Post by: buckhorn2 on April 14, 2014, 08:02:24 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on April 14, 2014, 08:10:09 PM
Post by: jason stevens on April 14, 2014, 08:13:34 PM
Post by: Tbar on April 14, 2014, 08:14:43 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 14, 2014, 08:17:22 PM
It does say this on the current rules for the Raymond-Aberdeen Weyerhaeuser tree farm (if that's where this took place)
Quote
Access is restricted to the following times: one and one-half hours before sunrise through one and one-half hours after sunset.
If this happened to me I probably would never hunt in this state again. I'm already almost to the point of doing no more hunting in this state, and spending my money in other states every year.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on April 14, 2014, 08:17:59 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on April 14, 2014, 08:19:38 PM
Very unfortunate for sure.
Post by: Bob33 on April 14, 2014, 08:22:02 PM
Post by: 6haase6 on April 14, 2014, 08:23:20 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on April 14, 2014, 08:28:00 PM
No matter the outcome after the the case is resolved he may want to write a very apologetic letter to the landowner. Possible that after court he could get a persona non grata letter. Sometimes it is followed by a letter from other major landowners. Effectively booting you off most timberland. If caught again it is a more serious charge.
I hear they have been getting serious about violations on land that does not charge for access to get the message out about respecting landowner rules.
Post by: TriggerMike on April 14, 2014, 08:45:23 PM
I hear they have been getting serious about violations on land that does not charge for access to get the message out about respecting landowner rules.
Good.
Post by: KFhunter on April 14, 2014, 08:58:35 PM
That's a bunch of BS. The warden should have assisted him in getting the elk out. I don't mean by packing it, but by staying with him until he was out. All I can think of is the warden must an anti. How else do you explain it? Was it Weyerhaeuser land where you're only supposed to be in there 1 1/2 hours after sunset? Even if that's the case, the warden was there and should have let him get the elk, in my opinion.
It does say this on the current rules for the Raymond-Aberdeen Weyerhaeuser tree farm (if that's where this took place)QuoteAccess is restricted to the following times: one and one-half hours before sunrise through one and one-half hours after sunset.
If this happened to me I probably would never hunt in this state again. I'm already almost to the point of doing no more hunting in this state, and spending my money in other states every year.
The "warden" should have an exemption for escorting hunters in after hours instead of forcing the game to spoil.
Might not be such an exemption in place, but this is a good case to bring to the landowner to seek something like that.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on April 14, 2014, 09:05:22 PM
Just curious why you're posting this now?:yeah:
Post by: j_h_nimrod on April 14, 2014, 09:10:47 PM
In this case could you charge the warden with wanton waste?
There should be some stipulations and recourse for instances like this. Really the warden should be fired or at least seriously (and officially) reprimanded for being directly responsible for the waste of a game animal he was obligated to protect.
Post by: KFhunter on April 14, 2014, 09:18:55 PM
Just curious why you're posting this now?:yeah:
OP said it was ongoing in the court system, so I suspect it's like a big painful boil on a left butt cheek constantly reminding you to stand up.
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 14, 2014, 09:22:36 PM
If it is private land, the warden must obey the landowner's rules. It is possible the landowner insisted on enforcing the access hours restriction. Otherwise, he should have been more helpful.What Bob said.
Unfortunately, the warden does not have the latitude to disregard the landowners closure hours. Apparently this landowner's closure hours do not provide for the circumstances of retrieval and therefore the risk of wastage is real.
Sucks but it is what it is. :(
Post by: j_h_nimrod on April 14, 2014, 09:31:20 PM
Post by: Hawgdawg on April 14, 2014, 09:34:05 PM
Just curious why you're posting this now?
cause fishing season doesn't start for a couple weeks......................
Post by: stevemiller on April 14, 2014, 11:56:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 15, 2014, 12:27:39 AM
I would guess the wardens report reads a little different. Not taking sides just saying there are usually two sides to the story.+1
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2014, 06:40:23 AM
But, he didn't, and the warden should still have allowed him to get the elk taken care of. So write him a trespassing citation and let him explain it to the judge. Fine.
He went all the way back in there with him, he had the time to do that. Why not let the hunter at least gut/skin the elk enough so that the meat would still be good in the morning?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jackmaster on April 15, 2014, 06:40:48 AM
The only thing I have to say on this is,The hunter should have Tagged and dressed The animal imediately upon kill,Then it wouldnt have gone to waste.Why did he go to town for help before doing this?He didnt have the help to kill it.Waste, not tagging upon kill,Trespassing if thats the rules,In my op.Charge for all 3 :twocents: When a WDFW official is on the job and helps someone it is on their discretion to do so,Instead they should get finished with a person as quickly as can be done and move on to the next problem.Just like a cop on the hiway should not stay for an hour or more with someone stranded on the hiway for the tow truck. :twocents:he said he could hear it thrashing around so he backed out to go get help :dunno: what do you do when you shoot an animal and it doesnt hit the deck? you wait and let time work, he went to town and came back with help to go take care of his bull!! sounds pretty simple, he didnt tag it yet because he didnt want to push the bull any further, sounds like the game warden was on a power trip, most timber companies that have a rule where you have to be out at a certain time are the pay to enter timber companies!!! of course we only have one side of the story, but if its true, then that gamie has some serious little man issues, no reason for an elk to spoil, damn sure was ZERO reason for him not to let the hunters dress and quarter the elk and let them hang it or whatever, just to protect against waistage :twocents: :tup:
Post by: buckhorn2 on April 15, 2014, 07:12:48 AM
Post by: dscubame on April 15, 2014, 07:29:10 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2014, 07:53:22 AM
I do agree with the other post that said there may be more to the story. But if it's as written, I don't see how the hunter did anything wrong. I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk to go to waste. His job should be to try to prevent that from happening. Not the other way around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: FC on April 15, 2014, 08:09:45 AM
I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk go to waste.
I don't see any mitigating circumstances on that one. If he had to cite the guy for trespassing than fine (although petty) but letting the elk go to waste is just sad.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on April 15, 2014, 08:12:50 AM
If it is private land, the warden must obey the landowner's rules. It is possible the landowner insisted on enforcing the access hours restriction. Otherwise, he should have been more helpful.
How can land owners kick off LEOs when they are engaged in a law enforcement situation? They have have control of the scene, let the hunter finish the job and then see that he leaves. It would be like any land owner trying to kick a sheriff off our private property if he was engaged in a investigation, not going to happen even if he doesnt have a search warrent, they wait untill they get one.
BigTex chime in please. :tup:
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2014, 08:13:24 AM
I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk go to waste.
I don't see any mitigating circumstances on that one. If he had to cite the guy for trespassing than fine (although petty) but letting the elk go to waste is just sad.
Right, plus I don't believe a trespass charge is a minor infraction like it used to be. Don't they have a new, more serious charge, for trespassing while hunting?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on April 15, 2014, 08:35:02 AM
I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk go to waste.
I don't see any mitigating circumstances on that one. If he had to cite the guy for trespassing than fine (although petty) but letting the elk go to waste is just sad.
Right, plus I don't believe a trespass charge is a minor infraction like it used to be. Don't they have a new, more serious charge, for trespassing while hunting?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He went back after dark to retrieve the elk, hunting was done then. So ho wcan he be charged with tresspasing while hunting? :dunno:
Post by: Elkpiss on April 15, 2014, 11:12:54 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 15, 2014, 02:10:35 PM
Post by: Bob33 on April 15, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
My take on this: The hunter is responsible to know the rules/laws for the area in which he's hunting. The LE has no discretion to break the rules of a private landowner and, as a matter of fact, is a steward of the landowner's property with regards to hunters who use it. The hunter may have been able to contact the landowner to get permission to retrieve his elk after hours. Most likely, the landowner has been experiencing vandalism/dumping after hours and may have made an exception in this case were he/they contacted. Without giving them that option, there's no wiggle room as far as LE is concerned. I agree the waste of game and the trespassing charge sucks. Without trying to flame the hunter too badly, I would suggest he holds the responsibility for what happened.Slam the gavel. Court adjourned. :tup:
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2014, 02:33:57 PM
The WDFW and their employees should be on the same side as honest hunters.
This guy was not poaching. He should not have been tangled up in court with all the hassle and cost that goes along with that, on something that is just a technicality.
He was trying to do things right. The game warden should have seen that and made certain he got the elk out before it spoiled.
I want to see game wardens busting poachers, not honest hunters who are following the law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on April 15, 2014, 02:36:52 PM
Quote
My take on this: The hunter is responsible to know the rules/laws for the area in which he's hunting. The LE has no discretion to break the rules of a private landowner and, as a matter of fact, is a steward of the landowner's property with regards to hunters who use it. The hunter may have been able to contact the landowner to get permission to retrieve his elk after hours. Most likely, the landowner has been experiencing vandalism/dumping after hours and may have made an exception in this case were he/they contacted. Without giving them that option, there's no wiggle room as far as LE is concerned. I agree the waste of game and the trespassing charge sucks. Without trying to flame the hunter too badly, I would suggest he holds the responsibility for what happened.
That may very well be true, but if the sign doesn't say a word about hours, why would a hunter bother to call to ask any additional rules? :dunno:
At the most, the warden could have warned the hunter that he could face trespassing charges if he stayed in there after dark. If he then chose to go in and retrieve the animal then that might be his choice to accept the charge and get the meat. To not let the guy get the meat out and add insult by citing him for trespass is harsh. :twocents:
Post by: Elkpiss on April 15, 2014, 02:40:05 PM
I think there's lots of wiggle room. If not, they need to make it so that there is (the WDFW and the private landowner).
The WDFW and their employees should be on the same side as honest hunters.
This guy was not poaching. He should not have been tangled up in court with all the hassle and cost that goes along with that, on something that is just a technicality.
He was trying to do things right. The game warden should have seen that and made certain he got the elk out before it spoiled.
I want to see game wardens busting poachers, not honest hunters who are following the law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bingo :tup:.. Dude was hunting a open unit and by the story was allowed to hunt where he was hunting, if you shoot one in the evening time then obviously a elk will take alot of time to get out and that will put you into the weeee hours of the morning even... And Yes Gammies have the right to use discression on judgment calls... and in my book that would be a no brainer... :twocents: F it, i am done with this topic.. Sorry to the hunter you had to waste which i am sure is your hard earned money on fighting this in court... and now i am sure you have a sour taste in your mouth and never want to hunt in WA again... I dont see how any hunter could see this as nothing but a crappy deal...
Post by: bigtex on April 15, 2014, 02:48:23 PM
The warden says I am giving you a trespass 3 ticket then says I will follow you.
No such thing as a "trespass 3 ticket."
In WA there is Criminal Trespass 1st Degree which is buildings. Criminal Trespass 2nd Degree is everything other than buildings.
Post by: stevemiller on April 15, 2014, 02:49:54 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2014, 02:50:10 PM
The warden says I am giving you a trespass 3 ticket then says I will follow you.
No such thing as a "trespass 3 ticket."
In WA there is Criminal Trespass 1st Degree which is buildings. Criminal Trespass 2nd Degree is everything other than buildings.
Isn't there a new one for trespass while hunting?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on April 15, 2014, 02:52:47 PM
Boss, I think you may be confused. I believe what Bob is saying that the officer is simply following the direction of the landowner, as in the landowner saying "cite everyone here after XX hours" and not that the officer must be off the land as well. But to answer your question, officers enforcing fish and wildlife laws are essentially exempt from trespass laws.If it is private land, the warden must obey the landowner's rules. It is possible the landowner insisted on enforcing the access hours restriction. Otherwise, he should have been more helpful.How can land owners kick off LEOs when they are engaged in a law enforcement situation? They have have control of the scene, let the hunter finish the job and then see that he leaves. It would be like any land owner trying to kick a sheriff off our private property if he was engaged in a investigation, not going to happen even if he doesnt have a search warrent, they wait untill they get one.
BigTex chime in please. :tup:
Post by: buglebrush on April 15, 2014, 02:54:04 PM
The attitude of a lot of wardens is just sad.
Post by: bigtex on April 15, 2014, 02:55:20 PM
Ya but it's not considered "trespass" in the title, it's "unlawful hunting on the property of another."Isn't there a new one for trespass while hunting?The warden says I am giving you a trespass 3 ticket then says I will follow you.No such thing as a "trespass 3 ticket."
In WA there is Criminal Trespass 1st Degree which is buildings. Criminal Trespass 2nd Degree is everything other than buildings.
Still not getting what the "trespass 3" is :dunno:
Post by: Elkpiss on April 15, 2014, 02:56:23 PM
I agree with some of this But,Waiting a little bit for the animal to die and then tag and dress it was still best.Then he could have went down and got the help to carry it out,get stopped by gamie,told to leave,conclude to come back in the morning and retrieve,Done.Freezer full.No ticket.
Have you ever been elk hunting or Killed an Elk?? ahhhh i have let them lay for 4-6 hrs if is down and not dead yet.... Do you know what happens if you kick up a wounded elk from his bed??? ahhhh bye bye elk..... So your telling me you would sit there for 4-6 hrs sitting in a clear cut waiting for it to die??? thats when time literally stops and second feel like minutes and minutes feels like hours... You leave and go back to town/camp or where ever you have to, too get your mind off that elk to give it the correct amount of time to die.. SO YES HEADING BACK TO TOWN WAS THE BEST THING HE COULD HAVE DONE!... PERIOD.... ok, now i am done with this topic.. no offense SM.. just a touchy subject for me..
Post by: vandeman17 on April 15, 2014, 02:57:09 PM
I agree with some of this But,Waiting a little bit for the animal to die and then tag and dress it was still best.Then he could have went down and got the help to carry it out,get stopped by gamie,told to leave,conclude to come back in the morning and retrieve,Done.Freezer full.No ticket.
I respectfully disagree. I would have done the EXACT same thing, especially if I was unaware of the curfew so to speak. The last thing you want to do is push a wounded animal, especially at night. If it were later in the season with cooler temps, I would have come back at first light but from the sounds of it, it was early season and warm so I would have called in back up, gave him some time and then went in with multiple sets of eyes, ears, headlamps and eventually strong backs. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 15, 2014, 02:59:29 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2014, 03:05:19 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: vandeman17 on April 15, 2014, 03:05:26 PM
Sorry, but the landowner is the only one who gets to change the rules for his PRIVATE property. He can if he wants when he's given the chance. But until then, you'd better know the rules and follow them if you're going to use his/their land. If your ethical compass dictates that you must retrieve the animal after hours in spite of the rules, then good for you. I admire someone who will do the right thing in the face of fines and penalties. I'd probably risk the same. But if I get a ticket for it, so it goes.
I agree Piano but I think the issues are 1) the hunter was unaware of the rule for access after hours and 2) the warden seemed to go against better judgement on this one. I find it similar to a police officer pulling over a speeding driver and finding out his wife is in labor. By the law, he is required to write the person a ticket but almost always will not because of the circumstances or will let them go and mail them a ticket to let them get to the hospital. I think the warden should have explained the rules and repercussions but allowed at least the hunter in to gut and get the elk cooling. Wardens should be well versed in all aspects of the hunt and he is as much to blame for the wasted meat as the hunter. Back to my speeding example, what if the officer held the driver and went through the normal protocol and she gave birth in the car? :bdid:
Post by: Curly on April 15, 2014, 03:09:54 PM
He not only got a ticket but he lost all the meat. Even if he had taken the time to gut it before going for help, I think he still would have lost a good portion of the meat. Since the warden wrote him a ticket anyway, he should have at least let him get the elk out.
:yeah:
That is what I was trying to say. He really got screwed. Should have at least let him gut it.
Why did the warden even allow him to go in and see the blood trail? Was he just trying to see if the hunter was telling the truth about shooting an elk? But if he was just testing the guy, then why bother giving him a ticket? Doesn't make any sense.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 15, 2014, 03:14:06 PM
Sorry, but the landowner is the only one who gets to change the rules for his PRIVATE property. He can if he wants when he's given the chance. But until then, you'd better know the rules and follow them if you're going to use his/their land. If your ethical compass dictates that you must retrieve the animal after hours in spite of the rules, then good for you. I admire someone who will do the right thing in the face of fines and penalties. I'd probably risk the same. But if I get a ticket for it, so it goes.
I agree Piano but I think the issues are 1) the hunter was unaware of the rule for access after hours and 2) the warden seemed to go against better judgement on this one. I find it similar to a police officer pulling over a speeding driver and finding out his wife is in labor. By the law, he is required to write the person a ticket but almost always will not because of the circumstances or will let them go and mail them a ticket to let them get to the hospital. I think the warden should have explained the rules and repercussions but allowed at least the hunter in to gut and get the elk cooling. Wardens should be well versed in all aspects of the hunt and he is as much to blame for the wasted meat as the hunter. Back to my speeding example, what if the officer held the driver and went through the normal protocol and she gave birth in the car? :bdid:
1. There is no excuse for not knowing the landowner's rules. 2. When protecting the property of a landowner, there is no gray area unless the landowner makes it so. The reason this is different from pulling over a speeding driver is the private property rights. In public, the police have the ability to make a judgement call. On private land, the only one who can make a judgement call is the landowner.
Again, the ethical decision to try and take care of the animal was admirable. It comes with consequences in this case. Trespassing is the consequence.
If you shoot an elk outside a national monument or park and the elk runs in the park, your ethics may well tell you, as they would tell me, to go process the animal and get him out. But, it's your decision to break the law. If and when you get caught, you have ZERO defense.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 15, 2014, 03:16:16 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 15, 2014, 03:21:18 PM
Yes,Yes.The op stated lots of blood,rolled down into brush,Thrashing around.Lots of blood,I wouldnt think any long amount of time.As for the wait,Whats a few more hours waiting when he was obviously hunting all day.I stand with what I posted allready,Tag,dress,Then go get packing help,fill the freezer.Why would this be a touch subject for you?I am impartial,not one sided at all.I only see what the op wrote and I see it in a diff. way than others which is fine and I stand by what I said as you stand by how you feel.I have not waited the 4-6 hours for any animal to die,Must be a shot placement issue.I agree with some of this But,Waiting a little bit for the animal to die and then tag and dress it was still best.Then he could have went down and got the help to carry it out,get stopped by gamie,told to leave,conclude to come back in the morning and retrieve,Done.Freezer full.No ticket.
Have you ever been elk hunting or Killed an Elk?? ahhhh i have let them lay for 4-6 hrs if is down and not dead yet.... Do you know what happens if you kick up a wounded elk from his bed??? ahhhh bye bye elk..... So your telling me you would sit there for 4-6 hrs sitting in a clear cut waiting for it to die??? thats when time literally stops and second feel like minutes and minutes feels like hours... You leave and go back to town/camp or where ever you have to, too get your mind off that elk to give it the correct amount of time to die.. SO YES HEADING BACK TO TOWN WAS THE BEST THING HE COULD HAVE DONE!... PERIOD.... ok, now i am done with this topic.. no offense SM.. just a touchy subject for me..
Post by: Bmcox86 on April 15, 2014, 03:40:09 PM
Post by: Ccortez on April 15, 2014, 03:42:24 PM
Post by: JLS on April 15, 2014, 05:12:55 PM
PDR the case report.
Post by: ICEMAN on April 15, 2014, 05:49:47 PM
I agree with some of this But,Waiting a little bit for the animal to die and then tag and dress it was still best.Then he could have went down and got the help to carry it out,get stopped by gamie,told to leave,conclude to come back in the morning and retrieve,Done.Freezer full.No ticket.
Have you ever been elk hunting or Killed an Elk?? ahhhh i have let them lay for 4-6 hrs if is down and not dead yet.... Do you know what happens if you kick up a wounded elk from his bed??? ahhhh bye bye elk..... So your telling me you would sit there for 4-6 hrs sitting in a clear cut waiting for it to die??? thats when time literally stops and second feel like minutes and minutes feels like hours... You leave and go back to town/camp or where ever you have to, too get your mind off that elk to give it the correct amount of time to die.. SO YES HEADING BACK TO TOWN WAS THE BEST THING HE COULD HAVE DONE!... PERIOD.... ok, now i am done with this topic.. no offense SM.. just a touchy subject for me..
I totally disagree.
I would argue that he should have stayed and been there in listening distance for the death, then swept in and tagged, gutted and began transporting meat.
I am sick of guys abandoning for some unknown length of time. These are the guys who report back that the meat was spoiled when they finally got serious enough to go back and look. You owe it to the elk to be miserable with it as it dies. Do the right thing. Stay. Listen, then go claim it before things spoil.
Besides, in this case the Gamie would probably not have even found the hunter, not cited, and not ended up wasting the animal.
Come on guys, let's not see any wasted animals in 2014!
Flame away...
Post by: bigtex on April 15, 2014, 05:50:42 PM
Me thinks there is more to the story.:yeah:
PDR the case report.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 15, 2014, 06:00:09 PM
Post by: BKMFR on April 15, 2014, 06:00:46 PM
Post by: stevemiller on April 15, 2014, 06:11:59 PM
Post by: JLS on April 15, 2014, 06:19:21 PM
I agree with some of this But,Waiting a little bit for the animal to die and then tag and dress it was still best.Then he could have went down and got the help to carry it out,get stopped by gamie,told to leave,conclude to come back in the morning and retrieve,Done.Freezer full.No ticket.
Have you ever been elk hunting or Killed an Elk?? ahhhh i have let them lay for 4-6 hrs if is down and not dead yet.... Do you know what happens if you kick up a wounded elk from his bed??? ahhhh bye bye elk..... So your telling me you would sit there for 4-6 hrs sitting in a clear cut waiting for it to die??? thats when time literally stops and second feel like minutes and minutes feels like hours... You leave and go back to town/camp or where ever you have to, too get your mind off that elk to give it the correct amount of time to die.. SO YES HEADING BACK TO TOWN WAS THE BEST THING HE COULD HAVE DONE!... PERIOD.... ok, now i am done with this topic.. no offense SM.. just a touchy subject for me..
I totally disagree.
I would argue that he should have stayed and been there in listening distance for the death, then swept in and tagged, gutted and began transporting meat.
I am sick of guys abandoning for some unknown length of time. These are the guys who report back that the meat was spoiled when they finally got serious enough to go back and look. You owe it to the elk to be miserable with it as it dies. Do the right thing. Stay. Listen, then go claim it before things spoil.
Besides, in this case the Gamie would probably not have even found the hunter, not cited, and not ended up wasting the animal.
Come on guys, let's not see any wasted animals in 2014!
Flame away...
Personally, I'm not going to waste my buddies' time until:
1) I've recovered the animal.
2) Tagged it and made it into packable pieces.
3) I have cold beer available for them.
Post by: buckfvr on April 15, 2014, 06:34:04 PM
Post by: dscubame on April 15, 2014, 07:19:54 PM
Well, that's not all Hancock up there. A lot of it is owned by the county, and much of it is owned by smaller timber companies, and some is state land as well. Now knowing the location, I'd say the game warden was even more in the wrong for charging the hunter with a crime along with allowing an elk to go to waste.
I do agree with the other post that said there may be more to the story. But if it's as written, I don't see how the hunter did anything wrong. I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk to go to waste. His job should be to try to prevent that from happening. Not the other way around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its Hancock land.
Post by: bobcat on April 15, 2014, 07:27:36 PM
Well, that's not all Hancock up there. A lot of it is owned by the county, and much of it is owned by smaller timber companies, and some is state land as well. Now knowing the location, I'd say the game warden was even more in the wrong for charging the hunter with a crime along with allowing an elk to go to waste.
I do agree with the other post that said there may be more to the story. But if it's as written, I don't see how the hunter did anything wrong. I just don't think there's any excuse for a game warden allowing an elk to go to waste. His job should be to try to prevent that from happening. Not the other way around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its Hancock land.
Why do you say that? Just as I said, it's not all Hancock. Look it up on the Grays Harbor county website.
Unless you're talking about specifically where this incident occurred. That I don't know. All I'm saying is it's a mixture of land ownership in that area.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: j_h_nimrod on April 15, 2014, 08:26:25 PM
My take on this: The hunter is responsible to know the rules/laws for the area in which he's hunting. The LE has no discretion to break the rules of a private landowner and, as a matter of fact, is a steward of the landowner's property with regards to hunters who use it. The hunter may have been able to contact the landowner to get permission to retrieve his elk after hours. Most likely, the landowner has been experiencing vandalism/dumping after hours and may have made an exception in this case were he/they contacted. Without giving them that option, there's no wiggle room as far as LE is concerned. I agree the waste of game and the trespassing charge sucks. Without trying to flame the hunter too badly, I would suggest he holds the responsibility for what happened.
I usually agree, or at least see your point of view, but in this case I feel you missed the mark. LE officers are here to enforce laws and protect the citizens, not enforce individual landowners rules and whims; there are many better ways to spend time than policing private land.
If this is a pay area then there is essentially a contract and understanding, if rules are not posted or made readily available then how is there expectation to follow the rules? If the DOT kept the speed limits in the office how could there be expectation to follow discrete area speed nuances?
Regardless, I think the LEO was in the wrong for a couple reasons. First, he issued a trespassing ticket and then accompanied them (trespassing) on the game search and then kicked them off before securing the elk. Second, he not only allowed the waste of a game animal but actually forced the necessity of waste. Third, there is latitude for a LE officer to interpret the rules (laws), especially when enforcing one law breaks another.
Maybe I am off base and the hunter is actually a criminal scumbag trying to paint LE in a bad light but reading the story I think I am at least partially justified.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on April 16, 2014, 10:18:31 AM
Boss, I think you may be confused. I believe what Bob is saying that the officer is simply following the direction of the landowner, as in the landowner saying "cite everyone here after XX hours" and not that the officer must be off the land as well. But to answer your question, officers enforcing fish and wildlife laws are essentially exempt from trespass laws.If it is private land, the warden must obey the landowner's rules. It is possible the landowner insisted on enforcing the access hours restriction. Otherwise, he should have been more helpful.How can land owners kick off LEOs when they are engaged in a law enforcement situation? They have have control of the scene, let the hunter finish the job and then see that he leaves. It would be like any land owner trying to kick a sheriff off our private property if he was engaged in a investigation, not going to happen even if he doesnt have a search warrent, they wait untill they get one.
BigTex chime in please. :tup:
well that opens a different question as to if it was not posted how could they site for tresspass? What i meant was why coudn't the LEO stay with the hunter till elk was taken carer of then see him off the land, how can the property owner deny that when they allow hunting in the first place. So the elk doesn't go to waste, which the land owner would then be causing wasteage if they didn't allow this.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 16, 2014, 10:34:16 AM
My take on this: The hunter is responsible to know the rules/laws for the area in which he's hunting. The LE has no discretion to break the rules of a private landowner and, as a matter of fact, is a steward of the landowner's property with regards to hunters who use it. The hunter may have been able to contact the landowner to get permission to retrieve his elk after hours. Most likely, the landowner has been experiencing vandalism/dumping after hours and may have made an exception in this case were he/they contacted. Without giving them that option, there's no wiggle room as far as LE is concerned. I agree the waste of game and the trespassing charge sucks. Without trying to flame the hunter too badly, I would suggest he holds the responsibility for what happened.
I usually agree, or at least see your point of view, but in this case I feel you missed the mark. LE officers are here to enforce laws and protect the citizens, not enforce individual landowners rules and whims; there are many better ways to spend time than policing private land.
If this is a pay area then there is essentially a contract and understanding, if rules are not posted or made readily available then how is there expectation to follow the rules? If the DOT kept the speed limits in the office how could there be expectation to follow discrete area speed nuances?
Regardless, I think the LEO was in the wrong for a couple reasons. First, he issued a trespassing ticket and then accompanied them (trespassing) on the game search and then kicked them off before securing the elk. Second, he not only allowed the waste of a game animal but actually forced the necessity of waste. Third, there is latitude for a LE officer to interpret the rules (laws), especially when enforcing one law breaks another.
Maybe I am off base and the hunter is actually a criminal scumbag trying to paint LE in a bad light but reading the story I think I am at least partially justified.
We'll try this one more time since my point seems lost on many. The hunter in question had a tough ethical decision to make. He made the right choice as far as I'm concerned and that choice put him at odds with trespass laws. WDFW LE are actually there to enforce the rules of private land when the landowner offers it up for public hunting. The use of this land is of benefit to the general hunting public and it's in all of our best interests for the LE to protect the landowner's assets. This isn't about someone's "whim". This is about encouraging more landowners to participate by showing them the state cares what happens to their land when they do offer the use of their land for hunters, fishers, etc..
The law says that you must know and obey the rules applying to the use of private property. Those rules don't need to be posted.
With regards to your question about the DOT not posting speed limits, most states, including WA, have state speed limits and they need not be posted. Here's WA's speed law, RCW 46.61.400:
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
(2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (1) of this section, the limits specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits.
(a) Twenty-five miles per hour on city and town streets;
(b) Fifty miles per hour on county roads;
(c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways.
If you don't see speed limit signs to the contrary, you're required by law to follow these rules, rules that are not posted on the road. Ignorance is no excuse in the law. If you want the privilege of hunting on private property, you're responsible to know the rules. If you don't take the time to call the landowner, visit their website, or do whatever it takes to know them backwards and forwards, tough luck for you if you get caught.
Post by: buckhorn2 on April 16, 2014, 11:00:27 AM
Post by: Curly on April 16, 2014, 11:08:49 AM
Post by: Nice Racks on April 16, 2014, 12:26:19 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 16, 2014, 12:32:32 PM
Okay I went to talk to my friend again so I could get the story. It was a 2nd degree trespass not a 3 don't know where I came up with that and it was 10 minutes past dark. The reason he is taking it through the court system is he does;nt want anything on his record. Also if he gets charged he can't have a concealed wepons permit that he has had for years and he would;nt be able to hunt in like 17 states. I will let you know how it turns out but he says he is fighting it to the end.Lot's of false information here. In order for you to have your hunting/fishing license taken away you must have been convicted in WA of 3 fishing and wildlife violations within 10 years OR 2 big game violations within 10 years. If he was cited for 2nd Degree Criminal Trespass that is NOT considered a fish and wildlife violation. So either your friend is mistaken, or there is more we aren't hearing here.
Post by: stevemiller on April 16, 2014, 12:45:57 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 16, 2014, 01:03:22 PM
RCW 9A.52.080
Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
[2011 c 336 § 373; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 §9A.52.080 .]
RCW 9A.52.090
Criminal trespass — Defenses.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or
(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.
RCW 9.41.040
Unlawful possession of firearms — Ownership, possession by certain persons — Restoration of right to possess — Penalties.
*** CHANGE IN 2014 *** (SEE 1840-S.SL) ***
(1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.
(b) Unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm:
(i) After having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any felony not specifically listed as prohibiting firearm possession under subsection (1) of this section, or any of the following crimes when committed by one family or household member against another, committed on or after July 1, 1993: Assault in the fourth degree, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass in the first degree, or violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from a residence (RCW 26.50.060, 26.50.070, 26.50.130, or 10.99.040);
Post by: Bob33 on April 16, 2014, 01:21:09 PM
What bothers me about stories like this is what I perceive as an entitlement mentality. “I’m entitled to hunt on private land. I’m entitled to have the landowner’s rules plainly posted where I can easily read them, and not have to do any type of preparation. I’m entitled to have no consequences if I break the landowner’s rules.”
Yes, it sounds like the LE could have been of more assistance. Without hearing his version of the story, it’s difficult to pass judgment on him.
There are plenty of things that could have been done to prevent this. First, learn the landowner’s rules in advance. That’s your responsibility, not the landowner’s.
If you shoot an animal after sunset, and expect to need help to pack it out that’s 12 miles away, what kind of planning and ethical thought process is that? What if your friends weren’t available? What if it rains on the blood trail and you can’t find it? Why not stay until it is killed and gutted?
Post by: bigtex on April 16, 2014, 01:23:38 PM
What bothers me about stories like this is what I perceive as an entitlement mentality. “I’m entitled to hunt on private land. I’m entitled to have the landowner’s rules plainly posted where I can easily read them, and not have to do any type of preparation. I’m entitled to have no consequences if I break the landowner’s rules.”:yeah: Couldn't have said it any better.
Yes, it sounds like the LE could have been of more assistance. Without hearing his version of the story, it’s difficult to pass judgment on him.
There are plenty of things that could have been done to prevent this. First, learn the landowner’s rules in advance. That’s your responsibility, not the landowner’s.
If you shoot an animal after sunset, and expect to need help to pack it out that’s 12 miles away, what kind of planning and ethical thought process is that? What if your friends weren’t available? What if it rains on the blood trail and you can’t find it? Why not stay until it is killed and gutted?
Post by: Curly on April 16, 2014, 01:27:48 PM
What bothers me about stories like this is what I perceive as an entitlement mentality. “I’m entitled to hunt on private land. I’m entitled to have the landowner’s rules plainly posted where I can easily read them, and not have to do any type of preparation. I’m entitled to have no consequences if I break the landowner’s rules.”:yeah: Couldn't have said it any better.
Yes, it sounds like the LE could have been of more assistance. Without hearing his version of the story, it’s difficult to pass judgment on him.
There are plenty of things that could have been done to prevent this. First, learn the landowner’s rules in advance. That’s your responsibility, not the landowner’s.
If you shoot an animal after sunset, and expect to need help to pack it out that’s 12 miles away, what kind of planning and ethical thought process is that? What if your friends weren’t available? What if it rains on the blood trail and you can’t find it? Why not stay until it is killed and gutted?
Yeah, good points. I wouldn't have left without tagging and gutting the elk. What I still find odd though, is that the warden let the guy go all the way back in almost to the elk and then made him leave. What was that all about? Or is it because we are just not getting the whole story that it seems so odd? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 16, 2014, 01:32:46 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 16, 2014, 01:41:56 PM
I sure wish the warden were available. I have a feeling the story would be quite different.:yeah:
Unfortunately these stories just create more angst against officers/departments, yet we never hear the full "truth."
I will say this as well. Ever since the Summer of 2012 all crimes now require a mandatory court appearance and in many counties the officer no longer issues you a criminal citation but rather refers it to the county for the prosecutor to decide if they should file charges. So in this case, the prosecutor must've thought there were was enough in the case to actually prosecute the guy. One thing the change in 2012 has done was reduce the potential of some small/petty crimes being prosecuted, because if an officer refers a small/petty case then they can always deny prosecution. The days of getting a criminal citation with a fine are gone in WA for all crimes.
Post by: floatinghat on April 16, 2014, 06:39:13 PM
Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
It sounds like he did not know and only remained in the presence and at the request of the officer? Me also believe there is more to this story.
Post by: mpetersen on April 16, 2014, 07:38:45 PM
Post by: KimWar1911 on April 19, 2014, 10:29:12 AM
Honest mistakes can be made by anyone. Leaving an elk to waste is someone that no one wishes to see or participate in.Well put. I would really be curious to hear the other side.
What bothers me about stories like this is what I perceive as an entitlement mentality. “I’m entitled to hunt on private land. I’m entitled to have the landowner’s rules plainly posted where I can easily read them, and not have to do any type of preparation. I’m entitled to have no consequences if I break the landowner’s rules.”
Yes, it sounds like the LE could have been of more assistance. Without hearing his version of the story, it’s difficult to pass judgment on him.
There are plenty of things that could have been done to prevent this. First, learn the landowner’s rules in advance. That’s your responsibility, not the landowner’s.
If you shoot an animal after sunset, and expect to need help to pack it out that’s 12 miles away, what kind of planning and ethical thought process is that? What if your friends weren’t available? What if it rains on the blood trail and you can’t find it? Why not stay until it is killed and gutted?
Post by: bobcat on April 19, 2014, 10:59:36 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 19, 2014, 11:45:59 AM
Sounds like a fun case. I would love this one.
Post by: Bullkllr on April 19, 2014, 11:48:52 AM
Am I missing something here? He shot a elk at sunset plus a bit, tracked it for a short time, hiked out, got his buddies, came back, and then was told not to come in etc. By my math that means that the elk was most likely killed between 4 and 7 pm. Even if it laid overnight and he had to go back the next morning, how did it spoil? It could be 60 degrees out and a elk shouldn't spoil overnight.
Seems to me that elk didn't lay more than 12 to 15 hours at the worst. Even if he didn't gut it after they found it with the warden, it shouldn't have spoiled. When did you get back to pack it out?
12-15 hours at 60 degrees? I'd guess it could be a total loss. Hanging in a bag, no... heating up under the hide on the ground, yeah...
Post by: buglebrush on April 19, 2014, 09:47:34 PM
How bout just end the shooting hours to around noon time, so everyone can recover the elk and be out by dark. :chuckle:
Sadly this is the only viable option on a game animal like elk. Even then you may not have the last load out until after dark. Ridiculous to say the least.