thats a big fine but I don't want to press the landowner. On the other hand I don't want to have to fight a tresspass ticket.
I've only met one that really seemed like he knew what he was talking about. The others I've talked to really didn't.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on January 24, 2009, 07:09:33 PM
Post by: cascademountainhunter on January 24, 2009, 07:17:47 PM
Post by: Hoytstaffshooter83 on January 24, 2009, 07:18:49 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 24, 2009, 09:51:29 PM
I do apologize for giving offense with the earlier post. I think most who see it, will recognize the satire and that I am not calling you a liar. I don't know your friend either, but I've heard so many stories just like that, where I did know the facts. I have heard dozens, if not hundreds, of poachers lie to their friends and acquaintances, fabricating a fiction because they can't bear to admit their crime. Conversely, though I've been directly or indirectly involved with hundreds of poaching cases, and conversant with the details of many more; I have yet to even suspect an officer of going after someone without reasonable suspicion a crime was committed.
Very, very few poachers man up and admit their crime. Like it or not, every court in the land agrees that law enforcement officers can lie to suspect in the course of investigating a crime. It would not surprise me in the least if the officers involved made false statements to your friend. That's fine in my book. Criminals lie, and often cops have to lie to catch them.
You are a very loyal friend. YOUR friend's story, as you've related it, reeks. Your buddy did everything by the book, some jealous jerk reported him as shooting the bull with a rifle, the wildlife officer investigated, all the evidence on the carcass of cause of death was apparently removed, and your friend refuses to reveal where that evidence can be found. So far, everything reported to the officer is consistent with the reporting party's claim. His explanation for refusing to cooperate and reveal where the bloodshot meat from around the wound can be located is that he won't reveal his honeyhole because the enforcement officer is a hunter?? Sorry, I don't buy it. Might I be wrong? Absolutely! I know nothing about this case except what is posted on this thread.
There's no urgency in the investigation, your buddy's already back home in Oklahoma. Please let us know how it turns out.
Post by: Elkstuffer on January 24, 2009, 10:41:44 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 25, 2009, 07:25:04 PM
Our interest is in this case, poaching or not.
Why don't you both delete out the work stuff and leave it for somewhere else?
Post by: billythekidrock on January 25, 2009, 07:38:56 PM
I am no expert but usually an arrow leaves almost no bloodshot meat, because there is no blunt force trauma like with a bullet.
Brandon
Most of the time there is no problem, but I have seen some real nasty bloodshot from archery gear.
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on January 25, 2009, 07:52:30 PM
I shot a doe this year with a slicktrick grizz trick and it blew out the opposite shoulder. That shoulder was completely destroyed. A guy helped me skin the deer and he thought I used a magnum to shoot it. When I told him that it was a bow, he was amazed.
I had to throw the entire shoulder away. :'(
I am no expert but usually an arrow leaves almost no bloodshot meat, because there is no blunt force trauma like with a bullet.
Brandon
Most of the time there is no problem, but I have seen some real nasty bloodshot from archery gear.
Post by: jackelope on January 25, 2009, 07:56:14 PM
keep it on topic or the whole thing will go away.
thanks for understanding.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 25, 2009, 07:57:34 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on January 25, 2009, 08:00:54 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 25, 2009, 08:06:06 PM
control freaks!
DELETE!!! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: ICEMAN on January 25, 2009, 08:06:52 PM
Post by: Gutpile on January 25, 2009, 08:07:04 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on January 25, 2009, 08:11:01 PM
control freaks!
DELETE!!! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Did ICE say something? Where did he go?
:chuckle:
Actually I would rather lock it.
Post by: huntnphool on January 25, 2009, 08:12:40 PM
Did ICE say something? Where did he go?
:chuckle:Actually I would rather lock it.
No no no, I was just flippin him some chit :chuckle:
Post by: ICEMAN on January 25, 2009, 08:13:07 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on January 25, 2009, 08:14:05 PM
Did ICE say something? Where did he go?
:chuckle:Actually I would rather lock it.
No no no, I was just flippin him some chit :chuckle:
Same here.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on January 26, 2009, 08:43:05 AM
Post by: Silent-one on January 26, 2009, 02:21:43 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 26, 2009, 02:26:49 PM
Post by: whacker1 on January 26, 2009, 04:08:19 PM
I look forward to hearing the rest of the story, just to see how it plays out.
Post by: logger on January 27, 2009, 11:12:02 PM