Post by: Goldeneye on August 05, 2013, 04:27:30 PM
EVERETT -- An undercover operation in Snohomish County by state fish and wildlife agents has netted two men with suspected ties to an international fish-poaching ring.
The men are accused of illegally selling caviar, steelhead and salmon. One of the men admitted to illegally "snagging" at least 100 pounds of steelhead, prosecutors said. The men were charged on Tuesday with unlawful trafficking of fish, a felony.
"It's bad enough when they're stealing by harvesting illegally. They've added to the egregiousness by then making a profit," said Mike Cenci, a marine patrol captain with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Agents say the men are believed to be connected to a fish-poaching ring that was operating out of several other states. Earlier this year, eight men were indicted in Missouri on federal charges for poaching and trafficking in American paddlefish and their eggs. More than 100 other people were arrested or cited for their part in illegally selling Missouri paddlefish to national and international caviar markets.
American paddlefish, also known as spoonbills, are native to the Mississippi River watershed. The prehistoric fish can live for decades, weigh up 160 pounds and reach seven feet long. Criminals sell eggs from the boneless fish as higher-quality caviar.
"Paddlefish are often sold under the guise of sturgeon," Cenci said.
With a decline in the highly-sought-after and expensive sturgeon roe, paddlefish eggs have gained popularity. The increase in demand has led to a decline in the paddlefish population, according to federal fish and wildlife agents. Chinese paddlefish, once plentiful in the Yangtze River, are believed to be almost extinct.
Authorities allege that Igor Stepchuk, 38, of Lynnwood, sold an undercover agent five jars of American paddlefish eggs for $500. He also is accused of illegally selling steelhead, and coho and chinook salmon.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife began investigating Stepchuk after receiving a tip in 2011 that he was trafficking illegal caviar. The agent met with Stepchuk numerous times. His friend Oleg Morozov, of Kent, also is accused of trafficking fish.
Stepchuk, a convicted felon, eventually offered to sell the agent steelhead, court papers said. He reportedly told the agent he had poached about 100 pounds of steelhead. It isn't clear where he caught them. He reportedly showed the agent a freezer full of fish.
Non-tribal fishermen are banned from selling steelhead. Commercial and recreational salmon fishing also is heavily regulated.
Cenci said it's also illegal to catch fish by snagging, which often means dragging a hook through the water and impaling the fish, rather than waiting for a fish to bite.
"It's offensive to sportsmen and sportswomen. It's a matter of ethics," Cenci said.
The defendants reportedly went on to sell the undercover agent more than a dozen jars of caviar and more steelhead. In total, the men charged the agent more than $4,500 for the fish and eggs.
Detectives sent samples of the caviar and fish to the department's molecular genetics laboratory to confirm the species. The lab is used primarily to help manage wildlife and fish resources, but enforcement agents use the facility to assist with criminal investigations. DNA testing was done, and the samples were consistent with steelhead and chinook and coho salmon, court records said.
"That kind of activity has a great impact when you're dealing with endangered salmon runs," Cenci said.
Bob Heirman, conservationist and longtime secretary-treasurer for the Snohomish Sportsmen's Club, has been planting salmon and trout in Snohomish County for decades.
Poachers are "robbing resources while some people are trying to recover them," Heirman said.
Stepchuk and Morozov are expected to answer to the charges later this month in Snohomish County Superior Court.
Unfortunately, the state's fish and wildlife species often find their way to illegal national and international markets, Cenci said. "We've seen everything poached from roe to bear gallbladders," he said.
He encourages seafood eaters to make sure they are buying from licensed and legitimate sellers. "If there aren't people willing to buy (illegal products) the incentive to poach for profit goes away," Cenci said.
Post by: C-Money on August 05, 2013, 04:37:00 PM
Post by: Goldeneye on August 05, 2013, 04:40:56 PM
Post by: Southpole on August 05, 2013, 04:48:22 PM
Sounds like these guys are Russian. If I remember right, the Lake Lenore guys were Russian as well. Could very well be part of the same crime ring.That's what I was thinking, same group of dirty, rude Russians that really don't give a crap before or after being busted.
Post by: Bullkllr on August 05, 2013, 04:51:55 PM
Sounds like these guys are Russian. If I remember right, the Lake Lenore guys were Russian as well. Could very well be part of the same crime ring.
Igor Stepchuk, Oleg Morozov...yeah...sounds like we have a distinctly common thread running through these major fish poaching cases lately.
Post by: TheHunt on August 12, 2013, 08:29:27 AM
Post by: Curly on August 12, 2013, 08:45:49 AM
:twocents:
Post by: muzbuster on August 12, 2013, 10:55:54 AM
Post by: huntnnw on August 12, 2013, 10:07:22 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 15, 2013, 10:42:10 AM
I posted this because I sincerely want the citizens of WA (especially hunters) to be aware of what is going on with their wildlife. If you have a better way of me spreading the word, let me know.
I am not just some guy trying to make a buck off of a book. I spent 34-years pursuing poachers in this state, but couldn't voice my true opinion until after I retired. I have now told the whole story....way too much info to put on a blog. Hence the referral to the book.
Sorry if it offends anyone that I am posting something that may make me a few dollars, but I truly believe the story needs to get out there.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2013, 10:47:44 AM
Quote
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,4100.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,4100.0.html)
Unapproved advertising will not be tolerated. Period! Read all of this agreement.
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, slanderous, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.
You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.
You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason. We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.
After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clean and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate, slanderous or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.
Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.
Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.
Throughout the board; there should be no videos, hyperlinks, text and or images posted with the intent to advertise for commercial business unless approved by the web administrators. This includes signatures. Businesses interested in sponsoring our site to help pay for web hosting costs should contact the administrators at ray[at]hunting-washington.com or using our contact form here for guidelines and other details. We prefer local businesses related to hunting and the outdoors. Information about site sponorship is located here.
Keep it clean and honest and things should be just fine. If you are unsure what is allowed, ask an administrator or moderator first.
Post by: ucwarden on September 15, 2013, 10:50:19 AM
Sorry to inconvience you.
Post by: bigtex on September 15, 2013, 10:50:46 AM
Post by: bobcat on September 15, 2013, 10:53:09 AM
Post by: TheSkyBuster on September 15, 2013, 10:54:19 AM
Spam! :chuckle:
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Cody-Todd-A-Vandivert/dp/1484148371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379267383&sr=8-1&keywords=operation+cody (http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Cody-Todd-A-Vandivert/dp/1484148371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379267383&sr=8-1&keywords=operation+cody)
Post by: snowpack on September 15, 2013, 10:56:01 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2013, 10:57:29 AM
OK, you win. I will pull out of this entire blog.
Sorry to inconvience you.
Don't act all hurt. It's probably a good book, and the management here would most likely be glad to assist you in publicizing this book. But coming onto multiple threads as an ad hoc method of advertising is poor form and in violation of the user agreement.
Post by: ucwarden on September 15, 2013, 11:00:14 AM
Tried to spread the word about the commercialization of Washington's wildlife, but ran into nothing but opposition.
I am just not up on all the forum rules, and really had good intentions, but it isn't worth it.
Good luck to all the hunters on here, and hope you have a successful hunting season.
Post by: Hunterman on September 15, 2013, 11:00:57 AM
OK, you win. I will pull out of this entire blog.
Sorry to inconvience you.
Don't act all hurt. It's probably a good book, and the management here would most likely be glad to assist you in publicizing this book. But coming onto multiple threads as an ad hoc method of advertising is poor form and in violation of the user agreement.
Typical of fish and game. Circumvent the rules.
Try advertising in book stores, or at the outdoor shows.
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2013, 11:02:06 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 15, 2013, 11:05:12 AM
OK, you win. I will pull out of this entire blog.
Sorry to inconvience you.
Don't act all hurt. It's probably a good book, and the management here would most likely be glad to assist you in publicizing this book. But coming onto multiple threads as an ad hoc method of advertising is poor form and in violation of the user agreement.
I didn't see it as intentionally trying to get around the rules. Way to alienate a new member. Also he did not come into multiple threads to hock his book as you suggested. Glad we have the imitation forum police. SMH, what a drama queen.
Ucwarden, thanks for what you did to protect our resources. :tup:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2013, 11:08:11 AM
Actually he posted on three threads the same message advertising his book.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2013, 11:09:59 AM
It's not that we don't want anyone to read the book, actually quite the opposite. But, if you were allowed to advertise without paying the sponsor fee that helps support the operation of the site it wouldn't be fair to other sponsors who have paid the fee to advertise and support the site.
:yeah:
Today was my first time ever on WA Hunting Forum, and my last.
Tried to spread the word about the commercialization of Washington's wildlife, but ran into nothing but opposition.
I am just not up on all the forum rules, and really had good intentions, but it isn't worth it.
Good luck to all the hunters on here, and hope you have a successful hunting season.
Wow, that's your reaction to being asked to follow the basic rules of this board? Very telling
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 15, 2013, 11:11:11 AM
Turkey:How can that be? He only has three total posts and all in this thread.
Actually he posted on three threads the same message advertising his book.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2013, 11:11:49 AM
Duh
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 15, 2013, 11:24:42 AM
They were removed as violation of the user agreement.Oh right, how silly of me to not automatically know everything that happens here every minute of every day. Sorry I have other things to do other than sit here all day waiting to pounce on someone as you do. I have a life. ;)
Duh
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2013, 11:30:41 AM
Doesn't seem like enough difference for you to get all high and mighty. 0.42 posts per day makes all the difference in your mind?
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 15, 2013, 11:47:25 AM
According to the stats, you have 2.673 posts/day, while I have 3.094 posts per day.You clearly don't listen or pay attention. I said nothing about posts, I was talking about spending so much time that you know of all the posts of a person. I am done here, I do not have time to play you little games. Go ahead and get the last word in though cause we both know you'll be dying to. :tup:
Doesn't seem like enough difference for you to get all high and mighty. 0.42 posts per day makes all the difference in your mind?
Post by: Special T on September 15, 2013, 12:34:59 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 15, 2013, 12:37:56 PM
I understand the issue, and will be buying the book. When i get done reading i will write a review of it. Its unfortunate that explaining how the program works could not resolve the issue. I would love to see HW have a recommended book list that are interesting and valuable. A couple of the other sites i visit have a recommended or best of book list. :twocents:That's a great idea. Knowledge is power and we all need to know as much as we can.
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2013, 01:27:02 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on September 15, 2013, 01:35:24 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2013, 01:36:34 PM
This may ruffle some feathers and it's not meant to do that, but I was a little disappointed by what seemed like an attitude. It almost seemed that he assumed or expected that because he was retired law enforcement he should not need to meet the same advertising requirements as other members selling other commercial items on the forum. No offense meant toward anyone, but did anyone else get that feeling by the response?
You gotta wonder if when he was enforcing laws, he thought that "ignorance of the laws" was a valid excuse
Today was my first time ever on WA Hunting Forum, and my last.
Tried to spread the word about the commercialization of Washington's wildlife, but ran into nothing but opposition.
I am just not up on all the forum rules, and really had good intentions, but it isn't worth it.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 15, 2013, 01:37:24 PM
I think there needs to be some sort of loop hole in the board rules when it comes down to getting the word out on protecting wildlife. I think there is a big difference between selling a book vs. someone profiting from say the guiding or taxidermy business.
He was still selling a book.
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 15, 2013, 01:42:38 PM
This may ruffle some feathers and it's not meant to do that, but I was a little disappointed by what seemed like an attitude. It almost seemed that he assumed or expected that because he was retired law enforcement he should not need to meet the same advertising requirements as other members selling other commercial items on the forum. No offense meant toward anyone, but did anyone else get that feeling by the response?I didn't get the impression at first that he was trying to skirt the rules. However his response when he was informed of the rules seemed a bit childish.
Post by: nwwanderer on September 15, 2013, 01:56:59 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2013, 02:09:40 PM
I think there needs to be some sort of loop hole in the board rules when it comes down to getting the word out on protecting wildlife. I think there is a big difference between selling a book vs. someone profiting from say the guiding or taxidermy business.
If he was only interested in sharing his experiences he could provide the text for free on this forum to anyone or he could share his stories through magazines if he wasn't interested in profiting. I really see no difference, business is business if you are doing it for a profit. That said, he is as welcome here as any other sponsor or he is also welcome here as any other member and may share his stories free if not for a profit. As was stated, he should understand rules since he used to enforce rules. :dunno:
No hard feelings either way, and sorry about the hijack. :sry:
Post by: mrmoskillz on September 16, 2013, 03:08:34 PM
Post by: Hunterman on September 16, 2013, 03:37:49 PM
I think there needs to be some sort of loop hole in the board rules when it comes down to getting the word out on protecting wildlife. I think there is a big difference between selling a book vs. someone profiting from say the guiding or taxidermy business.
Rules are rules. There are too many loop holes in life. I'm glad these were kept shut. This dude was a LEO and makes me wonder how he did his job with the attitude he had here when confronted.
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: grundy53 on September 16, 2013, 05:23:02 PM
This may ruffle some feathers and it's not meant to do that, but I was a little disappointed by what seemed like an attitude. It almost seemed that he assumed or expected that because he was retired law enforcement he should not need to meet the same advertising requirements as other members selling other commercial items on the forum. No offense meant toward anyone, but did anyone else get that feeling by the response?I agree. I got the same feeling.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: ucwarden on September 16, 2013, 08:21:48 PM
First; as I said before yesterday was my first time ever on a forum, so I am totally new to this. I say this not as an excuse but rather as an explanation.
Secondly; I did violate the rules on advertising. Inadvertent or not, I placed a post which advertised a book, for which I make money (very little, but still some). I already did what I could on that front, as I took the posting down and today emailed a representative of “hunting Washington”, and asked about placing a paid ad (I haven’t heard back yet).
As to the suggestion that I “provide the text (of the book) for free”, that’s not very realistic. The book is 454 pages and I am under contract with Amazon to not provide the book in any electronic form.
There were several comments regarding my “attitude” when confronted with my improper posting. I am not sure why my response sounded like “attitude”, but it was certainly not intended as such. I pulled the post down, and wished everyone a successful hunting season (which I meant sincerely). I guess the attitude came from my comment that “it isn’t worth it”. Sorry if that offended anyone, but if it did then maybe I am not the one with thin skin.
I also saw some comments regarding what kind of officer I was. Those comments are pretty cheap shots. Judge my work performance by my work performance, not by posting on a hunting forum.
Now back to the subject at hand. If everyone is done discussing if I should have posted the “book advertisement”, I am more than willing to discuss the more serious problem; commercial poaching in Washington. That was the reason I made the post in the first place. It is also the only reason I wrote the book (I never intended the book to be a money maker for me). If any of you have questions or comments on poaching, wildlife trafficking, or WDFW’s response to such, I will be glad to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
Post by: bigtex on September 16, 2013, 08:27:31 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 16, 2013, 08:31:46 PM
OK, you win. I will pull out of this entire blog.
Sorry to inconvience you.
A little bit of martyrdom there for one thing
Post by: ucwarden on September 16, 2013, 08:37:47 PM
Is my reponse, and you interpretation of my response really a bigger issue that commercial poaching to you?
If you would like to have a one on one conversation about my postings, feel free to email me, provide your phone number and we can speak in person, but I for one really do care more about wildlife than I do about what you think of me personally.
Post by: Skillet on September 16, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Just man up and admit you were wrong, were new, etc. I have little doubt than in your long career you've offered advice very similar to that a time or two.
Post by: Special T on September 16, 2013, 09:18:58 PM
As a warden you no doubt no that many wardens have a bad rep for "customer service" You apparently have that figured out int he right way... I can tell you that 99% of sportsmen can get behind hammering commercial poachers for profit even tho they may not be too excited for being pinched for having their barbed hook insufficiently crimped down...
Post by: ucwarden on September 16, 2013, 09:39:19 PM
Thanks for getting past the improper posting debate.
I worked 26 years in uniform and the last 8 as a detective in WDFW. As a detective I was tasked with large-scale cases, primarily trafficking cases.
The case, regarding the Russians, which began this post was one of the cases I worked undercover in Operation Cody. At the end of the case we ended up with over 100 suspects in multiple states (most in Washington).
When I started the operation I wanted to focus on wildlife, as I came from the Game Dept. side (vs Fisheries). The proposed operation was opposed by the WDFW chain-of-command, because they prefer working shellfish cases above all else. In the detective unit (5-8 detectives), called SIU, I was the only one who focused on wildlife, while all others were assigned shellfish cases. I don't have enough time here to explain how frustrating it was working for a chain-of-command which placed shellfish above all else.
Once I began the operation I was absolutely shocked by how common the trafficking of deer, and elk carcasses (meats) is, as well as eagles, bighorn and mountain goats. Bear I expected, but not the thousands of pounds of deer and elk meat which was sold to us.
Your fish and wildlife are protected by WDFW enforcement, but (in my opinion) not equally. The uniformed officers do their best to protect all equally, but for trafficking cases it takes a lot of time and money.
Please feel free to ask any specific questions you want, and I will try my best to answer them.
Post by: Special T on September 16, 2013, 09:50:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 16, 2013, 10:49:21 PM
Thanks for coming back to post. I'm not sure why some are giving you a hard time. Personally I never noticed any kind of an "attitude."
Anyway, I'm hoping you will stick around and share some stories.
I'm really looking forward to reading your book!
Post by: 6x6in6 on September 16, 2013, 11:09:47 PM
ucwarden,
Thanks for coming back to post. I'm not sure why some are giving you a hard time. Personally I never noticed any kind of an "attitude."
Anyway, I'm hoping you will stick around and share some stories.
I'm really looking forward to reading your book!
:yeah:
ucwarden, I'm going to send you a PM requesting the Amazon link as I would like to purchase the book.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 06:45:26 AM
To answer your question on why WDFW gives more attention to shellfish, than to wildlife, here is my opinion.
I believe this occurs for three reasons;
1) Shellfish cases are easier to work. When people harvest shellfish (legally or illegally), they are almost always witnessed. Harvesting occurs on the open water or on beaches, which are easily seen from a distance. I don't need to tell you how easy it is to kill a big game animal without being seen, but it's damned tough to harvest shellfish without being witnessed. Also; all shellfish (and fish) commercially harvested must be documented every step of the way; fish tickets, wholesale and retail receipts etc., so it's easy for WDFW to go back and compare the documents to look for discrepancies (i.e.- if a person sells more shellfish than he or she has reported harvesting, then something is going on).
2) There is more money involved in shellfish cases. Illegal shellfish harvest can easily get into the $100,000 range, while illegal commercial harvest of wildlife is generally in the 100's of dollars range.
3) Up until recently, the chief of WDFW enforcement (Chief Bjork) was a former state patrol deputy chief (with no experience as a game warden) and the deputy chief of WDFW (Mike Cenci) was a former fisheries officer, who again had no experience as a game warden. The deputy chief was the one who made the decisions on prioritization of case work, and he clearly didn't think big game was anywhere near as important as shellfish (a bias he brought with him from Dept. of Fisheries).
If any of you were to ask why SIU (the WDFW statewide investigative unit) spent a disproportionate amount of time, money and effort on shellfish, the answer you would likely receive was that there is more illegal activity in shellfish than in wildlife. That is simply not true. I was one detective, in a group of 6 (at the time), and yet when I set out to focus on wildlife trafficking I came up with over 100 suspects (all involved in illegal trafficking in wildlife) in only 14 months. The case work is there, and it won’t stop, but it is tougher to make cases on.
It should tell all of you something that all but one of the WDFW detectives are on the west-side of the state, when the vast majority of the big game cases I made were on the east-side.
The reason I am making these posts now, is that WDFW has a "changing of the guards". Chief Bjork just retired, and Deputy Chief Cenci demoted to a marine captain position (they have not yet filled the deputy chief position), so this is the time for all citizens to stand up and insist that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife be given equal attention! Every day, poachers are slaughtering your wildlife in order to fuel their greed and/or drug habits. It won't stop, but you can insist that WDFW do their best to curb it.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 06:47:19 AM
Email me at ucwarden@gmail.com. I didn't get a message on this system (I am not real good at navigating this system)
Post by: singleshot12 on September 17, 2013, 07:14:12 AM
ucwarden,:yeah:
Thanks for coming back to post. I'm not sure why some are giving you a hard time. Personally I never noticed any kind of an "attitude."
Anyway, I'm hoping you will stick around and share some stories.
I'm really looking forward to reading your book!
Commercial poaching(the real problem) I'm sure accounts for the majority of wildlife stolen from us so it should get most to all the attention until it is curbed, IMO
One sore subject in my book is what happened to our "white sturgeon" fishery in such a short time. Within just a couple years poachers depleted them to the point where we now have a total retention closure here. I know there has been some efforts to stop the poaching but obviously there wasn't enough. We as sportsmen need to support f&w enforcement and insist commercial poaching be the center of attention until it's stopped.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 07:26:26 AM
You are right on target (no pun intended). While I have no idea what percentage of poaching is for commercial purposes, vs. individual slobs, Operation Cody opened my eyes (and the eyes of lot's of others) just how widespread commercial poaching really is in Washington.
One thing I found, from working the operation is that before this operation uniformed officers (myself included, when I was in uniform) assumed that when they caught someone with a mass over-limit of shellfish (i.e.- 600 crab) it was for commercial purposes, but the same was not true when we caught someone poaching wildlife. Until this operation, it never crossed my mind that someone caught with a couple of illegal deer might be selling them to restaurants, but now we all know better.
Sturgeon have really taken a beating, and they are largely targeted for commercial purposes, but so are a lot of other critters.
Post by: Special T on September 17, 2013, 07:47:18 AM
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 08:05:11 AM
There are a couple of problems with determining just how much is lost to commercial poaching, whether it is shellfish, fish or wildlife.
The first problem is defining what "poaching" is. Some would say any unlawful taking or possession is poaching. Under than simplistic definition, a person fishing for salmon with barbed hooks is "poaching" salmon. I think most of us would agree that is not the case. Many of the shellfish "poaching cases" WDFW claims are really a matter of tax evasion, not what I would consider poaching (although it does result in over-harvest). Many commercial shellfish harvesters have been caught under-reporting their harvest, so they don't have to pay taxes on all of their harvest.
When it comes to wildlife, it's a whole different ballgame, since people killing deer, elk, sheep and eagles for profit aren't paying any taxes or filling out any paperwork.
As for a guess or estimate on the % of illegal wildlife harvest for commercial purposes vs. recreational harvest; that's a really tough one. Until Operation Cody, WDFW had only scratched the surface on commercial wildlife trafficking. I have done a ton of bear gall bladder trafficking cases, so we knew that was huge, but to the best of my knowledge only one or two deer and elk meat trafficking cases had ever been made in Washington...until this operation.
In Operation Cody, just one single suspect (who was the leader of an organized gang of criminals) was selling in the neighborhood of 12-15 elk each month.
It's really impossible for me to answer your percentage question, as it varies widely from species to species. For example, I would guess that a huge percentage of eagles poached are poached for profit, while deer are likely much lower.
Sorry to sound evasive on your question, but I simply don't know. During the operation we did business with four different restaurants which were all buying deer, elk, bear, game birds and even cougar, from commercial poachers. That was a shock to me.
I truly believe the problem is enormous, but I don't know of any way to quantify the situation at this point. Only more such operations would tell, but I am not sure you will see any such work in the future, as shellfish is king.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 17, 2013, 09:06:47 AM
Post by: JLS on September 17, 2013, 09:11:39 AM
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 09:16:12 AM
Thanks ucwarden for your perspective. You have been very thoughtful and considerate in your second approach to engaging the community here. I am sure that many appreciate it and will give your book and the issues involved another thought as a result.
You are very welcome.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 09:26:51 AM
How many of the suspects from the operation were investigated and/or charged?
Those are two different questions. How many were investigated? My partner and I made over 600 contacts on this operation. We decided early on that we did not want to sweep up any "dummies" (people who didn't know what they were proposing to deal in was illegal), so the vast majority of the people who contacted us; we ended up not doing business with after we told them what they were doing was illegal. They were "investigated", but set free.
Out of those suspects who knew full well they were committing crimes (almost all of the crimes were felony level), we ended up making transactions (purchase or sale of illegal wildlife) with about 80 or so. Once we did search warrants and interviews, we ended up passing the 100 suspect milestone.
Our chief had promised me 2 years on this operation, so that we could take in two complete hunting seasons, but the deputy chief shut us down making contacts with new suspects after only 14-months, so we only got to run it one hunting season (not that the seasons made a big difference to these guys).
Had we be allowed to run the operation for the 24-months, as promised, we would have really cut a swath through the black-market, but such is life in WDFW. Now if we had been working Geoduck, we would still be going (shellfish rules- I found out).
Hope that answers your question?
Post by: JLS on September 17, 2013, 09:43:55 AM
How many of the suspects from the operation were investigated and/or charged?
Those are two different questions. How many were investigated? My partner and I made over 600 contacts on this operation. We decided early on that we did not want to sweep up any "dummies" (people who didn't know what they were proposing to deal in was illegal), so the vast majority of the people who contacted us; we ended up not doing business with after we told them what they were doing was illegal. They were "investigated", but set free.
Out of those suspects who knew full well they were committing crimes (almost all of the crimes were felony level), we ended up making transactions (purchase or sale of illegal wildlife) with about 80 or so. Once we did search warrants and interviews, we ended up passing the 100 suspect milestone.
Our chief had promised me 2 years on this operation, so that we could take in two complete hunting seasons, but the deputy chief shut us down making contacts with new suspects after only 14-months, so we only got to run it one hunting season (not that the seasons made a big difference to these guys).
Had we be allowed to run the operation for the 24-months, as promised, we would have really cut a swath through the black-market, but such is life in WDFW. Now if we had been working Geoduck, we would still be going (shellfish rules- I found out).
Hope that answers your question?
Why did your Deputy Chief shut it down early?
Maybe I should just buy the book and read it :o
Post by: quadrafire on September 17, 2013, 10:24:41 AM
Curious if the resturaunts involved were all west side or were they scattered throughout the state?
What were the resturant theme? asian, middle eastern or pizza joint?
Are they still in business?
Post by: Curly on September 17, 2013, 11:57:14 AM
Can you say if there is a higher percentage of poachers that are immigrants vs. people that are born here? :dunno:
It seems like we hear about a lot of cases where Russians have been caught poaching. (The case that started this topic, for instance. And the case at Lake Lenore). The TV show "Wardens" in Montana seems like they bust several Russian people.
Also, we hear stories about brush pickers (usually illegals from S. America or Mexico) killing deer while out picking brush. I'm not sure how true those stories are; I've not heard of them officially being caught.............just seems like anecdotal evidence.
Post by: snowpack on September 17, 2013, 12:35:27 PM
Very interesting stuff UCWould it be wrong to think the cougar ended up in Chinese food? :sry:
Curious if the resturaunts involved were all west side or were they scattered throughout the state?
What were the resturant theme? asian, middle eastern or pizza joint?
Are they still in business?
Post by: JLS on September 17, 2013, 12:37:19 PM
Very interesting stuff UCWould it be wrong to think the cougar ended up in Chinese food? :sry:
Curious if the resturaunts involved were all west side or were they scattered throughout the state?
What were the resturant theme? asian, middle eastern or pizza joint?
Are they still in business?
Sweet and sour baby :tup:
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 12:38:57 PM
How many of the suspects from the operation were investigated and/or charged?
Those are two different questions. How many were investigated? My partner and I made over 600 contacts on this operation. We decided early on that we did not want to sweep up any "dummies" (people who didn't know what they were proposing to deal in was illegal), so the vast majority of the people who contacted us; we ended up not doing business with after we told them what they were doing was illegal. They were "investigated", but set free.
Out of those suspects who knew full well they were committing crimes (almost all of the crimes were felony level), we ended up making transactions (purchase or sale of illegal wildlife) with about 80 or so. Once we did search warrants and interviews, we ended up passing the 100 suspect milestone.
Our chief had promised me 2 years on this operation, so that we could take in two complete hunting seasons, but the deputy chief shut us down making contacts with new suspects after only 14-months, so we only got to run it one hunting season (not that the seasons made a big difference to these guys).
Had we be allowed to run the operation for the 24-months, as promised, we would have really cut a swath through the black-market, but such is life in WDFW. Now if we had been working Geoduck, we would still be going (shellfish rules- I found out).
Hope that answers your question?
Why did your Deputy Chief shut it down early?
Maybe I should just buy the book and read it :o
The answer to this one is again largely my opinion. The official reason I was given was that he was concerned we wouldn't have enough manpower to handle taking down all the bad guys. That was a bogus statement, as we didn't have to take them all at once. We could have taken down the top 10 to 12 on one day, and then worked our way down the list. I believe the real reason was more sinister; he absolutely hates me, and really resented the fact that the operation was so successful. He originally turned down my proposed operation, so I did an end-run and took it to the chief (going over the top of the deputy chief's head). Nobody likes it when a subordinate goes around you and gets a different answer. Also; the more time and money we spent on wildlife cases, was taking away from what he believed was more important; shellfish.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
Very interesting stuff UC
Curious if the resturaunts involved were all west side or were they scattered throughout the state?
What were the resturant theme? asian, middle eastern or pizza joint?
Are they still in business?
Two on the westside, and two on the eastside. Three of the four were Chinese restaurants, while the fourth was yuppie/tourist restaurant which served elk steaks (they were supposed be be from out-of-state game farms, but poached Washington elk proved to be cheaper for the restaurant owner.
As far as I know all are still in business. The one in Walla Walla is without an manager/owner, as he is in federal prison on our charges right now, but they are still in business as far as I know.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 12:49:30 PM
ucwarden, thank you for coming back and answering questions.
Can you say if there is a higher percentage of poachers that are immigrants vs. people that are born here? :dunno:
It seems like we hear about a lot of cases where Russians have been caught poaching. (The case that started this topic, for instance. And the case at Lake Lenore). The TV show "Wardens" in Montana seems like they bust several Russian people.
Also, we hear stories about brush pickers (usually illegals from S. America or Mexico) killing deer while out picking brush. I'm not sure how true those stories are; I've not heard of them officially being caught.............just seems like anecdotal evidence.
That is an interesting question. First of all, I was ordered to not deal with tribal members (for the first 3/4's of the operation), so none of the suspects at first were native americans.
Wildlife trafficking really works differently with different species. Bear parts, for example, almost always end up with Korean or Chinese customer in the end.
The eagles and hawk market is mostly tribal or Japanese.
Deer, elk, sheep etc. are almost all regular old white americans.
Caviar (sturgeon and salmon) is eastern european (Russia or Ukraine).
With a few exceptions (i.e.- the Chinese restaurants), most of the suspects we arrested were plain old white male americans. Some very wealthy, and some addicted to meth, and everything in between.
Almost all of the people involved in
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 12:52:37 PM
Very interesting stuff UCWould it be wrong to think the cougar ended up in Chinese food? :sry:
Curious if the resturaunts involved were all west side or were they scattered throughout the state?
What were the resturant theme? asian, middle eastern or pizza joint?
Are they still in business?
Nope; you are correct.
Maybe everyone who has an interest in this operation should take a look at this Kiro 7 report, on Operation Cody:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/eagle-heads-bear-penises-cougar-meat-part-local-wi/nWNxy/ (http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/eagle-heads-bear-penises-cougar-meat-part-local-wi/nWNxy/)
Post by: bobcat on September 17, 2013, 12:55:28 PM
Quote
the fourth was yuppie/tourist restaurant which served elk steaks (they were supposed be be from out-of-state game farms, but poached Washington elk proved to be cheaper for the restaurant owner.
This is why elk farming should be illegal! There should be no such thing as domestic elk. Then restaurants wouldn't be serving elk steaks at all. You want elk meat- go elk hunting. You want to eat out- eat a beef steak.
Thankfully that's one thing our state did right- making elk farming illegal.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 01:05:42 PM
Quotethe fourth was yuppie/tourist restaurant which served elk steaks (they were supposed be be from out-of-state game farms, but poached Washington elk proved to be cheaper for the restaurant owner.
This is why elk farming should be illegal! There should be no such thing as domestic elk. Then restaurants wouldn't be serving elk steaks at all. You want elk meat- go elk hunting. You want to eat out- eat a beef steak.
Thankfully that's one thing our state did right- making elk farming illegal.
Bobcat: I agree. A common agruement comes up, among, as to whether or not hunters should be able to sell what they kill. Many people say that if the animal was legally killed, then you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
That is a great theory, but unfortunately when you open up a legal market, you make it much easier for the illegal traffickers to do business. Use cocaine as an example; you can't sell or buy cocaine legally under any circumstances. Therefore if someone is dealing in cocaine, they are done once LE can prove the sales (or even possession).
Many species of wildlife (other than protected or endangered) is legal to possess, but the sale/purchase is illegal. Once you open that door to legal sales, then in comes the poachers to make a quick buck. A business (i.e.- a restaurant) simply buys some elk meat from an out-of-state game farm and keeps the receipts on-hand in-case they are inspected, but then buys the majority of their elk meat from poachers.
I agree with you, if someone wants an elk steak, hunt it or know a friend who hunts and is willing to share.
I hate to see markets opened to wildlife trafficking, it just gives poachers a foot in the door.
Post by: quadrafire on September 17, 2013, 01:12:44 PM
I was 8 or 9 yrs old :chuckle: come to find out he was a friend of my Grandmas and gave her a hard time about her "felon" grandson. LOL
Sure hard to turn all those fish loose. :yike:
Post by: Gringo31 on September 17, 2013, 01:29:55 PM
I think a big problem is that when "us white" guys see a native looking guy (could be hispanic) we assume tribal activity and "nothing to see here".
I've had several hispanic guys tell me you can go to Mabton and buy deer from the indians for $40.
Post by: singleshot12 on September 17, 2013, 01:35:54 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 01:47:16 PM
I love this thread. Thank you ucwarden for your line of work and for sharing. Sorry about the rough start :chuckle:
I think a big problem is that when "us white" guys see a native looking guy (could be hispanic) we assume tribal activity and "nothing to see here".
I've had several hispanic guys tell me you can go to Mabton and buy deer from the indians for $40.
Don't get me wrong; we have multiple offers from tribal members for everything from elk, to eagles, but we were foirbidden (by our administration) from pursuing tribal members. That changed at the last minute (towards the end of the operation) when we were given the green light to deal with one tribal member....we bought an elk from him.
When it comes to seeing or hearing about things going on illegally; don't assume anything! Call it in, and insist that an officer call you back in-person.
I have always told people that I would rather have a ton of information, even if some of it was useless, than to not have information passed on to me because the witness felt it may not be worthy. When you see or hear something...report it.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 01:52:26 PM
So who's doing most of the actual poaching and supplying the product to the black market buyers and restaurants? I see eastern European or Asian immigrants coming to this country with no respect for our laws and then paying drug addicted meth heads to do the dirty work for them. This country has some serious issues when you think about it. Too much corruption on all fronts.
Mostly the "harvesting" is being done by normal american white guys, and tribal members. They sell to a middle-man, who in turn sells to who it is heading to.
Take bear gall bladder for example. Most bear are shot by guys like me and you. Some hunters choose to sell the gall bladder (illegal, but they see no harm in it, since the probably killed the bear legally). Those gall go to a middle-man (a broker of sorts), who then gets them to the Asian buyers. That would all be fine, except as I said earlier, once you allow the sale of any wildlife it gets out of contol very easily. Money drives people to do bad things. That is why the sale of bear gall bladder is illegal....because it fuels a huge demand.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 01:54:14 PM
So who's doing most of the actual poaching and supplying the product to the black market buyers and restaurants? I see eastern European or Asian immigrants coming to this country with no respect for our laws and then paying drug addicted meth heads to do the dirty work for them. This country has some serious issues when you think about it. Too much corruption on all fronts.
singlkeshot12:
I didn't answer your question about supplying restaurants. In every case we investigated, the suppliers (the poachers) were all white males. At least on the four restaurants we investigated and charged.
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 07:55:40 PM
When ucwarden was awarded WDFW Officer of the year several years ago, that year he wrote several hundred citations, received 0 complaints, and actually had citizen compliments from those he had cited..... :twocents:
Big Tex: I never thanked you for all the support you gave during this discussion. THANKS
Post by: Special T on September 17, 2013, 08:05:38 PM
For example I have a friend in the WSP and i asked him "what is the best way to get a verbal warning and not a ticket?" He Responded "Don't break the law stupid!" After we both stopped laughing he said don't fail the "attitude test" he explained most bad guys had attitude so don't start off on the wrong foot.
U have the same recommendation, or something different?
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 08:19:34 PM
On that note, How did you separate good guys who broke the law from bad guys. You Obviously saw both, and did a great job. What tips would you give any wardens listening, and what things can we do to help LEO's separate us from bad guys...
For example I have a friend in the WSP and i asked him "what is the best way to get a verbal warning and not a ticket?" He Responded "Don't break the law stupid!" After we both stopped laughing he said don't fail the "attitude test" he explained most bad guys had attitude so don't start off on the wrong foot.
U have the same recommendation, or something different?
As you know, from this whole discussion, the last eight years of my career were all working undercover..so a little different from your question.
But, in my uniformed days; I think you hit it right on the head. When I used to do school age presentations (we all have to attend career days at schools, and hunter education classes) I always told the kids that "In my whole career I can only think of a time or two I was talked out of writing a citation I had decided to wrtite, but I frequently got talked into writing a citation which I had decided not to write".
For me, personally, my job boiled down to this; compliance. If I could get people to comply with the laws by warnings (and I felt they really had learned their lessons without going through the court process) then a warning it was. Other people, my their actions (i.e- serious violation, or a @#$ you response) obviously needed the full-meal deal. So I am not saying anyone has to kiss up to an officer, but if you show disrespect and hostility, it will become obvious to the officer that you are not going to learn without meeting the judge (and maybe not even then).
One thing WDFW does, that I strongly disagree with, is evalaute officers more on quantity of arrests rather than quality. These days it's all about numbers; number of contact, citations etc. I think that is counter-productive, because we all want the worst of the worst caught. The average sportsman, who makes a minor mistake, was always my best source for information on more serious violators (they felt they owed me one if I gave them a break), but I have seen officers lay paper on everyone for every violation, and the hunters/fishermen in their communities won't tell them anything.
Post by: Special T on September 17, 2013, 08:31:14 PM
Since it was mostly under cover, How did you separate the hard core poacher from the dummies? Or some guy whacking a doe or 2nd deer because he was laid off?
Post by: ucwarden on September 17, 2013, 08:46:06 PM
I know at least a couple of people that would do nothing to help out ANY warden because of heavy handed treatment over a slight infraction that is open to interpretation.
Since it was mostly under cover, How did you separate the hard core poacher from the dummies? Or some guy whacking a doe or 2nd deer because he was laid off?
I am not trying to be sarcastic here, but in undercover cases I am with them in their environment. Since they obviously didn't know who I really was; they told me and showed me what drove them to do what they do. While most of the people I worked bragged about more than they really did, they would open up to me about every aspect of their lives. It wasn't too hard to figure out their motivation. I almost always had discussions, during the UC, about just how illegal what they (or we) were doing.
As I said in one of the previous posts; if suspects were at all hesitant to commit crimes, we sure didn't encourage it, and backed out leaving them alone.
Again, I am not at all pushing my book, but .....
Post by: Curly on September 18, 2013, 08:28:45 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 18, 2013, 08:54:56 AM
I imagine while you were UC, you would have to poach to keep in the good graces of your "friends". Is that the case? How did it make you feel to poach? Is that kind of info covered in your book? :dunno:
This is not necessarily the case. Up thread, I believe he recounted how there are poachers, middlemen, and purchasers of poached game such as distributors and restaurants, and one of the targets could be any of the above. I'd imagine you could work UC without having to actually break the law regarding poaching game. That seems more like stuff of the movies.
Post by: ucwarden on September 18, 2013, 01:29:32 PM
I imagine while you were UC, you would have to poach to keep in the good graces of your "friends". Is that the case? How did it make you feel to poach? Is that kind of info covered in your book? :dunno:
This is not necessarily the case. Up thread, I believe he recounted how there are poachers, middlemen, and purchasers of poached game such as distributors and restaurants, and one of the targets could be any of the above. I'd imagine you could work UC without having to actually break the law regarding poaching game. That seems more like stuff of the movies.
Actually, you are both correct. On Operation Cody, my partner and I did not kill, or even hunt anything. We did, however break many wildlife (both state and federal) laws in the performance of our duties; which is obviously necessary in order to complete undercover transactions (and we are legally covered, as long as it is in the course of our duties).
On other cases, I have been invloved in illegal hunting and killing animals illegally. How did that make me feel? Some of it was not good, other things were ok, but I knew all along it was the only way to get the bad guys to ever stop. Undercover should always be the last resort in a criminal investigation, not the first choice, because of the risk to the undercover officers, the impact to the resources, and the remote risk to the public. There have been several times, that UC operations weere shut down because they were getting out of control.
People (even our own officers) think working UC is "fun", because we get paid to hunt, but trust me working with the suspects I had to spend time with is no fun at all.
Post by: Special T on September 18, 2013, 01:38:23 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 18, 2013, 01:57:38 PM
So who's doing most of the actual poaching and supplying the product to the black market buyers and restaurants? I see eastern European or Asian immigrants coming to this country with no respect for our laws and then paying drug addicted meth heads to do the dirty work for them. This country has some serious issues when you think about it. Too much corruption on all fronts.
singlkeshot12:
I didn't answer your question about supplying restaurants. In every case we investigated, the suppliers (the poachers) were all white males. At least on the four restaurants we investigated and charged.
And there are restaurants purchasing caviar legally through the commercial fish trade in WA and out. Most of the upscale restaurants are very above board in their purchases.
Post by: ucwarden on September 18, 2013, 04:20:35 PM
singlkeshot12:
I didn't answer your question about supplying restaurants. In every case we investigated, the suppliers (the poachers) were all white males. At least on the four restaurants we investigated and charged.
[/quote]
And there are restaurants purchasing caviar legally through the commercial fish trade in WA and out. Most of the upscale restaurants are very above board in their purchases.
[/quote]
Very true. The good quality restaurants will never touch illegal product, as it isn't worth the risk.
Post by: Chase 1 on September 18, 2013, 04:57:06 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 18, 2013, 05:18:11 PM
tag
"tag" I don't understand?
Post by: snowpack on September 18, 2013, 05:25:55 PM
tagging along. Now that the poster has a post in the thread, the poster can easily recall this thread and read developments later on.tag
"tag" I don't understand?
Post by: ucwarden on September 18, 2013, 06:26:53 PM
tagging along. Now that the poster has a post in the thread, the poster can easily recall this thread and read developments later on.tag
"tag" I don't understand?
Got ya. I think. This forum posting is almost for this old man.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 18, 2013, 07:44:13 PM
tagging along. Now that the poster has a post in the thread, the poster can easily recall this thread and read developments later on.tag
"tag" I don't understand?
If you respond to a thread, even by posting "tag", you can receive notifications of further posts by others, thru your e-mail. The same can be done by subscribing to the thread by icons on the top right hand side of the threads, next to "reply".
You can then also go to profile>account settings>notifications and see a list (and edit therein) of threads you've taken a particular interest in.
PM me your address, and I'll come over and help you :hello: :lol4:
Post by: ucwarden on September 18, 2013, 07:54:10 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 18, 2013, 07:56:25 PM
tagging along. Now that the poster has a post in the thread, the poster can easily recall this thread and read developments later on.tag
"tag" I don't understand?
If you respond to a thread, even by posting "tag", you can receive notifications of further posts by others, thru your e-mail. The same can be done by subscribing to the thread by icons on the top right hand side of the threads, next to "reply".
You can then also go to profile>account settings>notifications and see a list (and edit therein) of threads you've taken a particular interest in.
PM me your address, and I'll come over and help you :hello: :lol4:
OK, I don't know how to send a message on this. I have had people send them to me and I can respond. Try me
Post by: Special T on September 18, 2013, 08:17:06 PM
Post by: snowpack on September 18, 2013, 08:22:16 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 18, 2013, 08:36:52 PM
At what point were you the most scared? Was there a point where you had a close call or an uh oh moment? Did your UC ever follow you home?
If you mean on Operation Cody (vs. other UC's I have done), then I guess the worst point was during an "interview" we had to go through with a really big-time trafficker. He is into a lot of crimes and has a houseful of like-minded very close friends. I describe in the book feeling that if we had failed his questioning (or interview as he called it), the outcome would have resulted in way more than losing an undercover deal with a trafficker. The thugs and shiney cutlery behind us had book of us concerned.
Follow me home; not that I am aware of, but they have tried. Caught one guy following me on this operation.
Trust me, "situational awareness" is strongly beneficial..../just like hunting.
Post by: ucwarden on September 18, 2013, 08:37:53 PM
Ever find any groups that tend to be buyers for sea lions? :sry:
Never. They stink and bite. I think only Seaworld would want the aquatic coyotes.
Post by: quadrafire on September 19, 2013, 07:33:44 AM
Did you get my last PM?
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:59:39 AM
Hey UC I have been reading your book and am sleep deprived now. It is fascinating!!
Did you get my last PM?
Sorry to cause your lack of sleep, but glad to hear you find the bok interesting. Can't really say "enjoyed the book" since most of it makes people sick, to see what is going on.
I checked again, and did not find a PM from you. I received several others, but none from you. Try again please
Post by: quadrafire on September 19, 2013, 08:06:40 AM
Post by: Redbeard on September 19, 2013, 08:13:41 AM
Post by: quadrafire on September 19, 2013, 08:16:15 AM
What book? Always looking for a good book.
The author UCwarden has gotten in trouble for mentioning it so I will tell you.
Operation Cody
Post by: Redbeard on September 19, 2013, 08:19:32 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 19, 2013, 08:25:02 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134533.msg1792203.html#msg1792203 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,134533.msg1792203.html#msg1792203)
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 08:09:57 PM
What book? Always looking for a good book.
The author UCwarden has gotten in trouble for mentioning it so I will tell you.
Operation Cody
Thanks quadrafire, but I cleared it all with bearpaw (dale) so I am good to go on advertising.
Post by: wadu1 on September 19, 2013, 08:21:06 PM
ucwarden,:yeah:
Thanks for coming back to post. I'm not sure why some are giving you a hard time. Personally I never noticed any kind of an "attitude."
Anyway, I'm hoping you will stick around and share some stories.
I'm really looking forward to reading your book!
And thanks for all you do for hunters :twocents:
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 08:27:43 PM
ucwarden,:yeah:
Thanks for coming back to post. I'm not sure why some are giving you a hard time. Personally I never noticed any kind of an "attitude."
Anyway, I'm hoping you will stick around and share some stories.
I'm really looking forward to reading your book!
And thanks for all you do for hunters :twocents:
You are very welcome. If you get the book, please let me know what you think of it
Post by: wadu1 on September 19, 2013, 08:32:19 PM
Sent a PMucwarden,:yeah:
Thanks for coming back to post. I'm not sure why some are giving you a hard time. Personally I never noticed any kind of an "attitude."
Anyway, I'm hoping you will stick around and share some stories.
I'm really looking forward to reading your book!
And thanks for all you do for hunters :twocents:
You are very welcome. If you get the book, please let me know what you think of it