Post by: trapp01 on March 28, 2013, 08:32:44 PM
From personal expeirence I've got the impression that im guilty and have to prove myself innocent.
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 28, 2013, 08:35:02 PM
Is it just me or does the WDFW have a really bad reputation and many hunters/ outdoorsmen do not support them?
From personal expeirence I've got the impression that im guilty and have to prove myself innocent.
I have only had one interaction with them and it was certainly not a positive one. I will refrain from talking about it in great detail because some of it is still pending other than saying my case was thrown out of court and the judged signed an order that stated I "did nothing wrong" and ordered them to return my property. I feel that they were dishonest the entire time, one officer perjured himself in the narrative, and even lied to my attorney saying my items had been destroyed before giving them back the next day. Encounters like this are why they have a bad reputation.
Post by: rtspring on March 28, 2013, 08:37:42 PM
Post by: cem3434 on March 28, 2013, 08:39:31 PM
Don't even get me started! Crooks, cons, thiefs is just a few words I have for them!
Did you ever get your rifle back from them?
Post by: dscubame on March 28, 2013, 08:45:45 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 28, 2013, 08:47:29 PM
Post by: rtspring on March 28, 2013, 08:47:54 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on March 28, 2013, 08:48:32 PM
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 28, 2013, 08:50:14 PM
I personally think this site, and posts like this tend to really degrade a lotof people's opinions of wdfw. These people are trying to do their jobs, if you feel like you could do better get a job as a game warden, or get your masters in wildlife bio. :twocents:
I would love to do it but have you seen what they make? I also think that their education requirements are part of the problem. I would rather have a cop out there than a scientist. Perhaps some real world experience over a classroom setting...it seems that they see only in black and white when in reality law enforcement (even FaG codes) are rarely that clearly defined.
Post by: rtspring on March 28, 2013, 08:53:12 PM
I personally think this site, and posts like this tend to really degrade a lotof people's opinions of wdfw. These people are trying to do their jobs, if you feel like you could do better get a job as a game warden, or get your masters in wildlife bio. :twocents:
This site? Are you joking? This site has helped hundreds maybe thousands ! Now up until that dark day of the two point deal, i thought highly of the WDFW. But oh my how things can change in a heartbeat! No bashing you but , until you are invovled in something like I was you really have no idea how they really are!
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2013, 08:53:58 PM
Reputations are earned and wdfw has earned one that is for sure.
:yeah:
Post by: 100 grain on March 28, 2013, 09:09:18 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 28, 2013, 09:09:24 PM
Post by: GoPlayOutside on March 28, 2013, 09:10:27 PM
Post by: coachcw on March 28, 2013, 09:10:55 PM
Post by: carver52 on March 28, 2013, 09:25:23 PM
All the Fed. Agents I've met in the field were standup guys, even waiting until my labs. have finished retrieves before initiating contact.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2013, 10:37:45 PM
However, I did have a problem with a biologist. This guy was very rude and arrogant, did not know how to be professional and all he wanted to do was yell and try to intimidate me. In my mind, he was impersonating a law enforcement officer.
I told this story already on here, a couple years ago, when it happened. I was up in Capitol Forest in the spring, driving around with my brother. It was a Saturday, so I was surprised to see what looked like a WDFW truck in my rear view mirror. Well he eventually turned off on another road to the left and a little further we turned off on a road on the right.
We saw a deer and stopped, and I shut off the Bronco. We sat there for a couple minutes, then that same Ford pickup comes driving up behind me. I go to start the engine to get out of his way, and it won't start. I had never had it not start before and had no idea what the problem might be.
So I get out and walk back to the guy sitting in his truck behind me. I tell him it won't start, he says he has to get down the road to his bear trap. Okay, so my brother and I push the Bronco down the road about 100 yards to a wide spot so he could get by. No problem. I call my uncle and he says he'll come up right away and tow me home.
The guy checking the bear trap is only about another 100 yards down the road and he gets done and drives past us as he heads back out. We're sitting there waiting for my uncle when all of a sudden the WDFW truck, along with another one come flying up behind my Bronco, skidding to a stop, and blocked us in, as if we were going to try to get away in a Bronco that won't even start.
I didn't know what was going on. This little guy comes flying out of his truck and gets in my face, immediately calls me by my last name, and starts yelling and interrogating me.
I assumed he was a WDFW officer, since he had obviously ran my license plate and knew my name. But he never identified himself, never said he was with WDFW, didn't give me a name, and really didn't even tell me what the issue was. After a couple minutes it became apparent his big issue was with the empty dog crate I had in the Bronco. He thought I was running a hound, in the vicinity of his bear trap.
I have nothing nice to say about the guy. Once he realized I was doing nothing wrong, didn't even own a hound, he jumped in his truck without saying a word. Never have I seen anyone be so impolite and unprofessional. It's a good thing he isn't an enforcement officer, that's for sure.
I found out his name later, when I was at a WDFW Commissioners meeting in Olympia. His name is Rich Beausoleil and he's their bear and cougar specialist. I'd be curious to know if anyone else has had any run ins with him.
Here's a picture I googled up:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 29, 2013, 05:15:36 AM
Post by: muzbuster on March 29, 2013, 06:07:51 AM
I think the Field guys are alright, but the uppers that are locked into the political pressure and $ are crooks, cheats, and sell outs.You hit the nail on the head! I have had many "encounters" over the years with the wardens and never had an issue with any of them. That being said, some are better to deal with then others that's for sure just like with any LE division. As far as the WDFW is concerned, like with any kind of Gov agency, it is all about funding period. I feel that if WDFW was a more self supporting agency IE getting more of the $ from licenses, tags, drawings and the like, and use those $ internally and manage the fish & game with sound science and a good measure of common sense and not with politically influenced motivations as is the case now, views of the WDFW as a whole may be different.
Post by: Bob33 on March 29, 2013, 06:25:02 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 29, 2013, 06:32:04 AM
Post by: jess on March 29, 2013, 07:54:27 AM
Post by: whitey on March 29, 2013, 08:15:00 AM
Post by: jrebel on March 29, 2013, 08:36:53 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 08:42:05 AM
*censored due to language*
Sounds like you needed to have a sense of humor in this situation.
They were just saying you should have had another truck because they got a complaint about a similar truck. I guess if they really wanted to they could have pulled you out at gunpoint thrown you on the ground and cuffed you until they figured out the correct description :twocents:
Post by: lokidog on March 29, 2013, 08:49:09 AM
I think the Field guys are alright, but the uppers that are locked into the political pressure and $ are crooks, cheats, and sell outs.You hit the nail on the head! I have had many "encounters" over the years with the wardens and never had an issue with any of them. That being said, some are better to deal with then others that's for sure just like with any LE division. As far as the WDFW is concerned, like with any kind of Gov agency, it is all about funding period. I feel that if WDFW was a more self supporting agency IE getting more of the $ from licenses, tags, drawings and the like, and use those $ internally and manage the fish & game with sound science and a good measure of common sense and not with politically influenced motivations as is the case now, views of the WDFW as a whole may be different.
I have had no negative experiences here in WA. A couple of innocent opps that could have gotten annoying, but officers were generally friendly. CA, on the other hand, don't even get me started. :chuckle:
I did have one officer I talked to though that did not have a clue with his duck ID skills, though he was checking fishermen where I was duck hunting. :chuckle:
Post by: dontgetcrabs on March 29, 2013, 08:50:15 AM
Sounds like you needed to have a sense of humor in this situation.
They were just saying you should have had another truck because they got a complaint about a similar truck. I guess if they really wanted to they could have pulled you out at gunpoint thrown you on the ground and cuffed you until they figured out the correct description :twocents:
Yep there's the problem right there. Guilty until proven innocent. :bash:
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 08:53:02 AM
Bigtex, as usual, you go into defense mode.... Maybe the guys were just jerks. A person can usually tell when someone is joking/goofing around, even without smileys. ;)
I am not trying to defend them at all. I just don't see where the "jacka$$" part was? I guess they should have pulled them out at gunpoint, maybe that would be nicer?
I see nothing wrong with an officer saying you should have a different truck because we are looking for a similar one. I bet there are troopers, deputies, and city cops in this state that have said the same thing.
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 08:53:59 AM
Yep there's the problem right there. Guilty until proven innocent. :bash:
Sounds like you needed to have a sense of humor in this situation.
They were just saying you should have had another truck because they got a complaint about a similar truck. I guess if they really wanted to they could have pulled you out at gunpoint thrown you on the ground and cuffed you until they figured out the correct description :twocents:
If a report comes out about two white guys in a Black F-150 (example). ANY law enforcement officer can pull over EVERY black F-150 with two white guys in it.
Have a problem? Call the US Supreme Court
Post by: BIGINNER on March 29, 2013, 09:02:59 AM
Rich appears to have the small mans disease.
I think rich might be a little tree hugger that got a job working "with bears" and not working for the people.
Post by: BIGINNER on March 29, 2013, 09:03:59 AM
Post by: Curly on March 29, 2013, 09:12:58 AM
I found out his name later, when I was at a WDFW Commissioners meeting in Olympia. His name is Rich Beausoleil and he's their bear and cougar specialist. I'd be curious to know if anyone else has had any run ins with him.
I bet some of the hound guys have had run-ins with him. He is out of Wenatchee and runs a Karelian Bear Dog.
Post by: huntnphool on March 29, 2013, 09:37:02 AM
I have never had a bad experience with WDFW law enforcement in my lifetime of hunting. I am sure they have some individuals with rough edges but I have not met any. To me their reputation is exceptional.+1, I have talked with a few of them in the field, been checked for licenses etc and always been treated professionally and with respect.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 29, 2013, 09:40:55 AM
Bigtex, as usual, you go into defense mode.... Maybe the guys were just jerks. A person can usually tell when someone is joking/goofing around, even without smileys. ;)
:yeah: Good point. The knee-jerk reactions from both sides is boring.
Post by: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 09:44:22 AM
I have hunted on and off with a few different LEOs from different jurisdictions since the 80s, and one of my best hunting partners is a west side LEO , not WDFW. There are good guys and bad eggs throughout law enforcement....even seen first hand where amongst themselves there is conflict of caricature.
SO to me. it seems as though hunters have had more than the average share of bad encounters with WDFW. BUt heck, Ive had bad encounters with other hunters.....bet some of you have as well.
My biggest point of focus on their henious rep is directed upward from the LEOs. I know many law enforcement agencies keep track of individual attitudes and personal flaws that may make officers less than adequate for their jobs in the public eye, and at times wonder if WDFW LEOs arent mis managed along with everything else. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 09:51:06 AM
I have hunted on and off with a few different LEOs from different jurisdictions since the 80s, and one of my best hunting partners is a west side LEO , not WDFW. There are good guys and bad eggs throughout law enforcement....even seen first hand where amongst themselves there is conflict of caricature.
SO to me. it seems as though hunters have had more than the average share of bad encounters with WDFW. BUt heck, Ive had bad encounters with other hunters.....bet some of you have as well.
My biggest point of focus on their henious rep is directed upward from the LEOs. I know many law enforcement agencies keep track of individual attitudes and personal flaws that may make officers less than adequate for their jobs in the public eye, and at times wonder if WDFW LEOs arent mis managed along with everything else. :twocents:
WDFW does have a "professional" complaint/tracking system as it requried by CALEA (national accrediting agency for LE), only 2/3 natural resource agencies are accredited.
I think you bring up a very good point in "good guys and bad eggs throughout law enforcement" because you could say this about EVERY law enforcement agency. For some reason people (not all, but some) on this site seem to think that those that work in natural resource law enforcement (federal or state) are on a lower tier then their counterparts who work in general (WSP, SO, PD) law enforcement. For some reason it is "wrong" if a WDFW/USFS/NPS LEO does something but it would be "okay" if WSP or Deputy did it. I don't get it :dunno:
Post by: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 09:59:41 AM
Post by: Jingles on March 29, 2013, 10:04:28 AM
I think it is all a matter of how big their ego is and how much they want to try to impress people with their title.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 29, 2013, 10:24:04 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 10:37:19 AM
The people at the Region 5 office are, without exception, very professional and courteous.
The Biologists I've worked with are knowledgeable and helpful.
The Hunter Ed people are very helpful and do everything they can to assist the instructors to be effective and have what they need.
The Master Hunter coordinator and the program itself is exceptional, especially when the other participants are there for the right reasons.
Where I start to have problems is that decisions have been and are being made that don't coincide with scientific conclusions, especially with regards to predator management. My personal belief is that some members of the wildlife/game side of the equation are more concerned with gubernatorial and public approval than they are with scientific wildlife management. And, I'm disgusted with the fact that years of liberal, even anti-hunting governors who've appointed inappropriate representatives to the commission has forced many DFW employees, from the top down, to behave in such a way as to save their jobs instead of objecting to irresponsible plans and direction. The wolf plan is a prime example of this.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on March 29, 2013, 10:47:35 AM
Haven't had a bad encounter yet. I have came back to the truck after dark to have Officer Curt Wood parked behind me. He said "Hey just wanted to make sure you weren't lost and were going to make it out tonight". We talked a little about hunting at the tailgate while I unpacked, and that was it. I actually think he was genuinely concerned about someone (myself) being lost in the dark. Seems like a good guy.
Curt Wood is a stand up guy! Visited our camp a few times last year. His wife shot a stud mulie last year!
Post by: vandeman17 on March 29, 2013, 11:11:53 AM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on March 29, 2013, 11:33:08 AM
Post by: bear hunter on March 29, 2013, 11:45:23 AM
Is it just me or does the WDFW have a really bad reputation and many hunters/ outdoorsmen do not support them?:chuckle: :yeah: :chuckle:
From personal expeirence I've got the impression that im guilty and have to prove myself innocent.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 29, 2013, 11:54:33 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 29, 2013, 12:00:28 PM
Oh man that was funny. Being accused of doing something based on the fact Im driving a white Truck.Snow geese on fir island. Mind you Me and My buddy (Age 72) Just pulled onto the island, been there 10 minutes and see a 2 game wardens trucks. I stop and say Good Morning and the Fat Tub of chit says to me. "If I was you Id get another truck.. :o
I say my Toyota is a great truck, He says I just got word of a truck matching that trucks describtion..
I said Chit I said we just got here and this was the first time out of the truck.
I said have a good day and Me and My buddy got in the truck and left.
What a F#$KING JACKA$$.
They should have been polite and helpful, not a F$%KING *censored*. that they both were. No use for them, Treat people as You want to be treated, Treat me like Chit, You got it coming back at you.
There thats my RANT. :sry:
Sounds like you needed to have a sense of humor in this situation.
They were just saying you should have had another truck because they got a complaint about a similar truck. I guess if they really wanted to they could have pulled you out at gunpoint thrown you on the ground and cuffed you until they figured out the correct description :twocents:
I forgot how funny it is to have a smart a$$ comment made when a straight up question is ask.
Now what is funny is this thought..(You Ready) :yike:
The Lard A$$ sitting in the new truck We bought him and his little blanket spread over his legs is going to jump out of anything. Fat F$%K would fall and break a hip.
Now thats funny.
Sorry see no humor in him and his smart mouth. :dunno:
Whitey-
Watch the language please.
Thanks!!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 29, 2013, 12:04:07 PM
Rich appears to have the small mans disease.
Word on the street is He is hung like a stud field mouse. :dunno:
Will anyone refute this? And how does anyone know? Ick!!!
Post by: Bob33 on March 29, 2013, 12:55:44 PM
Do those of you that have these consistent problems report the incidents so WDFW can address them?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html)
Post by: jrebel on March 29, 2013, 01:08:35 PM
I find it interesting that some individuals report hunting for decades and never having a single negative experience, while others report consistently having problems.
Do those of you that have these consistent problems report the incidents so WDFW can address them?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html)
I also find that to be interesting..... I have a buddy that cannot stand WDFW officers, he thinks they are the scum of the earth. He complains everytime he has to talk to them. The only reason I can figure out why he hates them so bad is because he got a ticked for a loaded rifle in his truck while elk hunting. :chuckle: :chuckle: Of course it was not his fault and now he hates them all. I kinda get the impression the most that hate them have had bad run ins with WDFW officers when they were doing their jobs. :dunno:
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 29, 2013, 01:09:03 PM
I find it interesting that some individuals report hunting for decades and never having a single negative experience, while others report consistently having problems.
Do those of you that have these consistent problems report the incidents so WDFW can address them?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html)
:yeah: the only time I had a "bad experience" was when I was in Jr high and it was warrented.
Post by: mulehunter on March 29, 2013, 01:38:07 PM
I do have problem with Wolf Bio....... :rolleyes: :sry:
Post by: Bob33 on March 29, 2013, 02:21:45 PM
Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?
"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."
Post by: dscubame on March 29, 2013, 02:26:48 PM
I for one do not understand the routine checks as we do not live in a Police State. Leave me alone unless you have cause to believe I have done something that warrants an approach and/or questioning.
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 02:28:40 PM
I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong.
A couple friends of mine wasduck hunting near vantage this year and was done hunting for the morning ( boat and guns back at the trailer/ campground. Birds cleaned and in the cooler) and went into vantage for some fuel. A WDFW officer was parked at the gas station and when they pulled in the officer came up to their rig and asked if they hunted today. They replied that they hunted the moring and had shot a few birds and they were just running into town for some fuel/snacks. The officer asked to see their birds that they shot that morning and they said they were back at camp. The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited. He then counted the breasts and then stated that he could give them a $4500 ticket for unlawful possesion of game($500/bird). He then stated that he could not tell whether the birds were lawful game since there was no carcass on them. So my buddy then said he would bring the officer to where they cleaned the birds and my friend produced the carcasses of 9 LAWFUL ducks so then the officer searched the camper/boat/vehicle and asked for boaters registration cards and my friend doesn't have his. The officer said he would be watching for them to be on the water the next day and would tag them if so. They packed up and went home. Good thing I didn't go that weekend. I probably would have lost it.
This kind of stuff is why some poeple have a bad taste with the WDFW in their mouth.
He gave them a warning, right :dunno:, maybe your friends should have their ducks in a row when they go out.
Post by: dscubame on March 29, 2013, 02:33:13 PM
Some of you can understand the routine checks and I do not judge you however I adamantly do not agree.
I for one do not understand the routine checks as we do not live in a Police State. Leave me alone unless you have cause to believe I have done something that warrants an approach and/or questioning.
And MOST abuse their empowerment in a horribly obvious, unforgiving, and narcissistic manner.
Post by: Noiro on March 29, 2013, 02:36:59 PM
http://www.thereelnews.com/ (http://www.thereelnews.com/)
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 29, 2013, 03:21:56 PM
There is a monthly fishing newspaper The Reel News. It is OFFICERS NOTEBOOK by Mike Cenci. There are usually 2 pages of officers encounters in the field. Every cheater, liar and thief...lies to them. Other times the person they just checked is an armed convicted felon. Other times its drug users or idiots running over dozens of birds on the beach. Foot chases, wresting matches, assaulted and attempted murder all in a days job. Add to that the man you are approaching has a high powered rifle, shotgun or hidden weapon. I would be very cautious. My manners would take second place to my safety.
http://www.thereelnews.com/ (http://www.thereelnews.com/)
So using that logic should every cop treat people like criminals because they often deal with them? I dont think so, nor would society as a whole. I have always found that you get more flies with honey as opposed to vinegar (or as I put it: I can go from nice guy to ass hole real quick but not the other way around) and if I were contacting people in the field who you know are armed (ie hunters) maybe they should pump the brakes on the tuff guy stuff. I understand officer safety but give me a break. Just because you have been to the Reid school doesnt mean that everyone is lying to you.
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 04:17:52 PM
Oh man that was funny. Being accused of doing something based on the fact Im driving a white Truck.Snow geese on fir island. Mind you Me and My buddy (Age 72) Just pulled onto the island, been there 10 minutes and see a 2 game wardens trucks. I stop and say Good Morning and the Fat Tub of chit says to me. "If I was you Id get another truck.. :o
I say my Toyota is a great truck, He says I just got word of a truck matching that trucks describtion..
I said Chit I said we just got here and this was the first time out of the truck.
I said have a good day and Me and My buddy got in the truck and left.
What a F#$KING JACKA$$.
They should have been polite and helpful, not a F$%KING *censored*. that they both were. No use for them, Treat people as You want to be treated, Treat me like Chit, You got it coming back at you.
There thats my RANT. :sry:
Sounds like you needed to have a sense of humor in this situation.
They were just saying you should have had another truck because they got a complaint about a similar truck. I guess if they really wanted to they could have pulled you out at gunpoint thrown you on the ground and cuffed you until they figured out the correct description :twocents:
I forgot how funny it is to have a smart a$$ comment made when a straight up question is ask.
I didnt see anywhere in your statement where they accused you of anything. Had they truely thought you were the person of interest your hands would be behind your back. All did was say we're looking for a truck like yours.
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
I find it interesting that some individuals report hunting for decades and never having a single negative experience, while others report consistently having problems.
Do those of you that have these consistent problems report the incidents so WDFW can address them?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html)
I kinda get the impression the most that hate them have had bad run ins with WDFW officers when they were doing their jobs. :dunno:
:yeah:
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 04:21:22 PM
"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."
Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?
"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."
:yeah:
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 04:23:21 PM
I for one do not understand the routine checks as we do not live in a Police State. Leave me alone unless you have cause to believe I have done something that warrants an approach and/or questioning.
Supreme Court rulings have actually stated you give up some constitutional rights when you decide to hunt/fish because it is such a regulated activity and without such searches enforcement would be incredibly weakened thus impacting the resource.
Post by: cougarbart on March 29, 2013, 04:37:28 PM
Post by: jess on March 29, 2013, 04:43:23 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 29, 2013, 04:46:27 PM
Post by: Alan K on March 29, 2013, 05:10:02 PM
The worst game wardens I've experienced are Colorado's. They (I should say this one guy that I dealt with) ask you 20 different questions about your hunt covering the same topics trying to see if your story changes. Granted we're out of state hunters hunting near the border of two units, but there wasn't any reason for him to believe I'd done anything wrong. I finally offered to take him up to the gut pile so he'd get off my back, but once I offered that he backed off. :dunno: The people at their game offices are OUTSTANDING! They actually want you to be successful, quite the opposite of the impression I get from WDFW. They'll offer whatever information they can to help you get your animal, right down to circling basins on a map they'd seen elk in days before etc. etc. Great people.
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 05:29:34 PM
Jason, Didn't really see you bash WDFW. And the things you stated regarding your friends were CLEAR violations, just like Bob said.I find it interesting that some individuals report hunting for decades and never having a single negative experience, while others report consistently having problems.
Do those of you that have these consistent problems report the incidents so WDFW can address them?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html)
I kinda get the impression the most that hate them have had bad run ins with WDFW officers when they were doing their jobs. :dunno:
:yeah:
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.
JASON TRAPP and not one violation or citation
Post by: cmiller85 on March 29, 2013, 05:31:58 PM
"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."
Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?
"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."
The thing that kinda gets me here is that they were at a campground and not in the field. What are they suppose to do? What if they are camping for a week. Would they be required to drive home, clean the ducks and come back? What if they are out of state hunters? I understand the logic in the law to some degree but this raises some interesting questions.
What is considered to be in the field?
And, what is considered transporting? Could camp be considered an abode?
Post by: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 05:45:25 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 29, 2013, 05:59:19 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on March 29, 2013, 06:00:23 PM
Years long since past, we always ate pheasant, quail, huns, for dinner when we stayed out for a few days....couldnt afford restaurant food or motels....A few fried spuds and fresh killed birds is what we had period.
Tend to do very similar when on grouse camping trip. Some times you have to reduce the number in possession to continue hunting. Eat them so you only have two limits in the cooler :chuckle:
Post by: buckfvr on March 29, 2013, 06:03:49 PM
Years long since past, we always ate pheasant, quail, huns, for dinner when we stayed out for a few days....couldnt afford restaurant food or motels....A few fried spuds and fresh killed birds is what we had period.
Tend to do very similar when on grouse camping trip. Some times you have to reduce the number in possession to continue hunting. Eat them so you only have two limits in the cooler :chuckle:
Funny you should mention that..... :chuckle: We plan to bring the table top bbq on our grouse forays this next fall, and eat our way out of the woods.....love those big blues....
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 29, 2013, 08:43:59 PM
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.
And maybe, just maybe, after WDFW had their names, they could be subject to a teeny weeny bit of legal harassment?
Post by: lokidog on March 29, 2013, 09:07:10 PM
"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."
Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?
"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."
:yeah:
The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner. I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite? :bash: Once again, guilty until proven innocent.
"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."
Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?
"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."
The thing that kinda gets me here is that they were at a campground and not in the field. What are they suppose to do? What if they are camping for a week. Would they be required to drive home, clean the ducks and come back? What if they are out of state hunters? I understand the logic in the law to some degree but this raises some interesting questions.
What is considered to be in the field?
And, what is considered transporting? Could camp be considered an abode?
:yeah:
You can eat your limit a day, every f'ing day, even at a campsite!
Post by: Bob33 on March 29, 2013, 09:14:47 PM
Apparently the officer saw it that way as well or they would have been cited. :tup:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 29, 2013, 09:22:11 PM
The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner. I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite? :bash: Once again, guilty until proven innocent
A tent, camper, motorhome, truck canopy or stout cardboard box is considered a temporary domicile, and is not subject to warrantless search.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094)
Post by: lokidog on March 29, 2013, 09:33:12 PM
"The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner. I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite?"
Apparently the officer saw it that way as well or they would have been cited. :tup:
Except that he continued to harass them and asked them to see registration for a boat that was not being used. If it had current tags on it, at a glance, that should have been enough for any but a real piece of work that was simply frustrated at not getting his hard-on for nailing somneone. Fortunately, in this state, I have not had to deal with any butt head wardens (oh yeah, fish and wildlife officers :rolleyes: ), unfortunately, though, they are out there, just like there are butt head sheriffs and WSP and Seattle cops. We, as hunters, tend to encounter the wardens more and that's why there are more stories of them than other LEOs, this in response to someone's earlier question. Fortunately, these ones do seem to be in the minority, well except for maybe the Seattle ones.... :chuckle:
Post by: Humptulips on March 29, 2013, 09:50:55 PM
Never had a ticket in WA but I have seen some pretty fast on the draw with a ticket book even though I contacted them. I've come to realize enforcement is not your friend and I am very guarded when talking to them. It shouldn't be that way but it is.
I did get a ticket in OR and even though all but this one experience with this one officer were positive it sure left a bad taste in my mouth. I still know I was in the right and have zero respect for the guy and it definetly tarnishes others even though they seem like good fellas.
The upper echelons don't help matters and that is all politics. How would you feel if you belonged to a group that was subject to citation under a statute while at the same time there was a department policy of not citing another group for breaking the same law? It's happening and it's hard to get respect doing that.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on March 29, 2013, 10:24:47 PM
"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."
Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?
"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."
The thing that kinda gets me here is that they were at a campground and not in the field. What are they suppose to do? What if they are camping for a week. Would they be required to drive home, clean the ducks and come back? What if they are out of state hunters? I understand the logic in the law to some degree but this raises some interesting questions.
What is considered to be in the field?
And, what is considered transporting? Could camp be considered an abode?
I have wondered the same thing honestly where we do allot of our hunting there are not any easy ways to get animals out so I use the gutless method, and only take out useable meat I have never thought of packing out the proof of sex out of contamination concerns with the meat being in the on carried on the same pack. As for the subject I have had more positive experiences than negative ones with wildlife officials, I will say all of the officers I have dealt with on the east side have been fantastic I have had a couple of officers on the west side that seemed a little more suspicious, but all proffessional.
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 10:25:39 PM
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.
And maybe, just maybe, after WDFW had their names, they could be subject to a teeny weeny bit of legal harassment?
Didnt say it was legal. My point was, I wonder how many of these people who bash them have fish and wildlife records/histories. I'm willing to bet the majority of them do.
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2013, 10:30:54 PM
The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner. I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite? :bash: Once again, guilty until proven innocent
A tent, camper, motorhome, truck canopy or stout cardboard box is considered a temporary domicile, and is not subject to warrantless search.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094)
If the individuals consented then there is no legal issue.
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 29, 2013, 10:38:28 PM
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.
And maybe, just maybe, after WDFW had their names, they could be subject to a teeny weeny bit of legal harassment?
Didnt say it was legal. My point was, I wonder how many of these people who bash them have fish and wildlife records/histories. I'm willing to bet the majority of them do.
It seems pretty logical to me that if you have a legitimate gripe that you would need to have a negative first hand experience. Whether or not you were in the wrong during that experience is going to be the litmus test.
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 29, 2013, 10:39:42 PM
The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner. I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite? :bash: Once again, guilty until proven innocent
A tent, camper, motorhome, truck canopy or stout cardboard box is considered a temporary domicile, and is not subject to warrantless search.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094)
If the individuals consented then there is no legal issue.
I think that if the majority of the consent that I have heard about was challenged you would have a lot of WDFW Officers in the LEDs.
Post by: norsepeak on March 29, 2013, 11:05:58 PM
Post by: Humptulips on March 29, 2013, 11:10:00 PM
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.
And maybe, just maybe, after WDFW had their names, they could be subject to a teeny weeny bit of legal harassment?
Didnt say it was legal. My point was, I wonder how many of these people who bash them have fish and wildlife records/histories. I'm willing to bet the majority of them do.
And there in lies one of the most common complaints, an asumption of guilt without evidence.
Post by: Simcoe hunter on March 29, 2013, 11:47:01 PM
Rich appears to have the small mans disease.
That must be why the "BIG" dog :chuckle:
As a youngster my Dad worked for the old Fisheries Dept. they had some great LEO's. When the two departments were merged I remember meeting a couple of good gamies. But I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the last two we have had around here, particularly the current one. He will ask the same question of you 3 or 4 times in a row and try to twist your answers to confuse you. What an a$$.
Post by: cougarbart on March 30, 2013, 01:14:12 AM
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 30, 2013, 05:17:39 AM
Rich appears to have the small mans disease.
That must be why the "BIG" dog :chuckle:
As a youngster my Dad worked for the old Fisheries Dept. they had some great LEO's. When the two departments were merged I remember meeting a couple of good gamies. But I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the last two we have had around here, particularly the current one. He will ask the same question of you 3 or 4 times in a row and try to twist your answers to confuse you. What an a$$.
That's called doing their job. If you have nothing to hide you shoiuldnt have a problem.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 30, 2013, 06:54:12 AM
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.
And maybe, just maybe, after WDFW had their names, they could be subject to a teeny weeny bit of legal harassment?
Didnt say it was legal. My point was, I wonder how many of these people who bash them have fish and wildlife records/histories. I'm willing to bet the majority of them do.
Specious and circular argument. Those that have not had a negative experience with WDFW would have no reason to bash them, now would they. It would be a safe assumption to say that many of the individuals who did have negative experiences with WDFW could have received a ticket.
Your wished for data would prove nothing .
On another point, WDFW is the only agency who's target demographic is by and large otherwise "normal and legal appearing" white males, predominately close to middle class and often approaching middle age. Think about being a black teenager, and their view of the police.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 30, 2013, 07:00:06 AM
That's called doing their job. If you have nothing to hide you shoiuldnt have a problem.One should be cooperative within reason, but should never give up their rights "because they have nothing to lose".
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 30, 2013, 07:07:04 AM
The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner. I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite? :bash: Once again, guilty until proven innocent
A tent, camper, motorhome, truck canopy or stout cardboard box is considered a temporary domicile, and is not subject to warrantless search.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094)
If the individuals consented then there is no legal issue.
And we have no idea whether they did or not. So your entire statement is based on suposition of the nth degree
Post by: JLS on March 30, 2013, 09:22:22 AM
The only problem with your logic here is that, I believe, their camper/tent/motorhome is considered their domicile and unless they were driving with the headless ducks, they should have been fine, as they could have eaten them that night for dinner. I don't think you have to leave a head/wing on it when you cook it at your campsite? :bash: Once again, guilty until proven innocent
A tent, camper, motorhome, truck canopy or stout cardboard box is considered a temporary domicile, and is not subject to warrantless search.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094)
If the individuals consented then there is no legal issue.
And we have no idea whether they did or not. So your entire statement is based on suposition of the nth degree
That's probably why he used the word "if" in the sentence :chuckle:
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 30, 2013, 11:30:06 AM
That's called doing their job. If you have nothing to hide you shoiuldnt have a problem.One should be cooperative within reason, but should never give up their rights "because they have nothing to lose".
He said the guys asked questions over and over again. Is that against your rights? I had the same expierence with an officerlast year. He asked me the same questions in circles, its a great wayto catch someone in a lie. Ileft thinking "damn that guy is good" not "what a jerk". Those guys are lied to all day every day,if they took everyone on their word they would never catch anyone.
Post by: Simcoe hunter on March 30, 2013, 08:47:36 PM
Rich appears to have the small mans disease.
That must be why the "BIG" dog :chuckle:
As a youngster my Dad worked for the old Fisheries Dept. they had some great LEO's. When the two departments were merged I remember meeting a couple of good gamies. But I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the last two we have had around here, particularly the current one. He will ask the same question of you 3 or 4 times in a row and try to twist your answers to confuse you. What an a$$.
That's called doing their job. If you have nothing to hide you shoiuldnt have a problem.
No, their job is to enforce the game laws of the state they work in, not try to twist your words and confuse things hoping you will start to doubt yourself and say something wrong that isn't true. That should be left to the courtroom, after they find some actual evidence of a crime.
Post by: 509 on April 01, 2013, 01:03:05 PM
I retired after 40 years of working in resource management in both the private and public sectors. Their field biologists are fine, AND I can always tell immediately if I being checked by a field biologist or a LEO. The difference in attitude is striking.
It got so bad, that I sent out an informal e-mail to all my professional colleague's and asked about their "out of uniform" contacts with the WDFW LEO's. To a person they were all negative. One person even filed a complaint against the LEO!!
The Department needs to start hiring PROFESSIONAL law enforcement personnel and at the same time relocate LEO's that are too "cozy" with the local community. I would support transfer of the LEO force to Washington State Patrol as was proposed a few years ago.
Post by: Curly on April 01, 2013, 01:11:19 PM
Maybe WDFW could have a reality show like the Montana wardens are on. I like watching the shown "Wardens" and I suspect the show helps the image of the wardens.........???
I think it would be interesting to see a WDFW version of the Montana Wardens show to see if they really are as bad as some people claim. (Of course maybe they are different on camera than off camera? :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on April 01, 2013, 01:16:02 PM
I've never had a problem with WDFW law enforcement. (I have only been checked less than a half dozen times in over 30 years of hunting and fishing in this State.)I talk to a couple of the Montana officers every year when over there, they are as personable and professional in person as they are on the show. :tup:
Maybe WDFW could have a reality show like the Montana wardens are on. I like watching the shown "Wardens" and I suspect the show helps the image of the wardens.........???
I think it would be interesting to see a WDFW version of the Montana Wardens show to see if they really are as bad as some people claim. (Of course maybe they are different on camera than off camera? :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on April 01, 2013, 01:16:26 PM
The WDFW has a very serious problem with their LEO's. The lack of professionalism, local favoritism, and other issues have really hurt the department and their programs.I assume you notified WDFW about these unprofessional encounters. Did you receive a separate reply for each incident? What follow up was done on your formal complaints?
I retired after 40 years of working in resource management in both the private and public sectors. Their field biologists are fine, AND I can always tell immediately if I being checked by a field biologist or a LEO. The difference in attitude is striking.
It got so bad, that I sent out an informal e-mail to all my professional colleague's and asked about their "out of uniform" contacts with the WDFW LEO's. To a person they were all negative. One person even filed a complaint against the LEO!!
The Department needs to start hiring PROFESSIONAL law enforcement personnel and at the same time relocate LEO's that are too "cozy" with the local community. I would support transfer of the LEO force to Washington State Patrol as was proposed a few years ago.
Post by: bobcat on April 01, 2013, 01:19:38 PM
Quote
Their field biologists are fine, AND I can always tell immediately if I being checked by a field biologist or a LEO. The difference in attitude is striking.
That's the opposite of what I have experienced. Granted, it was only the one biologist that gave me the bad impression. But that's all I have to base my opinion on.
I've been contacted 4 or 5 times by game wardens while hunting, and I have not one bad thing to say about any of them. They were all friendly, professional, and treated me with respect.
Very much unlike the biologist, who harassed and interrogated me for absolutely no reason, other than in his imagination he apparently thought I was some sort of poacher because I happened to have an empty dog crate in the back of my vehicle.
I also don't feel it's appropriate for a wildlife biologist to act as if he is a law enforcement officer.
Post by: 509 on April 01, 2013, 01:30:19 PM
The one person that did file a complaint noticed that the LEO had complaints filed in following years and was still working.
I have never had a problem in Idaho or Montana. It really does appear unique to Washington state in my opinion. AND my first poor contact with WDFW wardens was in 1979 when I came over from Idaho to fish the seeps.
Post by: JLS on April 01, 2013, 02:04:41 PM
My employer did not want me to file a complaint against a fellow agency employee. You know, you also lose free speech rights when you are a public employee!!!
The one person that did file a complaint noticed that the LEO had complaints filed in following years and was still working.
I have never had a problem in Idaho or Montana. It really does appear unique to Washington state in my opinion. AND my first poor contact with WDFW wardens was in 1979 when I came over from Idaho to fish the seeps.
Well, shame on you for not knowing your rights. You can file any complaint you want, and if you are disciplined for it you have legal recourse. The only "free speech" you lose as a public employee is speaking up on political issues when you are using your official title. I've worked in state government for over 15 years.
Post by: Special T on April 01, 2013, 02:28:59 PM
I think this was a slight of hand that left a bad taste in many peoples mouth. Legally ANY land is Hunting by written permission only so by postin the sign they did nothing Legaly wrong, however they lost credibility with BOTH farmers and hunters. This is really too bad because Hunters NEED more access, and Farmers that may sign up fro a program are now more hesitent, and prefer to just give permission on thier own. :twocents:
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on April 01, 2013, 02:51:53 PM
My employer did not want me to file a complaint against a fellow agency employee. You know, you also lose free speech rights when you are a public employee!!!
The one person that did file a complaint noticed that the LEO had complaints filed in following years and was still working.
I have never had a problem in Idaho or Montana. It really does appear unique to Washington state in my opinion. AND my first poor contact with WDFW wardens was in 1979 when I came over from Idaho to fish the seeps.
Well, shame on you for not knowing your rights. You can file any complaint you want, and if you are disciplined for it you have legal recourse. The only "free speech" you lose as a public employee is speaking up on political issues when you are using your official title. I've worked in state government for over 15 years.
Thats funny...and incorrect. Take a look at King Countys policy regarding the use of social media for their employees.
Post by: JLS on April 01, 2013, 03:22:14 PM
YMMV.
Post by: Bob33 on April 01, 2013, 03:28:26 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on April 01, 2013, 06:39:04 PM
The other was for misreading the regs. I kept a jack salmon, not as part of my daily limit. It was an extra. So i exceeded my daily limit. Both on the same river, by the same officer 2 years apart.
Both times he was respectful, but i owned up to my mistakes. I was unhappy with myself. He commended me for teaching my son how to fish for salmon without snagging. I was the only one fishing bobber and eggs, both times.
Every other time i have talked with an officer it has been good. My step neice is engaged to an WDFW officer, hope i don't screw up anymore. As i am sure i will hear about it. He is also the office on my favorite river so now i really need to watch my P's and Qs.
Post by: Simcoe hunter on April 01, 2013, 08:04:06 PM
I find it interesting that some individuals report hunting for decades and never having a single negative experience, while others report consistently having problems.
Do those of you that have these consistent problems report the incidents so WDFW can address them?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/surveys/feedback.html)
I kinda get the impression the most that hate them have had bad run ins with WDFW officers when they were doing their jobs. :dunno:
:yeah:
Would like the real names of the "bashers" of WDFW Officers on here to see how many of them had issues (citations/arrests) with WDFW Officers.
JASON TRAPP and not one violation or citation
James Brokaw, Jr. And not one violation or citation. Be sure to get the Jr. part or you will get my Dad who is retired from WDFW. I grew up around the old Fisheries Dept. cops and then the WDFW guys. It is sad what some of them have become today. Run my name, there is nothing to hide. But this newer generation has more turds in it than I can ever say there used to be. It used to be that you were innocent until proven guilty. You were approached by someone who treated you politely, and asked the questions necessary to determine your compliance with the law without belligerent interrogation. I have little to no respect for those who begin a verbal confrontation/assault without your even having done something wrong.
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on April 01, 2013, 10:41:39 PM
James Brokaw, Jr. And not one violation or citation. Be sure to get the Jr. part or you will get my Dad who is retired from WDFW. I grew up around the old Fisheries Dept. cops and then the WDFW guys. It is sad what some of them have become today. Run my name, there is nothing to hide. But this newer generation has more turds in it than I can ever say there used to be. It used to be that you were innocent until proven guilty. You were approached by someone who treated you politely, and asked the questions necessary to determine your compliance with the law without belligerent interrogation. I have little to no respect for those who begin a verbal confrontation/assault without your even having done something wrong.
This pretty much sums up most peoples issue.
Post by: whitey on April 02, 2013, 08:33:46 AM
Oh man that was funny. Being accused of doing something based on the fact Im driving a white Truck.Snow geese on fir island. Mind you Me and My buddy (Age 72) Just pulled onto the island, been there 10 minutes and see a 2 game wardens trucks. I stop and say Good Morning and the Fat Tub of chit says to me. "If I was you Id get another truck.. :o
I say my Toyota is a great truck, He says I just got word of a truck matching that trucks describtion..
I said Chit I said we just got here and this was the first time out of the truck.
I said have a good day and Me and My buddy got in the truck and left.
What a F#$KING JACKA$$.
They should have been polite and helpful, not a F$%KING *censored*. that they both were. No use for them, Treat people as You want to be treated, Treat me like Chit, You got it coming back at you.
There thats my RANT. :sry:
Sounds like you needed to have a sense of humor in this situation.
They were just saying you should have had another truck because they got a complaint about a similar truck. I guess if they really wanted to they could have pulled you out at gunpoint thrown you on the ground and cuffed you until they figured out the correct description :twocents:
I forgot how funny it is to have a smart a$$ comment made when a straight up question is ask.
Now what is funny is this thought..(You Ready) :yike:
The Lard A$$ sitting in the new truck We bought him and his little blanket spread over his legs is going to jump out of anything. Fat F$%K would fall and break a hip.
Now thats funny.
Sorry see no humor in him and his smart mouth. :dunno:
Whitey-
Watch the language please.
Thanks!!
:sry:
Just got kindof spooled up. :dunno:
Post by: sakoshooter on April 20, 2013, 09:32:10 PM
Is it just me or does the WDFW have a really bad reputation and many hunters/ outdoorsmen do not support them?
From personal expeirence I've got the impression that im guilty and have to prove myself innocent.
I have only had one interaction with them and it was certainly not a positive one. I will refrain from talking about it in great detail because some of it is still pending other than saying my case was thrown out of court and the judged signed an order that stated I "did nothing wrong" and ordered them to return my property. I feel that they were dishonest the entire time, one officer perjured himself in the narrative, and even lied to my attorney saying my items had been destroyed before giving them back the next day. Encounters like this are why they have a bad reputation.
I had a similar situation a few years back concerning a misunderstanding and two officers "changing'' their testimonies in court and the judge preventing my hunting partners from testifying as witnesses. Very bad. Too long of a story to tell here and would rather forget it for the most part. Sure makes you lose your respect for law enforcement officers when it happens.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 31, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
I've only had a few run-ins with F&G but typically I just hand them my license first thing and then show them the obvious stuff so they know I'm in compliance. An example is when I was checked by a LEO awhile back while duck hunting. I gave him my license and then asked if he wanted to check my gun for a proper plug. I think that threw him off and he said "Nope, you guys seem to be doing things the right way. Have a great day."
I can tell you right now if someone gets in my face like they did you, I'm asking for a badge number.
I see no harm in filing complaints and even requesting face-to-faces with his supervisor. They are public servants and each board member here represents the hunting-washington community.
Curtis
Post by: Fowlweather25 on August 01, 2013, 09:10:21 AM
"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."So youre telling me that its illegal for me to cook and eat the ducks i kill when i get back to camp?
Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?
"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."
Post by: lostbackpacker on August 01, 2013, 09:26:44 AM
Seems like the younger game wardens I have encountered were very nice to deal with, the older guy had his feathers ruffled before he even contacted me.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 01, 2013, 09:30:17 AM
Post by: CAM38 on August 01, 2013, 09:35:03 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 01, 2013, 09:38:54 AM
I guess we need a definition of "in the field" i've always looked at it as the area between where i'm hunting and where i'm staying, whether thats a camp, house, resort etc. once I've transported an animal to the place that I'm staying, I don't think I'm "in the field" any longer and can process or eat my game as i choose.I have always looked at it that way as well. Once I have gotten to were I am sleeping and the game is hanging or in the cooler I am no longer in the field.
Post by: JLS on August 01, 2013, 09:42:26 AM
"The officer then followed them to the campground and when they pulled out a ziploc full of duck breasts the officer got all excited...I understand the routine checks that Fish and Wildlife do, but I do not see why once they've checked your tags, gun, ammo/arrow weight, license plate and see that your not doing anything wrong that they continue to search/prod you for information that could lead to you doing something wrong."So youre telling me that its illegal for me to cook and eat the ducks i kill when i get back to camp?
Your friends were in clear violation of the law. Why shouldn't an officer look into it further?
"It is unlawful to possess in the field or transport game birds unless a feathered head is left attached to each carcass, except falconry-caught birds."
No it's not, but the way it was explained to me was that the law pretty much requires the head attached until you are getting ready to throw it on the grill. I am guessing if they were in a bag of marinade for dinner that night you would not have had a problem.
Post by: JLS on August 01, 2013, 09:43:25 AM
I guess we need a definition of "in the field" i've always looked at it as the area between where i'm hunting and where i'm staying, whether thats a camp, house, resort etc. once I've transported an animal to the place that I'm staying, I don't think I'm "in the field" any longer and can process or eat my game as i choose.I have always looked at it that way as well. Once I have gotten to were I am sleeping and the game is hanging or in the cooler I am no longer in the field.
Pretty sure your camp is still considered in the field.
Post by: Special T on August 01, 2013, 03:22:35 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on August 01, 2013, 05:11:26 PM
I give an example how the WDFW give them selves a bad rap, but it has NOTHING to do with LEO's It has been talked about in another thread however... The WDFW supplemented the CRP program some years back. You got points for giving hunters acess to the property. Well the WDFW also put "written by permission only" signs on CRP ground where permission was specifically denied. I think this was done to make numbers look good that they had gained X amount of acres for hunting when the rality is they only provided habitat. I know many hunters are mad because they think that there was an interest in letting hunters hunt, when there was not. ALSO landowners have not enrolled in the WDFW programs because of the issues had with people hounding them for permission.
I think this was a slight of hand that left a bad taste in many peoples mouth. Legally ANY land is Hunting by written permission only so by postin the sign they did nothing Legaly wrong, however they lost credibility with BOTH farmers and hunters. This is really too bad because Hunters NEED more access, and Farmers that may sign up fro a program are now more hesitent, and prefer to just give permission on thier own. :twocents:
Not quite the way you describe it. During the 90's private land that made the grade for CRP enrollment with the help of WDFW's Upland Wildlife Restoration Program for the most part was designated Feel Free To Hunt. Assistance was given in the form of cistren installation so the farmer could get the necessary water availability points to qualify. In doing so Feel Free To Hunt was the primary option and used whenever possible. Perhaps some areas may have had Permission type signs, which could have been possibly due to earlier enrollment, unique circumstances or just outright someone using a Department sign...it does happen.
Numbers as you say were through the roof as far as statewide private acres under agreement through one of several access programs. There was absolutely no need to pad the books. During the mid to late 90's there was approximately 3.2-3.5 million acres total. CRP did add a bunch quickly and as I said was primarily under the green signed Feel Free to Hunt.
You can say all you want in the negative sense regarding lands open through those programs, however most was valid and accessible in different ways. Most of what you hear is just disguntled perspectives and was due in a large part to laziness on some hunters part by thinking they could show up the morning of or during the season and get permission. Doesn't work that way. Sure some areas were reserved for family opening weekend or week, then open. Nothing wrong with that if that is the deal maker to provide access on some lands.
In other cases landowners would give permission to hunt deer, but no upland birds. Reason being they didn't have but a few pheasants and in addition the landowner's wife had taken a liking to them, and she preferred that they be left alone. Nothing wrong with that either, just ask someone who harvested a nice buck on said place. I could give you plenty of examples of why and why it benefited hunters irregardless of what one hears.
Was there abuse by landowners? Yes in some cases there was. However in most cases they either met obligations or were dropped from the program. Carping about something is in the human nature. If one wants to be successful, it involves more than just pulling the trigger. It requires time spent developing relationships over time. Get turned down one year, go back early the next. Most of the permission game is the evaluation of you as a person. Once a landowner feels comfortable with the fact you'll obey the laws, shut gates, don't leave garbage etc., he'll probably warm to you. Thus the long term relation begins.
Easy way to view it....put yourself in their place and ask the same question people carp about....family only opening, limited number of hunters, no hunting certain areas of the farm or certain species. If you lived there as well it would be crystal clear.
In summary is WDFW faultless....absolutely not. Many things they do are flat out stupid. Meetings, meetings, meetings, studies, studies, studies with no actual boots on the ground as far as improvements. Lots of planning equals safe time and robust excuses to hide their inability to do things...period...fact!
The above mentioned program dealing with habitat improvement, hunter access, wild turkey introductions, and landowner relations statewide to mention a few responsibilities, did not fall into that meaningless mold. That's just why it is no longer present in the original form. Gutted and reduced to a custodial program now, just like the Wildlife Area Program, which has always been custodial. Scared to many "go to meeting excuse maker power types" who run WDFW.
Pretty damn sad what WDFW continues to be through lack of real leadership. Good folks...yes, many of them......lousy ones....for sure. What a agency waste of collective education and year's of experience in my opinion. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on August 01, 2013, 09:51:53 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on August 01, 2013, 11:38:32 PM
He may have gotten CRP funding despite not wanting to allow access, but according to his qualifing with WDFW assistance, if that was the case, he was legally committed by contract, both under WDFW co-operative agreement as well as federal CRP contract to do so. Of course he could decide not to, but then he could lose his CRP payments. If he qualified on his own without department assistance, then there would be no reason to consider access with WDFW.
Sounds to me like he couldn't qualify, but wanted the payment so used the appicable department program to do so to get the points and subsequent payments and then wanted to not allow access. If that's the case, then I don't see where WDFW is at fault. For the most part assistance is based initially on good faith agreements between both parties.
If he was so against allowing access why did he agree to it originally...$$.
"and still had signs posted on his property"
Of course there were signs posted....he agreed to that under the terms of the agreement(s) to get qualified for CRP and receive payments. You make it sound like it was the WDFW program's fault. If you want to blame someone for the perception of not allowing access under a legal agreement, then blame your brother-in-law.
Post by: Blackjaw on August 02, 2013, 06:42:10 AM
Admittedly my sample size is small, but over the years I have tried to contact 3-4 different land owners regarding State sanctioned 'hunting by written permission only' in the June to July time frame and (after my detective work finding them) have been turned down every time. They were all nice about it, but I have a hard time believing I couldn't get permission from at least one of them.
Now when I pass by one of these 'Hunting by Written Permission Only' signs I just laugh and keep on going until I get to a true public hunting area, or some of the private land I have permission to hunt that is not enrolled in the program.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 02, 2013, 07:02:27 AM
"What is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)?
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat."
source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp)
Their individual agreements with our own DFW may include access to private lands hunting, but that would be a separate issue and has nothing to do with CRP.
Post by: Wacenturion on August 02, 2013, 08:07:19 AM
Farmers who enroll in CRP have no obligation to allow hunting. CRP is completely to do with conservation and habitat creation. Here is the quote from the Farm Service Agency website:
"What is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)?
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat."
source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp)
Their individual agreements with our own DFW may include access to private lands hunting, but that would be a separate issue and has nothing to do with CRP.
True in one sense but wrong in another. Has everything to do with access if you need assistance to qualify. WDFW was instrumental in assisting landowners on their bids to enroll into CRP. The primary expenditure by the department was placement of cistrens on private lands to allow the landowner in question to get points for accessible water on their property for wildlife. Depending on the size of said property, there may have been anywhere from one to several cistrens placed in the ground per landowner. Other assistance on it's own or in addition to included habitat plantings, food plots etc. that also help qualify landowners.
Quite simply if a landowner had the type of property that scored high and needed no assistance, then he competed on his own to get the CRP contract. However if his land lacked the components necessary to compete and sought assistance through the department's Upland Wildlife Restoration Program at the time, then the caveat was participation in one of the access programs in return for the assistance and program expenditures on WDFW's side.
Because of all the assistance provided, Washington landowners fared very well in comparison to other states, being near the top. The successful rankings and scoring of those CRP qualifying items below were in many cases dependent on the above mentioned participation in partnerships with landowners statewide.
General CRP
How are General CRP sign-up offers ranked?
General CRP sign-up only occurs when the Secretary of Agriculture announces USDA will accept bids for enrollment. General CRP sign-up is competitive and offers are ranked against each other on a national level.
Offers made during General CRP sign-up are ranked primarily on the environmental benefits that will result from the proposed conservation practices to be put in place. FSA assigns each offer an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) depending on the environmental sensitivity of the land and the type(s) of conservation practices proposed for it. It is this EBI that is used to rank offers against each other and selections for enrollment are made from that ranking.
Factors contributing to the EBI include:
Benefits to wildlife habitat
Benefits to water quality
Benefits to the farm itself from reduced erosion
Benefits to air quality
Benefits that will last beyond the contract period
Cost (of both annual rental payments and cost-share to establish conservation practices)