Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 11:14:17 PM
(5)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection
(1)(b) of this section if the hunter kills big game due to a mistaken belief about the sex of the animal and:
(i) The killing occurred during an open season for the species;
(ii) The hunter had all licenses, tags, or permits necessary to lawfully hunt the species; and
(iii) The hunter follows the procedural requirements defined in (b) of this subsection. (b) Any hunter claiming the affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) must:
(i) Immediately remove all of the entrails of any edible big game and tag the animal in the manner prescribed by the department;
(ii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, report the kill to the department by telephone or electronic communication;
(iii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, deliver the entire carcass, less entrails, to any fish and wildlife officer within the county the kill occurred for disposition and provide a written, sworn statement to the officer explaining when, where, and how the mistake occurred; and
(iv) Within ten days of the killing, provide the department full payment of restitution. Restitution is the same as the fee for the license proscribed for the species killed pursuant to RCW 77.32.450.
(c) The affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) does not apply to the killing of a bear, elk, or threatened or endangered species as designated by the commission.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6278&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6278&year=2013)
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 11:21:58 PM
1- What is "mistaken belief about the sex of the animal"? Does that mean you shot a doe in a buck unit, or does that mean you shot a 2pt in a 3pt unit?
2- Restitution. So the civil fine for illegally killing a non-trophy deer is $2,000, but the restitution under this bill would be the equivalent of a hunting license? So deer are worth less then a $100 now?
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 19, 2014, 11:42:01 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 06:09:58 AM
Post by: danderson on January 20, 2014, 06:25:52 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 06:30:24 AM
Quote
The bill would make it a defense that the hunter killed a big game animal due to mistaken sex or mistaken number of antler points. The law would not apply to bear,elk, threatened, and endangered wildlife.
(5)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection
(1)(b) of this section if the hunter kills big game due to a mistaken belief about the sex of the animal or mistaken number of antler pointsand:
(i) The killing occurred during an open season for the species;
(ii) The hunter had all licenses, tags, or permits necessary to lawfully hunt the species; and
(iii) The hunter follows the procedural requirements defined in (b) of this subsection. (b) Any hunter claiming the affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) must:
(i) Immediately remove all of the entrails of any edible big game and tag the animal in the manner prescribed by the department;
(ii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, report the kill to the department by telephone or electronic communication;
(iii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, deliver the entire carcass, less entrails, to any fish and wildlife officer within the county the kill occurred for disposition and provide a written, sworn statement to the officer explaining when, where, and how the mistake occurred; and
(iv) Within ten days of the killing, provide the department full payment of restitution. Restitution is the same as the fee for the license proscribed for the species killed pursuant to RCW 77.32.450.
(c) The affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) does not apply to the killing of a bear,elk, or threatened or endangered species as designated by the commission.
It seems to me that if a hunter makes a mistake they will be more inclined to do the right thing and that less wildlife will be wasted. I think this is the way laws should be designed, where the intentional law breaker still is reprimanded to the full extent of the law, but a person making a mistake is encouraged to do the right thing and turn themselves in. :twocents:
The mistaken violator still pays a fine and must give up their tag for the season when they tag the mistaken animal, then they must go through the process of reporting and delivering the animal, nobody is going to purposely do this, a person who does this will avoid making the mistake again. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2014, 06:40:24 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 07:23:08 AM
You're kidding me. I shot a bull during an antlerless hunt, and I get off scott free?
How would this happen if you are honest under this bill?
Currently if a hunter accidentally shoots a bull there are 3 options of thought:
- Leave the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
- Take the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
- Turn yourself in and receive your punishment
With the bill there is a 4th option:
- Turn yourself in, pay a minimal fine, lose your tag for the season, save the meat from wastage, and try not to do that ever again.
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2014, 07:25:00 AM
First of all it scares the heck out of me every year when I have cow elk hunters shooting at a herd of elk that contains spikes. I am afraid that one day a hunter will accidentally hit the wrong animal.If there is a mandatory fine and loss of tag, then I would be more inclined to support it. What is the "minimal" fine?You're kidding me. I shot a bull during an antlerless hunt, and I get off scott free?
How would this happen if you are honest under this bill?
Currently if a hunter accidentally shoots a bull there are 3 options of thought:
- Leave the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
- Take the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
- Turn yourself in and receive your punishment
With the bill there is a 4th option:
- Turn yourself in, pay a minimal fine, lose your tag for the season, save the meat from wastage, and try not to do that ever again.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 07:29:51 AM
Senate Bill 6278 will be introduced this week and is sponsored by Senator Ericksen. The bill would make it a defense that the hunter killed a big game animal due to mistaken sex. The law would not apply to bear, elk, threatened, and endangered wildlife.
(5)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection
(1)(b) of this section if the hunter kills big game due to a mistaken belief about the sex of the animal and:
(i) The killing occurred during an open season for the species;
(ii) The hunter had all licenses, tags, or permits necessary to lawfully hunt the species; and
(iii) The hunter follows the procedural requirements defined in (b) of this subsection. (b) Any hunter claiming the affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) must:
(i) Immediately remove all of the entrails of any edible big game and tag the animal in the manner prescribed by the department;
(ii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, report the kill to the department by telephone or electronic communication;
(iii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, deliver the entire carcass, less entrails, to any fish and wildlife officer within the county the kill occurred for disposition and provide a written, sworn statement to the officer explaining when, where, and how the mistake occurred; and
(iv) Within ten days of the killing, provide the department full payment of restitution. Restitution is the same as the fee for the license proscribed for the species killed pursuant to RCW 77.32.450.
(c) The affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) does not apply to the killing of a bear, elk, or threatened or endangered species as designated by the commission.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6278&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6278&year=2013)
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 07:32:05 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2014, 07:40:48 AM
I don't understand why they didn't include elk? I think "elk" should be included and that "mistaken antler point count" should be included.Indeed. Elk should not be excluded.
Post by: kentrek on January 20, 2014, 07:45:43 AM
I don't understand why they didn't include elk? I tgetting "elk" should be included and that "mistaken antler point count" should be included.
:yeah:
I know of a couple stories about people getting caught up in one situation or the other, ending up with the wrong critter down and getting the book thrown at them after they turned themselves in..
Only the most honest turn themselves in, why punish them ??
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 08:03:59 AM
Two years ago during the late whitetail buck season I had a hunter who had passed numerous small whitetail bucks, he had also seen some mule deer in the area and had passed some mule deer bucks. It was second to the last day and he decided he was going to shoot one of the smaller whitetail bucks he had been seeing. I get a call that he had an animal down but made a mistake. Turns out that after passing all those small whitetail bucks and passing on mule deer bucks he accidentally shot a small fork horn mule deer. This was without doubt a complete accident.
I told him that the local warden was a very fair man for those that try to follow the law. He called and turned himself in, I offered to skin and gut the deer and bring it in. The game warden told the hunter that it could have cost him several thousand dollars, but since he was honest he was only writing him for an infraction. It cost the guy less than $200 and the deer went to the local food bank.
The hunter will try to never let that happen again but he felt good about being honest and doing the right thing. If the warden had hammered him for several thousand dollars the hunter would not have felt good about doing the right thing.
The bottom line is that the deer was dead, no action was going to bring the deer back to life. The fact that the warden was discretionary with the punishment reaffirmed my belief and the hunter's belief in doing the right thing.
This bill is a positive step in that same direction.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2014, 08:20:54 AM
I told him that the local warden was a very fair man for those that try to follow the law. He called and turned himself in, I offered to skin and gut the deer and bring it in. The game warden told the hunter that it could have cost him several thousand dollars, but since he was honest he was only writing him for an infraction. It cost the guy less than $200 and the deer went to the local food bank.Here's the thing, under current law there is no law an officer can cite you for in such situation that is an infraction. My bet is the officer cited the individual for some type of "unclassified wildlife" violation. Had that individual taken it to court he would've easily won, but who is going to take that to court when they know they could've faced gross misdemeanor charges?
Right now the only law that stands similar to this nature is if you shoot a 1x2 in a true spike area for elk, you will face an infraction instead of a gross misdemeanor. The situation you listed would be the equivalent of an officer pulling you over for going 45 in a 25, but citing you for going 40 in a 25.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2014, 08:22:36 AM
First of all it scares the heck out of me every year when I have cow elk hunters shooting at a herd of elk that contains spikes. I am afraid that one day a hunter will accidentally hit the wrong animal.If there is a mandatory fine and loss of tag, then I would be more inclined to support it. What is the "minimal" fine?You're kidding me. I shot a bull during an antlerless hunt, and I get off scott free?
How would this happen if you are honest under this bill?
Currently if a hunter accidentally shoots a bull there are 3 options of thought:
- Leave the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
- Take the bull and say nothing, hope you don't get caught
- Turn yourself in and receive your punishment
With the bill there is a 4th option:
- Turn yourself in, pay a minimal fine, lose your tag for the season, save the meat from wastage, and try not to do that ever again.
Under this bill there is no charges and there is no fine. The only money involved is restitution to WDFW which according to the bill is the equivalent of the cost of the tag.
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2014, 08:22:58 AM
There needs to a strong enough penalty to ensure that hunters do everything within their power to properly identify what they are shooting at, before pulling the trigger, while not making the penalty so onerous that a hunter will leave the game to rot.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2014, 08:26:24 AM
Under this bill if you accidentally shot a doe in a buck unit you would pay a $39 restitution fee to WDFW which is the fee for a deer tag.
If someone illegally shoots a deer they face gross misdemeanor charges plus a $2,000 civil fine (restitution) to WDFW.
If we must have this bill, make the restitution equal to what the civil fine is, in this case $2,000.
Post by: Kazekurt on January 20, 2014, 08:31:53 AM
Post by: Jingles on January 20, 2014, 08:33:38 AM
Sorry NO EXCUSES for mistakenly killing the wrong animal
From the time I first started hunting at age 10 I have always been told if in doubt don't shoot
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2014, 08:49:07 AM
I hunt almost entirely public land for mule deer in E. Washington and have come across at least a half dozen two points left to rot.Why are so many hunters unable to properly identify what they are shooting at?
What does this bill do to address that, which is the root problem?
So what if I can't tell for sure how many points the deer has? I'll go ahead and take a shot just in case it has three; it's only a $39 slap on the wrist if I'm wrong.
I think this will INCREASE the number of illegally killed animals.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2014, 08:55:39 AM
So what bill do you think that legislator introduced the next legislative session? You got it, one similar to this.
Post by: Kazekurt on January 20, 2014, 09:04:00 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 09:14:04 AM
If for some reason there is a "must" for this bill the restitution needs to be changed.
Under this bill if you accidentally shot a doe in a buck unit you would pay a $39 restitution fee to WDFW which is the fee for a deer tag.
If someone illegally shoots a deer they face gross misdemeanor charges plus a $2,000 civil fine (restitution) to WDFW.
If we must have this bill, make the restitution equal to what the civil fine is, in this case $2,000.
Do you really think that fining a an honest hunter $2000 for turning himself in makes more hunters have a positive view of WDFW and LE in general?
I think it works exactly the opposite, the honest person who turns himself in and gets a lesser fine is more likely to view themselves as a partner in wildlife management.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2014, 09:25:08 AM
Under current law the person in this situation faces gross misdemeanor charges (up to a $5,000 criminal fine and 364 days in jail), plus the $2,000 civil fine for a conviction, and will lose their hunting license for 2 years.If for some reason there is a "must" for this bill the restitution needs to be changed.Do you really think that fining a an honest hunter $2000 for turning himself in makes more hunters have a positive view of WDFW and LE in general?
Under this bill if you accidentally shot a doe in a buck unit you would pay a $39 restitution fee to WDFW which is the fee for a deer tag.
If someone illegally shoots a deer they face gross misdemeanor charges plus a $2,000 civil fine (restitution) to WDFW.
If we must have this bill, make the restitution equal to what the civil fine is, in this case $2,000.
I think it works exactly the opposite, the honest person who turns himself in and gets a lesser fine is more likely to view themselves as a partner in wildlife management.
So all of that compared to a $2,000 fine is fair. You don't have any criminal record, you can still hunt the next year, and you learned a lesson to better judge what you shot. Under this bill a deer is worth $39.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 09:27:21 AM
Doe Accidentally Shot
This was in Montana. I had 4 brothers antelope hunting, all over 30, all lifelong hunters. They said had all sighted their guns before driving to Montana to meet me for the hunt. First day we killed 3 nice bucks and the fourth brother missed a nice buck. Next day he missed two more nice bucks. I asked if we could shoot his gun and he said we didn't need to because he had shot it and was right on.
Next day I spotted another herd with a nice buck, we made a sweet stalk and come up behind a rock outcropping at about 240 yards. He had a rock solid rest and pulled the trigger. The doe right behind the buck dropped. :yike:
Fortunately it was an either sex season and we didn't break the law, but this illustrates what can happen and completely unintentional. To this day his brothers have not forgiven him as they claim we should have shot the rifle after missing a couple animals. But simple mistakes like this happen every year.
I would rather see a guy be honest and receive a small fine than alienate him with a huge unnecessary penalty. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2014, 09:29:21 AM
I would rather see a guy be honest and receive a small fine than alienate him with a huge unnecessary penalty. :twocents:So in your opinion is $39 restitution for a deer, enough? Because this is what the bill states..
Post by: chukar58 on January 20, 2014, 09:30:56 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 20, 2014, 09:34:41 AM
I like the bill, but think it should be more inclusive to read as follows:i was thinking the same thing. I agre that this bill is better for the honest hunters that make mistakes and want to be truthful without being nailed by big fines. I also agree with you about including the antler point mistake. The dishonest guys won't be effected at this bill just the honest ones, in my opinion.QuoteThe bill would make it a defense that the hunter killed a big game animal due to mistaken sex or mistaken number of antler points. The law would not apply to bear,elk, threatened, and endangered wildlife.
(5)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection
(1)(b) of this section if the hunter kills big game due to a mistaken belief about the sex of the animal or mistaken number of antler pointsand:
(i) The killing occurred during an open season for the species;
(ii) The hunter had all licenses, tags, or permits necessary to lawfully hunt the species; and
(iii) The hunter follows the procedural requirements defined in (b) of this subsection. (b) Any hunter claiming the affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) must:
(i) Immediately remove all of the entrails of any edible big game and tag the animal in the manner prescribed by the department;
(ii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, report the kill to the department by telephone or electronic communication;
(iii) Within twenty-four hours after the killing, deliver the entire carcass, less entrails, to any fish and wildlife officer within the county the kill occurred for disposition and provide a written, sworn statement to the officer explaining when, where, and how the mistake occurred; and
(iv) Within ten days of the killing, provide the department full payment of restitution. Restitution is the same as the fee for the license proscribed for the species killed pursuant to RCW 77.32.450.
(c) The affirmative defense provided by this subsection (5) does not apply to the killing of a bear,elk, or threatened or endangered species as designated by the commission.
It seems to me that if a hunter makes a mistake they will be more inclined to do the right thing and that less wildlife will be wasted. I think this is the way laws should be designed, where the intentional law breaker still is reprimanded to the full extent of the law, but a person making a mistake is encouraged to do the right thing and turn themselves in. :twocents:
The mistaken violator still pays a fine and must give up their tag for the season when they tag the mistaken animal, then they must go through the process of reporting and delivering the animal, nobody is going to purposely do this, a person who does this will avoid making the mistake again. :twocents:
Post by: Kazekurt on January 20, 2014, 09:37:06 AM
I hunt almost entirely public land for mule deer in E. Washington and have come across at least a half dozen two points left to rot.Why are so many hunters unable to properly identify what they are shooting at?
What does this bill do to address that, which is the root problem?
So what if I can't tell for sure how many points the deer has? I'll go ahead and take a shot just in case it has three; it's only a $39 slap on the wrist if I'm wrong.
I think this will INCREASE the number of illegally killed animals.
I agree that they SHOULD know what they are shooting at but lots of hunters will roll the dice if one jumps off and starts running off; especially considering their are some giant 2 Pts out there. I'm not excusing it or condoning it; I'm just saying it happens because I've seen the corpses. I'm not sure the law would increase it as the people "rolling the dice" don't fear the consequences now; they just walk away and keep hunting. This law won't stop the most unethical hunters as they'll always poach and take questionable shots but it might afford the usually ethical ones a way to do the right thing. Again, I'm not advocating a slap on the wrist, I just think the current system is causing lots of animals to be wasted.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 20, 2014, 09:45:18 AM
I guess I could throw caution to the wind and shoot at moving game, see what I dropped and then decide what to do. I can blaze away at a two point in a three point area just so I can go see if it has a 1" guard?
Can't I just go start gutting and tell any guy who happens by that I made a mistake and am turning myself in, as soon as I pack this deer out and get it home?
How is an enforcement officer going to know if some jackwagon is taking a deer home with the intention of turning himself in or not? Is the hunter going to be cited for poaching nonetheless?
Bad law.
Encourages poor decision making.
Provides an excuse for all unscrupulous hunters.
Will cause more court litigation, lawyers having to prove that their client "was going to turn himself in...honest he was..."
I bet these cases get dropped, more deer and elk are inadvertently killed, and more poachers walk free.
Nope, bad law, I would not support it.
Post by: buckfvr on January 20, 2014, 09:52:45 AM
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2014, 10:05:56 AM
Mule deer areas are all 3 point min so the Bill shouldn't have that effect in those areas. I don't see how a person could accidentally shoot a doe if he thinks it is a 3-point. (except in a case like Bearpaw mentioned where the guys scope was way off). The way I read the bill, it wouldn't help a guy that accidentally shoots a buck with the wrong antler configuration.
I don't like the Bill as written, though I do wish there was some way for a guy that makes an honest mistake to not get raked over the coals. There needs to be a difference in the punishment for honest mistakes vs. an actual poacher.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 10:06:53 AM
Look at how this new law would affect hunting.
I guess I could throw caution to the wind and shoot at moving game, see what I dropped and then decide what to do. I can blaze away at a two point in a three point area just so I can go see if it has a 1" guard?
Can't I just go start gutting and tell any guy who happens by that I made a mistake and am turning myself in, as soon as I pack this deer out and get it home?
How is an enforcement officer going to know if some jackwagon is taking a deer home with the intention of turning himself in or not? Is the hunter going to be cited for poaching nonetheless?
Bad law.
Encourages poor decision making.
Provides an excuse for all unscrupulous hunters.
Will cause more court litigation, lawyers having to prove that their client "was going to turn himself in...honest he was..."
I bet these cases get dropped, more deer and elk are inadvertently killed, and more poachers walk free.
Nope, bad law, I would not support it.
Well said, I agree.
Post by: snowpack on January 20, 2014, 10:30:34 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on January 20, 2014, 10:41:18 AM
I would rather see a guy be honest and receive a small fine than alienate him with a huge unnecessary penalty. :twocents:So in your opinion is $39 restitution for a deer, enough? Because this is what the bill states..
So is 2x the tag cost enough? Arbitrary number either way wouldn't you agree? Where does the restitution money go for conservation? Or is it funding for more officers? In the fine standard "follow the money" I can't seem to figure that out when I try to research the black hole that is WA state gov't.
Post by: pd on January 20, 2014, 10:43:59 AM
I'm trying to come up with any legit examples for this bill. The only animals I can think of that we are restricted in shooting male vs female are deer and elk (kind of---I've heard of freak does with antlers, they'd be legal because the regs say antlered/antlerless). Seems like a bad law to me. If this type of target misidentification flies, imagine what is next....saying it is okay to shoot elk during deer season?
Snowpack, this might be a little off topic, but situations like you describe do happen. A relative of mine shot an antlered whitetail doe (in Idaho) 3 seasons ago. This unit in general season is open to antlered whitetail, antlered mule deer, and antler-less white tail (in other words, any deer except antler less mule deer). Thus, the animal was legal, but a freak. Had the doe been a mule deer, however, they might have had problems. The wardens at the check station had a great time with the deer, taking DNA samples. Otherwise, all was fine.
These things do happen--it isn't that rare.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 11:20:17 AM
IMO the question is do you want people walking away from accidentlay killed animals (because its happening plenty right now) or do you want to use the animal and at least know how many more animals are being harvested?
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 11:33:29 AM
I would rather see a guy be honest and receive a small fine than alienate him with a huge unnecessary penalty. :twocents:So in your opinion is $39 restitution for a deer, enough? Because this is what the bill states..
I already read the bill and understand what the fine stated is. Considering that the person must tag the animal, gives up his hunting season, and delivers the animal to a food distribution location, and confesses to LE, I think a minimal fine is enough. I would be fine with anything up to $200.
I see $2000 fine on an honest person as reason enough for many hunters to say to heck with being honest. That's not how you create partnerships with hunters. :twocents:
This is why I agree with the proposed language.
Post by: buckfvr on January 20, 2014, 12:07:32 PM
I would say when and if a second violation occurs........theres your reason for a huge increase.
To me, it just seems like another creative way to take more money from folks........seems its all our state wants to do is fleece the public...........write tickets and take money............sickining.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 12:18:54 PM
A 2K fine for an honest person is a drop kick in the :yike: .
I would say when and if a second violation occurs........theres your reason for a huge increase.
To me, it just seems like another creative way to take more money from folks........seems its all our state wants to do is fleece the public...........write tickets and take money............sickining.
:yeah: exactly :nono:
The only incentive I see is to not say a word and walk away if someone makes a mistake. As others have eluded, that is what is happening right now. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on January 20, 2014, 12:44:46 PM
It's kind if ridiculous the way it is now- the penalty is the same for a poacher and someone who makes a mistake and turns himself in.
Post by: JODakota on January 20, 2014, 03:26:15 PM
Under current law the person in this situation faces gross misdemeanor charges (up to a $5,000 criminal fine and 364 days in jail), plus the $2,000 civil fine for a conviction, and will lose their hunting license for 2 years.If for some reason there is a "must" for this bill the restitution needs to be changed.Do you really think that fining a an honest hunter $2000 for turning himself in makes more hunters have a positive view of WDFW and LE in general?
Under this bill if you accidentally shot a doe in a buck unit you would pay a $39 restitution fee to WDFW which is the fee for a deer tag.
If someone illegally shoots a deer they face gross misdemeanor charges plus a $2,000 civil fine (restitution) to WDFW.
If we must have this bill, make the restitution equal to what the civil fine is, in this case $2,000.
I think it works exactly the opposite, the honest person who turns himself in and gets a lesser fine is more likely to view themselves as a partner in wildlife management.
So all of that compared to a $2,000 fine is fair. You don't have any criminal record, you can still hunt the next year, and you learned a lesson to better judge what you shot. Under this bill a deer is worth $39.
Well, that is about the cost of the tag...so yeah they are worth that. In fact, there worthless in most other states.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2014, 06:27:50 PM
Totally disagree. As an example, the state wastage rules are by fish/animal value. Those with a value under $250 is considered an infraction. Those over $250 is a gross misdemeanor.Well, that is about the cost of the tag...so yeah they are worth that. In fact, there worthless in most other states.Under current law the person in this situation faces gross misdemeanor charges (up to a $5,000 criminal fine and 364 days in jail), plus the $2,000 civil fine for a conviction, and will lose their hunting license for 2 years.If for some reason there is a "must" for this bill the restitution needs to be changed.Do you really think that fining a an honest hunter $2000 for turning himself in makes more hunters have a positive view of WDFW and LE in general?
Under this bill if you accidentally shot a doe in a buck unit you would pay a $39 restitution fee to WDFW which is the fee for a deer tag.
If someone illegally shoots a deer they face gross misdemeanor charges plus a $2,000 civil fine (restitution) to WDFW.
If we must have this bill, make the restitution equal to what the civil fine is, in this case $2,000.
I think it works exactly the opposite, the honest person who turns himself in and gets a lesser fine is more likely to view themselves as a partner in wildlife management.
So all of that compared to a $2,000 fine is fair. You don't have any criminal record, you can still hunt the next year, and you learned a lesson to better judge what you shot. Under this bill a deer is worth $39.
If the value of a deer was $2,000 (as the civil fine is) do you think we would have the same amount of hunters as today? Of course not
Post by: Kazekurt on January 20, 2014, 06:42:16 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2014, 08:24:56 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2014, 08:31:09 AM
Senator Braun is now a cosponsor of this bill.
:tup: Hope it picks up steam.
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2014, 08:40:20 AM
Look at how this new law would affect hunting.
I guess I could throw caution to the wind and shoot at moving game, see what I dropped and then decide what to do. I can blaze away at a two point in a three point area just so I can go see if it has a 1" guard?
Can't I just go start gutting and tell any guy who happens by that I made a mistake and am turning myself in, as soon as I pack this deer out and get it home?
How is an enforcement officer going to know if some jackwagon is taking a deer home with the intention of turning himself in or not? Is the hunter going to be cited for poaching nonetheless?
Bad law.
Encourages poor decision making.
Provides an excuse for all unscrupulous hunters.
Will cause more court litigation, lawyers having to prove that their client "was going to turn himself in...honest he was..."
I bet these cases get dropped, more deer and elk are inadvertently killed, and more poachers walk free.
Nope, bad law, I would not support it.
I think the problem with law enforcement is that they always want more laws for criminals but fail to consider how it affects the average citizen. This is a chance to do something positive for the honest guy who makes a mistake and isn't really a criminal. Rather than simply be opposed, perhaps try to offer a solution for the reasons you oppose the bill. :dunno:
Although a different topic, I think this poster depicts the error in LE thinking.
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2014, 08:47:24 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2014, 08:53:44 AM
As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.
So advocate for a higher fine, but why be opposed to the whole idea? :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2014, 08:58:42 AM
There is no fine under the current bill. A fine is something that is handed down by a judge or through a court proceeding (such as a citation). The $39 for a deer is not a fine, and nowhere in the bill does it say it's a fine, it says it's restitution.As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.So advocate for a higher fine, but why be opposed to the whole idea? :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2014, 09:06:48 AM
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 (1) The legislature finds that enforcement of the state's fish and game laws is an essential component to professional wildlife management. However, the legislature further finds that there are instances when a violation of the state's hunting laws occurs not due to an intentional attempt to increase one's success in the field, but due to honest confusion about the rules or understandable mistakes made in the pursuit of game.
(2) The legislature further finds that enforcement officers of the department of fish and wildlife have no option but to cite these well-meaning citizens with a criminal infraction, even if the individual has contacted the fish and wildlife officer directly and self-reported his or her activity. This lack of flexibility or discretion can discourage honest hunters from contacting the authorities when mistakes are made and lead to an overall apprehension of engaging in outdoor sports.
(3) It is the intent of the legislature, by way of this act, to provide the field enforcement of the department of fish and wildlife with additional enforcement tools, other than criminal sanctions, to properly handle situations where well-meaning and otherwise law-abiding hunters mistakenly, and with no intent to violate a hunting law, find themselves in violation of the fish and wildlife enforcement code.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW to read as follows:
(1) If mitigating circumstances exist, the responding fish and wildlife officer may, as an alternative to citing an individual for a violation of RCW 77.15.190, 77.15.240, 77.15.400, 77.15.410, or 77.15.430, instead issue a noncriminal natural resource infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.
(2) The commission shall identify examples of appropriate mitigating circumstances to aid a responding fish and wildlife officer in the implementation of this section. Examples of appropriate mitigating circumstances may include instances when the suspect self-reports the activity giving rise to the violation, and where the activity resulted from a mistake or is an unintended result.
(3) Regardless of examples identified by the commission, the discretion to issue either a noncriminal natural resource infraction under this section or a criminal citation under the applicable statutory authority belongs to the responding fish and wildlife officer and is based on the individual circumstances of the situation being investigated.
(4) The penalty for a natural resource infraction issued under this section is one hundred fifty dollars.
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2014, 09:17:17 AM
There is no fine under the current bill. A fine is something that is handed down by a judge or through a court proceeding (such as a citation). The $39 for a deer is not a fine, and nowhere in the bill does it say it's a fine, it says it's restitution.As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.So advocate for a higher fine, but why be opposed to the whole idea? :dunno:
my bad... :dunno:
So advocate for a higher restitution, but something that is far less than $2000, I don't see how we expect people to be honest if the cost is $2000 for being honest.
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2014, 09:24:19 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 21, 2014, 09:39:47 AM
There is no fine under the current bill. A fine is something that is handed down by a judge or through a court proceeding (such as a citation). The $39 for a deer is not a fine, and nowhere in the bill does it say it's a fine, it says it's restitution.As I've already said, there have been numerous bills similar to this nature throughout the years. Most of the bills had a provision that if you were found to have "mistakenly/accidentally" shot the animal you would be cited for an infraction rather then the gross misdemeanor charge you currently would face. This bill doesn't even involve receiving an infraction, but rather simply writing a $39 check to WDFW.So advocate for a higher fine, but why be opposed to the whole idea? :dunno:
$39 seems stupid low for a "mistake" when I would have to pay about $70 to the state for the "cost" of a second deer doe. :dunno: I do agree with Bearpaw above.
Post by: bobcat on January 21, 2014, 10:06:54 AM
Quote
$39 seems stupid low for a "mistake" when I would have to pay about $70 to the state for the "cost" of a second deer doe. I do agree with Bearpaw above.
Well, it's not just the $39- you also lose your deer tag and don't have a deer for the freezer.
Post by: washingtonmuley on January 21, 2014, 10:17:04 AM
Post by: Curly on January 21, 2014, 10:22:20 AM
I don't really see the need for this specific bill. But I do see the need for officer discretion when a hunter makes an honest mistake.
Post by: bobcat on January 21, 2014, 10:29:34 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2014, 03:30:34 PM
The bill report definitely clarifies that this bill is simply in regards to mistaken sex and not antler points....
Post by: dscubame on January 24, 2014, 03:31:49 PM
It seems like the intent of the bill is to acknowledge that mistakes can be made and if someone goes through the proper reporting procedures without having already been busted, he's not treated the same as a poacher. It sounds like it would encourage more ethical behavior with those making a mistake that might otherwise cost them a pretty big amount of money. It's not like we need the money from fines. Fines in wildlife violations are more a function of deterrent than paying for anything. At least at first glance, I'm not convinced this is a bad bill. :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2014, 02:32:52 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 03, 2014, 05:54:10 PM
Post by: fireweed on February 04, 2014, 08:48:30 AM
Post by: Hawgdawg on February 04, 2014, 09:21:28 AM
I hunt almost entirely public land for mule deer in E. Washington and have come across at least a half dozen two points left to rot.Why are so many hunters unable to properly identify what they are shooting at?
What does this bill do to address that, which is the root problem?
So what if I can't tell for sure how many points the deer has? I'll go ahead and take a shot just in case it has three; it's only a $39 slap on the wrist if I'm wrong.
I think this will INCREASE the number of illegally killed animals.
:yeah: :yeah:Find huge 2 pts. every year in Pomaroy. I personally don't think if would be a good idea to include antler points. To many would be left to rot.