Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2013, 05:40:47 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 19, 2013, 05:44:24 PM
Post by: denali on September 19, 2013, 05:45:55 PM
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 05:46:19 PM
I refuse to bite my tongue and will voice my opinion. Just because they wear badges, does not make them more valued members than the average joe on here.
PS. Thanks for the .280 she shoots great !!!
Post by: grundy53 on September 19, 2013, 05:47:21 PM
Respect! Should be given and received both ways! I agree nice to have them onboard but they also need to hear the problems we hunters have with how They conduct business. Take the poaching salmon thread? For real? Who is running that joint.
I refuse to bite my tongue and will voice my opinion. Just because they wear badges, does not make them more valued members than the average joe on here.
PS. Thanks for the .280 she shoots great !!!
:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: hoyt2002 on September 19, 2013, 05:48:59 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2013, 05:49:53 PM
Respect! Should be given and received both ways! I agree nice to have them onboard but they also need to hear the problems we hunters have with how They conduct business. Take the poaching salmon thread? For real? Who is running that joint.
I refuse to bite my tongue and will voice my opinion. Just because they wear badges, does not make them more valued members than the average joe on here.
PS. Thanks for the .280 she shoots great !!!
There are many ways to skin a cat, RT. I'm only saying that this is a perspective not available otherwise and we'd do well to hang on to it.
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 05:51:51 PM
He is a crook, no if ands or butts! I want every law abiding hunter on here including mods to be aware of that.
I put all my stuff on here for one reason so that others would learn from the hell I went through! No sir, they get no respect from me.
The day I get my rifle back that may change, but we all know that will never happen.
Rtspring
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2013, 05:53:25 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 19, 2013, 05:57:54 PM
OK, I understand where you're coming from. Thanks RT. I know you've been through the ringer on that topic.:dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: grundy53 on September 19, 2013, 06:02:37 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 19, 2013, 06:04:00 PM
To be completely honest I think there are several folks on here that know the RCWs as well as if not better then a lot of LEOs. I will treat the LE representatives as they treat me. I will not view them as better or more important then anyone else on here. We are all equal here.... except bearpaw and the mods. Lol ;);D;D
sent from my typewriter
I wasn't suggesting anything different.
Post by: gasman on September 19, 2013, 06:05:50 PM
To be completely honest I think there are several folks on here that know the RCWs as well as if not better then a lot of LEOs. I will treat the LE representatives as they treat me. I will not view them as better or more important then anyone else on here. We are all equal here.... except bearpaw and the mods. Lol ;);D;D
sent from my typewriter
I could not have said it better then that :tup:
give respect and you will get respect, that's my mod-owe.
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 06:07:33 PM
See, I can be nice :chuckle:
Rtspring
Post by: grundy53 on September 19, 2013, 06:07:37 PM
To be completely honest I think there are several folks on here that know the RCWs as well as if not better then a lot of LEOs. I will treat the LE representatives as they treat me. I will not view them as better or more important then anyone else on here. We are all equal here.... except bearpaw and the mods. Lol ;);D;D
sent from my typewriter
I wasn't suggesting anything different.
Just making sure. It Kind of sounded like you were. :sry: ;D
Post by: ICEMAN on September 19, 2013, 06:14:30 PM
Outdoor Guardian pretty much got on here and called me a LIAR on more than one account. Yet to this day not one fact from his statements have been found to do anything but bend the facts. Funny how he blasted me on a public forum but never came back when all was said and done!
He is a crook, no if ands or butts! I want every law abiding hunter on here including mods to be aware of that.
I put all my stuff on here for one reason so that others would learn from the hell I went through! No sir, they get no respect from me.
The day I get my rifle back that may change, but we all know that will never happen.
Rtspring
Good grief RT, give it a break. We have all read you opinions on this at lenght. Do we have to continue to hear it here in this thread too?
Post by: KFhunter on September 19, 2013, 06:19:31 PM
They do bring a valued service to a forum like this, where as members come and go or just rename themselves. IMO - A warden or person like bigTex is just a little more equal than some random member.
:twocents:
And yes RT when your thing was all going down I'd have booted you, and now your jacking this thread so since you weren't booted then I'd be warning you now. :tung:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 19, 2013, 06:22:52 PM
I will say BIXTEX has been a valued asset to Hunt-Wa. We have exchanged pms before!! Thank you Sir for all your posts on laws and what not!!yeah ..he is O.K I GUESS :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle:
See, I can be nice :chuckle:
Rtspring
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 06:26:52 PM
After 34-years as a WDFW officer and detective, I retired last December. So I have a fairly extensive background with WDFW LE.
I had a conversation with Pianoman, about what anomosity I have seen towards WDFW officers on here, and I was confused. I have hunted and fished all my life, which is why I ended up in the job I did.....I care deeply about the resources.
I have also seen a lot of officers across the state; some good some not so good, but as a sportsman I always thought of game wardens in a positive way (which I guess is why I became one).
I do not want to get into arguements about individual officers or individual cases, but can someone explain to me why there are so many negative postings about the people who risk their lives to make sure you, your kids and your grandkids still have animals to hunt and fish for?
I simply don't get it.
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 06:31:17 PM
If I owned this site and had to make a decision over a random member or a WDFW LE because they couldn't get along, I'd choose the LE almost everytime. If someone were antagonizing the professional I'd oust them post haste if they couldn't ask questions or behave in a reasonable way.
They do bring a valued service to a forum like this, where as members come and go or just rename themselves. IMO - A warden or person like bigTex is just a little more equal than some random member.
:twocents:
And yes RT when your thing was all going down I'd have booted you, and now your jacking this thread so since you weren't booted then I'd be warning you now. :tung:
Really? You think that because of a badge they are a Little better than us? You are smoking some good stuff? How bout google bad cops with badges? Their are a ton of them. Not saying all but they do exist.
So just having a badge on makes them better than who? Lets say Dale? Rtspring? Coach, BLRman, Whitpirate, MtnMuley, Plateu, you sir are dead wrong and wrong by a long ways!
They put their pants on just like you and I. And wait for it, wait, Hold , Hold. Some are even bad guys wearing a badge that think they are above the law! Booted me for what my opinion?? Its called my side of the story! Why am I not in jail? Or paying 2000 bucks for a dead two point??? Hmmmm maybe because I was right all along. How bout give me some credit!! Oh thats right I dont have a badge!!! So I must be lying...
Post by: grundy53 on September 19, 2013, 06:34:17 PM
A few of you have seen my posts of the last couple of days. I am brand new to this forum stuff, so forgive me if I get something wrong when trying to post.
After 34-years as a WDFW officer and detective, I retired last December. So I have a fairly extensive background with WDFW LE.
I had a conversation with Pianoman, about what anomosity I have seen towards WDFW officers on here, and I was confused. I have hunted and fished all my life, which is why I ended up in the job I did.....I care deeply about the resources.
I have also seen a lot of officers across the state; some good some not so good, but as a sportsman I always thought of game wardens in a positive way (which I guess is why I became one).
I do not want to get into arguements about individual officers or individual cases, but can someone explain to me why there are so many negative postings about the people who risk their lives to make sure you, your kids and your grandkids still have animals to hunt and fish for?
I simply don't get it.
Probably has to do with the few wardens that are not pleasant to deal with. It leaves a bad taste in folks mouths. Even though it's a small minority of officers. They tend to be the ones you hear about.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 06:36:26 PM
Probably has to do with the few wardens that are not pleasant to deal with. It leaves a bad taste in folks mouths. Even though it's a small minority of officers. They tend to be the ones you hear about.
sent from my typewriter
Understood, but that is the same logic that is the root cause of all other bias.....I met one who was an @#$ so I hate them all?
Post by: Fowlweather25 on September 19, 2013, 06:36:47 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 19, 2013, 06:37:12 PM
I agree, but what can you do....Probably has to do with the few wardens that are not pleasant to deal with. It leaves a bad taste in folks mouths. Even though it's a small minority of officers. They tend to be the ones you hear about.
sent from my typewriter
Understood, but that is the same logic that is the root cause of all other bias.....I met one who was an @#$ so I hate them all?
sent from my typewriter
Post by: scout/sniper on September 19, 2013, 06:39:11 PM
A few of you have seen my posts of the last couple of days. I am brand new to this forum stuff, so forgive me if I get something wrong when trying to post.Welcome aboard.
Post by: RifleRidge on September 19, 2013, 06:41:36 PM
[/quote]
Good grief RT, give it a break. We have all read you opinions on this at lenght. Do we have to continue to hear it here in this thread too?
[/quote]
:yeah: :tup: :chuckle:
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 06:42:44 PM
A few of you have seen my posts of the last couple of days. I am brand new to this forum stuff, so forgive me if I get something wrong when trying to post.
After 34-years as a WDFW officer and detective, I retired last December. So I have a fairly extensive background with WDFW LE.
I had a conversation with Pianoman, about what anomosity I have seen towards WDFW officers on here, and I was confused. I have hunted and fished all my life, which is why I ended up in the job I did.....I care deeply about the resources.
I have also seen a lot of officers across the state; some good some not so good, but as a sportsman I always thought of game wardens in a positive way (which I guess is why I became one).
I do not want to get into arguements about individual officers or individual cases, but can someone explain to me why there are so many negative postings about the people who risk their lives to make sure you, your kids and your grandkids still have animals to hunt and fish for?
I simply don't get it.
Really? They leave a just recently shot animal to rot in the woods, but hile down over a mile to cut its horns off. That is unsat.
No crime committed and taken to court and ordered by a judge to return ones rifle, but almost two years later have yet to produce the rifle.
Post on their webpage about a snagger and post a pic of said snagger!!
Lie to get information.
I have a really good feeling I know who you are. If Im correct in my assesments you are one of THEM.
What animals are you protecting when Natives shoot everything in sute but only collect a few of the animals?
Write the white guy a ticket for keeping a foul hooked fish but yet ac1/4 mile awY there are nets killing thousands of fish...
Telling a guy your taking him to jail for having a loaded gun on a quad!!! Been through it.
Post by: hoyt2002 on September 19, 2013, 06:43:59 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 06:45:02 PM
I agree, but what can you do....Probably has to do with the few wardens that are not pleasant to deal with. It leaves a bad taste in folks mouths. Even though it's a small minority of officers. They tend to be the ones you hear about.
sent from my typewriter
Understood, but that is the same logic that is the root cause of all other bias.....I met one who was an @#$ so I hate them all?
sent from my typewriter
Don't take me as some "make lemonade out of lemons" idealist do-gooder, but perhaps we could all agree there are bad apples in every group, and spend a little more of our time and energy making things better than complaining about how bad things are.
I am impressed by all the interest all of you, on this forum, have for wildlife/hunting issues, but what are we all doing about it. Instead of fighting among each other, I propose we form up all these members (numbers can get things done, which individuals can’t), and start trying to change some of the things you all feel are most important.
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 06:46:19 PM
Welcome ucwarden.
Thanks
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 06:46:48 PM
A few of you have seen my posts of the last couple of days. I am brand new to this forum stuff, so forgive me if I get something wrong when trying to post.Welcome aboard.
Thanks to you too
Post by: KFhunter on September 19, 2013, 06:47:10 PM
If I owned this site and had to make a decision over a random member or a WDFW LE because they couldn't get along, I'd choose the LE almost everytime. If someone were antagonizing the professional I'd oust them post haste if they couldn't ask questions or behave in a reasonable way.
They do bring a valued service to a forum like this, where as members come and go or just rename themselves. IMO - A warden or person like bigTex is just a little more equal than some random member.
:twocents:
And yes RT when your thing was all going down I'd have booted you, and now your jacking this thread so since you weren't booted then I'd be warning you now. :tung:
Really? You think that because of a badge they are a Little better than us? You are smoking some good stuff? How bout google bad cops with badges? Their are a ton of them. Not saying all but they do exist.
So just having a badge on makes them better than who? Lets say Dale? Rtspring? Coach, BLRman, Whitpirate, MtnMuley, Plateu, you sir are dead wrong and wrong by a long ways!
They put their pants on just like you and I. And wait for it, wait, Hold , Hold. Some are even bad guys wearing a badge that think they are above the law! Booted me for what my opinion?? Its called my side of the story! Why am I not in jail? Or paying 2000 bucks for a dead two point??? Hmmmm maybe because I was right all along. How bout give me some credit!! Oh thats right I dont have a badge!!! So I must be lying...
You took that way too personal and I didn't mean it as an attack or question your honesty.
If this were a site on basket weaving and a college professor of basket weaving volunteered their time I'd make them just a little more equal too than some random wannabe basket weaver.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 19, 2013, 06:55:48 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 06:59:22 PM
Welcome to hunt-washington ucwarden.
Thanks. I may not spend a ton of time on this, in the future, as computers turn my brain to mush. We'll see
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 19, 2013, 07:00:58 PM
Welcome to hunt-washington ucwarden.
Thanks. I may not spend a ton of time on this, in the future, as computers turn my brain to mush. We'll see
I don't disagree.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 19, 2013, 07:01:09 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:04:17 PM
Welcome Ucwarden ...HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR RETIRED :tup: :chuckle: :chuckle: Just being me ...nothing ment :tup:
That makes two people who are glad I retired; you and my ex-deputy chief.
Thanks
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 19, 2013, 07:05:52 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :tup:Welcome Ucwarden ...HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR RETIRED :tup: :chuckle: :chuckle: Just being me ...nothing ment :tup:
That makes two people who are glad I retired; you and my ex-deputy chief.
Thanks
Post by: Special T on September 19, 2013, 07:06:19 PM
I have also seen a lot of officers across the state; some good some not so good, but as a sportsman I always thought of game wardens in a positive way (which I guess is why I became one).Here is my take on It UC Warden. Most people do not have a positive experience with wardens by the nature of the job. The second part to it is Wardens are the front line for the department. I can tell you there is plenty of animosity at the WDFW for their rules that seem to make no logical sense. They also seem to lack justification, or the ability to "sell" an idea. Since wardens have to enforce laws no matter how good or bad they are i think they get the brunt of bad will by poor thinking. I would think that officer digression is more on dropping the boom as much as possible than giving verbal warnings. I know more people that have gotten verbal warnings from cops than wardens. :twocents: Leos in general have a hard job, which is why it is my mottos to make the brief, polite and positive.
I do not want to get into arguements about individual officers or individual cases, but can someone explain to me why there are so many negative postings about the people who risk their lives to make sure you, your kids and your grand kids still have animals to hunt and fish for?
I simply don't get it.
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:12:28 PM
I have also seen a lot of officers across the state; some good some not so good, but as a sportsman I always thought of game wardens in a positive way (which I guess is why I became one).Here is my take on It UC Warden. Most people do not have a positive experience with wardens by the nature of the job. The second part to it is Wardens are the front line for the department. I can tell you there is plenty of animosity at the WDFW for their rules that seem to make no logical sense. They also seem to lack justification, or the ability to "sell" an idea. Since wardens have to enforce laws no matter how good or bad they are i think they get the brunt of bad will by poor thinking. I would think that officer digression is more on dropping the boom as much as possible than giving verbal warnings. I know more people that have gotten verbal warnings from cops than wardens. :twocents: Leos in general have a hard job, which is why it is my mottos to make the brief, polite and positive.
I do not want to get into arguements about individual officers or individual cases, but can someone explain to me why there are so many negative postings about the people who risk their lives to make sure you, your kids and your grand kids still have animals to hunt and fish for?
I simply don't get it.
There you go!!! Right on the point. I will go back to saying; let's try to get some real changes. I have one huge advantage, in that I have a ton of experience in the job, have contacts all over the state, yet am no longer restrained by the chain-of-command. So I can tell it as it is (for once in my career), or at least my view on how it is.
Start with warnings vs. citations: In the administration, which was in place until a couple of weeks ago, it was all about numbers. Quantity was way more important than quality. A numbers driven LE program results in more citations, where warnings may have been more appropriate.
Maybe this is impossible, but I would like to rally the people on this website to make some real changes in WDFW enforcement.
Post by: grundy53 on September 19, 2013, 07:13:04 PM
Exactly!I have also seen a lot of officers across the state; some good some not so good, but as a sportsman I always thought of game wardens in a positive way (which I guess is why I became one).Here is my take on It UC Warden. Most people do not have a positive experience with wardens by the nature of the job. The second part to it is Wardens are the front line for the department. I can tell you there is plenty of animosity at the WDFW for their rules that seem to make no logical sense. They also seem to lack justification, or the ability to "sell" an idea. Since wardens have to enforce laws no matter how good or bad they are i think they get the brunt of bad will by poor thinking. I would think that officer digression is more on dropping the boom as much as possible than giving verbal warnings. I know more people that have gotten verbal warnings from cops than wardens. :twocents: Leos in general have a hard job, which is why it is my mottos to make the brief, polite and positive.
I do not want to get into arguements about individual officers or individual cases, but can someone explain to me why there are so many negative postings about the people who risk their lives to make sure you, your kids and your grand kids still have animals to hunt and fish for?
I simply don't get it.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:13:36 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 19, 2013, 07:14:50 PM
Outdoor Guardian pretty much got on here and called me a LIAR on more than one account. Yet to this day not one fact from his statements have been found to do anything but bend the facts. Funny how he blasted me on a public forum but never came back when all was said and done!
He is a crook, no if ands or butts! I want every law abiding hunter on here including mods to be aware of that.
I put all my stuff on here for one reason so that others would learn from the hell I went through! No sir, they get no respect from me.
The day I get my rifle back that may change, but we all know that will never happen.
Rtspring
Just more dramatic histrionics. There really should be a header all for you
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 07:16:22 PM
A few of you have seen my posts of the last couple of days. I am brand new to this forum stuff, so forgive me if I get something wrong when trying to post.
After 34-years as a WDFW officer and detective, I retired last December. So I have a fairly extensive background with WDFW LE.
I had a conversation with Pianoman, about what anomosity I have seen towards WDFW officers on here, and I was confused. I have hunted and fished all my life, which is why I ended up in the job I did.....I care deeply about the resources.
I have also seen a lot of officers across the state; some good some not so good, but as a sportsman I always thought of game wardens in a positive way (which I guess is why I became one).
I do not want to get into arguements about individual officers or individual cases, but can someone explain to me why there are so many negative postings about the people who risk their lives to make sure you, your kids and your grandkids still have animals to hunt and fish for?
I simply don't get it.
Really? They leave a just recently shot animal to rot in the woods, but hile down over a mile to cut its horns off. That is unsat.
No crime committed and taken to court and ordered by a judge to return ones rifle, but almost two years later have yet to produce the rifle.
Post on their webpage about a snagger and post a pic of said snagger!!
Lie to get information.
I have a really good feeling I know who you are. If Im correct in my assesments you are one of THEM.
What animals are you protecting when Natives shoot everything in sute but only collect a few of the animals?
Write the white guy a ticket for keeping a foul hooked fish but yet ac1/4 mile awY there are nets killing thousands of fish...
Telling a guy your taking him to jail for having a loaded gun on a quad!!! Been through it.
rtspring:
Since you claim to know who I am, and I am "one of them", let me make sure you are correct.
My name is Todd A. Vandivert. I have been stationed in Tri-Cities, Forks, Dayton, Shelton and Anacortes.
Now in order to put your "issues" to rest, if you would like to talk to me, side-bar so we don't take up a bunch of this forum, email me at: ucwarden@gmail.com Provide your phone number and I'll even call you. I really do care, but I also don't want to take this forum up discussing your individual situation.
Sound fair?
Thanks I would love to understand the law! I am glad you put your name on here. Mine is Kurt W Perkins. You probably checked me waterfowl hunting down in Prosser at sometime. I think I even asked for your card one day.. I will pm you my personal email. Thanks again. Welcome to the site.
I just got a bad taste in my mouth from dealings with gamies. No harm meant..
Thanks
Post by: hoyt2002 on September 19, 2013, 07:18:08 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:18:29 PM
Sorry but I have never worked in Prosser in my life. In Tri-Cities, I worked upriver on the snake.
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 07:19:41 PM
Outdoor Guardian pretty much got on here and called me a LIAR on more than one account. Yet to this day not one fact from his statements have been found to do anything but bend the facts. Funny how he blasted me on a public forum but never came back when all was said and done!
He is a crook, no if ands or butts! I want every law abiding hunter on here including mods to be aware of that.
I put all my stuff on here for one reason so that others would learn from the hell I went through! No sir, they get no respect from me.
The day I get my rifle back that may change, but we all know that will never happen.
Rtspring
Just more dramatic histrionics. There really should be a header all for you
Come walk in my shoes, or hey maybe you could even add something to the thread. Instead of big words..
Post by: Bob33 on September 19, 2013, 07:21:49 PM
Welcome ucwarden.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 19, 2013, 07:21:54 PM
Post by: Special T on September 19, 2013, 07:22:07 PM
I have had to educate leo's on the law they are trying to cite me for (Very Carefully and not wildlife related) and its a complete cluster. I have even had Leos tell me that the law is so convoluted and there is NO way i could know or reason WHY i was being messed with.
I appreciate ALL the thoughtful posts from people in the "Know" because it allows me to be informed AND polite. Im my experience THAT has helped differentiate ME from the total tools out there.
Post by: 3nails on September 19, 2013, 07:24:17 PM
I have to share a quick story. Last weekend I was fishing Fort Casey with a buddy and our two sons. At one point I got hot and hooked 6 or 7 fish in a short amount of time. I only landed three but lost the others right at the beach. After landing one of the fish and being caught up in the moment I forgot to mark it down. A couple casts later I remembered and marked it. The fishing slowed down and since the boys had stopped I had them grab the cooler and take it up the hill to the truck while we made a couple of more casts. Well after getting into the truck and putting it in reverse another fisherman hurried over and tapped my window with his wallet. Getting my attention he then flipped it open to reveal his badge! He asked to see our licenses and fish. We stepped out and showed him everything. Looking back I think he may have thought we were trying to be sneaky sending the boys back before us. He was very polite and respectful the whole time. He mentioned that I needed to mark the fish immediately which I sheepishly agreed. He also gave me some advise. Don't wear a white hat while fishing. It's too easy for him to keep track of me. :chuckle: Great dude and my day was better having the interaction. Wish I would have remembered to ask his name.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 19, 2013, 07:25:45 PM
Outdoor Guardian pretty much got on here and called me a LIAR on more than one account. Yet to this day not one fact from his statements have been found to do anything but bend the facts. Funny how he blasted me on a public forum but never came back when all was said and done!
He is a crook, no if ands or butts! I want every law abiding hunter on here including mods to be aware of that.
I put all my stuff on here for one reason so that others would learn from the hell I went through! No sir, they get no respect from me.
The day I get my rifle back that may change, but we all know that will never happen.
Rtspring
Just more dramatic histrionics. There really should be a header all for you
Come walk in my shoes, or hey maybe you could even add something to the thread. Instead of big words..
Most of what you've written here is just a repeat of how you've been victimized so.
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:26:23 PM
I am going to call it a night in an hour or so, but I have one last thought.
If one of you, who knows how to work this forum stuff better than me (which would make about all of you), would like to help of get a bunch of people together (organized) to perhaps list the top 10 things they would like to see changed in WDFW (especially enforcement), I will be glad to help polish it up a bit, then we could go forward and try to make some real positive changes.
I have seen it work before. That is how seasons (between archery, muzzleloader and rifle are set...for example). It is not a lost cause, but we would have to get everyone to agree enough to try to push through some changes.
I noticed the "Washington for Wildlife" on this website, and maybe that would be a good platform.
Simply complaining on here won't change anything. An organized group, along with the media can.
Thoughts
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 07:27:36 PM
Outdoor Guardian pretty much got on here and called me a LIAR on more than one account. Yet to this day not one fact from his statements have been found to do anything but bend the facts. Funny how he blasted me on a public forum but never came back when all was said and done!
He is a crook, no if ands or butts! I want every law abiding hunter on here including mods to be aware of that.
I put all my stuff on here for one reason so that others would learn from the hell I went through! No sir, they get no respect from me.
The day I get my rifle back that may change, but we all know that will never happen.
Rtspring
Just more dramatic histrionics. There really should be a header all for you
Come walk in my shoes, or hey maybe you could even add something to the thread. Instead of big words..
Most of what you've written here is just a repeat of how you've been victimized so.
And you dont have to read it... Your choice..
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:29:13 PM
Does your book give a broad base of informative changes/recommendations for the WDFW? I know from talking to LEO's I know they complain the most about having to enforce Bad law, or law that is near impossible to because its vague, bad,and/or not well thought out... Mostly suffering from the do something disease. While not all of my experiences with Wardens have been positive i realize the VALUE of having some one in the "know" describe the system.
I have had to educate leo's on the law they are trying to cite me for (Very Carefully and not wildlife related) and its a complete cluster. I have even had Leos tell me that the law is so convoluted and there is NO way i could know or reason WHY i was being messed with.
I appreciate ALL the thoughtful posts from people in the "Know" because it allows me to be informed AND polite. Im my experience THAT has helped differentiate ME from the total tools out there.
Unfortunately, it does not. I focus more on what was wrong with the WDFW admistration, than the laws in the book
Post by: MacAttack on September 19, 2013, 07:30:32 PM
Post by: Special T on September 19, 2013, 07:36:49 PM
Does your book give a broad base of informative changes/recommendations for the WDFW? I know from talking to LEO's I know they complain the most about having to enforce Bad law, or law that is near impossible to because its vague, bad,and/or not well thought out... Mostly suffering from the do something disease. While not all of my experiences with Wardens have been positive i realize the VALUE of having some one in the "know" describe the system.
I have had to educate leo's on the law they are trying to cite me for (Very Carefully and not wildlife related) and its a complete cluster. I have even had Leos tell me that the law is so convoluted and there is NO way i could know or reason WHY i was being messed with.
I appreciate ALL the thoughtful posts from people in the "Know" because it allows me to be informed AND polite. Im my experience THAT has helped differentiate ME from the total tools out there.
Unfortunately, it does not. I focus more on what was wrong with the WDFW administration, than the laws in the book
Then i Think that is a great way that you can contribute with out having do as much responding. Just think of it as presenting a potential problem and a simple remedy... YOU already stated your greatest asset to us. You can call it as you see it unencumbered by WDFW politics.
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:37:44 PM
Welcome ucwarden.
Thanks
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:40:57 PM
I wonder how many other wardens are on here? The county I live in has a couple of real good men patrolling the woods. I'd hunt with either one of them in a second.
I have to share a quick story. Last weekend I was fishing Fort Casey with a buddy and our two sons. At one point I got hot and hooked 6 or 7 fish in a short amount of time. I only landed three but lost the others right at the beach. After landing one of the fish and being caught up in the moment I forgot to mark it down. A couple casts later I remembered and marked it. The fishing slowed down and since the boys had stopped I had them grab the cooler and take it up the hill to the truck while we made a couple of more casts. Well after getting into the truck and putting it in reverse another fisherman hurried over and tapped my window with his wallet. Getting my attention he then flipped it open to reveal his badge! He asked to see our licenses and fish. We stepped out and showed him everything. Looking back I think he may have thought we were trying to be sneaky sending the boys back before us. He was very polite and respectful the whole time. He mentioned that I needed to mark the fish immediately which I sheepishly agreed. He also gave me some advise. Don't wear a white hat while fishing. It's too easy for him to keep track of me. :chuckle: Great dude and my day was better having the interaction. Wish I would have remembered to ask his name.
Was he young, thin and 6'4" + or older, stocky and mostly bald?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 19, 2013, 07:47:41 PM
A few of you have seen my posts of the last couple of days. I am brand new to this forum stuff, so forgive me if I get something wrong when trying to post.Welcome aboard.
Yes,welcome.
:yeah: But look out ucwarden.....there are resource LEO's on here that take exception to calling wildlife LEO's :chuckle: :dunno: "game wardens" :chuckle:
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 07:55:48 PM
A few of you have seen my posts of the last couple of days. I am brand new to this forum stuff, so forgive me if I get something wrong when trying to post.Welcome aboard.
Yes,welcome.
:yeah: But look out ucwarden.....there are resource LEO's on here that take exception to calling wildlife LEO's :chuckle: :dunno: "game wardens" :chuckle:
Hey, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck walks like a duck.....
Ironically, never in Washington's history (except for back in the county game warden days) has our title ever been game warden. Game Protector, Wildlife Agent, Fish and Wildlife Officer, and now Fish and Wildlife Police Officer (that last one makes me want to puke- as it kinda means we have lost our identity), but almost everyone knows us as "Game Wardens", and most of us are proud of that title.
If any of our officers have a problem with me calling our guys game wardens, they all know my phone number.
Also, just FYI; WDFW has a ton of employees (I have no idea how many) some of whom refer to themselves, to others, as game wardens or officers when they really aren't. Working for WDFW doesn't make you a game warden or officer, so be kinda careful when you hear someone label themselves as such.
Post by: KFhunter on September 19, 2013, 07:59:16 PM
Post by: Rooster1981 on September 19, 2013, 08:01:11 PM
These guys are here to in force the laws, and If some of you haven't noticed there are some really shady people in this world that would do just about anything. I have the up most respect for any Leo that has to put up with the general public from day to day.
Post by: boneaddict on September 19, 2013, 08:01:32 PM
Post by: 3nails on September 19, 2013, 08:01:59 PM
I'm going to say he was 5'9" medium build and 50ish. Maybe your second description.I wonder how many other wardens are on here? The county I live in has a couple of real good men patrolling the woods. I'd hunt with either one of them in a second.
I have to share a quick story. Last weekend I was fishing Fort Casey with a buddy and our two sons. At one point I got hot and hooked 6 or 7 fish in a short amount of time. I only landed three but lost the others right at the beach. After landing one of the fish and being caught up in the moment I forgot to mark it down. A couple casts later I remembered and marked it. The fishing slowed down and since the boys had stopped I had them grab the cooler and take it up the hill to the truck while we made a couple of more casts. Well after getting into the truck and putting it in reverse another fisherman hurried over and tapped my window with his wallet. Getting my attention he then flipped it open to reveal his badge! He asked to see our licenses and fish. We stepped out and showed him everything. Looking back I think he may have thought we were trying to be sneaky sending the boys back before us. He was very polite and respectful the whole time. He mentioned that I needed to mark the fish immediately which I sheepishly agreed. He also gave me some advise. Don't wear a white hat while fishing. It's too easy for him to keep track of me. :chuckle: Great dude and my day was better having the interaction. Wish I would have remembered to ask his name.
Was he young, thin and 6'4" + or older, stocky and mostly bald?
Post by: Special T on September 19, 2013, 08:06:19 PM
I have hunted other states where if "IT" happens and you call enforcement it is SOP that you are a stand up guy for calling it in. I think that is why there is a big gripe with many of us over "Enforcement" issues...
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 08:07:24 PM
GLAD to have you here! Welcome! :hello: I have the utmost respect. When we are out enjoying what we love the most, you are working. THANKS!!!
Thanks, but now that I am retired I am out enjoying what I love a whole lot more!!
Post by: turkeyfeather on September 19, 2013, 08:08:32 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 19, 2013, 08:38:50 PM
I view them as opinions without a face, typing stuff on the internet. So ya I do value some opinions moreso than others; I'll listen to a professional in the field over an armchair opinion each and every time. If I owned this site I'd do what I could to retain those professionals in the fold - unless they were dinks and couldn't adhere to the forum rules.
RT illustrates my point by calling out ucwarden, calling him what amounts to a bad warden "one of them" even though he had no clue who he was and never even had contact with this warden. He goes on to admit he's carried loaded weapon on his ATV and somehow had a bad contact for that? Please! What did he expect? A finger wagging and warning - "ok now RT don't do that again now :nono: "
The very fact that ucwarden choose his usercp "warden" speaks volumes, and to top it off he's here to help change the system, make things better and help usher in common sense policing with officer descretion. He's clearly against volume over quality policing yet some of you can't hear or understand his words because you're so full of vitrol.
Post by: grundy53 on September 19, 2013, 08:43:28 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: buckfvr on September 19, 2013, 08:47:44 PM
except "game wardens" is exactly what we need, not State Police!
:yeah: And thats a fact !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: SCRUBS on September 19, 2013, 08:53:35 PM
Glad to have you here and appreciate your candor. :tup:
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 09:00:22 PM
I guess you guys/gals see these user names and avatar's as "people" so you get bent by my comment.
I view them as opinions without a face, typing stuff on the internet. So ya I do value some opinions moreso than others; I'll listen to a professional in the field over an armchair opinion each and every time. If I owned this site I'd do what I could to retain those professionals in the fold - unless they were dinks and couldn't adhere to the forum rules.
RT illustrates my point by calling out ucwarden, calling him what amounts to a bad warden "one of them" even though he had no clue who he was and never even had contact with this warden. He goes on to admit he's carried loaded weapon on his ATV and somehow had a bad contact for that? Please! What did he expect? A finger wagging and warning - "ok now RT don't do that again now :nono: "
Some of you folks on here would slash RT's atv tires, shoot the engine, burn it, and hang RT naked upside down with his head in an anthill then spray honey on his body for *gasp* riding an ATV - let alone with a loaded weapon on it :yike:
The very fact that ucwarden choose his usercp "warden" speaks volumes, and to top it off he's here to help change the system, make things better and help usher in common sense policing with officer descretion. He's clearly against volume over quality policing yet some of you can't hear or understand his words because you're so full of vitrol.
No, I dont hide the fact im human. I made mistakes. I also paid for them. Let me say this again! No warden can take you to jail for having a loaded firearm on a quad! Thats what the warden told me! He flipped when I said uh no sir you cannot take me to jail for that!!!! He was pulling the BS card and I trumped him!!
Try hanging me from a tree!!!
Fact is their are bad guys out there! I speak my mind!! Many people feel the same as me but dont have the balls to voice it. Dont like it? Thats fine read on..
But dont tell me to be nice to cops, or that their word is better than mine! Ever!!
Post by: Jack Diamond on September 19, 2013, 09:02:02 PM
As much as everyone bitches about poachers , I'm
Surprised you didn't receive a warmer welcome. Thank you for your service.UCWarden.
Post by: elk247 on September 19, 2013, 09:02:53 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 19, 2013, 09:09:56 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 19, 2013, 09:12:58 PM
I guess you guys/gals see these user names and avatar's as "people" so you get bent by my comment.
I view them as opinions without a face, typing stuff on the internet. So ya I do value some opinions moreso than others; I'll listen to a professional in the field over an armchair opinion each and every time. If I owned this site I'd do what I could to retain those professionals in the fold - unless they were dinks and couldn't adhere to the forum rules.
RT illustrates my point by calling out ucwarden, calling him what amounts to a bad warden "one of them" even though he had no clue who he was and never even had contact with this warden. He goes on to admit he's carried loaded weapon on his ATV and somehow had a bad contact for that? Please! What did he expect? A finger wagging and warning - "ok now RT don't do that again now :nono: "
Some of you folks on here would slash RT's atv tires, shoot the engine, burn it, and hang RT naked upside down with his head in an anthill then spray honey on his body for *gasp* riding an ATV - let alone with a loaded weapon on it :yike:
The very fact that ucwarden choose his usercp "warden" speaks volumes, and to top it off he's here to help change the system, make things better and help usher in common sense policing with officer descretion. He's clearly against volume over quality policing yet some of you can't hear or understand his words because you're so full of vitrol.
No, I dont hide the fact im human. I made mistakes. I also paid for them. Let me say this again! No warden can take you to jail for having a loaded firearm on a quad! Thats what the warden told me! He flipped when I said uh no sir you cannot take me to jail for that!!!! He was pulling the BS card and I trumped him!!
Try hanging me from a tree!!!
Fact is their are bad guys out there! I speak my mind!! Many people feel the same as me but dont have the balls to voice it. Dont like it? Thats fine read on..
But dont tell me to be nice to cops, or that their word is better than mine! Ever!!
Wasn't there when you had your experience with the ATV thing, I'll take your word for it though.
I'd never hang you from a tree, besides I love ATV's :chuckle:
I hope you speak your mind, if you do it in a respectful way you'll get a lot further though :tup:
Never said to be "nice" to cops, I would advise against being other than respectful as can always go worse.
I will take a wardens word over your's any day of the week though, unless it's in the BBQ section
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 09:22:41 PM
Always good to have some knowledge on this site, Welcome.
As much as everyone bitches about poachers , I'm
Surprised you didn't receive a warmer welcome. Thank you for your service.UCWarden.
Thanks, and trust me; I've had worse welcomes
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 09:24:01 PM
I'm going to say he was 5'9" medium build and 50ish. Maybe your second description.I wonder how many other wardens are on here? The county I live in has a couple of real good men patrolling the woods. I'd hunt with either one of them in a second.
I have to share a quick story. Last weekend I was fishing Fort Casey with a buddy and our two sons. At one point I got hot and hooked 6 or 7 fish in a short amount of time. I only landed three but lost the others right at the beach. After landing one of the fish and being caught up in the moment I forgot to mark it down. A couple casts later I remembered and marked it. The fishing slowed down and since the boys had stopped I had them grab the cooler and take it up the hill to the truck while we made a couple of more casts. Well after getting into the truck and putting it in reverse another fisherman hurried over and tapped my window with his wallet. Getting my attention he then flipped it open to reveal his badge! He asked to see our licenses and fish. We stepped out and showed him everything. Looking back I think he may have thought we were trying to be sneaky sending the boys back before us. He was very polite and respectful the whole time. He mentioned that I needed to mark the fish immediately which I sheepishly agreed. He also gave me some advise. Don't wear a white hat while fishing. It's too easy for him to keep track of me. :chuckle: Great dude and my day was better having the interaction. Wish I would have remembered to ask his name.
Was he young, thin and 6'4" + or older, stocky and mostly bald?
OK, I know exactly who you are talking about....good guy and good officer. I will pass on your story to him
Post by: ucwarden on September 19, 2013, 09:26:32 PM
Welcome to the forum ucwarden :hello:
Glad to have you here and appreciate your candor. :tup:
You are welcome. Trust me, when I was working in WDFW I spoke to them with the same candor, and they did not appreciate it.
I like this retired stuff!
Post by: rtspring on September 19, 2013, 09:32:59 PM
I guess you guys/gals see these user names and avatar's as "people" so you get bent by my comment.
I view them as opinions without a face, typing stuff on the internet. So ya I do value some opinions moreso than others; I'll listen to a professional in the field over an armchair opinion each and every time. If I owned this site I'd do what I could to retain those professionals in the fold - unless they were dinks and couldn't adhere to the forum rules.
RT illustrates my point by calling out ucwarden, calling him what amounts to a bad warden "one of them" even though he had no clue who he was and never even had contact with this warden. He goes on to admit he's carried loaded weapon on his ATV and somehow had a bad contact for that? Please! What did he expect? A finger wagging and warning - "ok now RT don't do that again now :nono: "
Some of you folks on here would slash RT's atv tires, shoot the engine, burn it, and hang RT naked upside down with his head in an anthill then spray honey on his body for *gasp* riding an ATV - let alone with a loaded weapon on it :yike:
The very fact that ucwarden choose his usercp "warden" speaks volumes, and to top it off he's here to help change the system, make things better and help usher in common sense policing with officer descretion. He's clearly against volume over quality policing yet some of you can't hear or understand his words because you're so full of vitrol.
No, I dont hide the fact im human. I made mistakes. I also paid for them. Let me say this again! No warden can take you to jail for having a loaded firearm on a quad! Thats what the warden told me! He flipped when I said uh no sir you cannot take me to jail for that!!!! He was pulling the BS card and I trumped him!!
Try hanging me from a tree!!!
Fact is their are bad guys out there! I speak my mind!! Many people feel the same as me but dont have the balls to voice it. Dont like it? Thats fine read on..
But dont tell me to be nice to cops, or that their word is better than mine! Ever!!
Wasn't there when you had your experience with the ATV thing, I'll take your word for it though.
I'd never hang you from a tree, besides I love ATV's :chuckle:
I hope you speak your mind, if you do it in a respectful way you'll get a lot further though :tup:
Never said to be "nice" to cops, I would advise against being other than respectful as can always go worse.
I will take a wardens word over your's any day of the week though, unless it's in the BBQ section
Thats great to know. Im a 20 year military vet! But i guess a guy with a badge means more!! Hmmm i fought for you to be free ??? Damn... Cause you know us military guys lie alot... Like I said all along for two years! Until they take you to court your opinion will stay the same. Enter their court you will have a whole new perspective on what they really stand for!!! Im done with this
Post by: KFhunter on September 19, 2013, 09:44:21 PM
I guess you guys/gals see these user names and avatar's as "people" so you get bent by my comment.
I view them as opinions without a face, typing stuff on the internet. So ya I do value some opinions moreso than others; I'll listen to a professional in the field over an armchair opinion each and every time. If I owned this site I'd do what I could to retain those professionals in the fold - unless they were dinks and couldn't adhere to the forum rules.
RT illustrates my point by calling out ucwarden, calling him what amounts to a bad warden "one of them" even though he had no clue who he was and never even had contact with this warden. He goes on to admit he's carried loaded weapon on his ATV and somehow had a bad contact for that? Please! What did he expect? A finger wagging and warning - "ok now RT don't do that again now :nono: "
Some of you folks on here would slash RT's atv tires, shoot the engine, burn it, and hang RT naked upside down with his head in an anthill then spray honey on his body for *gasp* riding an ATV - let alone with a loaded weapon on it :yike:
The very fact that ucwarden choose his usercp "warden" speaks volumes, and to top it off he's here to help change the system, make things better and help usher in common sense policing with officer descretion. He's clearly against volume over quality policing yet some of you can't hear or understand his words because you're so full of vitrol.
No, I dont hide the fact im human. I made mistakes. I also paid for them. Let me say this again! No warden can take you to jail for having a loaded firearm on a quad! Thats what the warden told me! He flipped when I said uh no sir you cannot take me to jail for that!!!! He was pulling the BS card and I trumped him!!
Try hanging me from a tree!!!
Fact is their are bad guys out there! I speak my mind!! Many people feel the same as me but dont have the balls to voice it. Dont like it? Thats fine read on..
But dont tell me to be nice to cops, or that their word is better than mine! Ever!!
Wasn't there when you had your experience with the ATV thing, I'll take your word for it though.
I'd never hang you from a tree, besides I love ATV's :chuckle:
I hope you speak your mind, if you do it in a respectful way you'll get a lot further though :tup:
Never said to be "nice" to cops, I would advise against being other than respectful as can always go worse.
I will take a wardens word over your's any day of the week though, unless it's in the BBQ section
Thats great to know. Im a 20 year military vet! But i guess a guy with a badge means more!! Hmmm i fought for you to be free ??? Damn... Cause you know us military guys lie alot... Like I said all along for two years! Until they take you to court your opinion will stay the same. Enter their court you will have a whole new perspective on what they really stand for!!! Im done with this
Thank you for your service RT :tup:
In response to your "military vs guy with a badge": If your MOS was "Wildlife Protection" then I'd give your opinion more weight in this section of the forum.
Post by: JLS on September 19, 2013, 09:48:50 PM
I guess you guys/gals see these user names and avatar's as "people" so you get bent by my comment.
I view them as opinions without a face, typing stuff on the internet. So ya I do value some opinions moreso than others; I'll listen to a professional in the field over an armchair opinion each and every time. If I owned this site I'd do what I could to retain those professionals in the fold - unless they were dinks and couldn't adhere to the forum rules.
RT illustrates my point by calling out ucwarden, calling him what amounts to a bad warden "one of them" even though he had no clue who he was and never even had contact with this warden. He goes on to admit he's carried loaded weapon on his ATV and somehow had a bad contact for that? Please! What did he expect? A finger wagging and warning - "ok now RT don't do that again now :nono: "
Some of you folks on here would slash RT's atv tires, shoot the engine, burn it, and hang RT naked upside down with his head in an anthill then spray honey on his body for *gasp* riding an ATV - let alone with a loaded weapon on it :yike:
The very fact that ucwarden choose his usercp "warden" speaks volumes, and to top it off he's here to help change the system, make things better and help usher in common sense policing with officer descretion. He's clearly against volume over quality policing yet some of you can't hear or understand his words because you're so full of vitrol.
No, I dont hide the fact im human. I made mistakes. I also paid for them. Let me say this again! No warden can take you to jail for having a loaded firearm on a quad! Thats what the warden told me! He flipped when I said uh no sir you cannot take me to jail for that!!!! He was pulling the BS card and I trumped him!!
Try hanging me from a tree!!!
Fact is their are bad guys out there! I speak my mind!! Many people feel the same as me but dont have the balls to voice it. Dont like it? Thats fine read on..
But dont tell me to be nice to cops, or that their word is better than mine! Ever!!
Actually RT, a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle is a criminal misdemeanor, and as such is an arrestable offense.
Post by: hoyt2002 on September 19, 2013, 09:59:07 PM
Post by: JLS on September 19, 2013, 10:00:51 PM
Im a 20 year military vet! But i guess a guy with a badge means more!! Hmmm i fought for you to be free ??? Damn... Cause you know us military guys lie alot... Like I said all along for two years!
No one said a badge means more. I've had to arrest a fair number of military folks over the years, and to be honest I've found they tend to lie just as much as anyone else.
Post by: JLS on September 19, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
Alot of those "Guys with badges" thats some find so untrustworthy are prior military. So hows that fit in to the Military vs Guys with badges?
You were typing as I was. Yes, a very large percentage of new hire LEOs right now are coming out of the military. As I said, it doesn't matter two craps what profession you are, there are bad apples in every bunch. My profession included.
Post by: hoyt2002 on September 19, 2013, 10:11:57 PM
Post by: Bob33 on September 19, 2013, 10:13:12 PM
I give Jacksonville better odds...
Post by: idahohuntr on September 19, 2013, 10:52:35 PM
[/quote]
Instead of fighting among each other, I propose we form up all these members (numbers can get things done, which individuals can’t), and start trying to change some of the things you all feel are most important.
[/quote]
:yeah: I like ucwarden's ideas...we all (occasionally?) complain about various rules and laws we don't like...but ultimately do little or nothing to change/improve them. Maybe we can put together a "hit list" of rules or laws that make no sense and need changed?? An immediate pitfall could be some controversial issues (like baiting) that just divide folks...but if we leave that type of stuff alone and try to focus on the rules/laws that have near unanimous opposition by members??? I suspect this forum could be a very powerful voice with a little organized effort :dunno:
Anyways, ucwarden, you have my support in some type of effort like this...I would be happy to help.
Post by: huntnphool on September 19, 2013, 10:58:46 PM
Over the last few years, we've had a couple of people from the DFW join our forum; several from LE. While it's easy to take out your frustrations regarding the issues we have with the DFW on its employees, it comes as a good reminder that we're a hunting site and the opinions and experience of LE will help us to stay within the law and afford us some perspective from the men and women in the field who enforce our game laws and preserve and protect our resources. ucwarden, Outdoorguardian, and bigtex, thank you for what you bring to our table. We value your input and hope to continue to glean valuable insight from your experience. Please let the moderators know if, while in the performance of that service to us, you need us to remind members of your contribution to the forum.:tup:
Post by: jackelope on September 19, 2013, 11:05:29 PM
"Im done with this."
I give Jacksonville better odds...
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on September 19, 2013, 11:08:20 PM
:yeah:Outdoor Guardian pretty much got on here and called me a LIAR on more than one account. Yet to this day not one fact from his statements have been found to do anything but bend the facts. Funny how he blasted me on a public forum but never came back when all was said and done!
He is a crook, no if ands or butts! I want every law abiding hunter on here including mods to be aware of that.
I put all my stuff on here for one reason so that others would learn from the hell I went through! No sir, they get no respect from me.
The day I get my rifle back that may change, but we all know that will never happen.
Rtspring
Good grief RT, give it a break. We have all read you opinions on this at lenght. Do we have to continue to hear it here in this thread too?
Well welcome to the site, I love having you guys on here and hope you stay around a while. :tup: :hello:Always good to have some knowledge on this site, Welcome.
As much as everyone bitches about poachers , I'm
Surprised you didn't receive a warmer welcome. Thank you for your service.UCWarden.
Thanks, and trust me; I've had worse welcomes
Post by: singleshot12 on September 20, 2013, 06:27:54 AM
If one of you, who knows how to work this forum stuff better than me (which would make about all of you), would like to help of get a bunch of people together (organized) to perhaps list the top 10 things they would like to see changed in WDFW (especially enforcement), I will be glad to help polish it up a bit, then we could go forward and try to make some real positive changes.
I have seen it work before. That is how seasons (between archery, muzzleloader and rifle are set...for example). It is not a lost cause, but we would have to get everyone to agree enough to try to push through some changes.
I noticed the "Washington for Wildlife" on this website, and maybe that would be a good platform.
Simply complaining on here won't change anything. An organized group, along with the media can.
Thoughts
:yeah: A lot sure needs to be changed almost to the point of starting all over with a new administration though. We need WDFW working more for us again. Licensed outdoorsmen just want to hunt and fish without all the technical and confusing rules for each differant area or body of water. Doesn't seem to matter how much you study the rules and do things right you could still get ticketed for something,gotta be discouraging for the kids just getting into hunting and fishing also. There is also a lot of resentment and dissatisfaction with people when wildlife only seems to be protected so the wolves or tribes can harvest more too.
We also need to be a stronger voice than the animal rights folks. I could be wrong but it seems they are the majority and they are the ones writting letters to WDFW and going to the meetings now. Anyways gotta think positive and now that you are retired sounds like you may be able to do more for us now than before :tup:
Post by: HornHoarder on September 20, 2013, 07:06:45 AM
I tell ya what, in 2011 I shot a 2x1 in a true spike area. As soon as I found out that I screwed up, I immediately went and found a Leo. I felt terrible and thought I was going to go through the ringer. I met the nicest guy that day, Sergeant Mike Spreacher. He is a really cool guy. I told him my story and we went and found my bull. He told me "theses things are going to happen with the way the rules are. don't beat yourself up over it you did the right thing by contacting me right away". We gutted the bull, and drug it out whole to a spot he could get his truck to. Then we loaded the whole elk up. He told me it was going to go to the Yakima food bank to be processed. I got a $80.00 ticket and that was that. If I would had tried to be sneaky and left the elk to rot He would have written me a ticket for over $2500.00 and I would have lost everything.
I ran into Sergeant Sprecher last year also. I was in the wrong. Accidently on private land shed hunting. He very politely informed me of the public boundries, and we both were on our way. We need more game wardens like him.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 20, 2013, 07:07:44 AM
I think ucwarden has made a great suggestion about forming an organized group to deal with the problems we see in our DFW. I also think that his suggestion of using WFW to create that conduit is a great idea. It can't hurt.
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 07:15:53 AM
If one of you, who knows how to work this forum stuff better than me (which would make about all of you), would like to help of get a bunch of people together (organized) to perhaps list the top 10 things they would like to see changed in WDFW (especially enforcement), I will be glad to help polish it up a bit, then we could go forward and try to make some real positive changes.
I have seen it work before. That is how seasons (between archery, muzzleloader and rifle are set...for example). It is not a lost cause, but we would have to get everyone to agree enough to try to push through some changes.
I noticed the "Washington for Wildlife" on this website, and maybe that would be a good platform.
Simply complaining on here won't change anything. An organized group, along with the media can.
Thoughts
:yeah: A lot sure needs to be changed almost to the point of starting all over with a new administration though. We need WDFW working more for us again. Licensed outdoorsmen just want to hunt and fish without all the technical and confusing rules for each differant area or body of water. Doesn't seem to matter how much you study the rules and do things right you could still get ticketed for something,gotta be discouraging for the kids just getting into hunting and fishing also. There is also a lot of resentment and dissatisfaction with people when wildlife only seems to be protected so the wolves or tribes can harvest more too.
We also need to be a stronger voice than the animal rights folks. I could be wrong but it seems they are the majority and they are the ones writting letters to WDFW and going to the meetings now. Anyways gotta think positive and now that you are retired sounds like you may be able to do more for us now than before :tup:
Everyone has to understand what can't be changed, what would be tough to change, and what might be pretty easy to change. Tribal hunting/fishing is one thing that probably will not change, as the treaties and the US courts have that pretty well carved in stone. Wolves are a very complex issue, in that both the states and federal government regulate wolves. Anytime the ESA (Endangered Species Act) is involved it will trump everything else. States do have a say in how wolves are "managed", but not as much as you might think.
While we, as a group, can't change some things, others should be relatively easy if we just join up, and present our arguments in a clear manner with supporting documentation (if possible).
Again, I propose forming a group (or using an existing group such as Washington for Wildlife), discussing what we all feel are the most important issue, then moving forward to try to effect some change. I am more than willing to play any role y'all want, but I don't know this forum system well enough to start this.
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2013, 07:17:59 AM
Post by: scout/sniper on September 20, 2013, 07:22:01 AM
Someone needs to sign him up for WFW so he could take place in the WFW discussion forum. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 20, 2013, 07:26:10 AM
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 07:40:22 AM
ucwarden, please join WFW for free. PM Bearpaw and as soon as he's out of the woods, he'll get you signed up for the organization. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions.
OK, I'll give it a try
Post by: CMG on September 20, 2013, 07:41:26 AM
ucwarden - Welcome to the site! your posts have been very level headed and you seem to genuinely want to help the hunting community. Look forward to your input.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 20, 2013, 07:43:22 AM
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 07:48:13 AM
The sign up for WFW is a link on the top right of the page.
Got it, and I am signed up
Post by: Woodchuck on September 20, 2013, 07:50:59 AM
4 pages - Interesting.....Guess I was raised to respect LE first, has always worked for me resulting in no issues. I suppose if the man behind the badge proves me wrong, I would have issues with the name of the person, not LE in general.:yeah: Welcome to the site. We have a "newer" Warden here and I have had nothing but positive interactions with him. I look forward to him comin to camp and checkin in on us. :tup:
ucwarden - Welcome to the site! your posts have been very level headed and you seem to genuinely want to help the hunting community. Look forward to your input.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 20, 2013, 07:51:24 AM
Quote from: RTSpringI give Jacksonville better odds...
Im done with this.
Yup, we've all heard that before. His need to hear his own voice talking about himself will win
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 07:58:18 AM
4 pages - Interesting.....Guess I was raised to respect LE first, has always worked for me resulting in no issues. I suppose if the man behind the badge proves me wrong, I would have issues with the name of the person, not LE in general.
ucwarden - Welcome to the site! your posts have been very level headed and you seem to genuinely want to help the hunting community. Look forward to your input.
Thanks. I think this whole "respect LE" is interesting. I don't mean to sound all corny, but I think it goes a little deeper than just law enforcement....we should all chill a bit, and treat everyone with respect unless they prove unworthy of that respect.
One thing that happens with some LE officers, is that over time they get a "them against us" attitude, which I fully understand, but we all have to remember there are a whole lot more good guys out there than bad guys. It's just that bad guys get all the attention. Look at the media; what do they focus on....bad guys doing bad things.
It's always telling when people judge me (or us) because of our jobs. Everyone is different, and that's fine.
I have also found that if you don't start out with hostility, and keep your calm, you are way more successful. It's pretty tough to be mad at someone who treats you well, and fairly.
Post by: muzbuster on September 20, 2013, 07:59:32 AM
4 pages - Interesting.....Guess I was raised to respect LE first, has always worked for me resulting in no issues. I suppose if the man behind the badge proves me wrong, I would have issues with the name of the person, not LE in general.:yeah:
ucwarden - Welcome to the site! your posts have been very level headed and you seem to genuinely want to help the hunting community. Look forward to your input.
Post by: scout/sniper on September 20, 2013, 08:01:23 AM
I agree with some others. Respect is a two way street. And I don't believe anyone is any more important than anybody else. I know that may come as a shock to some.:yeah: 100%
Post by: Woodchuck on September 20, 2013, 08:10:37 AM
Well said4 pages - Interesting.....Guess I was raised to respect LE first, has always worked for me resulting in no issues. I suppose if the man behind the badge proves me wrong, I would have issues with the name of the person, not LE in general.
ucwarden - Welcome to the site! your posts have been very level headed and you seem to genuinely want to help the hunting community. Look forward to your input.
Thanks. I think this whole "respect LE" is interesting. I don't mean to sound all corny, but I think it goes a little deeper than just law enforcement....we should all chill a bit, and treat everyone with respect unless they prove unworthy of that respect.
One thing that happens with some LE officers, is that over time they get a "them against us" attitude, which I fully understand, but we all have to remember there are a whole lot more good guys out there than bad guys. It's just that bad guys get all the attention. Look at the media; what do they focus on....bad guys doing bad things.
It's always telling when people judge me (or us) because of our jobs. Everyone is different, and that's fine.
I have also found that if you don't start out with hostility, and keep your calm, you are way more successful. It's pretty tough to be mad at someone who treats you well, and fairly.
Post by: Curly on September 20, 2013, 08:10:54 AM
If one of you, who knows how to work this forum stuff better than me (which would make about all of you), would like to help of get a bunch of people together (organized) to perhaps list the top 10 things they would like to see changed in WDFW (especially enforcement), I will be glad to help polish it up a bit, then we could go forward and try to make some real positive changes.
I have seen it work before. That is how seasons (between archery, muzzleloader and rifle are set...for example). It is not a lost cause, but we would have to get everyone to agree enough to try to push through some changes.
I noticed the "Washington for Wildlife" on this website, and maybe that would be a good platform.
Simply complaining on here won't change anything. An organized group, along with the media can.
Thoughts
:yeah: A lot sure needs to be changed almost to the point of starting all over with a new administration though. We need WDFW working more for us again. Licensed outdoorsmen just want to hunt and fish without all the technical and confusing rules for each differant area or body of water. Doesn't seem to matter how much you study the rules and do things right you could still get ticketed for something,gotta be discouraging for the kids just getting into hunting and fishing also. There is also a lot of resentment and dissatisfaction with people when wildlife only seems to be protected so the wolves or tribes can harvest more too.
We also need to be a stronger voice than the animal rights folks. I could be wrong but it seems they are the majority and they are the ones writting letters to WDFW and going to the meetings now. Anyways gotta think positive and now that you are retired sounds like you may be able to do more for us now than before :tup:
Everyone has to understand what can't be changed, what would be tough to change, and what might be pretty easy to change. Tribal hunting/fishing is one thing that probably will not change, as the treaties and the US courts have that pretty well carved in stone. Wolves are a very complex issue, in that both the states and federal government regulate wolves. Anytime the ESA (Endangered Species Act) is involved it will trump everything else. States do have a say in how wolves are "managed", but not as much as you might think.
While we, as a group, can't change some things, others should be relatively easy if we just join up, and present our arguments in a clear manner with supporting documentation (if possible).
Again, I propose forming a group (or using an existing group such as Washington for Wildlife), discussing what we all feel are the most important issue, then moving forward to try to effect some change. I am more than willing to play any role y'all want, but I don't know this forum system well enough to start this.
I'll state one thing I want changed with WDFW. (I don't know if this is the right thread for stating my opinion on this, but ...................)
I really want WDFW to be able to give opinions on proposed Initiatives. Just thinking back to the 1996 voter initiatives that has had a huge impact on wildlife in this state (baiting, trapping, and hounds).
For many years I was angry that WDFW did not speak out against those initiatives. I always felt that if WDFW had come-out with commercials, PSA's, or interviews with biologists in news articles, etc.......then maybe people would have gotten educated enough to make informed decisions when voting on those horrible initiatives.
Bigtex informed us, a couple years ago, that WDFW is not allowed to give opinions on things like those initiatives. So, now my anger is not directed at WDFW, but rather at the system that doesn't allow the opinion of the wildlife professionals to be heard.
I guess I'm just scared of some other wildlife intiative getting on the ballots and WDFW has to be silent. Makes no sense to me. (But then again, it seems WDFW has gotten a bunch of predator lovers working for them now, so maybe WDFW opinion would not be so good anymore. ??? I think their opinion in 1996 would have been favorable to us sportsmen, but today I don't know anymore :-\ )
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 20, 2013, 08:11:58 AM
4 pages - Interesting.....Guess I was raised to respect LE first, has always worked for me resulting in no issues. I suppose if the man behind the badge proves me wrong, I would have issues with the name of the person, not LE in general.
ucwarden - Welcome to the site! your posts have been very level headed and you seem to genuinely want to help the hunting community. Look forward to your input.
Thanks. I think this whole "respect LE" is interesting. I don't mean to sound all corny, but I think it goes a little deeper than just law enforcement....we should all chill a bit, and treat everyone with respect unless they prove unworthy of that respect.
One thing that happens with some LE officers, is that over time they get a "then against us" attitude, which I fully understand, but we all have to remember there are a whole lot more good guys out there than bad guys. It's just that bad guys get all the attention. Look at the media; what do they focus on....bad guys doing bad things.
It's always telling when people judge me (or us) because of our jobs. Everyone is different, and that's fine.
I have also found that if you don't start out with hostility, and keep your calm, you are way more successful. It's pretty tough to be mad at someone who treats you well, and fairly.
Cops usually don't go on calls to go see nice people. I understand that.
Post by: bigtex on September 20, 2013, 08:13:36 AM
No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on September 20, 2013, 08:15:30 AM
Post by: Curly on September 20, 2013, 08:16:29 AM
Curly,
No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.
Any chance of that getting changed? Or should it not be changed?
Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative. Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........
Post by: grundy53 on September 20, 2013, 08:23:58 AM
I agree4 pages - Interesting.....Guess I was raised to respect LE first, has always worked for me resulting in no issues. I suppose if the man behind the badge proves me wrong, I would have issues with the name of the person, not LE in general.
ucwarden - Welcome to the site! your posts have been very level headed and you seem to genuinely want to help the hunting community. Look forward to your input.
Thanks. I think this whole "respect LE" is interesting. I don't mean to sound all corny, but I think it goes a little deeper than just law enforcement....we should all chill a bit, and treat everyone with respect unless they prove unworthy of that respect.
One thing that happens with some LE officers, is that over time they get a "them against us" attitude, which I fully understand, but we all have to remember there are a whole lot more good guys out there than bad guys. It's just that bad guys get all the attention. Look at the media; what do they focus on....bad guys doing bad things.
It's always telling when people judge me (or us) because of our jobs. Everyone is different, and that's fine.
I have also found that if you don't start out with hostility, and keep your calm, you are way more successful. It's pretty tough to be mad at someone who treats you well, and fairly.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on September 20, 2013, 08:25:05 AM
The sign up for WFW is a link on the top right of the page.
Got it, and I am signed up
Glad to have you aboard :)
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bigtex on September 20, 2013, 08:36:41 AM
Curly,
No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.
Any chance of that getting changed? Or should it not be changed?
Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative. Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........
Here's my view.
I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.
However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 08:40:25 AM
Curly,
No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.
Any chance of that getting changed? Or should it not be changed?
Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative. Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........
Here's my view.
I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.
However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.
That is right on point. Also; keep in mind that getting a state agency to come up with a position on any legislation would be tough in itself. No matter what side of the issue the agency took up, 1/2 of it's employees would disagree with that position.
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 08:41:12 AM
Curly,
No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.
Any chance of that getting changed? Or should it not be changed?
Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative. Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........
Here's my view.
I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.
However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.
Bigtex:
I sent you a PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 20, 2013, 08:42:59 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 20, 2013, 08:49:50 AM
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 08:58:32 AM
UC, thanks for signing up for WFW. Hunting season throws things into low gear for a bit, but we'll be back in the swing after modern is done. Welcome to the team.
Understood
Post by: Broken Arrow on September 20, 2013, 09:22:04 AM
Post by: Tbar on September 20, 2013, 09:25:12 AM
Very well said. The other things people have to take into consideration is if the wdfw were to given opinions on the initiatives say in 1996 is perception of "conflict of interest". It would be a catch 22 being sworn to uphold the laws you spoke out against. This is a hypothetical situation of course but may illustrate the problems that could arise from state agencies providing opinions (even if it's right). :twocents:Curly,
No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.
Any chance of that getting changed? Or should it not be changed?
Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative. Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........
Here's my view.
I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.
However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.
That is right on point. Also; keep in mind that getting a state agency to come up with a position on any legislation would be tough in itself. No matter what side of the issue the agency took up, 1/2 of it's employees would disagree with that position.
Post by: Curly on September 20, 2013, 09:30:48 AM
The one bad experience was with a WDFW employee. He was a biologist that had a very bad attitude and apparently wished he was an officer. Bios apparently lack the training that officers are likely getting. Maybe more training is in order for bios that are going to be representing WDFW out there. :twocents:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 20, 2013, 09:36:03 AM
Very well said. The other things people have to take into consideration is if the wdfw were to given opinions on the initiatives say in 1996 is perception of "conflict of interest". It would be a catch 22 being sworn to uphold the laws you spoke out against. This is a hypothetical situation of course but may illustrate the problems that could arise from state agencies providing opinions (even if it's right). :twocents:Curly,
No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.
Any chance of that getting changed? Or should it not be changed?
Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative. Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........
Here's my view.
I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.
However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.
That is right on point. Also; keep in mind that getting a state agency to come up with a position on any legislation would be tough in itself. No matter what side of the issue the agency took up, 1/2 of it's employees would disagree with that position.
Would you want the DSHS to endorse candidates for Governor?
Post by: Curly on September 20, 2013, 09:50:05 AM
Very well said. The other things people have to take into consideration is if the wdfw were to given opinions on the initiatives say in 1996 is perception of "conflict of interest". It would be a catch 22 being sworn to uphold the laws you spoke out against. This is a hypothetical situation of course but may illustrate the problems that could arise from state agencies providing opinions (even if it's right). :twocents:Curly,
No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.
Any chance of that getting changed? Or should it not be changed?
Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative. Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........
Here's my view.
I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.
However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.
That is right on point. Also; keep in mind that getting a state agency to come up with a position on any legislation would be tough in itself. No matter what side of the issue the agency took up, 1/2 of it's employees would disagree with that position.
Would you want the DSHS to endorse candidates for Governor?
No. Point taken. (That's what I like about this site; we can discuss things and I can get my head set straight). 8)
Like I say, it was just back in '96 I figured most of WDFW were against the initiatives and I felt at the time that I wished they could have voiced their concern with the initiatives to try to get voters to see the light.
Today, the way WDFW is going, I don't know if they would be against those initiatives if they were proposed today instead of back then. So, I can see the benefit to keeping public agencies opinions out of initiatives.
I'm just frustrated with those initiatives and what they've done for increasing predators in the state.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 20, 2013, 09:54:52 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on September 20, 2013, 10:05:26 AM
Welcome to the board. I congratulate you on your retirement. I am little surprised by your surprise that many people don't have good opinions of WDFW. The survey conducted showed that many, many hunters are not happy with the management of elk herds. This is not new. As to attitude of WDFW LE it is the same attitude people get towards LE in general accept, you are far more likely to make contact with a WDFW LE than general LE if you are simply in woods or on the water. The people who have bad experiences have reasons. :dunno: I look at WDFW as a service. This includes LE. It's that simple. I don't care for the "King's Guard" complex that some LE develop but whatever, that is on them. Always, LE is in charge of any and all contacts. I advise everyone to comply with any orders and simply know your rights and your responsibilities while in the field. This attitude serves me very well in real life. (Although a few people inside of H-W have razzed me :chuckle: )
There are so many special interest groups for what ever adventure wants to take place. We all throw money at it. Many people on this board know that if I believe in an organization I will donate my money towards it. I will also do time IRL. However, desire is useless without physical participation if there is any hope of any real change. The Archery season for me will be a NO GO next year. This year I bought both species multi-season tags. That's a big support of WDFW right there. But the seasons are so poor that will not happen next year. In fact, I am going out of State. The business end of WDFW is no longer a service I want to pay for. We will see if they do a better job in 2015.
If anyone really wants to make a difference start by making a personal commitment to attending at least one WDFW meeting this year. Many here, (any by that I mean a few.) Carry the water for the majority trying to represent this sport. I for one am fed up with not being listened to by WDFW. I see them as viewing me as nothing more than a voluntary funding system. They will never stop devising ways to entertain me and them through gaming (gambling) regulations.
Thanks for reading.
Post by: fishseeker on September 20, 2013, 10:08:07 AM
Post by: rtspring on September 20, 2013, 10:31:34 AM
We need to come together! A show of force. Money is and always will be the driving factor. When we all say, we will hunt elsewhere and do it not just say it. Maybe things will change...
I personally spend alot on hunting, take that away from the state and it will hurt across the state and bigtime. Arguing at some town hall meeting never gets anything done!
The WDFW has lied to our faces about transplanting wolves! What else have they lied about! I do not trust anything they say.
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 10:36:16 AM
The 1996 ban on hounds and baiting can be directly attributed to a lack of cohesion within the hunting community to come together and dispel the myths and lies perpetrated by the anti-hunting community. They're better organized and better funded than us. We really need a unified voice in this state. It's not as bad as it was, thanks to the internet, but there's still a long way to go.
I remember the anti-hound and anti-baiting ads very well. One thing they very effectively used against us, was the video those idiots took of letting their dogs "worry" (chew to pieces) on the bear cub. The internet is a very powerful tool now, but it can also come back to bite you in the rear if you don't use common sense.
I have attended more than my fair share of WDFW commission meetings, and some of the folks who came in to represent hunting groups didn't cast us in a very good light.
The anti's are very well organized, and well funded, and you rarely see them fight among themselves. It seems that often the exact opposite is true of sportsmen. For example; we will see the archery hunters complain about rifle hunters and vice-versa.
That is why I would like to see a cohesive uniform group, which represents all sportsmen.
RMEF is a fantastic organization, and in my opinion is the most powerful hunting organization in the state. We should all look at following their lead, and going even further.
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 10:39:09 AM
Can I be the spokesperson for our group? :chuckle:
We need to come together! A show of force. Money is and always will be the driving factor. When we all say, we will hunt elsewhere and do it not just say it. Maybe things will change...
I personally spend alot on hunting, take that away from the state and it will hurt across the state and bigtime. Arguing at some town hall meeting never gets anything done!
The WDFW has lied to our faces about transplanting wolves! What else have they lied about! I do not trust anything they say.
I am not sure lines such as "WDFW has lied to our faces" is going to get us very far. Start with a feather before you move to using the hammer.
Post by: Gringo31 on September 20, 2013, 10:40:07 AM
My complaints with WDFW are many. They should be the experts. They have been infiltrated by a bunch of no common sense, greenie freaks that spend most of their time in an office on the west side. The true people on the ground that make a difference are few. Many of those guys are pretty sharp and if asked one on one, can give you some real insight.
WDFW goal is to continue to increase costs and decrease opportunity while telling us how good that is for us. They have virtually zero predator management, seem to believe in perservation vs conservation and spend money on polls that tell us that gardening is the top outdoor activity for washington state.
The more I learn, the more I think I wasted my time learning. You go to meetings and they've made up their mind already.....
However, I love it when someone who knows so much about it is a clear thinking and willing to offer help or advice. Glad to have you along! :brew:
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
I took many NATRS classes but changed my major and know some guys that finished the program. I quit because I wanted actual money :chuckle: But I do understand your passion as I at one point headed down that road.
My complaints with WDFW are many. They should be the experts. They have been infiltrated by a bunch of no common sense, greenie freaks that spend most of their time in an office on the west side. The true people on the ground that make a difference are few. Many of those guys are pretty sharp and if asked one on one, can give you some real insight.
WDFW goal is to continue to increase costs and decrease opportunity while telling us how good that is for us. They have virtually zero predator management, seem to believe in perservation vs conservation and spend money on polls that tell us that gardening is the top outdoor activity for washington state.
The more I learn, the more I think I wasted my time learning. You go to meetings and they've made up their mind already.....
However, I love it when someone who knows so much about it is a clear thinking and willing to offer help or advice. Glad to have you along! :brew:
Very well said. If we can get an organized group together, and that's a big if, then we can start working on issues which are common to all of us. We will never change the whole "system" as it is way too big, and the mindset of the whole country (and especially this very liberal state) have changed dramatically in recend years, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
If someone can get a group started (say with Washington for Wildlife), then we can take some baby-steps, and see if it's worth continuing.
When I was working in enforcement, I was rather well known for my line "I would rather fight a fight and lose, than to not fight at all".
Post by: Wacenturion on September 20, 2013, 11:12:00 AM
Gringo....let me inject something into the discussion regarding your comment. There are lots of good folks working hard for wildlife and the public at WDFW. Unfortunately the ones who are too busy trying to make a positive difference usually are not the type to play the political game. Therefore many in Olympia and to some extent those in Regional offices are all about control and their own agendas. That's where some of the idiotic policy decisions come from. They tend to have opinions on issues they have no workable knowledge of, but insert themselves into the decision making because they have some vague idea something may impact them somehow. Again...want a piece of the pie.
Let me sum it up this way. I have always said their are generally two types of state employee (in the case of WDFW). Those who have the public interest in mind and those that have self interest in mind. The public's don't have any time to play games. The self's have generally spent their careers climbing the ladder as evidenced by a lack of production other than acting like they know something in meetings and agreeing with some other nitwit. They therefore greatly influence policy, many times in a non scientific personal opinion way.
In addition there is an old dog breeding saying that goes.
"like begets like",
which means, when you breed close (similar relatives) you get similar traits, good and bad. Well you can apply that somewhat in that those in positions to hire generally hire similar viewpoints. Also those that like control but don't have a clue as to how to implement anything tend to hire people that don't question...perhaps even in their minds not as smart as they are.
Many years ago, a steelhead hatchery manager who wasn't working, was usually found on the river fishing. Deer, waterfowl, upland bird managers were die hard hunters. Not today....sorry but that's part of the problem. WDFW got infected way back in the 80's with a same dose of political wildlife correctness. That of course spread. I rest my case. :twocents:
Post by: Wacenturion on September 20, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Post by: ucwarden on September 20, 2013, 11:18:06 AM
i might add....ucwarden was one of the public interest guys. :tup:
Thanks. You can see how far that got me.
I often reflect back on my career, and wished that I had "picked my battles" rather than fighting every little thing I saw wrong. Once you fight admin a few times, you are just a trouble maker, and you lose all chance of getting things changed.
Post by: Wacenturion on September 20, 2013, 11:22:14 AM
"you know, the pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their ass"
Always remembered that from that day forward whenever I got frustrated with the morons. Like filling up the tank with gas. :chuckle:
Post by: Wacenturion on September 20, 2013, 11:26:04 AM
i might add....ucwarden was one of the public interest guys. :tup:
Thanks. You can see how far that got me.
I often reflect back on my career, and wished that I had "picked my battles" rather than fighting every little thing I saw wrong. Once you fight admin a few times, you are just a trouble maker, and you lose all chance of getting things changed.
You can be quite proud of what you accomplished. You'll probably never know just how those little battles had an overtall positive effect. I know when you moved to Dayton, your reputation preceeded you and staff there was elated to have you as a co-worker. Says a lot.
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2013, 12:57:36 PM
Now you get to help organise a bunch of us with your knowledge of how the system works so our efforts are not wasted. As you said earlier... Some times all you need is the pressure of the feather so why use the sledgehammer.i might add....ucwarden was one of the public interest guys. :tup:
Thanks. You can see how far that got me.
I often reflect back on my career, and wished that I had "picked my battles" rather than fighting every little thing I saw wrong. Once you fight admin a few times, you are just a trouble maker, and you lose all chance of getting things changed.
Post by: scout/sniper on September 20, 2013, 01:11:30 PM
Now you get to help organise a bunch of us with your knowledge of how the system works so our efforts are not wasted. As you said earlier... Some times all you need is the pressure of the feather so why use the sledgehammer.I don't disagree, but I believe many people think the feather has been used too much with no results.
Sometimes, and I mean "sometimes", extreme violence of action is needed to take the fight to the enemy in a way that makes them step back and reconsider their options.
Actually not purchasing WDFW products, licenses, tags etc. is just that kind of action.
The same goes for WEYCO and their access pass BS!
Post by: fishseeker on September 20, 2013, 01:15:55 PM
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2013, 03:43:18 PM
Now you get to help organise a bunch of us with your knowledge of how the system works so our efforts are not wasted. As you said earlier... Some times all you need is the pressure of the feather so why use the sledgehammer.I don't disagree, but I believe many people think the feather has been used too much with no results.
Sometimes, and I mean "sometimes", extreme violence of action is needed to take the fight to the enemy in a way that makes them step back and reconsider their options.
Actually not purchasing WDFW products, licenses, tags etc. is just that kind of action.
The same goes for WEYCO and their access pass BS!
Correct, however WHERE you decide to put the pressure is just as important as how much pressure to apply.
Post by: JLS on September 20, 2013, 03:50:07 PM
Now you get to help organise a bunch of us with your knowledge of how the system works so our efforts are not wasted. As you said earlier... Some times all you need is the pressure of the feather so why use the sledgehammer.I don't disagree, but I believe many people think the feather has been used too much with no results.
Sometimes, and I mean "sometimes", extreme violence of action is needed to take the fight to the enemy in a way that makes them step back and reconsider their options.
Actually not purchasing WDFW products, licenses, tags etc. is just that kind of action.
The same goes for WEYCO and their access pass BS!
Correct, however WHERE you decide to put the pressure is just as important as how much pressure to apply.
And WHEN. The reason RMEF is successful is the focus on their mission statement and don't get sucked into ancillary battles like weapon types, etc. They focus on elk and elk habitat period.
Figure out your priorities, and stick with them.
Post by: huntnphool on September 20, 2013, 04:34:23 PM
Can I be the spokesperson for our group?Um...... :bdid: :twocents:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 20, 2013, 06:55:53 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 20, 2013, 07:01:55 PM
Holy sheet batman ...I do not think I have read a whole thread in my life :chuckle: What I think needs to be done is all Wildlife Agencies need to be control by the agency ...They are the wildlife experts and they should be running the whole show across the board ...we all know hunting has been around since man popped up on the earth ...we all know animals need to be managed and the only proper way to do so is hunting ...these idiots who are against hunting need to know one major factor ...If regulated hunting ever came to an end that they thought they had a poaching problem now.... I would sure hate to see the out come of that one :dunno:
All the Kings deer.......
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 20, 2013, 07:10:35 PM
Close The Evergeen State College
Good luck with that.
Post by: buckfvr on September 20, 2013, 07:14:06 PM
Then, management could start in earnest........
Post by: KFhunter on September 20, 2013, 07:16:29 PM
I think a starting point would be a reclassification of our predatory animals back into an appropriate category, say like Predators ???????
Then, management could start in earnest........
Or vermin, that'd be a good start.
Post by: snarkybull on September 21, 2013, 04:44:55 PM
Gringo....let me inject something into the discussion regarding your comment. There are lots of good folks working hard for wildlife and the public at WDFW. Unfortunately the ones who are too busy trying to make a positive difference usually are not the type to play the political game. Therefore many in Olympia and to some extent those in Regional offices are all about control and their own agendas. That's where some of the idiotic policy decisions come from. They tend to have opinions on issues they have no workable knowledge of, but insert themselves into the decision making because they have some vague idea something may impact them somehow. Again...want a piece of the pie.
Let me sum it up this way. I have always said their are generally two types of state employee (in the case of WDFW). Those who have the public interest in mind and those that have self interest in mind. The public's don't have any time to play games. The self's have generally spent their careers climbing the ladder as evidenced by a lack of production other than acting like they know something in meetings and agreeing with some other nitwit. They therefore greatly influence policy, many times in a non scientific personal opinion way.
In addition there is an old dog breeding saying that goes.
"like begets like",
which means, when you breed close (similar relatives) you get similar traits, good and bad. Well you can apply that somewhat in that those in positions to hire generally hire similar viewpoints. Also those that like control but don't have a clue as to how to implement anything tend to hire people that don't question...perhaps even in their minds not as smart as they are.
wacenturion...you have NAILED IT. You sound like an insider. ;)
Take a close look at the "leadership" and you will cringe like a beaten dog. Region 6 "leaders"...OMG
The one thing you missed is the cronyism. Everybody who advances to positions of real authority has tight connections and brown noses. If I was to somehow become the director tomorrow the first thing I'd do is fire every single person ranked WMS 1 and higher. Man Of The Year stuff is made that way.
ucwarden...I don't know who you are, but if you recognize the issues with your former Deputy Chief then I think we're on the same page. I have listened to him and his ilk go apenuts crazy about busting people, but protecting the resource somehow doesn't actually seem to rank very high. They will watch people poach and get giddy. So I will apologize if you're one of the good guys (I have known a few VERY good ones, but not many) but I too hold WDFW LEO's in low estimation as a general rule...until proven otherwise.
Post by: ucwarden on September 21, 2013, 04:49:32 PM
Gringo....let me inject something into the discussion regarding your comment. There are lots of good folks working hard for wildlife and the public at WDFW. Unfortunately the ones who are too busy trying to make a positive difference usually are not the type to play the political game. Therefore many in Olympia and to some extent those in Regional offices are all about control and their own agendas. That's where some of the idiotic policy decisions come from. They tend to have opinions on issues they have no workable knowledge of, but insert themselves into the decision making because they have some vague idea something may impact them somehow. Again...want a piece of the pie.
Let me sum it up this way. I have always said their are generally two types of state employee (in the case of WDFW). Those who have the public interest in mind and those that have self interest in mind. The public's don't have any time to play games. The self's have generally spent their careers climbing the ladder as evidenced by a lack of production other than acting like they know something in meetings and agreeing with some other nitwit. They therefore greatly influence policy, many times in a non scientific personal opinion way.
In addition there is an old dog breeding saying that goes.
"like begets like",
which means, when you breed close (similar relatives) you get similar traits, good and bad. Well you can apply that somewhat in that those in positions to hire generally hire similar viewpoints. Also those that like control but don't have a clue as to how to implement anything tend to hire people that don't question...perhaps even in their minds not as smart as they are.
wacenturion...you have NAILED IT. You sound like an insider. ;)
Take a close look at the "leadership" and you will cringe like a beaten dog. Region 6 "leaders"...OMG
The one thing you missed is the cronyism. Everybody who advances to positions of real authority has tight connections and brown noses. If I was to somehow become the director tomorrow the first thing I'd do is fire every single person ranked WMS 1 and higher. Man Of The Year stuff is made that way.
ucwarden...I don't know who you are, but if you recognize the issues with your former Deputy Chief then I think we're on the same page. I have listened to him and his ilk go apenuts crazy about busting people, but protecting the resource somehow doesn't actually seem to rank very high. They will watch people poach and get giddy. So I will apologize if you're one of the good guys (I have known a few VERY good ones, but not many) but I too hold WDFW LEO's in low estimation as a general rule...until proven otherwise.
You want to know where I stand on the issue; go to amazon and take a look at the book I just wrote; "Operation Cody". You don't even have to read it, just read the free introduction ("Look Inside").
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 21, 2013, 05:09:48 PM
What I find interesting is an organization will uphold 95% of what a member believes and yet they quit based on one small issue the membership can't decide on. Become active and influence the change and beliefs you have. If you want to sit on the sidelines and think that when you open those regulations next year they will magically have everything you want it's not reality. Wouldn't it be nice though?
Post by: KFhunter on September 21, 2013, 05:19:04 PM
We as a community need to get WFW up and going!
Post by: scout/sniper on September 21, 2013, 05:33:57 PM
He joined WFW - looking forward to that getting off the ground.:yeah:
We as a community need to get WFW up and going!
Post by: grundy53 on September 21, 2013, 05:52:16 PM
I think a starting point would be a reclassification of our predatory animals back into an appropriate category, say like Predators ???????
Then, management could start in earnest........
Or vermin, that'd be a good start.
:yeah:
Post by: Wacenturion on September 22, 2013, 12:06:22 AM
"The one thing you missed is the cronyism. Everybody who advances to positions of real authority has tight connections and brown noses."
That was implied in my "like begets like" statement regarding hiring. I guess you could call me an insider...a 30 year one. :chuckle:
Post by: PolarBear on September 22, 2013, 12:17:38 AM
GLAD to have you here! Welcome! :hello: I have the utmost respect. When we are out enjoying what we love the most, you are working. THANKS!!!:yeah:
:tup: :tup:
Post by: Special T on September 22, 2013, 09:07:22 AM
Instead of all this talk about trying to put together an organization, why don't you just join one of the many out there. Your voice will be heard more and why dilute the situation and create more small organizations that will have a hard time to get anything done. There are tons out there...muzzy, wsb, wsaa, tbw, sci, mdf, wfw, etc... Getting participation in any organization is difficult so why make it tougher? I'm sure there is already an organization that represents most of your interests.It does seem hard to get people involved. IMO sportsmen need an organization that will respond to Washington issues and can bring all those organizations together for expanded influence. Hunters seem to be much a harder at organizing because we all seem to have our distinct vision on how to correct any issue. RMEF and others did not get involved in the wolf issue right away because they did not see how it affected their "mission". Many of us were upset with an organization we had lot of faith in. In some way i think WFW should be patterned after the fishing group Coastal Conservation Association. Much of thier success has come from being the moderator and local focal point for other organizations bringing them together for mutual benefit. I personally feel that there are plenty of opportunities to make meaningful change across all styles of hunting that are low hanging fruit.
What I find interesting is an organization will uphold 95% of what a member believes and yet they quit based on one small issue the membership can't decide on. Become active and influence the change and beliefs you have. If you want to sit on the sidelines and think that when you open those regulations next year they will magically have everything you want it's not reality. Wouldn't it be nice though?
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 22, 2013, 09:54:37 AM
Instead of all this talk about trying to put together an organization, why don't you just join one of the many out there. Your voice will be heard more and why dilute the situation and create more small organizations that will have a hard time to get anything done. There are tons out there...muzzy, wsb, wsaa, tbw, sci, mdf, wfw, etc... Getting participation in any organization is difficult so why make it tougher? I'm sure there is already an organization that represents most of your interests.
What I find interesting is an organization will uphold 95% of what a member believes and yet they quit based on one small issue the membership can't decide on. Become active and influence the change and beliefs you have. If you want to sit on the sidelines and think that when you open those regulations next year they will magically have everything you want it's not reality. Wouldn't it be nice though?
He's already suggested doing this through WFW and has signed up.
Post by: ucwarden on September 22, 2013, 02:04:43 PM
Instead of all this talk about trying to put together an organization, why don't you just join one of the many out there. Your voice will be heard more and why dilute the situation and create more small organizations that will have a hard time to get anything done. There are tons out there...muzzy, wsb, wsaa, tbw, sci, mdf, wfw, etc... Getting participation in any organization is difficult so why make it tougher? I'm sure there is already an organization that represents most of your interests.
What I find interesting is an organization will uphold 95% of what a member believes and yet they quit based on one small issue the membership can't decide on. Become active and influence the change and beliefs you have. If you want to sit on the sidelines and think that when you open those regulations next year they will magically have everything you want it's not reality. Wouldn't it be nice though?
He's already suggested doing this through WFW and has signed up.
I did sign up with WFW, and after talking to several people, will probably wait until after hunting season, to try to get something really going. Stand by, we will make a run at some real change!
Post by: Dave Workman on September 27, 2013, 07:50:39 AM
It does seem hard to get people involved. IMO sportsmen need an organization that will respond to Washington issues and can bring all those organizations together for expanded influence. Hunters seem to be much a harder at organizing because we all seem to have our distinct vision on how to correct any issue. RMEF and others did not get involved in the wolf issue right away because they did not see how it affected their "mission". Many of us were upset with an organization we had lot of faith in. In some way i think WFW should be patterned after the fishing group Coastal Conservation Association. Much of thier success has come from being the moderator and local focal point for other organizations bringing them together for mutual benefit. I personally feel that there are plenty of opportunities to make meaningful change across all styles of hunting that are low hanging fruit.
We had an organization like that back in the 1980s. The Sportsmen's Rights Coalition. Staged the only two sportsman demonstrations in state history on the capitol steps. I was there.
Time for the SRC to be revived?
Post by: scout/sniper on September 27, 2013, 07:57:26 AM
Bring that can-do attitude to WFW.
It does seem hard to get people involved. IMO sportsmen need an organization that will respond to Washington issues and can bring all those organizations together for expanded influence. Hunters seem to be much a harder at organizing because we all seem to have our distinct vision on how to correct any issue. RMEF and others did not get involved in the wolf issue right away because they did not see how it affected their "mission". Many of us were upset with an organization we had lot of faith in. In some way i think WFW should be patterned after the fishing group Coastal Conservation Association. Much of thier success has come from being the moderator and local focal point for other organizations bringing them together for mutual benefit. I personally feel that there are plenty of opportunities to make meaningful change across all styles of hunting that are low hanging fruit.
We had an organization like that back in the 1980s. The Sportsmen's Rights Coalition. Staged the only two sportsman demonstrations in state history on the capitol steps. I was there.
Time for the SRC to be revived?
Post by: Special T on September 28, 2013, 01:58:58 PM
What seems to be the big hangup with bringing together all of the different hunting groups to promote common sense change within the system? I Agree with PSP that there are many great organizations that are worthy of our time and $$. I also think there is plenty of "low hanging fruit" for change for MANY species. Has a specific organization like SCI or?? tried to lead other organizations for the betterment of the state? If so why have they failed?
Dave Why did SRC fade away?
Post by: growler on September 28, 2013, 08:02:28 PM
Post by: ucwarden on September 29, 2013, 07:07:26 AM
Ucwarden, glad to see you are still fighting the good fight. Truly a guy who can make a difference, and if he can't he will piss you off to no end trying. While I rarely post, my respect for this guy will likely give my profession away. As a former co worker of mine, I can only encourage those on this board to use him as a very valuable, extremely knowledgeable resource that has fought all of his professional life for the fish and wildlife we all love to pursue and enjoy. Congratulations again on your retirement, thanks for your service and committment and thanks for not writing any smartass comments when you personalized my copy of Operation CODY. I just loaned it to Z today.
Thanks, but who is going to help Z with the big words....glad I put pictures in there. Quote me to him.
Post by: Blackjaw on September 30, 2013, 01:10:16 PM
I think a lot of the reason people are put off by Wildlife law enforcement is the unique nature of the job which leads the Guilty until proven innocent stance they take. I.E. If you are in a steel shot zone they need to check your shells because you are guilty until proven innocent. If you are walking up the trail with a steelhead they need to check your punch card because you are guilty until proven innocent, etc. This style of enforcement seems unique to wildlife laws in that in other aspects of law enforcement you have to be caught in the act, or be caught as the result of criminal investigation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 30, 2013, 01:22:01 PM
OK, here is my take on why a lot of people have a gripe with Wildlife law enforcement, and for the record I don't have the answer how to rectify this situation.
I think a lot of the reason people are put off by Wildlife law enforcement is the unique nature of the job which leads the Guilty until proven innocent stance they take. I.E. If you are in a steel shot zone they need to check your shells because you are guilty until proven innocent. If you are walking up the trail with a steelhead they need to check your punch card because you are guilty until proven innocent, etc. This style of enforcement seems unique to wildlife laws in that in other aspects of law enforcement you have to be caught in the act, or be caught as the result of criminal investigation.
Well and that's partly to do with the fact that hunting and fishing are privileges and not rights. They really have very little with which to protect my resources without checking people and their tags. I have no problem ever showing my shells, my fish, my meat, or my tags to an officer. If you know and follow the regs to the letter, you should have no problem either. I may well deny them requested access to search my vehicle, but I will certainly show them what I have and have done so with no problems. That's the price you pay (besides the price of the tag) to exercise your privilege to hunt/fish. Small price to keep my resources intact, IMHO.
Post by: KFhunter on September 30, 2013, 01:54:43 PM
OK, here is my take on why a lot of people have a gripe with Wildlife law enforcement, and for the record I don't have the answer how to rectify this situation.
I think a lot of the reason people are put off by Wildlife law enforcement is the unique nature of the job which leads the Guilty until proven innocent stance they take. I.E. If you are in a steel shot zone they need to check your shells because you are guilty until proven innocent. If you are walking up the trail with a steelhead they need to check your punch card because you are guilty until proven innocent, etc. This style of enforcement seems unique to wildlife laws in that in other aspects of law enforcement you have to be caught in the act, or be caught as the result of criminal investigation.
Well and that's partly to do with the fact that hunting and fishing are privileges and not rights. They really have very little with which to protect my resources without checking people and their tags. I have no problem ever showing my shells, my fish, my meat, or my tags to an officer. If you know and follow the regs to the letter, you should have no problem either. I may well deny them requested access to search my vehicle, but I will certainly show them what I have and have done so with no problems. That's the price you pay (besides the price of the tag) to exercise your privilege to hunt/fish. Small price to keep my resources intact, IMHO.
good luck with that if they have reason to believe your hunting - road hunting etc
too many grouse behind the seat of your pickup isn't going to be off limits to inspection, especially if you open the door and some feathers flutter out :chuckle:
point is they have a bit more in regards to search authority than the average police stopping you for speeding - and I know you know this P-man just clarfying for others who might read that.
I'm not implying any wrong doing on your part P-man, it's just a strawman arguement and you know how I love those :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 30, 2013, 02:15:32 PM
OK, here is my take on why a lot of people have a gripe with Wildlife law enforcement, and for the record I don't have the answer how to rectify this situation.
I think a lot of the reason people are put off by Wildlife law enforcement is the unique nature of the job which leads the Guilty until proven innocent stance they take. I.E. If you are in a steel shot zone they need to check your shells because you are guilty until proven innocent. If you are walking up the trail with a steelhead they need to check your punch card because you are guilty until proven innocent, etc. This style of enforcement seems unique to wildlife laws in that in other aspects of law enforcement you have to be caught in the act, or be caught as the result of criminal investigation.
Well and that's partly to do with the fact that hunting and fishing are privileges and not rights. They really have very little with which to protect my resources without checking people and their tags. I have no problem ever showing my shells, my fish, my meat, or my tags to an officer. If you know and follow the regs to the letter, you should have no problem either. I may well deny them requested access to search my vehicle, but I will certainly show them what I have and have done so with no problems. That's the price you pay (besides the price of the tag) to exercise your privilege to hunt/fish. Small price to keep my resources intact, IMHO.
good luck with that if they have reason to believe your hunting - road hunting etc
too many grouse behind the seat of your pickup isn't going to be off limits to inspection, especially if you open the door and some feathers flutter out :chuckle:
point is they have a bit more in regards to search authority than the average police stopping you for speeding - and I know you know this P-man just clarfying for others who might read that.
I'm not implying any wrong doing on your part P-man, it's just a strawman arguement and you know how I love those :chuckle:
I am polite with LE from any department. But, I won't submit to a voluntary search of myself or my vehicle by any law enforcement. If they have PC, they don't need my permission. I also won't voluntarily surrender my firearm. I will politely comply with all orders, but if an officer asks me for a safety inspection of my firearm, I will gladly show him the empty action with the firearm in my hands, as I have done in the past. There's no strawman argument here at all. An officer does have increased powers to stop you and check for proper licensing if he reasonably suspects you're hunting. He can look around your vehicle, in the truck bed, or through the windows all he wants, but the 4th Amendment protects me everywhere in the US except where I choose to give it up. If there are any DFW LE that would care to comment, I'd feel obliged.
Post by: KFhunter on September 30, 2013, 04:37:33 PM
I'm pretty sure they have unfettered access to the cab and containers of your vehicle if they think your hunting or transporting game (reasonable suspicion -some articulateable facts). That falls short of Probable Cause which is what you mention - they don't need PC.
For the weapon safety check I cannot imagine any LE from any department, allowing people to conduct their own safety check during any kind of stop be it a terry stop or F&W stop. Perhaps a F&W officer could have you slide a bolt open on a long gun if your in the car and the barrel is down and it's obvious you couldn't swing the gun up and point it at them. Personally I wouldn't in case it was loaded - it would really suck if they had a discharge :o
For state/local traffic stops don't even think about it :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on September 30, 2013, 04:59:37 PM
Your equipment may be searched without warrant when hunting or fishing. That includes containers not in plain view such and trunks, boat wells, etc.
This authority is unique to hunting and fishing.
Post by: bigtex on September 30, 2013, 07:30:23 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.080 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.080)
Your equipment may be searched without warrant when hunting or fishing. That includes containers not in plain view such and trunks, boat wells, etc.
This authority is unique to hunting and fishing.
RCW 77.15.094 applies even more to searches
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.094)
Also, ALL law enforcement officers have the same search/inspection authority as WDFW Officers have when enforcing fish and wildlife laws. So a county deputy or USFS Officer can do the same thing a WDFW Officer can.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 02, 2013, 09:10:35 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 02, 2013, 10:20:23 AM
I'm not WDFW Police so I'll defer to them as well if they'd like to comment on their search authority.
I'm pretty sure they have unfettered access to the cab and containers of your vehicle if they think your hunting or transporting game (reasonable suspicion -some articulateable facts). That falls short of Probable Cause which is what you mention - they don't need PC.
For the weapon safety check I cannot imagine any LE from any department, allowing people to conduct their own safety check during any kind of stop be it a terry stop or F&W stop. Perhaps a F&W officer could have you slide a bolt open on a long gun if your in the car and the barrel is down and it's obvious you couldn't swing the gun up and point it at them. Personally I wouldn't in case it was loaded - it would really suck if they had a discharge :o
For state/local traffic stops don't even think about it :chuckle:
I've been asked for a safety check twice. Both times, the officer asked me to show him the action, which in my car, is always open anyway.
I understand about coolers being checked and such, but I'm not clear that they're allowed to search your car other than to ask to look in a cooler. Again, I absolutely am polite and courteous. I just don't relinquish my rights under the 4th. If they tell me they're going to do it, I'll politely stand aside with the caviat that I don't submit. This has nothing to do with "what have you got to hide?". This has to do strictly with the observance of my Constitutional rights. I too, would love to hear from DFW LE on the specifics of that and what constitutes a legal search of a vehicle in a hunting situation.
Post by: Landowner on October 04, 2013, 08:51:04 PM
Post by: ucwarden on October 05, 2013, 06:51:41 AM
UCWARDEN did an excellent job in Columbia County when he was here. Respected and hard working.
Thanks!
Post by: Bob33 on October 05, 2013, 07:10:03 AM
They can legally search any part of your vehicle they suspect may contain evidence of a fish or wildlife violation.
"Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement."
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 05, 2013, 07:13:37 AM
Post by: snowpack on October 05, 2013, 10:17:33 AM
Post by: Daytonite on November 12, 2013, 01:30:29 PM
UCWARDEN did an excellent job in Columbia County when he was here. Respected and hard working.
Yes he did! :tup:
Post by: Elkrunner on November 12, 2013, 01:42:23 PM
Post by: ucwarden on November 12, 2013, 05:02:35 PM
I personally have not had any issues with any fish and wildlife officers. Have I met a few that were a bit of an arse? Once, but you have to remember these guys are all alone in most cases and patrolling the back woods. On top of that they are contronting a bunch of rednecks with guns. I think I might be a bit jumpy. For the most part most of my run in with the fish and wildlife have been ok.
Search of vehicles (and searches in general) are very difficult to nail down. Search and seizure laws change every year, and there are many discussions and classes on this topic.
The F&W law, which is most applicable to this thread is RCW 77.15.094 and reads:
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law.
I am not an attorney (thank god) so I can't and won't give legal advice, however; if you are ever in a sitaution where you feel your rights are being violated, object verbally (if oyu want) but do not interfere in any way. Let your attorney sort things out.
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 14, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
I personally have not had any issues with any fish and wildlife officers. Have I met a few that were a bit of an arse? Once, but you have to remember these guys are all alone in most cases and patrolling the back woods. On top of that they are contronting a bunch of rednecks with guns. I think I might be a bit jumpy. For the most part most of my run in with the fish and wildlife have been ok.
Search of vehicles (and searches in general) are very difficult to nail down. Search and seizure laws change every year, and there are many discussions and classes on this topic.
The F&W law, which is most applicable to this thread is RCW 77.15.094 and reads:
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law.
I am not an attorney (thank god) so I can't and won't give legal advice, however; if you are ever in a sitaution where you feel your rights are being violated, object verbally (if oyu want) but do not interfere in any way. Let your attorney sort things out.
I am an attorney and deal with search and seizure claims. Pretty much what UCwarden said is correct. However, most of my claims go straight to federal court. I wish they would stay in state court.
WDFW has more authority to check you than a police officer, its in the statue. However, if you agree verbally to anything you consented to a search and its over.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2013, 01:54:28 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 14, 2013, 02:13:13 PM
IMO if you say no, then GW should get a warrant. But, GW has more authority to check you and your vehicle because you are purchasing a "license" to take state or federal game that is the difference than a police officer just stopping you and searching your vehicle with or without consent.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2013, 02:24:30 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 14, 2013, 02:36:38 PM
Post by: LndShrk on November 14, 2013, 03:49:34 PM
More importantly I thank those willing to come on here and participate to help inform us of the nuances in the laws that may not be so clear.
I understand that the Enforcement officers do not make the laws they only enforce as interpreted. :tup:
If we do not like the laws then it is up to us to change them through the appropriate processes.
Post by: bigtex on November 14, 2013, 04:08:31 PM
WDFW has more authority to check you than a police officer, its in the statue. However, if you agree verbally to anything you consented to a search and its over.
Hi-Liter,
In 2012 the legislature granted "ex officio fish and wildlife officers" the same search and inspection authority as WDFW Officers. As you probably know, ex officio officers are city, county, state, and some federal officers. However, in order to run a formal wildlife check station there still must be an actual WDFW Officer there.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 27, 2013, 09:12:20 AM
I've always thought that Fish and game officers were a benefit to the community, but their reputation has changed in recent years. What I mean by this is the transformation of the "Game Warden" into the "Game Cop" and the associated attitude change that came with it. I grew up with game wardens walking around the woods full of armed hunters checking licenses and fish catch. They were polite, they were professional, and they were respected. The law enforcement type Game Warden you see today is not like that. I could appreciate the local warden and his task of checking hunters and fisherman if it was done with a modicum of politeness and professionalism. This "show me your hands" mentality is offensive to me as a law abiding hunter. I frankly don't care if the warden has to deal with other than honorable people. He chose his job from all that were available to him, the low life element you are forced to deal with is no excuse to be offensive to everyone you meet. The argument that you have to assume the worst is is a rationalization. You don't have to assume the worst you choose to. I have always viewed a hunter as a trusted person, someone who goes to the trouble and expense of licensing himself. Someone who invests in equipment and firearms, and hunts. This is not someone you should assume will shoot you without cause. Interestingly when I lived in Germany my hunting license automatically made me a "trusted citizen", you showed it with your ID any time you were asked. It was assumed that you were a reputable person because you were a hunter.
Remember this is the job you chose. If it is that scary to you then choose another. There are law enforcement types out there who can approach a scary guy or situation and not be an ass when they do it. That is the professionalism of the LEO field showing thru. Everyone doesn't have that in their personality and they should take that into consideration when it comes to their job.
So, you have personally been treated disrespectfully by a gamie, or is this because of things you've heard? I've got to say, I hear guys talk about this on HuntWA and in all of the interactions I've had with DFW-LE, none have been anything but professional and courteous. Of course, I go out of my way to smile and try to put them at ease, as well as being within the law. As far as asking to see your hands is concerned, I certainly would understand them being cautious around loaded firearms in the field. This is one of the few occupations in the world where most of the civilians you contact are armed, and usually with really high-powered stuff.
Post by: LndShrk on November 27, 2013, 09:18:25 AM
I've always thought that Fish and game officers were a benefit to the community, but their reputation has changed in recent years. What I mean by this is the transformation of the "Game Warden" into the "Game Cop" and the associated attitude change that came with it. I grew up with game wardens walking around the woods full of armed hunters checking licenses and fish catch. They were polite, they were professional, and they were respected. The law enforcement type Game Warden you see today is not like that. I could appreciate the local warden and his task of checking hunters and fisherman if it was done with a modicum of politeness and professionalism. This "show me your hands" mentality is offensive to me as a law abiding hunter. I frankly don't care if the warden has to deal with other than honorable people. He chose his job from all that were available to him, the low life element you are forced to deal with is no excuse to be offensive to everyone you meet. The argument that you have to assume the worst is is a rationalization. You don't have to assume the worst you choose to. I have always viewed a hunter as a trusted person, someone who goes to the trouble and expense of licensing himself. Someone who invests in equipment and firearms, and hunts. This is not someone you should assume will shoot you without cause. Interestingly when I lived in Germany my hunting license automatically made me a "trusted citizen", you showed it with your ID any time you were asked. It was assumed that you were a reputable person because you were a hunter.
Remember this is the job you chose. If it is that scary to you then choose another. There are law enforcement types out there who can approach a scary guy or situation and not be an ass when they do it. That is the professionalism of the LEO field showing thru. Everyone doesn't have that in their personality and they should take that into consideration when it comes to their job.
So, you have personally been treated disrespectfully by a gamie, or is this because of things you've heard? I've got to say, I hear guys talk about this on HuntWA and in all of the interactions I've had with DFW-LE, none have been anything but professional and courteous. Of course, I go out of my way to smile and try to put them at ease, as well as being within the law. As far as asking to see your hands is concerned, I certainly would understand them being cautious around loaded firearms in the field. This is one of the few occupations in the world where most of the civilians you contact are armed, and usually with really high-powered stuff.
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 27, 2013, 09:34:40 AM
I've always thought that Fish and game officers were a benefit to the community, but their reputation has changed in recent years. What I mean by this is the transformation of the "Game Warden" into the "Game Cop" and the associated attitude change that came with it. I grew up with game wardens walking around the woods full of armed hunters checking licenses and fish catch. They were polite, they were professional, and they were respected. The law enforcement type Game Warden you see today is not like that. I could appreciate the local warden and his task of checking hunters and fisherman if it was done with a modicum of politeness and professionalism. This "show me your hands" mentality is offensive to me as a law abiding hunter. I frankly don't care if the warden has to deal with other than honorable people. He chose his job from all that were available to him, the low life element you are forced to deal with is no excuse to be offensive to everyone you meet. The argument that you have to assume the worst is is a rationalization. You don't have to assume the worst you choose to. I have always viewed a hunter as a trusted person, someone who goes to the trouble and expense of licensing himself. Someone who invests in equipment and firearms, and hunts. This is not someone you should assume will shoot you without cause. Interestingly when I lived in Germany my hunting license automatically made me a "trusted citizen", you showed it with your ID any time you were asked. It was assumed that you were a reputable person because you were a hunter.Totally agree! You chose to be in the service business. Seems some have forgotten that. Customer service is customer service. Doesn't matter if you are working the local retail store or as a game officer. Attitude is everything. Treat people the way you want to be treated.
Remember this is the job you chose. If it is that scary to you then choose another. There are law enforcement types out there who can approach a scary guy or situation and not be an ass when they do it. That is the professionalism of the LEO field showing thru. Everyone doesn't have that in their personality and they should take that into consideration when it comes to their job.
Post by: Bob33 on November 27, 2013, 10:01:42 AM
You don't know what I see, and having hunted in Washington for many decades I can emphatically state that I don't see what you see.
I see the vast majority of enforcement officers as professional and respected. A few aren't, but using a broad brush as you do is unjustifiable unless you've met every single enforcement officer and been treated poorly. Have you?
Perhaps you are the cause of this poor treatment? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 27, 2013, 11:04:27 AM
All due respects, Macs, but it really doesn't sound like you're being rousted. It sounds like you think they need to approach you joking and smiling like you're not a threat. In their position, that would be a very dangerous posture to assume.
Post by: JLS on November 27, 2013, 11:08:42 AM
My point is I shouldn't have to put up with a gamie who thinks me and my three kids are a threat.
:rolleyes:
And middle aged people with kids shouldn't be threats, but the reality is they sure can be.
Maybe you can get a hat that says "I am harmless". :)
If a game warden walks up on a guy and three kids and gets shot because the guy is really a dangerous loon, and didn't take the proper precautions then shame on him.
Life would really be grand if we could all live in a Mayberry bubble.
Post by: Bob33 on November 27, 2013, 11:35:39 AM
Life would really be grand if we could all live in a Mayberry bubble.Barney had a "let me see your hands" attitude.
Petticoat Junction?
Post by: bigtex on November 28, 2013, 12:25:24 PM
If your hands are in your pockets, take them out.
If your in a vehicle with your rifle/shotgun unloaded next to you, I will tell you to not touch the gun.
I guess I could be like most law enforcement officers, and as soon as I see a firearm I put my handgun on your head and throw you on the ground.
I have had troopers, deputies, and city cops tell me they would never do my job. Why? Because almost everybody natural resource law enforcement officers (state and federal fish and wildlife, forest service, DNR, BLM, etc) contact has some type of weapon.
Post by: Jingles on November 28, 2013, 11:19:37 PM
So I guess I'll probably be getting a warning or a ban notice from the site for my opinion.
Post by: bearpaw on November 29, 2013, 05:16:27 AM
All this talk about equality is curious, for the record, I view everyone as equals to each other until they do something to prove they are not. Someone mentioned something about respect should be given to anyone until it is lost, that's sort of the way I look at it. I don't feel that respect must always be earned, respect should be given to anyone until they prove they do not deserve that respect.
I agree with the thoughts that WDFW policies have destroyed many peoples respect for WDFW in general. However, we have some people here who want to try and correct some of those poor policies. I see this as an excellent opportunity for positive change and look forward to organizing a positive effort once my busy season winds down.
Let's all try to move beyond the past and look for positive changes in the future. :twocents: :hello:
Post by: ucwarden on November 29, 2013, 07:01:32 AM
I am happy that individuals like ucwarden and bigtex want to be a part of this site, their knowledge is an asset to this site just as any other professional who shares their knowledge on this site with the members, I really appreciate their participation.
All this talk about equality is curious, for the record, I view everyone as equals to each other until they do something to prove they are not. Someone mentioned something about respect should be given to anyone until it is lost, that's sort of the way I look at it. I don't feel that respect must always be earned, respect should be given to anyone until they prove they do not deserve that respect.
I agree with the thoughts that WDFW policies have destroyed many peoples respect for WDFW in general. However, we have some people here who want to try and correct some of those poor policies. I see this as an excellent opportunity for positive change and look forward to organizing a positive effort once my busy season winds down.
Let's all try to move beyond the past and look for positive changes in the future. :twocents: :hello:
Bearpaw:
Thanks, and I agree with your position. Since I am strongly pushing for some real change to WDFW's enforcement program, I will start a new thread dealing solely with WDFW enforcement comments and concerns.
To those of you who have concerns, comments or just want to vent; either post on that thread (WDFW Enforcement comments) or feel free to PM me directly.
I have done my fair share of complaining over time, but have found complaining alone never changes a thing.
Have a great Thanksgiving weekend.
Post by: Bordercop on January 06, 2014, 09:24:20 AM
Post by: Eli346 on January 06, 2014, 05:04:49 PM
Post by: onetrapper on January 20, 2014, 10:34:28 PM
Post by: smalldog on February 03, 2014, 11:15:29 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 09:37:29 AM
This guy was a total *censored* and was going to write me a ticket. I told him he had better get the highway patrol or take me to jail because I was not signing his ticket. He did not know a thing about hunting or he would have understood that is how it is sometimes. I don't care if you are hunting with a rifle or bow hunters sometimes come out with a flash light. The warden finally gave me a warning and said he was going to be watching me. If you are going to have wardens, they should know the laws. Theirs no law saying I can't use a flash light to come out of the woods.
And why did you ask for "highway patrol"? You do realize that another agency can't overrule another agency correct? If WSP did show up he would have been on WDFW's side, not yours.. This isn't the 1800s where you can call in the sheriff for everything. WDFW Officers actually have more jurisdiction then any officer in WA and have federal authority as well.
And if you read the law for spotlighting RCW 77.15.450: A person is guilty of spotlighting big game in the second degree if the person hunts big game with the aid of a spotlight, other artificial light or night vision equipment while in possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow.
Obviously this officer believed you were hunting big game and you were using an artificial light. If the officer really wanted to he could've easily written you a ticket. However, this is where officer discretion and common sense comes in :twocents:
Post by: Curly on February 04, 2014, 09:47:22 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on February 04, 2014, 09:49:15 AM
We wasn't hunting big game anymore. He was headed to his truck. Otherwise, if you use a light to go to or from your stand you are breaking the law?
Post by: Gringo31 on February 04, 2014, 09:51:02 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 09:53:40 AM
This guy was a total *censored* and was going to write me a ticket. I told him he had better get the highway patrol or take me to jail because I was not signing his ticket. He did not know a thing about hunting or he would have understood that is how it is sometimes. I don't care if you are hunting with a rifle or bow hunters sometimes come out with a flash light. The warden finally gave me a warning and said he was going to be watching me. If you are going to have wardens, they should know the laws. Theirs no law saying I can't use a flash light to come out of the woods.
And why did you ask for "highway patrol"? You do realize that another agency can't overrule another agency correct? If WSP did show up he would have been on WDFW's side, not yours.. This isn't the 1800s where you can call in the sheriff for everything. WDFW Officers actually have more jurisdiction then any officer in WA and have federal authority as well.
And if you read the law for spotlighting RCW 77.15.450: A person is guilty of spotlighting big game in the second degree if the person hunts big game with the aid of a spotlight, other artificial light or night vision equipment while in possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow.
You were hunting big game and you were using an artificial light. If the officer really wanted to he could've easily written you a ticket. However, this is where officer discretion and common sense comes in :twocents:
All I can say is WOW.
Post by: pd on February 04, 2014, 09:56:34 AM
This guy was a total *censored* and was going to write me a ticket. I told him he had better get the highway patrol or take me to jail because I was not signing his ticket. He did not know a thing about hunting or he would have understood that is how it is sometimes. I don't care if you are hunting with a rifle or bow hunters sometimes come out with a flash light. The warden finally gave me a warning and said he was going to be watching me. If you are going to have wardens, they should know the laws. Theirs no law saying I can't use a flash light to come out of the woods.
And why did you ask for "highway patrol"? You do realize that another agency can't overrule another agency correct? If WSP did show up he would have been on WDFW's side, not yours.. This isn't the 1800s where you can call in the sheriff for everything. WDFW Officers actually have more jurisdiction then any officer in WA and have federal authority as well.
And if you read the law for spotlighting RCW 77.15.450: A person is guilty of spotlighting big game in the second degree if the person hunts big game with the aid of a spotlight, other artificial light or night vision equipment while in possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow.
You were hunting big game and you were using an artificial light. If the officer really wanted to he could've easily written you a ticket. However, this is where officer discretion and common sense comes in :twocents:
BigTex, I have to take exception to your comments. (In the spirit of PianoMan's thread, I will be respectful, of course.)
Let's leave aside the statement about "calling in the WSP." Also, let's mutually agree that the hunter in question only used the flashlight to aid his way out of the dark forest, as he claims.
If these assumptions hold true, then your comment "You were hunting big game and you were using an artificial light. If the officer really wanted to he could've easily written you a ticket. However, this is where officer discretion and common sense comes in..." is ridiculous on its face.
As you well know, most (should be all?) responsible hunters carry a wide range of safety equipment in their packs, headlamps/flashlights amongst them--I certainly do so as well. And, successful hunters know to hunt the 'golden hour' (the last few moments before dark), up until the close of legal shooting hours. Therefore, to use a flashlight to find your way out of the dark is the normal way of things.
For you, an experienced hunter and a seasoned veteran of law enforcement to state that the hunter "could easily have received a ticket" because he was both hunting big game (prior to darkness) and using an artificial light source is laughable. That he did not receive a ticket is NOT an example of officer's discretion--this was not an infraction to begin with.
PianoMan is correct in the spirit of this thread: The law enforcement officers (themselves hunters) who frequent this site are truly a benefit to us all, and you, BigTex, are the most visible and valuable officer that I know. I very much appreciate your diligence and information. However, I believe you are very much mistaken on this point.
Respectfully, PD
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 09:59:32 AM
I'm with Curly on this one...
We wasn't hunting big game anymore. He was headed to his truck.
I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.
How is this different then someone running around with a rifle in the front seat and using a spotlight? Couldn't he simply say he wasn't hunting? There is no provision in WA law saying you must be driving in order to spotlight, or that the light must have hit an animal.
WA's spotlighting law is a very open-ended law and simply how an officer can justify making the case can depends on it's success.
I personally would not have cited this individual. And I agree with others that most people have lights with them to start/end the day.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 04, 2014, 10:02:01 AM
Driving with a rifle and USING a spotlight is a simple no brainer. Not allowed during modern big game seasons. Rifle better be unloaded regardless. Seems simple to me :dunno:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:05:24 AM
, and you, BigTex, are the most visible and valuable officer that I know
Bigtex has on numerous occasions declined to confirm that they are in fact a LEO. I would suggest that a person not assume anything.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:05:56 AM
Color of the law is black and white, "hunts big game with the aid of a spotlight, other artificial light or night vision equipment while in possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow."
However as we all know, the intent of the law is for the "spotlighter" that we all know and hate
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:06:32 AM
, and you, BigTex, are the most visible and valuable officer that I know
Bigtex has on numerous occasions declined to confirm that they are in fact a LEO. I would suggest that a person not assume anything.
I am an LEO living in WA, but will not say which agency I work for.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:11:00 AM
, and you, BigTex, are the most visible and valuable officer that I know
Bigtex has on numerous occasions declined to confirm that they are in fact a LEO. I would suggest that a person not assume anything.
I am an LEO living in WA, but will not say which agency I work for.
I think that is the first time you have confirmed that.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:12:48 AM
In that manner yes. However several of the moderators know I am an LEO and which agency I work for via PM. And I have frequently said "fellow officers" etc.I think that is the first time you have confirmed that.I am an LEO living in WA, but will not say which agency I work for., and you, BigTex, are the most visible and valuable officer that I knowBigtex has on numerous occasions declined to confirm that they are in fact a LEO. I would suggest that a person not assume anything.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:15:07 AM
I have never said what my agency, position, or location is, heck I may be retired. And no I am not violating any agency policy that I am/was governed by.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:17:51 AM
As well as:Yup. And I am still not violating any policyI have never said what my agency, position, or location is, heck I may be retired. And no I am not violating any agency policy that I am/was governed by.
Now lets end the discussing on me, unless you want to PM me.
Post by: Curly on February 04, 2014, 10:23:49 AM
I'm with Curly on this one...
We wasn't hunting big game anymore. He was headed to his truck.
I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.
You were hunting big game and you were using an artificial light.
Which is it? You said he was hunting big game and then you say you don't think he was.
It is issues like this where innocent people get written up and called liars by the LEO that really irritates people.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:25:45 AM
My first statement was going by what the officer must've been going by. The officer must've believed he was huntingI'm with Curly on this one...I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.
We wasn't hunting big game anymore. He was headed to his truck.You were hunting big game and you were using an artificial light.
Which is it? You said he was hunting big game and then you say you don't think he was.
If that was my situation I don't think he would've been hunting by what we know here.
Post by: Curly on February 04, 2014, 10:29:00 AM
He had been big game hunting and had a light, therefore the officer had reason to suspect spotlighting.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 04, 2014, 10:30:18 AM
This guy was a total *censored* and was going to write me a ticket. I told him he had better get the highway patrol or take me to jail because I was not signing his ticket. He did not know a thing about hunting or he would have understood that is how it is sometimes. I don't care if you are hunting with a rifle or bow hunters sometimes come out with a flash light. The warden finally gave me a warning and said he was going to be watching me. If you are going to have wardens, they should know the laws. Theirs no law saying I can't use a flash light to come out of the woods.
And why did you ask for "highway patrol"? You do realize that another agency can't overrule another agency correct? If WSP did show up he would have been on WDFW's side, not yours.. This isn't the 1800s where you can call in the sheriff for everything. WDFW Officers actually have more jurisdiction then any officer in WA and have federal authority as well.
And if you read the law for spotlighting RCW 77.15.450: A person is guilty of spotlighting big game in the second degree if the person hunts big game with the aid of a spotlight, other artificial light or night vision equipment while in possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow.
You were hunting big game and you were using an artificial light. If the officer really wanted to he could've easily written you a ticket. However, this is where officer discretion and common sense comes in :twocents:
I'm with Curly on this one...
We wasn't hunting big game anymore. He was headed to his truck.
I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.
How is this different then someone running around with a rifle in the front seat and using a spotlight? Couldn't he simply say he wasn't hunting? There is no provision in WA law saying you must be driving in order to spotlight, or that the light must have hit an animal.
WA's spotlighting law is a very open-ended law and simply how an officer can justify making the case can depends on it's success.
I personally would not have cited this individual. And I agree with others that most people have lights with them to start/end the day.
As I have said before a time or two. Some LEO should not be, most are fine, and some just need to step around to the other side of that badge they are wearing !
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:37:11 AM
Oregon:
498.146¹
Shining artificial light on game mammal, predatory animal or livestock while in or near motor vehicle and while in possession of weapon restricted
(1) No person shall cast from a motor vehicle or from within 500 feet of a motor vehicle an artificial light upon any game mammal, predatory animal or livestock while there is in the possession or in the immediate physical presence of the person a weapon with which the game mammal, predatory animal or livestock could be killed.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person who casts artificial light upon a game mammal, predatory animal or livestock:
(a) From the headlights of a motor vehicle that is being operated on a road in the usual manner, if that person makes no attempt to kill the game mammal or livestock; or
(b) When the weapon that person has in the possession or immediate physical presence of the person is disassembled or stored, or in the trunk or storage compartment of a motor vehicle; or
(c) On land owned or lawfully occupied by that person; or
(d) On publicly owned land when that person has an agreement with the public body to use that property.
(3) As used in this section, predatory animal has the meaning for that term provided in ORS 610.002 (Predatory animals defined). [1973 c.542 §2; 1975 c.791 §2]
California:
2005.
(a) Except as otherwise authorized by this section, it is unlawful to use an artificial light to assist in the taking of game birds, game mammals, or game fish, except that this section shall not apply to sport fishing in ocean waters or other waters where night fishing is permitted if the lights are not used on or as part of the fishing tackle, commercial fishing, nor to the taking of mammals, the taking of which is governed by Article 2 (commencing with Section 4180) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 4.
(b) It is unlawful for any person, or one or more persons, to throw or cast the rays of any spotlight, headlight, or other artificial light on any highway or in any field, woodland, or forest where game mammals, fur-bearing mammals, or nongame mammals are commonly found, or upon any game mammal, fur-bearing mammal, or nongame mammal, while having in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm or weapon with which that mammal could be killed, even though the mammal is not killed, injured, shot at, or otherwise pursued.
(c) It is unlawful to use or possess at any time any infrared or similar light used in connection with an electronic viewing device or any night vision equipment, optical devices, including, but not limited to, binoculars or scopes, that use light-amplifying circuits that are electrical or battery powered, to assist in the taking of birds, mammals, amphibians, or fish.
(d) The provisions of this section do not apply to any of the following:
(1) The use of a hand-held flashlight no larger, nor emitting more light, than a two-cell, three-volt flashlight, provided that light is not affixed in any way to a weapon, or to the use of a lamp or lantern that does not cast a directional beam of light.
(2) Headlights of a motor vehicle operated in a usual manner where there is no attempt or intent to locate a game mammal, fur-bearing mammal, or nongame mammal.
(3) To the owner, or his or her employee, of land devoted to the agricultural industry while on that land, or land controlled by such an owner and in connection with the agricultural industry.
(4) To those other uses as the commission may authorize by regulation.
(e) A person shall not be arrested for violation of this section except by a peace officer.
Idaho
31-1106(6)
Artificial Light. Hunt any animal or bird except raccoon by the aid of a spotlight, flashlight or artificial light of any kind. The act of casting or throwing, after sunset, the beam or rays of any spotlight, headlight or other artificial light capable of utilizing six (6) volts or more of electrical power upon any field, forest or other place by any person while having in his possession or under his control any uncased firearm or contrivance capable of killing any animal or bird, shall be prima facie evidence of hunting with an artificial light. Provided nothing in this subsection shall apply where the headlights of a motor vehicle, operated and proceeding in a normal manner on any highway or roadway, cast a light upon animals or birds on or adjacent to such highway or roadway and there is no intent or attempt to locate such animals or birds. Provided further, nothing in this subsection shall prevent the hunting of unprotected or predatory wildlife with the aid of artificial light when such hunting is for the purpose of protecting property or livestock, is done by landowners or persons authorized in writing by them to do so and is done on property they own, lease or control; and provided further that the hunting and taking of unprotected or predatory wildlife with the aid of artificial light on public lands is authorized after obtaining a permit to do so from the director. The director may, for good cause, refuse to issue such permit.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:42:44 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:47:55 AM
All three examples rely on intent and action. In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking
Hunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "how is the hunting?" Hunter says "good"
Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.
In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.
Post by: dmv9 on February 04, 2014, 10:53:04 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2014, 10:53:59 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:55:02 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:55:52 AM
Would it matter if the rifle was unloaded while walking with the flash light?The law simply says "possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow" Doesn't say loaded firearm
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:56:13 AM
All three examples rely on intent and action. In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking
Hunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"
Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.
In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.
How's can mean "how is" or how was". In this case the past tense would be operative, because the hunter is clearly not hunting, he is talking to a cop in the parking lot.
Fail
Post by: Curly on February 04, 2014, 10:56:35 AM
I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.
My question is why have those cases stood up in court? My guess is because the officer believed the hunter was lying to him and then the judge only believed the officer and not the hunter. The hunter hardly had a chance once he was cited. The judge isn't likely to go against the officer's judgement. If the officer had decided to cite smalldog (unjustly in my opinion based on what he says here) I'm sure the judge would have agreed with the officer even though neither the officer or the judge would have had any proof that he was spotlighting.
For officers to cite for spotlighting while a guy walks out with a flashlight really is crazy, even if they technically can write them up for it and get a judge to agree. It doesn't make it right just because it gets held up in court. If that isn't injustice, I don't know what is.
I always unload my rifle and soon as shooting hours are over, just so I can't get accused of hunting after hours. But I really shouldn't have to unload; I could keep it loaded for personal protection, but I fear that some officer might accuse me of being a liar and write me up. This thread proves that some LEO's consider everyone to be liars.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:57:27 AM
Ok knocker to make you happy. "How is the hunting"How's can mean "how is" or how was". In this case the past tense would be operative, because the hunter is clearly not hunting, he is talking to a cop in the parking lot.All three examples rely on intent and action. In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking
Hunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"
Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.
In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.
Fail
Post by: TheHunt on February 04, 2014, 11:01:39 AM
Some of us were fishing and a friend caught a nice hatchery steelhead. My buddy pulled out the spring loaded scale to weigh the fish.
OK, so when you check an archer his draw weight do you use the same type of tool? There was all sort of discussion on the water regarding the accuracy of those type weight measuring tools. Is the spring loaded tool still used by the agency? If so, what is the +/- differnce you put into the reading for accuracy?
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 11:02:47 AM
Because under the law if the officer can prove you were a) hunting big game b) in "possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow" and c) having a spotlight, other artificial light, or night vision equipmentI for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.My question is why have those cases stood up in court?
Then the law is violated. Like I said, the law isn't like Oregon's where the light must have hit an animal. If you meet those three standards then you have violated the law.
Again, I want to say this, in this situation I would not have cited the individual unless there was overwhelming proof he was still hunting. If it was a guy simply walking out of the woods I wouldn't have thought anything of it. But like I said, this is where the intent of the law and the color of the law comes into play. Color of the law is simply if you meet those three things I posted then you can be charged.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 04, 2014, 11:08:55 AM
I would hope if a LEO for wdfw wrote a ticket to a guy who was hunting and used a flashlight to get out at night that LEO would be fired immediately.
This kind of stupid bs is just another reason to NEVER, EVER under any circumstance give any info to a warden other than what you are legally required to...a license, any game etc. He asks when, where, how...tell him NOTHING! You do not have to answer any questions. Bigtex asks me how the hunting is/was etc...I will be happy to hand him a phone number to speak with my lawyer. :chuckle:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 11:11:14 AM
Ok knocker to make you happy. "How is the hunting"How's can mean "how is" or how was". In this case the past tense would be operative, because the hunter is clearly not hunting, he is talking to a cop in the parking lot.All three examples rely on intent and action. In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking
Hunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"
Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.
In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.
Fail
Words and inflection are important. What you say can be used against you
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 11:13:36 AM
Because under the law if the officer can prove you were a) hunting big game b) in "possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow" and c) having a spotlight, other artificial light, or night vision equipmentI for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.My question is why have those cases stood up in court?
Then the law is violated. Like I said, the law isn't like Oregon's where the light must have hit an animal. If you meet those three standards then you have violated the law.
Again, I want to say this, in this situation I would not have cited the individual unless there was overwhelming proof he was still hunting. If it was a guy simply walking out of the woods I wouldn't have thought anything of it. But like I said, this is where the intent of the law and the color of the law comes into play. Color of the law is simply if you meet those three things I posted then you can be charged.
We don't know whether they have or not
Post by: Rainier10 on February 04, 2014, 11:30:18 AM
on the flashlight stuff :bash: :bash: :bash:The thing is the guy didn't get a ticket, he was informed that he could get a ticket for what he did and that the officer would be watching him. Something tells me there was more to the story or something that raised this officers suspicion and rather than just act and give the guy a ticket he let him know that he was being watched.
I would hope if a LEO for wdfw wrote a ticket to a guy who was hunting and used a flashlight to get out at night that LEO would be fired immediately.
This kind of stupid bs is just another reason to NEVER, EVER under any circumstance give any info to a warden other than what you are legally required to...a license, any game etc. He asks when, where, how...tell him NOTHING! You do not have to answer any questions. Bigtex asks me how the hunting is/was etc...I will be happy to hand him a phone number to speak with my lawyer. :chuckle:
If you can assume he did nothing to warrant the warning based off of the hunters testimony one could also assume that the officer saw something fishy. Maybe the hunter did shine his light around to see if the buck was still there before leaving the stand, maybe he was hoping the deer would come close enough for a shot just after legal shooting hours. It happens. I am not saying this hunter did anything wrong, just maybe it was getting iffy on what he was doing and he got a warning. No harm no foul, sometimes a reminder of where the line is is helpful.
So the hunter got a warning for watching wildlife after legal hunting hours, he didn't get a ticket.
Post by: smalldog on February 04, 2014, 03:53:01 PM
The game warden that I met this year in 101 in a young man, he is a very nice guy and I have an enjoyable time talking to this gent.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 04, 2014, 04:52:27 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 04, 2014, 05:06:21 PM
The only problem with that is if you find the buck severely wounded and tangled up in the bushes you won't be able to dispatch it.
1) it's after shooting hours
2) can't dispatch wounded game with a sidearm
3) using the aid of artificial light
Even using a bow would be illegal.
Technically you have to call WDFW and get permission to dispatch a wounded animal after hours, would they let you use a sidearm if you explained the situation?
Or would they make you pack in the bow, or would an officer accompany you in the field to do it?
Post by: stevemiller on February 04, 2014, 05:52:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 05:56:54 PM
I'm sorry I have to bigtex.Why does it always have to be the color of the law against the hunter,but rarely against the anti hunter? :dunno:Well when would a hunting law apply against a anti-hunter? Or are you talking just laws in general?
Post by: stevemiller on February 04, 2014, 06:05:12 PM
Post by: smalldog on February 04, 2014, 06:08:31 PM
What I think I will do for now on is take my camera with me and a miniature tripod and if I have time before leaving the area take my pics and then go back to camp in the evening hunt and leave my weapon in camp. It does make sense!
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 06:18:27 PM
So why doesnt the COLOR OF THE LAW apply to them as well?It applies to everybody Steve. This isn't a hunter vs anti hunter thing. Yes it is hard to prove hunter harassment and unfortunately that is nationwide. But you can look at all types of laws and find similar situations.
If an officer wanted to he could cite everybody going 1 MPH over the speed limit because that is the law. Technically they can, it's not good discretion and is definitely going to cause some complaints but everybody going 26 in a 25 is breaking the law.
There are all types of laws where it is the true meaning/intent of the law vs the actual written words.
Post by: stevemiller on February 04, 2014, 06:26:33 PM
I know its the color of the law thing,Your saying its easier to prove because how the law is written with the flashlight,I feel the harrassing hunters law is written in the exact same way.No exceptions given in Wa. law.And its also like you said here.IF AN OFFICER WANTED TO..and thats exactly what I meant by why are they not applied?I did not get an answer....How do you(personally) feel about people harrassing hunters?Do you personally think that it should be something that the LEO should be more active about?And how do LEO that you know personally feel,or how do they deal with this problem?So why doesnt the COLOR OF THE LAW apply to them as well?It applies to everybody Steve. This isn't a hunter vs anti hunter thing. Yes it is hard to prove hunter harassment and unfortunately that is nationwide. But you can look at all types of laws and find similar situations.
If an officer wanted to he could cite everybody going 1 MPH over the speed limit because that is the law. Technically they can, it's not good discretion and is definitely going to cause some complaints but everybody going 26 in a 25 is breaking the law.
There are all types of laws where it is the true meaning/intent of the law vs the actual written words.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 06:40:44 PM
Actually the hunting harassment law when it comes to harasses/drives or disturbs wildlife can easily be won by a defense attorney.I know its the color of the law thing,Your saying its easier to prove because how the law is written with the flashlight,I feel the harrassing hunters law is written in the exact same way.No exceptions given in Wa. law.And its also like you said here.IF AN OFFICER WANTED TO..and thats exactly what I meant by why are they not applied?I did not get an answer....How do you(personally) feel about people harrassing hunters?Do you personally think that it should be something that the LEO should be more active about?And how do LEO that you know personally feel,or how do they deal with this problem?So why doesnt the COLOR OF THE LAW apply to them as well?It applies to everybody Steve. This isn't a hunter vs anti hunter thing. Yes it is hard to prove hunter harassment and unfortunately that is nationwide. But you can look at all types of laws and find similar situations.
If an officer wanted to he could cite everybody going 1 MPH over the speed limit because that is the law. Technically they can, it's not good discretion and is definitely going to cause some complaints but everybody going 26 in a 25 is breaking the law.
There are all types of laws where it is the true meaning/intent of the law vs the actual written words.
RCW 77.15.210
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish[, shellfish,] or wildlife if the person:
(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or
A hunter may think that the anti-hunter showed up and honked his horn and the geese flew away because of the horn but how can an officer prove that? How can an officer prove that the geese flew away because the horn was honked?
All a defense attorney will say is, well geese are birds and they fly all day long, how can you prove that the geese flew away simply because the horn honk? Problem is we can’t, we don't know if the geese flew away because the horn honked or just because they wanted to leave. And this is where it can be difficult to prove.
WDFW Officers obviously don't want to have hunters being harassed but there is a difference between the situation I posted about an officer asking the hunter how the hunting is and hunter harassment. If an officer asks the individual “how is the hunting?” and the hunter says good (or whatever) and he has a weapon and a light then that’s pretty concrete evidence and it’s going to be hard for the defense attorney to say the defendant wasn’t hunting when the conversation with the officer says otherwise. Compared to the harassment, officers have to really prove somehow that the wildlife was disturbed or harassed, simply having the bird fly away may be good for hunters to think it’s harassment but like I said, birds fly away all day long, and an average defense attorney will easily say that and most likely win. If an officer wanted to charge someone because they honked a horn and the bird flew away they could, but it will easily be won by the defense attorney, if the prosecutor even files the charges.
Post by: stevemiller on February 04, 2014, 06:49:01 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 06:54:33 PM
If a person is walking in the woods at night odds are they will be using a light as well.How can you say all of this?heres an example I have been holding onto since this conversation started.A hunter is in the woods,before day break,no light whats so ever.You walk up to them and say what are you doing?the hunter replies Im going hunting.would you then site them because they are hunting before hunting hrs.?Its the color of the law. :dunno:Unfortunately it is the world we live in and it's nationwide with all types of laws not just fish and wildlife.
But if it's 6:30AM and shooting hours are at 6:50 and an officer asks the individual "how is hunting?" and the individual says something that would indicate that he is indeed hunting then the officer could go along with charging him. I am not saying an officer would, or they should, but evidence is there because he did say in the affirmative that he is hunting.
I think in your situation Steve if the individual said they were "going hunting" instead of simply "hunting" then the officer would face an uphill battle in the courtroom.
Post by: stevemiller on February 04, 2014, 06:56:13 PM
Post by: smalldog on February 04, 2014, 07:14:15 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2014, 07:16:43 PM
If they would change just one thing it would help to solve this issue: simply change the definition of hunting so that in order to be hunting a person must shoot something or at least shoot at something. Either that or the person must admit that he was hunting at that time, and it would be best if the game warden could record the conversation.
I don't like that game wardens can write tickets based only on opinions and no facts.
Post by: Special T on February 04, 2014, 09:27:15 PM
Some years ago PETA hopped in a rubber Zodiac in the Skagit river delta to disrupt duck hunting. Fortunately the Duck hunters knew more than the PETA protesters. It was a Flat calm day with NO wind or other weather. A lot of Duck hunters limited out because those jack wagons kept driving their boat through the refuge and any where ducks congregated! :chuckle: It could have been before this law, however the wardens didn't do squat.... Perhaps they were doing the hunters a favor? :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on February 04, 2014, 09:46:58 PM
Charged and convicted are not the same. Many who are charged with murder are not convicted. Hunters charged with a violation can also fight it in the legal system.
Also, I suspect there are quite a few individuals in prison for murder whose convictions were based on shaky circumstantial "evidence". :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2014, 09:52:22 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:01:59 PM
Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.The days of tickets for big game are gone. The only tickets issued for any hunting violations are hunter orange, closed season birds if you haven't killed anything (which is rare if you think about it), and hunting small game/birds having a license and not possessing it and not possessing birds/wildlife. All other violations aren't a ticket with a fine but rather a mandatory court date.
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2014, 10:08:09 PM
Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.The days of tickets for big game are gone. The only tickets issued for any hunting violations are hunter orange and closed season birds/small game if you haven't killed anything (which is rare if you think about it). All other violations aren't a ticket with a fine but rather a mandatory court date.
Okay, but I still wouldn't hire a lawyer to get off on a relatively small penalty. I'd be forced to go to court without a lawyer because I couldn't afford one. And I'm sure as heck not going to try to argue the case with the judge. I would simply accept the consequences and pay the penalty, whatever that may be.
The point is, I don't think a person should be cited for a hunting violation unless there is actual proof that he did it. Seems like common sense, but then we hear that a guy could be charged with hunting with an artificial light just because he's walking in the woods with a flashlight while it's dark, and the game warden thought he was hunting when in fact he was not.
Post by: Special T on February 04, 2014, 10:12:31 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 04, 2014, 10:25:12 PM
Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.If there is no evidence you did anything wrong, why would you need to pay an attorney to defend yourself? Go and tell the judge there is no evidence.
Post by: smalldog on February 04, 2014, 10:51:07 PM
Please show me where I am breaking the law, please show me.
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2014, 11:00:07 PM
I looked over the game laws very close and I did not see where I am not aloud to take my bow with me when I am looking for my buck deer after dark. It only talks about any modern firearm season. Like I said bowhunters like to take pictures with their game with their weapon before they bone them out or quarter them. I don't hunt right next to a road, I like to hunt in places like down in over road sides into big swamp bottoms. You either eat the deer their or cut it up. Bows do not weigh the same as a rifle, they are light.
Please show me where I am breaking the law, please show me.
You wouldn't be breaking the law, unless the game warden thought you were hunting with your bow at night.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 04, 2014, 11:18:20 PM
Actually the hunting harassment law when it comes to harasses/drives or disturbs wildlife can easily be won by a defense attorney.And this same exact logic applies to a hunter having a flashlight in the woods. I can guarantee you I would not even need an attorney to win this one...most wardens are dumber than 2 wheelbarrows full of rocks so It is extremely unlikely a reasonably educated person would not absolutely embarrass them or any prosecutor foolish enough to waste a judges time with such a bs citation.
RCW 77.15.210
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish[, shellfish,] or wildlife if the person:
(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or
A hunter may think that the anti-hunter showed up and honked his horn and the geese flew away because of the horn but how can an officer prove that? How can an officer prove that the geese flew away because the horn was honked?
All a defense attorney will say is, well geese are birds and they fly all day long, how can you prove that the geese flew away simply because the horn honk? Problem is we can’t, we don't know if the geese flew away because the horn honked or just because they wanted to leave. And this is where it can be difficult to prove.
WDFW Officers obviously don't want to have hunters being harassed but there is a difference between the situation I posted about an officer asking the hunter how the hunting is and hunter harassment. If an officer asks the individual “how is the hunting?” and the hunter says good (or whatever) and he has a weapon and a light then that’s pretty concrete evidence and it’s going to be hard for the defense attorney to say the defendant wasn’t hunting when the conversation with the officer says otherwise. Compared to the harassment, officers have to really prove somehow that the wildlife was disturbed or harassed, simply having the bird fly away may be good for hunters to think it’s harassment but like I said, birds fly away all day long, and an average defense attorney will easily say that and most likely win. If an officer wanted to charge someone because they honked a horn and the bird flew away they could, but it will easily be won by the defense attorney, if the prosecutor even files the charges.
This issue is so frickin stupid I would absolutely love for somebody like bigtex to come write me a ticket this fall WHEN I CARRY MY BOW AND MY VERY BRIGHT HEADLAMP IS ON WELL PAST LEGAL SHOOTING HOURS AS I WALK BACK TO MY TRUCK! If any wardens on this site PM me I will be happy to tell you exactly where and when to wait by my truck during archery season so that you can personally observe me committing this atrocious crime. :bash: :bash: Oh, and to sweeten the pot, if you ask me "how is the hunting" I will answer "Excellent". :tup:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 05, 2014, 06:09:20 AM
Actually the hunting harassment law when it comes to harasses/drives or disturbs wildlife can easily be won by a defense attorney.And this same exact logic applies to a hunter having a flashlight in the woods. I can guarantee you I would not even need an attorney to win this one...most wardens are dumber than 2 wheelbarrows full of rocks so It is extremely unlikely a reasonably educated person would not absolutely embarrass them or any prosecutor foolish enough to waste a judges time with such a bs citation.
RCW 77.15.210
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish[, shellfish,] or wildlife if the person:
(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or
A hunter may think that the anti-hunter showed up and honked his horn and the geese flew away because of the horn but how can an officer prove that? How can an officer prove that the geese flew away because the horn was honked?
All a defense attorney will say is, well geese are birds and they fly all day long, how can you prove that the geese flew away simply because the horn honk? Problem is we can’t, we don't know if the geese flew away because the horn honked or just because they wanted to leave. And this is where it can be difficult to prove.
WDFW Officers obviously don't want to have hunters being harassed but there is a difference between the situation I posted about an officer asking the hunter how the hunting is and hunter harassment. If an officer asks the individual “how is the hunting?” and the hunter says good (or whatever) and he has a weapon and a light then that’s pretty concrete evidence and it’s going to be hard for the defense attorney to say the defendant wasn’t hunting when the conversation with the officer says otherwise. Compared to the harassment, officers have to really prove somehow that the wildlife was disturbed or harassed, simply having the bird fly away may be good for hunters to think it’s harassment but like I said, birds fly away all day long, and an average defense attorney will easily say that and most likely win. If an officer wanted to charge someone because they honked a horn and the bird flew away they could, but it will easily be won by the defense attorney, if the prosecutor even files the charges.
This issue is so frickin stupid I would absolutely love for somebody like bigtex to come write me a ticket this fall WHEN I CARRY MY BOW AND MY VERY BRIGHT HEADLAMP IS ON WELL PAST LEGAL SHOOTING HOURS AS I WALK BACK TO MY TRUCK! If any wardens on this site PM me I will be happy to tell you exactly where and when to wait by my truck during archery season so that you can personally observe me committing this atrocious crime. :bash: :bash: Oh, and to sweeten the pot, if you ask me "how is the hunting" I will answer "Excellent". :tup:
If you are in the parking lot of a restaurant, walking away from the restaurant, when another future patron asks you "how is the food?" no matter how you answer, by Tex's logic that is proof that you are guilty of talking with your mouth full.
Post by: Curly on February 05, 2014, 09:18:39 AM
smalldog- what you described in your post on page 9 about hiking back to your truck after legal shooting hours...millions of hunters use flashlights every year to return to camp (or their vehicle) safely. For anyone to even remotely suggest that by having a weapon and a flashlight as you return from a legal hunt that you are breaking a law is ridiculous. I don't give a ____ what any administrative code or law or statute says...You get a ticket for walking back to your truck holding a weapon and a flashlight...there better be a whole lot more evidence/story before any judge, prosecutor whatever is going to even consider hearing such a matter. So...while a warden may feel they can write you a ticket on a technical interpretation of the law...I would tell them technically, they can kiss my @$$ because there is no way in hell you or I would ever have to pay that ticket!
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: Curly on February 05, 2014, 09:25:29 AM
Yes, you may not get convicted if you pay an attorney and take it to court. But who wants to do that for something that's probably less than a $500 ticket? A ticket that you didn't deserve in the first place. So you pay a lawyer $5,000 to save $500? All this for a citation such as the scenario being discussed where a person could be cited for hunting with an artificial light when all he was doing is using a flashlight to get out of the woods after dark.If there is no evidence you did anything wrong, why would you need to pay an attorney to defend yourself? Go and tell the judge there is no evidence.
But who is the judge more likely to believe...........the warden or the hunter? :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on February 05, 2014, 12:44:00 PM
I looked over the game laws very close and I did not see where I am not aloud to take my bow with me when I am looking for my buck deer after dark. It only talks about any modern firearm season. Like I said bowhunters like to take pictures with their game with their weapon before they bone them out or quarter them. I don't hunt right next to a road, I like to hunt in places like down in over road sides into big swamp bottoms. You either eat the deer their or cut it up. Bows do not weigh the same as a rifle, they are light.
Please show me where I am breaking the law, please show me.
Why would you take your bow with you? I get you want to take pictures, but you're leaving your truck at night with a flashlight and hunting weapon. I wouldn't do it. You could arrive back to your truck, but to leave it at night and head into the woods with a light and weapon would be tough to explain.
You can't shoot the animal after legal shooting hours if you found it alive, you could expose yourself to a whole bunch of hunting violations (think spotlighting, poaching..serious stuff)
Technically if you found the animal alive you are legally obligated to let it continue to suffer all night long and shoot it during legal hours the next morning, or call a WDFW officer to seek permission.
If you shot it on the last day of the season then your ONLY option is to notify WDFW officer and seek permission to harvest it.
Post by: Bob33 on February 05, 2014, 01:01:14 PM
Technically if you found the animal alive you are legally obligated to let it continue to suffer all night long and shoot it during legal hours the next morning, or call a WDFW officer to seek permission."
I once shot an elk and wounded it right at the end of legal shooting time. I tracked it for over an hour, after legal time, with a fliashlight and rifle. I found it by flashlight and shot it.
Legal or not it was the right thing to do.
Post by: KFhunter on February 05, 2014, 01:24:40 PM
but a guy should be aware what he's doing, even if it's the right thing ethically and morally.
Post by: Bob33 on February 05, 2014, 01:36:21 PM
Don't disagree with you there Bob33, why I bolded that portion "let the animal suffer all night long".I understood the situation and made a decision based on the law and ethics. Apparently like few others on here, I had little concern of being cited for illegal hunting. I was confident that if I were stopped, an officer would understand that my decision was the right one based on that particular situation.
but a guy should be aware what he's doing, even if it's the right thing ethically and morally.
Post by: KFhunter on February 05, 2014, 01:54:37 PM
Don't disagree with you there Bob33, why I bolded that portion "let the animal suffer all night long".I understood the situation and made a decision based on the law and ethics. Apparently like few others on here, I had little concern of being cited for illegal hunting. I was confident that if I were stopped, an officer would understand that my decision was the right one based on that particular situation.
but a guy should be aware what he's doing, even if it's the right thing ethically and morally.
I do not share your confidence in that.
You're wagering your gun, truck and some serious penlties and court dates that the responding officer believes you - or even cares too.
I'm not knocking our WDFW officers -we have some really good ones- but you're hanging your pecker out there and stretching it across a chopping block.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 05, 2014, 04:05:37 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on February 05, 2014, 04:07:21 PM