Post by: Curly on June 01, 2014, 07:29:04 AM
Ethically it may not be good to drop a yote and leave him lay out in a field for the land owner to deal with, but I wonder if any laws would be broken by shooting a coyote in a field where you do not have permission?
Post by: HntnFsh on June 01, 2014, 07:37:09 AM
Post by: Tman on June 01, 2014, 07:38:08 AM
Post by: Curly on June 01, 2014, 07:42:31 AM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: ghosthunter on June 01, 2014, 07:56:15 AM
There is no way this could be legal.
I was told once that if you sent your dog on to private property for a duck you could be cited. :dunno:
The fact that you are shooting on to another's land without permission is going to get you in some kind of trouble.
On Fir Island in Skagit you could get $5000.00 fine and loose all your equipment and your truck.
But I will have to research it more.
Your first thought is often your best. Drive by.
Post by: wannabhntr on June 01, 2014, 08:03:51 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 01, 2014, 08:07:14 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on June 01, 2014, 08:07:25 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6135-S.PL.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6135-S.PL.pdf)
Read Sec 11
# 4
You tell me.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 01, 2014, 08:09:05 AM
I would advise against it but do not believe you could be cited for anything hunting related. Dumping trash perhaps.
Bob seems you posted some thing on this on another thread?
Post by: ghosthunter on June 01, 2014, 08:12:14 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=107319.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=107319.0)
Post by: Curly on June 01, 2014, 08:15:49 AM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: ghosthunter on June 01, 2014, 08:16:10 AM
You did not have reason to believe the property owner would allow hunting.
And you did not have permission.
Drive on by is my vote. Or bad things could happen.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 01, 2014, 08:21:02 AM
Does the act of shooting at a coyote constitute hunting?
If so, than he would be trespassing?
Post by: Bob33 on June 01, 2014, 08:28:01 AM
One final question before I am off to work.Yes it is hunting. A hunting license is required. I don't believe it is trespassing because he has not entered the property, and he has no obligation to do so in this instance.
Does the act of shooting at a coyote constitute hunting?
If so, than he would be trespassing?
Post by: Curly on June 01, 2014, 08:28:53 AM
I'm just trying to get clarification on the law, so I hope everyone realizes that I'm not arguing strongly in favor of it being ok. I do believe that it would be wrong ethically, but I'm just having a hard time seeing something in the law that says it is illegal.
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on June 01, 2014, 08:30:45 AM
Post by: h20hunter on June 01, 2014, 08:33:24 AM
Post by: bowhunterwa87 on June 01, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
Post by: MIKEXRAY on June 01, 2014, 08:45:01 AM
Post by: dreamunelk on June 01, 2014, 08:45:48 AM
This is a joke right?
:yeah:
If not, then it is truly said. :yeah:
Even if legal it would be unethical and disrespectful to the landowner. A great example of why some do not allow hunting because of hunter behavior.
Some landowners do not want coyotes or other predators shot on there property. I know one landowner that has a very liberal access policy for deer and elk. He only has a few rules. Don't drive in his fields. Don't leave bones in his fields. Don't shoot predators. He is a very good land manager and because of that has abundant wildlife on his property. When he feels that some predator management is needed he will ask a hunter he trusts to shoot the right ones.
In a recent conversation he stated he really does not like today's hunters because he does no feel they are hunters. Just guy's with guns who like to kill things. One of the greatest compliments from him is when he says "that guy is a hunter".
It concerns me that we will lose access to this property some day because of disrespectful behavior. No only does he have several hundred acres of pasture and forest it is also a great way to access some hard to reach state lands. I know of at least 10 elk taken last year because of the access. One was a very large bull. A teens first elk.
Sorry, but to me this is a no brainier. Just keep going.
Post by: b23 on June 01, 2014, 09:05:02 AM
To take it one step further, I was thinking, ok, what if you did not have permission and you were shooting sage rats, prairie dogs, or ground hogs that were on your neighbors property but your shooting position was from your property. Would it be legal since no part of your body physically went on to their property and like coyotes there is no law, at least that I'm aware of, that states you have to pick them up or dispose of them??
Granted, you'd likely be making multiple shots across the property line but would it matter if it was one shot or one hundred? I don't believe it would be legal.
Any of you ever watch that "Wardens" show on the hunting channel? A couple of weeks ago they had a guy stopped that shot a coyote or shot at a coyote, I don't exactly remember which, that was on property the shooter did not have permission to hunt on. The property owner wasn't even present so there were no charges being pressed but I recall the game warden telling the shooter something to the effect that he was responsible for where the bullet went and even though his physical body was not trespassing that the bullet was basically an extension of his being and if it crossed property line/s it was the same as if his shooting position was on the property he did not have permission to be on. Those aren't the exact words the warden used but my best recollection and this took place in Montana not Wa.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 01, 2014, 09:22:00 AM
Only question id ask myself is ..are there any cars around?
Why?
Post by: bobcat on June 01, 2014, 09:22:56 AM
In this case, my guess is the bullet would be cited for trespassing. :chuckle:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 01, 2014, 09:26:12 AM
If of course, that is if shooter hit and killed the coyote.
Then there is the chance of leaving it wounded, then maybe animal cruelty charges?
Post by: 700xcr on June 01, 2014, 09:27:58 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 01, 2014, 09:31:58 AM
Pman, Esq.
Post by: HntnFsh on June 01, 2014, 09:37:01 AM
Legally not sure. However if it is my land I would view it as trespass because your actions are physically happening on my land. Yes you are not but your intentions and bullet are coming over. Shoot with a camera....fine....but the connection for me is you own that bullet and are therefore trespassing.
This is my line of thinking also! His actions would affect the private property.
Post by: Old Man Yager on June 02, 2014, 10:40:28 AM
I'm a lawyer on another internet forum, so I'll take this. In the most legal terms I can muster, you're stupid if you shoot an animal on someone else's land without their permission. Carry on.:yeah: :chuckle:
Pman, Esq.
Post by: Bob33 on June 02, 2014, 10:56:18 AM
Can Someone Trespass On Your Property If They Never Touch The Ground?
Mark Sweet, Esq
If someone breaks into your property, walks across your yard and steals your pink flamingo in front of your house, they’re at least guilty of trespass. But what about the air space around your property? There is an old Latin phrase, “cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum” which, loosely translated, means that a person who owns the soil owns it all the way to heaven. Basically, if you own the land, you own the air space above the land. For example, if someone is shooting at a duck, the duck flies over your land and the shooter pulls the trigger hitting the duck over a public lake, you can sue even though no bullet landed on your property. The theory behind this is that the shooter interfered with the “quiet undisturbed, peaceful enjoyment…” of your property.
If I Own The Space Above My Property, Can I Sue Airlines For Flying Over My Place?
If you own the land up to heaven, then shouldn’t any airline flying through the air be liable to you for trespass violations? Obviously, at the time many of these laws were created, the idea of an airplane flying 40,000 feet above the earth could only be imagined. However, most courts felt that the property owner had a right to prevent an airplane from flying overhead at very low attitudes, but it is difficult to state at what level a trespass occurs. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal law controls and that state courts cannot award trespass damages.
There is one theory that some courts will allow: the nuisance theory. What this means is that you can sue for damages if you can show that there is actual harm caused by the airplane flying over your land. Generally, you must show that the use of your property is limited in some way, like the pollution from aircraft force you to stay indoors. The bottom line, if you can’t use your property because of someone else, you might have the right to sue for trespass damages.
Post by: whacker1 on June 02, 2014, 10:56:53 AM
It is trespassing if you retrieve the coyote.
It is bad karma with land-owners you don't know. land owners of most variety will be upset, and will want you prosecuted for trespassing for firing a round onto their land without knowing the nuances of the property and ownership. Whether an officer can make a trespassing ticket stick will be a different story, you may have to defend yourself in court on that one as they may choose to write the infraction regardless of knowing the outcome. Should you get caught in the act of doing so, it will make all sportsman look bad.
Now, with all that said, an acquantance/friend of mine from Montana did this exact same thing and would be deemed socially acceptable from his home area in Montana. But in this case in Eastern Washington, it was reported by a witness. And sheriff/ game officer was in the same area sited him from shooting from the road. This instance has made me rethink this exact circumstance. I have encountered several coyotes on Hanford property that could be shot from the fence line. Many that were in farmer's fields or range land that I have let go, which took a great deal of restraint.
If you know where the owner lives, go atttempt permission first. It will likely cost you the Yote based on timing, but it might get you an opportunity should you come across the same yote in the future.
Post by: deltaops on June 02, 2014, 11:08:22 AM
Post by: whacker1 on June 02, 2014, 11:08:49 AM
I think everyone believes it's a bad idea, and clearly and blatantly unethical. The interesting question is whether or not any law has been broken. It would appear that a bullet can trespass. Here's one article I found on the topic:
Can Someone Trespass On Your Property If They Never Touch The Ground?
Mark Sweet, Esq
If someone breaks into your property, walks across your yard and steals your pink flamingo in front of your house, they’re at least guilty of trespass. But what about the air space around your property? There is an old Latin phrase, “cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum” which, loosely translated, means that a person who owns the soil owns it all the way to heaven. Basically, if you own the land, you own the air space above the land. For example, if someone is shooting at a duck, the duck flies over your land and the shooter pulls the trigger hitting the duck over a public lake, you can sue even though no bullet landed on your property. The theory behind this is that the shooter interfered with the “quiet undisturbed, peaceful enjoyment…” of your property.
If I Own The Space Above My Property, Can I Sue Airlines For Flying Over My Place?
If you own the land up to heaven, then shouldn’t any airline flying through the air be liable to you for trespass violations? Obviously, at the time many of these laws were created, the idea of an airplane flying 40,000 feet above the earth could only be imagined. However, most courts felt that the property owner had a right to prevent an airplane from flying overhead at very low attitudes, but it is difficult to state at what level a trespass occurs. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal law controls and that state courts cannot award trespass damages.
There is one theory that some courts will allow: the nuisance theory. What this means is that you can sue for damages if you can show that there is actual harm caused by the airplane flying over your land. Generally, you must show that the use of your property is limited in some way, like the pollution from aircraft force you to stay indoors. The bottom line, if you can’t use your property because of someone else, you might have the right to sue for trespass damages.
They could argue Safety would hold you back from using your property and sue for trespass.
Post by: Maverick on June 02, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
The road to jump out and shoot it.
Post by: Curly on June 02, 2014, 12:42:45 PM
Sure don't get many opportunities on yotes in Western WA, I sure would have liked to drop that one. Best not to have to argue in court either, even though it really is a gray area since I wouldn't have been trespassing in a practical sense and it isn't illegal to leave coyotes lay.
(BTW - if I had decided to go take the shot at the yote, I would have missed. I was on the way to shoot my rifle and my first shot at the target didn't even hit paper. I forgot that I had moved the scope base and the scope back and had not shot it since then, so it was shooting about a foot low at 100 yards. I would likely have just scared the bleep out of the yote) :) Then what would they get me for? Littering of a 140 gr bullet into the farmers field? :dunno:
Post by: deltaops on June 02, 2014, 12:50:39 PM
This particular property has no homes nearby, so it isn't easy to tell who owns it. The County Gis site was down or not cooperating yesterday when I tried to figure who owns the piece. I should have drove back out there yesterday to see if the landowner was back out to cut the rest of the field, then I could have talked to him. The yotes have probably been picking up lots of chopped up field mice.
Sure don't get many opportunities on yotes in Western WA, I sure would have liked to drop that one. Best not to have to argue in court either, even though it really is a gray area since I wouldn't have been trespassing in a practical sense and it isn't illegal to leave coyotes lay.
(BTW - if I had decided to go take the shot at the yote, I would have missed. I was on the way to shoot my rifle and my first shot at the target didn't even hit paper. I forgot that I had moved the scope base and the scope back and had not shot it since then, so it was shooting about a foot low at 100 yards. I would likely have just scared the bleep out of the yote) :) Then what would they get me for? Littering of a 140 gr bullet into the farmers field? :dunno:
You could be cited for hunting on private property without permission and harassing wildlife.
Post by: Curly on June 02, 2014, 12:55:56 PM
This particular property has no homes nearby, so it isn't easy to tell who owns it. The County Gis site was down or not cooperating yesterday when I tried to figure who owns the piece. I should have drove back out there yesterday to see if the landowner was back out to cut the rest of the field, then I could have talked to him. The yotes have probably been picking up lots of chopped up field mice.
Sure don't get many opportunities on yotes in Western WA, I sure would have liked to drop that one. Best not to have to argue in court either, even though it really is a gray area since I wouldn't have been trespassing in a practical sense and it isn't illegal to leave coyotes lay.
(BTW - if I had decided to go take the shot at the yote, I would have missed. I was on the way to shoot my rifle and my first shot at the target didn't even hit paper. I forgot that I had moved the scope base and the scope back and had not shot it since then, so it was shooting about a foot low at 100 yards. I would likely have just scared the bleep out of the yote) :) Then what would they get me for? Littering of a 140 gr bullet into the farmers field? :dunno:
You could be cited for hunting on private property without permission and harassing wildlife.
hmmm.......without setting foot on the property? And when is it harassing wildlife to miss a coyote? Doesn't seem like one could argue that it is hunting on private property if you aren't actually on the property?
I guess it doesn't really matter since I didn't shoot and won't in the future, but I thought it would be an interesting question. I'm not sure anyone can say with 100% certainty if an officer would write a guy up for that or what a judge might rule. I bet different officers may have differing opinions and judges would have different rulings. :twocents:
Post by: deltaops on June 02, 2014, 01:12:10 PM
This particular property has no homes nearby, so it isn't easy to tell who owns it. The County Gis site was down or not cooperating yesterday when I tried to figure who owns the piece. I should have drove back out there yesterday to see if the landowner was back out to cut the rest of the field, then I could have talked to him. The yotes have probably been picking up lots of chopped up field mice.
Sure don't get many opportunities on yotes in Western WA, I sure would have liked to drop that one. Best not to have to argue in court either, even though it really is a gray area since I wouldn't have been trespassing in a practical sense and it isn't illegal to leave coyotes lay.
(BTW - if I had decided to go take the shot at the yote, I would have missed. I was on the way to shoot my rifle and my first shot at the target didn't even hit paper. I forgot that I had moved the scope base and the scope back and had not shot it since then, so it was shooting about a foot low at 100 yards. I would likely have just scared the bleep out of the yote) :) Then what would they get me for? Littering of a 140 gr bullet into the farmers field? :dunno:
You could be cited for hunting on private property without permission and harassing wildlife.
hmmm.......without setting foot on the property? And when is it harassing wildlife to miss a coyote? Doesn't seem like one could argue that it is hunting on private property if you aren't actually on the property?
I guess it doesn't really matter since I didn't shoot and won't in the future, but I thought it would be an interesting question. I'm not sure anyone can say with 100% certainty if an officer would write a guy up for that or what a judge might rule. I bet different officers may have differing opinions and judges would have different rulings. :twocents:
I understand and see how anyone can misunderstand this.
Private property is off limits to hunting without permission, we all know this. So lets look at it like this.
Lets say you are in a GMU where it is legal to hunt Deer and or Elk. The adjacent GMU is closed to hunting Deer and or Elk. You cannot be in one GMU and shoot into another GMU that is closed. Same applies to private property from public land.
As far as harassing wildlife, it could be hard to prove that you really are and you actually did just miss it, but you already stated that you wanted to scare it, that would fall under harassing wildlife.
Post by: Curly on June 02, 2014, 01:17:25 PM
Post by: deltaops on June 02, 2014, 01:20:08 PM
actually I didn't say that I wanted to scare it. I said I would have just scared it if I had shot. My intent would have been to kill and leave it where it laid.
You are right I misread it. My apologies.. :sry:
Post by: bobcat on June 02, 2014, 01:23:15 PM
>:(
Post by: Bob33 on June 02, 2014, 01:30:19 PM
Lets say you are in a GMU where it is legal to hunt Deer and or Elk. The adjacent GMU is closed to hunting Deer and or Elk. You cannot be in one GMU and shoot into another GMU that is closed. Same applies to private property from public land.Those are different issues. In the first instance, the individual is hunting illegally by hunting where a season is not open. In the second instance, he is hunting a legal specie during a legal season. The issue is trespass, not illegal hunting.
Post by: Curly on June 02, 2014, 02:30:54 PM
actually I didn't say that I wanted to scare it. I said I would have just scared it if I had shot. My intent would have been to kill and leave it where it laid.
You are right I misread it. My apologies.. :sry:
It's all good. :tup:
Post by: kodiak 907 on June 02, 2014, 02:38:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 02, 2014, 02:43:31 PM
What about hunting geese in a field and every time you shoot your shot ends up on the adjacent property. Are you guilty of trespass?
Post by: Bob33 on June 02, 2014, 02:47:49 PM
So I guess for a trespass conviction the cops would have to somehow dig that bullet out of the ground, otherwise there would be no evidence of the bullet trespassing?No, but the goose is getting a big fat ticket.
What about hunting geese in a field and every time you shoot your shot ends up on the adjacent property. Are you guilty of trespass?
Post by: kodiak 907 on June 02, 2014, 03:03:36 PM
I got a trespass ticket for sending my dog into a private field to retrive a snow goose that i shot in my "quality hunt field" (Fir Island), the bird drifted and died just into private property.
The freakin goose was only about 30 yards over the line. :bash:
If the land owner wants you to get a ticket, the officer will issue the ticket.
Post by: Bob33 on June 02, 2014, 03:07:35 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 02, 2014, 03:09:12 PM
Post by: kodiak 907 on June 02, 2014, 03:11:55 PM
I could not believe I was being issued a ticket. I will not hunt out there again.
Post by: bigtex on June 07, 2014, 08:49:06 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2014, 08:50:26 AM
Shooting the coyote and "leaving it lay" would actually fall under wastage and is a hunting/wildlife offense. As far as trespassing goes, it would definitely be an interesting one for the prosecutor. But certainly a wastage charge would apply, you can't waste ANYTHING!Technically that's true, but coyotes are shot and left all the time. I've never heard of anyone being cited.
Which portions of the meat do you eat?
Post by: bigtex on June 07, 2014, 08:54:52 AM
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I was simply saying it's against the law. For me, I want to see the animal removed from the field, if you take the coyote home and throw it in the garbage can then so be it, but if you just shoot it and "leave it lay" I would have no problem with any officer citing you.Shooting the coyote and "leaving it lay" would actually fall under wastage and is a hunting/wildlife offense. As far as trespassing goes, it would definitely be an interesting one for the prosecutor. But certainly a wastage charge would apply, you can't waste ANYTHING!Technically that's true, but coyotes are shot and left all the time. I've never heard of anyone being cited.
Which portions of the meat do you eat?
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2014, 08:59:15 AM
If it is the same "reckless wastage" law that applies to other game such as deer and elk, then you must take the meat and yet no one does. I've asked this question of several enforcement officers. They've all said the law does not apply to predators such as coyotes and crows.I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I was simply saying it's against the law. For me, I want to see the animal removed from the field, if you take the coyote home and throw it in the garbage can then so be it, but if you just shoot it and "leave it lay" I would have no problem with any officer citing you.Shooting the coyote and "leaving it lay" would actually fall under wastage and is a hunting/wildlife offense. As far as trespassing goes, it would definitely be an interesting one for the prosecutor. But certainly a wastage charge would apply, you can't waste ANYTHING!Technically that's true, but coyotes are shot and left all the time. I've never heard of anyone being cited.
Which portions of the meat do you eat?
I think you're far more likely to get cited for illegal dumping.
In any case, it's a bad idea.
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2014, 09:01:46 AM
I could see removing it from a farmer's field and putting it in a more hidden, obcure location where it won't be seen by people. But to bring them home just to put in your garbage can is just weird to me. I can just imagine, filling the garbage can up with coyotes and having no room for any real garbage. :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on June 07, 2014, 09:16:09 AM
The law does not separate between species. It's simply "wasting wildlife," per state law "wildlife" means those in the animal kingdom, coyotes are in the animal kingdom. You can't waste a coyote because it's a predator, it falls under the animal kingdom and per state law, you can't waste wildlife.If it is the same "reckless wastage" law that applies to other game such as deer and elk, then you must take the meat and yet no one does. I've asked this question of several enforcement officers. They've all said the law does not apply to predators such as coyotes and crows.I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I was simply saying it's against the law. For me, I want to see the animal removed from the field, if you take the coyote home and throw it in the garbage can then so be it, but if you just shoot it and "leave it lay" I would have no problem with any officer citing you.Shooting the coyote and "leaving it lay" would actually fall under wastage and is a hunting/wildlife offense. As far as trespassing goes, it would definitely be an interesting one for the prosecutor. But certainly a wastage charge would apply, you can't waste ANYTHING!Technically that's true, but coyotes are shot and left all the time. I've never heard of anyone being cited.
Which portions of the meat do you eat?
I think you're far more likely to get cited for illegal dumping.
In any case, it's a bad idea.
Wastage of big game is under RCW 77.15.170 and is a gross misdemeanor:
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if:
(a) The person kills, takes, or possesses fish, shellfish, or wildlife having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) The person recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.
(2) Waste of fish and wildlife is a gross misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke any license or tag used in the crime and shall order suspension of the person's privileges to engage in the activity in which the person committed waste of fish and wildlife for a period of one year.
Wasting a coyote would fall under RCW 77.15.160(2)(c)
The following acts are infractions and must be cited and punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW:
(2) Hunting infractions:
(c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.
I know of several citations issued for the 77.15.160 offense for coyotes every year in Grant and Adams Counties. Some officers may say it's ok and they wouldn't cite for it, but if an officer wanted to they could.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 07, 2014, 09:18:32 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.170 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.170)
RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife — Penalty.
*** CHANGE IN 2014 *** (SEE 6041-S.SL) ***
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if:
(a) The person kills, takes, or possesses fish, shellfish, or wildlife having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) The person recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.
(2) Waste of fish and wildlife is a gross misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke any license or tag used in the crime and shall order suspension of the person's privileges to engage in the activity in which the person committed waste of fish and wildlife for a period of one year.
(3) It is prima facie evidence of waste if:
(a) A processor purchases or engages a quantity of food fish, shellfish, or game fish that cannot be processed within sixty hours after the food fish, game fish, or shellfish are taken from the water, unless the food fish, game fish, or shellfish are preserved in good marketable condition; or
(b) A person brings a big game animal to a wildlife meat cutter and then abandons the animal. For purposes of this subsection (3)(b), a big game animal is deemed to be abandoned when its carcass is placed in the custody of a wildlife meat cutter for butchering and processing and:
(i) Having been placed in such custody for an unspecified period of time, the meat is not removed within thirty days after the wildlife meat cutter gives notice to the person who brought in the carcass or, having been so notified, the person who brought in the carcass refuses or fails to pay the agreed upon or reasonable charges for the butchering or processing of the carcass; or
(ii) Having been placed in such custody for a specified period of time, the meat is not removed at the end of the specified period or the person who brought in the carcass refuses to pay the agreed upon or reasonable charges for the butchering or processing of the carcass.
[2012 c 176 § 16; 1999 c 258 § 5; 1998 c 190 § 21.]
Post by: bigtex on June 07, 2014, 09:22:25 AM
This was hashed out pretty thoroughly awhile back and I thought it was determined that wastage would not apply based on the laws requirement that a non-big game animal had to have a value of $250.00 or more:The wastage offense was separted in 2012. Those wastage cases over $250 remained a gross misdemeanor, those with a value of under $250 were decriminalized and made into a citable infraction and now fall under RCW 77.15.160
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.170 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.170)
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2014, 09:27:45 AM
The law does not separate between species. It's simply "wasting wildlife," per state law "wildlife" means those in the animal kingdom, coyotes are in the animal kingdom. You can't waste a coyote because it's a predator, it falls under the animal kingdom and per state law, you can't waste wildlife.Yes that's the law. So why is no one required to eat the meat of a coyote? If you leave a quarter of a deer or elk in the field, you would be cited for wastage. Can you cite a single case where a Washington hunter was cited for leaving the meat of a coyote in the field?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 07, 2014, 09:29:40 AM
Then you would be able to dispose of the rest of it since their value is in the fur trade market and not an edible/food animal by common standards?
Post by: bigtex on June 07, 2014, 09:32:09 AM
As I've said officers write for it in Grant and Adams Counties which are some of the most popular counties in the state for coyote hunting. If it is the law then you can cite for it, doesn't mean all officers will, it just means they can. And like I've said, I've konwn officers that have, and I would have no problem with an officer doing it.The law does not separate between species. It's simply "wasting wildlife," per state law "wildlife" means those in the animal kingdom, coyotes are in the animal kingdom. You can't waste a coyote because it's a predator, it falls under the animal kingdom and per state law, you can't waste wildlife.Yes that's the law. So why is no one required to eat the meat of a coyote? If you leave a quarter of a deer or elk in the field, you would be cited for wastage. Can you cite a single case where a Washington hunter was cited for leaving the meat of a coyote in the field?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 07, 2014, 09:32:31 AM
The law does not separate between species. It's simply "wasting wildlife," per state law "wildlife" means those in the animal kingdom, coyotes are in the animal kingdom. You can't waste a coyote because it's a predator, it falls under the animal kingdom and per state law, you can't waste wildlife.Yes that's the law. So why is no one required to eat the meat of a coyote? If you leave a quarter of a deer or elk in the field, you would be cited for wastage. Can you cite a single case where a Washington hunter was cited for leaving the meat of a coyote in the field?
I would guess the difference lays in the fact that elk are big game animals and are covered in the other RCW.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 07, 2014, 09:32:53 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2014, 09:35:06 AM
Wow. Coyote backstraps. I guess I've really been missing out.As I've said officers write for it in Grant and Adams Counties which are some of the most popular counties in the state for coyote hunting. If it is the law then you can cite for it, doesn't mean all officers will, it just means they can. And like I've said, I've konwn officers that have, and I would have no problem with an officer doing it.The law does not separate between species. It's simply "wasting wildlife," per state law "wildlife" means those in the animal kingdom, coyotes are in the animal kingdom. You can't waste a coyote because it's a predator, it falls under the animal kingdom and per state law, you can't waste wildlife.Yes that's the law. So why is no one required to eat the meat of a coyote? If you leave a quarter of a deer or elk in the field, you would be cited for wastage. Can you cite a single case where a Washington hunter was cited for leaving the meat of a coyote in the field?
Can I take my deer home and dump it in the garbage? Why not if it is the same as a coyote?
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2014, 09:36:14 AM
Post by: bigtex on June 07, 2014, 09:41:14 AM
What would constitute NOT wasting a coyote, BT? Keeping the pelt? What if the pelt were mangy? I would think that someone fighting a wasting charge in court for a coyote they let lay in the field wouldn't be too hard-pressed to win it. I can't imagine a court in the country that would consider not eating one a waste of game, so the pelt would be the only issue. I'm referring only to coyotes legally killed with landowner permission or on public land. Thanks for your input, BT.Since the offense is an infraction there is no jury. It is simply you and the judge who decides if you wasted it or not.
Unfortunately WA's law does not define what is wasting and what is not, it simply says you can't waste wildlife. I personally don't like that there is no definition. Many states lay out in their law what parts must be taken of the animal in order for the hunter to comply with the law, WA does not do that. So it simply leaves it up to the officer, and then if somebody fights it, the judge to decide if the animal was wasted.
So for me, to completely eliminate a wastage charge I say to completely remove the coyote from the field. I don't want to say that removing the pelt will clear you because another officer may see a skinned out coyote and immediately flag it as wasting. Again, this is where I believe a clearly written wasting wildlife law needs to be written as far as what needs to be taken and what can stay in the field.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 07, 2014, 09:43:37 AM
What would be accomplished by citing someone for leaving a coyote in the field? It makes no sense to me.
In the context of the original topic of this thread, it would be done because the hunter shot into a field that he did not have permission to hunt and the landowner or officer felt it needed to written.
As for the question about the mangy hide, I would think the same would apply as if you killed an infected deer or elk that could not be eaten, I don't know, that is why my post was written as a question.
Post by: Curly on June 07, 2014, 10:02:39 AM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2014, 10:03:50 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2014, 10:10:31 AM
Post by: Curly on June 07, 2014, 10:12:39 AM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 07, 2014, 10:14:26 AM
Just don't shoot anything on someone's property you do not have permission to do so on, and all the questions and problems disappear.
What fun would that be? Then all we would have to talk about is this year's special permit drawing...and we all know how boring that is!
:rolleyes:
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2014, 10:14:43 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2014, 10:15:53 AM
What fun would that be? Then all we would have to talk about is this year's special permit drawing...and we all know how boring that is!I think the Bigfoot thread is still active.
:rolleyes:
Post by: Curly on June 07, 2014, 10:19:09 AM
Just don't shoot anything on someone's property you do not have permission to do so on, and all the questions and problems disappear.
Apparently there is potential problems anytime a coyote is shot. If I start coyote hunting then I guess I'll have to find someone that will eat them that I can give them to. Throwing them in the garbage won't work; the garbage man won't take them, plus that is wastage in my book.
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2014, 10:21:56 AM
Post by: Curly on June 07, 2014, 10:30:36 AM
For either scenario the proper citation would be for trespassing, in my opinion, even though you may not have actually set foot on the private property. Either that or they could cite you for negligently shooting from the road. Whether it was truly negligent would be up to the judge.
Tresspassing really doesn't fit. Negligently shooting from the road wouldn't fit either since the fenceline is a good 20 feet from the pavement. The only one that really seems acceptable in my mind is littering. (The shooter would be littering his bullet and the animal he left there.) Wastage apparently fits but just isn't logical since almost no one eats coyotes..........
I'd be interested to know if the citation style in Adams and grant counties were for instances like this where the shooter was not showing respect toward the landowner?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on June 07, 2014, 10:35:58 AM
In nature, nothing goes to waste.
Right. But throwing them in the garbage for a trip to the landfill is wastage.
Anyway, it does sound like bigtex agrees that it wouldn't be Tresspassing which is what my original question was about. I never would have dreamed that wastage would fit. So, thanks again go out to Bigtex for setting things straight....you are a valuable asset to the forum.
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on June 07, 2014, 10:38:41 AM
I'd be interested to know if the citation style in Adams and grant counties were for instances like this where the shooter was not showing respect toward the landowner?
The citations I know of were issued regardless of the landowner, simply leaving the coyote to lay. These citations aren't only issued in Grant and Adams Counties but can be issued statewide, I just know of them being issued in those two counties. People need to remember that it's an officer's duty to enforce all fish and wildlife laws, we can't just say "well it's a coyote and nobody cares" because I can guarantee you somebody does care, it's not the most important thing out there but it is still illegal to waste coyotes. Don't like it? Then get the law changed. But as officer's we are responsible for enforcing the law.
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2014, 10:46:18 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 07, 2014, 11:02:07 AM
Citing someone for "wasting" a coyote is a total chicken feces move.As I've said officers write for it in Grant and Adams Counties which are some of the most popular counties in the state for coyote hunting. If it is the law then you can cite for it, doesn't mean all officers will, it just means they can. And like I've said, I've konwn officers that have, and I would have no problem with an officer doing it.The law does not separate between species. It's simply "wasting wildlife," per state law "wildlife" means those in the animal kingdom, coyotes are in the animal kingdom. You can't waste a coyote because it's a predator, it falls under the animal kingdom and per state law, you can't waste wildlife.Yes that's the law. So why is no one required to eat the meat of a coyote? If you leave a quarter of a deer or elk in the field, you would be cited for wastage. Can you cite a single case where a Washington hunter was cited for leaving the meat of a coyote in the field?
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2014, 11:05:42 AM
All coyotes that are shot are "wasted" then. So, it could be said that coyote hunting is virtually illegal in this state.Blues here I come! By next May I should have at least 200 bonus points for turning in coyote wasters. :tup:
Post by: grundy53 on June 07, 2014, 11:18:17 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2014, 11:18:50 AM
People need to remember that it's an officer's duty to enforce all fish and wildlife laws, we can't just say "well it's a coyote and nobody cares" because I can guarantee you somebody does care, it's not the most important thing out there but it is still illegal to waste coyotes. Don't like it? Then get the law changed. But as officer's we are responsible for enforcing the law.That's an interesting argument, and ironic that on another active thread WDFW Enforcement is getting trashed for doing that very thing: enforcing the law with respect to someone fishing without a license, and not using discretion when warranted.
Post by: Curly on June 07, 2014, 11:18:51 AM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: stevemiller on June 07, 2014, 11:19:46 AM
Post by: Curly on June 07, 2014, 11:27:40 AM
Read a lot of this thread but not all,Question maybe Bigtex can answer this.If he is standing on the side of the road isn't he in fact trespassing by being on the owners easement?The property owner pays taxes to the center of the road,If he owns property on both sides of the road well he actually owns the entire road that runs through his property and just allows or has to allow easement.So anyone that stops and does anything other than drive through would be tresspassing?Is this thought even close? :dunno:
I can answer that question for you. In my line of work I deal with easements, right of ways, and property lines all the time.
If you are on a public road, the road is almost always within a public right of way. The fenceline is usually the right of way line, ; so if you are on the road side of the fence then you or likely on public r/w.
Now when you start talking about private roads is usually when you are dealing with easements. And they can vary a lot. Sometimes the road is centered in the easement, sometimes not. It all depends on how it is setup.
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 07, 2014, 12:06:06 PM
What would constitute NOT wasting a coyote, BT? Keeping the pelt? What if the pelt were mangy? I would think that someone fighting a wasting charge in court for a coyote they let lay in the field wouldn't be too hard-pressed to win it. I can't imagine a court in the country that would consider not eating one a waste of game, so the pelt would be the only issue. I'm referring only to coyotes legally killed with landowner permission or on public land. Thanks for your input, BT.Since the offense is an infraction there is no jury. It is simply you and the judge who decides if you wasted it or not.
Unfortunately WA's law does not define what is wasting and what is not, it simply says you can't waste wildlife. I personally don't like that there is no definition. Many states lay out in their law what parts must be taken of the animal in order for the hunter to comply with the law, WA does not do that. So it simply leaves it up to the officer, and then if somebody fights it, the judge to decide if the animal was wasted.
So for me, to completely eliminate a wastage charge I say to completely remove the coyote from the field. I don't want to say that removing the pelt will clear you because another officer may see a skinned out coyote and immediately flag it as wasting. Again, this is where I believe a clearly written wasting wildlife law needs to be written as far as what needs to be taken and what can stay in the field.
The ambiguity of the WA law in comparison to the wasting laws of other states would definitely be a tool for defense in front of a judge against the infraction, especially when talking about coyotes and especially if the pelt is mangy. Thanks for the info, BT. As always, you're a really great resource for us. :tup:
Post by: stevemiller on June 07, 2014, 12:26:16 PM
Post by: pd on June 07, 2014, 11:05:59 PM
In nature, nothing goes to waste.
:yeah:
Post by: lokidog on June 07, 2014, 11:37:45 PM
For either scenario the proper citation would be for trespassing, in my opinion, even though you may not have actually set foot on the private property. Either that or they could cite you for negligently shooting from the road. Whether it was truly negligent would be up to the judge.
Tresspassing really doesn't fit. Negligently shooting from the road wouldn't fit either since the fenceline is a good 20 feet from the pavement. The only one that really seems acceptable in my mind is littering. (The shooter would be littering his bullet and the animal he left there.) Wastage apparently fits but just isn't logical since almost no one eats coyotes..........
I'd be interested to know if the citation style in Adams and grant counties were for instances like this where the shooter was not showing respect toward the landowner?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
If anyone shot something, ANYTHING on my property without permission, they are trespassing and I will put as much anergy/effort as I can in prosecuting them to the fullest extent. Plus it's just a dumba*** thing to do. :twocents: I don't care whether they set a foot on my property or not.
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2014, 06:28:26 AM
I don't disagree that it is wrong to do, but it sure does not seem like tresspassing would stick. Littering or like bigtex said wastage. (Although I do think the wastage laws need changed if you are required to eat or coyote or crow or nutria or whatever. ) Maybe tresspassing laws need changed too, but for now it sure doesn't seem that tresspassing fits.For either scenario the proper citation would be for trespassing, in my opinion, even though you may not have actually set foot on the private property. Either that or they could cite you for negligently shooting from the road. Whether it was truly negligent would be up to the judge.
Tresspassing really doesn't fit. Negligently shooting from the road wouldn't fit either since the fenceline is a good 20 feet from the pavement. The only one that really seems acceptable in my mind is littering. (The shooter would be littering his bullet and the animal he left there.) Wastage apparently fits but just isn't logical since almost no one eats coyotes..........
I'd be interested to know if the citation style in Adams and grant counties were for instances like this where the shooter was not showing respect toward the landowner?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
If anyone shot something, ANYTHING on my property without permission, they are trespassing and I will put as much anergy/effort as I can in prosecuting them to the fullest extent. Plus it's just a dumba*** thing to do. :twocents: I don't care whether they set a foot on my property or not.
BTW, I wouldn't blame an officer for writing up a guy for wastage in an instance like this since it is a way of punishing a guy for a dumba*** thing. But if officers are really writing citations to coyote hunters that are otherwise following rules and ethics, then the wastage laws need to be revised. Until the law is changed I would think that head of wdfw enforcement could ask that his guys not write up crow hunters or coyote hunters.
Post by: Bob33 on June 08, 2014, 07:07:01 AM
Wow.
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2014, 07:28:10 AM
But if officers are really writing citations to coyote hunters that are otherwise following rules and ethics, then the wastage laws need to be revised. Until the law is changed I would think that head of wdfw enforcement could ask that his guys not write up crow hunters or coyote hunters.As state laws are written there is no separation between predators and non-predators, or highly sought after fish and those fish that nobody cares about. As an example, a guy who takes 2 times his daily limit of salmon over his daily limit will face the same penalties as the guy who took 2 times of WDFW trout over his daily limit, or 2 times of bass over his daily limit. It's simply an overlimit of fish is an overlimit of fish, or wastage of wildlife is wastage of wildlife doesn't matter what type of animal it is.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 08, 2014, 07:36:14 AM
For either scenario the proper citation would be for trespassing, in my opinion, even though you may not have actually set foot on the private property. Either that or they could cite you for negligently shooting from the road. Whether it was truly negligent would be up to the judge.
Tresspassing really doesn't fit. Negligently shooting from the road wouldn't fit either since the fenceline is a good 20 feet from the pavement. The only one that really seems acceptable in my mind is littering. (The shooter would be littering his bullet and the animal he left there.) Wastage apparently fits but just isn't logical since almost no one eats coyotes..........
I'd be interested to know if the citation style in Adams and grant counties were for instances like this where the shooter was not showing respect toward the landowner?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
If anyone shot something, ANYTHING on my property without permission, they are trespassing and I will put as much anergy/effort as I can in prosecuting them to the fullest extent. Plus it's just a dumba*** thing to do. :twocents: I don't care whether they set a foot on my property or not.
Being that this is the point of the whole thread, absolutely agreed. :yeah:
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2014, 07:59:32 AM
Quote
Is it legal to shoot a coyote in a farmer's field even if you don't have permission? I saw a coyote out in a freshly gut grass field yesterday. Thought about turning around and shooting from the county road right-of-way but finally decided it may not be a good idea.
Ethically it may not be good to drop a yote and leave him lay out in a field for the land owner to deal with, but I wonder if any laws would be broken by shooting a coyote in a field where you do not have permission?
I never would have thought that wastage would be what they would pinch a guy with. Sounds like bigtex doesn't think trespassing would fit. I think in Montana this with scenario they would be able stick the guy with tresspassing and shooting from a road; I would hope that wastage would not be among the charges there.
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2014, 08:07:14 AM
Sounds like bigtex doesn't think trespassing would fit. I think in Montana this with scenario they would be able stick the guy with tresspassing and shooting from a road; I would hope that wastage would not be among the charges there.I never said trespassing wouldn't fit, I said it would be an interesting case for the prosecutor to prove. I could somehow see them saying that the bullet entering the property was somehow connected to the individual, and as a result the individual trespassed. Now obviously this trespass case would take a little bit more effort then simply finding someone on another's land. Also need to remember that trespass cases go to the bottom of the pile when it comes to prosecutors and what they deem as important.
Post by: Wazukie on June 08, 2014, 08:08:45 AM
Shooting the coyote and "leaving it lay" would actually fall under wastage and is a hunting/wildlife offense. As far as trespassing goes, it would definitely be an interesting one for the prosecutor. But certainly a wastage charge would apply, you can't let ANYTHING waste, doesn't matter if it's a buck or a coyote.
Just wondering what the RCW or code that would be violated is?
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2014, 08:10:43 AM
Been mentioned before. RCW 77.15.160(2)(c) which is an infraction (fine only, no possible jail time, simply a citation)Shooting the coyote and "leaving it lay" would actually fall under wastage and is a hunting/wildlife offense. As far as trespassing goes, it would definitely be an interesting one for the prosecutor. But certainly a wastage charge would apply, you can't let ANYTHING waste, doesn't matter if it's a buck or a coyote.Just wondering what the RCW or code that would be violated is?
Post by: Wazukie on June 08, 2014, 08:16:25 AM
But leaving it lay really isn't waste because it feeding the ecosystem :chuckle: (sarcasm)
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2014, 08:20:31 AM
But leaving it lay really isn't waste because it feeding the ecosystem :chuckle: (sarcasm)And realistically if we wanted to go with that then we may as well eliminate wastage laws. I mean lets say I don't like deer backstrap, why can't I leave backstraps to waste in the field, I mean some bird, or predator will eat it right? So it's not really going to waste :o Or is it simply okay to let predators go to waste in a field, but not the animals we like? And that's why WA law doesn't seperate between wasting species, wasting an animal is wasting an animal. The penalties are different for wasting a deer and a coyote, but it's still illegal to do either.
Post by: Wazukie on June 08, 2014, 08:34:15 AM
Post by: stevemiller on June 08, 2014, 10:47:45 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 08, 2014, 11:11:15 AM
:dunno: I just looked at rcw 77.15.170 and it doesnt seem to make this a wasting offense in any way.Wildlife Needs to be worth $250. or be considered big game. A coyote in neither. :twocents:
If you look at RCW 77.15.160 it covers wildlife under $250.00 and is an infraction as bigtex said in one of his earlier posts.
I thought as you did, unless a coyote's...uhmmm...is gold-plated, no way would it even be close to $250.00.
Read down under Hunting Infractions, section 2 c:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160)
Post by: bobcat on June 08, 2014, 11:13:47 AM
Post by: stevemiller on June 08, 2014, 11:16:00 AM
Where do you see anything that states UNDER $250.?:dunno: I just looked at rcw 77.15.170 and it doesnt seem to make this a wasting offense in any way.Wildlife Needs to be worth $250. or be considered big game. A coyote in neither. :twocents:
If you look at RCW 77.15.160 it covers wildlife under $250.00 and is an infraction as bigtex said in one of his earlier posts.
I thought as you did, unless a coyote's...uhmmm...is gold-plated, no way would it even be close to $250.00.
Read down under Hunting Infractions, section 2 c:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160)
Post by: stevemiller on June 08, 2014, 11:17:17 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 08, 2014, 11:18:44 AM
(2) Hunting infractions:
(a) Eggs or nests: Maliciously, and without permit authorization, destroying, taking, or harming the eggs or active nests of a wild bird not classified as endangered or protected. For purposes of this subsection, "active nests" means nests that contain eggs or fledglings.
(b) Unclassified wildlife: Taking unclassified wildlife in violation of any department rule by killing, hunting, taking, holding, possessing, or maliciously injuring or harming wildlife that is not classified as big game, game animals, game birds, protected wildlife, or endangered wildlife.
(c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 08, 2014, 11:19:53 AM
OR wildlife having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more,Thats word for word right here.
You are quoting the wrong RCW.
Post by: stevemiller on June 08, 2014, 12:04:20 PM
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2014, 03:03:37 PM
BTW - I can't find it in the regs anymore, but didn't it used to say that cougar meat could be thrown out?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on June 08, 2014, 03:26:20 PM
They really need to change the wording in the regs if officers are going to be writing hunters up for leaving coyotes or crows or nutria or whatever. Page 81 says: "Waste of Wildlife: You may NOT allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted." Seems inconsistent for the regs to say "game" animal or "game" bird but the RCW simply says wildlife.Inconsistent, but of no consequence in this instance. A coyote is both wildlife and a game animal.
BTW - I can't find it in the regs anymore, but didn't it used to say that cougar meat could be thrown out?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2014, 03:44:53 PM
The wdfw publication on coyotes says differently: http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/coyotes.htmlThey really need to change the wording in the regs if officers are going to be writing hunters up for leaving coyotes or crows or nutria or whatever. Page 81 says: "Waste of Wildlife: You may NOT allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted." Seems inconsistent for the regs to say "game" animal or "game" bird but the RCW simply says wildlife.Inconsistent, but of no consequence in this instance. A coyote is both wildlife and a game animal.
BTW - I can't find it in the regs anymore, but didn't it used to say that cougar meat could be thrown out?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Legal Status
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife does not classify coyotes as game animals, but a state license is required to hunt or trap them (RCW 77.32.010). The owner, the owner's immediate family, employee, or a tenant of real property may kill or trap a coyote on that property if it is damaging crops or domestic animals (RCW 77.36.030). A license is not required in such cases. Check with your county and/or local jurisdiction for local restrictions. Except for bona fide public or private zoological parks, persons and entities are prohibited from importing a coyote into Washington State without a permit from the Department of Agriculture and written permission from the Department of Health. Persons and entities are also prohibited from acquiring, selling, bartering, exchanging, giving, purchasing, or trapping a coyote for a pet or export (WAC 246-100-191)."
Another inconsistency? ???
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: aaronoto on June 08, 2014, 04:21:21 PM
The individuals bigtex referred to may have only been cited for it because they were doing everything else legally, but where in general idiots with the enforcement officer. Or, going back to the OP's question - maybe they were cited because they shot it from a right of way, while the coyote was on private property, didn't retrieve it so no trespassing - so the only thing left for an officer to do was to cite them for reckless waste since they didn't technically break any other laws, but the officer clearly feels (as do most in this thread) that the act was wrong.
As hunters we need to use good judgment and common sense. Let's say the state put in an exclusion for coyotes from the reckless waste law and some idiot decided it would be cool to shoot a pile of coyotes on public property and leave a half dozen or so in a pile at the trailhead for all to see. That guy all of a sudden has broken no laws but clearly has crossed the line ethically as a hunter. Sometimes a little gray area for officer discretion is a good thing to have…
Post by: Bob33 on June 08, 2014, 04:38:45 PM
It seems to be. RCW 77.08.010 defines a game animal as "wild animals that shall not be hunted except as authorized by the commission." Since a hunting license is required to hunt a coyote, it appears that the hunting is authorized by the commission.The wdfw publication on coyotes says differently: http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/coyotes.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/coyotes.html)They really need to change the wording in the regs if officers are going to be writing hunters up for leaving coyotes or crows or nutria or whatever. Page 81 says: "Waste of Wildlife: You may NOT allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted." Seems inconsistent for the regs to say "game" animal or "game" bird but the RCW simply says wildlife.Inconsistent, but of no consequence in this instance. A coyote is both wildlife and a game animal.
BTW - I can't find it in the regs anymore, but didn't it used to say that cougar meat could be thrown out?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Legal Status
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife does not classify coyotes as game animals, but a state license is required to hunt or trap them (RCW 77.32.010). The owner, the owner's immediate family, employee, or a tenant of real property may kill or trap a coyote on that property if it is damaging crops or domestic animals (RCW 77.36.030). A license is not required in such cases. Check with your county and/or local jurisdiction for local restrictions. Except for bona fide public or private zoological parks, persons and entities are prohibited from importing a coyote into Washington State without a permit from the Department of Agriculture and written permission from the Department of Health. Persons and entities are also prohibited from acquiring, selling, bartering, exchanging, giving, purchasing, or trapping a coyote for a pet or export (WAC 246-100-191)."
Another inconsistency? ???
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.08.010 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.08.010)
They're listed in WAC 232-28-342, which is titled "Small game and other wildlife seasons and regulations".
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2014, 04:39:31 PM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2014, 04:54:05 PM
They're listed in WAC 232-28-342, which is titled "Small game and other wildlife seasons and regulations".
Makes me wonder if they are "other wildlife". Afterall wdfw does state on their website that coyotes are not classified as game. I think that is what most of us believe, and why most of us are under the impression that we can waste a coyote.
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2014, 06:01:35 PM
What is the state's definition of "wastage?" I don't see anything in the regs or the RCW that explicitly states that waste = not eating but a lot of people are drawing that conclusion. As we've learned in this thread, reckless waste can include shooting a coyote and leaving it lay - that does not mean it's illegal to kill coyotes, it just means technically I can't shoot it and leave it lay… and that's IF an officer chooses to cite me with it depending on the totality of the circumstances.Aaron brings up good points, especially in his final paragraph. A lot of coyote hunters do "let it lay" and quite honestly I have seen some areas where hunters have done so and my blood boils. I have seen hunters shoot a coyote and move on, just leave it in an open field for anybody to come by and see, how does that look for hunters? These individuals didn't try and throw it in the brush to try and hide it or anything, just completely obvious in a field, and I have seen that many times. To me that shows disrespect to the land owner/manager as well as anybody else who will be using that land.
The individuals bigtex referred to may have only been cited for it because they were doing everything else legally, but where in general idiots with the enforcement officer. Or, going back to the OP's question - maybe they were cited because they shot it from a right of way, while the coyote was on private property, didn't retrieve it so no trespassing - so the only thing left for an officer to do was to cite them for reckless waste since they didn't technically break any other laws, but the officer clearly feels (as do most in this thread) that the act was wrong.
As hunters we need to use good judgment and common sense. Let's say the state put in an exclusion for coyotes from the reckless waste law and some idiot decided it would be cool to shoot a pile of coyotes on public property and leave a half dozen or so in a pile at the trailhead for all to see. That guy all of a sudden has broken no laws but clearly has crossed the line ethically as a hunter. Sometimes a little gray area for officer discretion is a good thing to have…
Aaron to answer your question look back at previous posts. There is no definition in WA for what is wasting an animal/fish and what isn't. Realistically it is up to the officer and finally a judge.
Post by: Bob33 on June 08, 2014, 06:08:28 PM
It seems to me that leaving something in plain view is a completely different concept that wastage. Big game hunters leave gut piles in the middle of a field. That can be just as offensive but it's not wastage. Conversely, hiding a dead deer in the bushes out of the public's view with the head cut off and the entire carcass left is clearly wastage.What is the state's definition of "wastage?" I don't see anything in the regs or the RCW that explicitly states that waste = not eating but a lot of people are drawing that conclusion. As we've learned in this thread, reckless waste can include shooting a coyote and leaving it lay - that does not mean it's illegal to kill coyotes, it just means technically I can't shoot it and leave it lay… and that's IF an officer chooses to cite me with it depending on the totality of the circumstances.Aaron brings up good points, especially in his final paragraph. A lot of coyote hunters do "let it lay" and quite honestly I have seen some areas where hunters have done so and my blood boils. I have seen hunters shoot a coyote and move on, just leave it in an open field for anybody to come by and see, how does that look for hunters? These individuals didn't try and throw it in the brush to try and hide it or anything, just completely obvious in a field, and I have seen that many times. To me that shows disrespect to the land owner/manager as well as anybody else who will be using that land.
The individuals bigtex referred to may have only been cited for it because they were doing everything else legally, but where in general idiots with the enforcement officer. Or, going back to the OP's question - maybe they were cited because they shot it from a right of way, while the coyote was on private property, didn't retrieve it so no trespassing - so the only thing left for an officer to do was to cite them for reckless waste since they didn't technically break any other laws, but the officer clearly feels (as do most in this thread) that the act was wrong.
As hunters we need to use good judgment and common sense. Let's say the state put in an exclusion for coyotes from the reckless waste law and some idiot decided it would be cool to shoot a pile of coyotes on public property and leave a half dozen or so in a pile at the trailhead for all to see. That guy all of a sudden has broken no laws but clearly has crossed the line ethically as a hunter. Sometimes a little gray area for officer discretion is a good thing to have…
Aaron to answer your question look back at previous posts. There is no definition in WA for what is wasting an animal/fish and what isn't. Realistically it is up to the officer and finally a judge.
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2014, 06:47:42 PM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: ghosthunter on June 08, 2014, 06:58:04 PM
That would have been a good response.
I could not believe I was being issued a ticket. I will not hunt out there again.
Fir Island has had ton of problems. They are on high alert out there.
I just stay away.
They have some serious fines and rules out there. :sry:
Off topic.
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2014, 07:16:09 PM
This is an example of why we need laws spelled out. It seems like an ethical issue. Some people see no problem leaving a coyote where it lays and apparently others have issues. The regs say game animals cannot be wasted but are confusing as to whether a coyote would be classified as a game animal; (I believe most of us hunters believe they are not game animals). If wdfw feels otherwise they should let us know before we have an encounter with a warden in the field who feels differently. Then apparently the RCW conflicts with the regs..........This all gets confusing for people.
The issue here is the regs are simply an informative and in plain english (sometimes) for what the actual statute says, if you want the true black and white answer you need to look at WACs and RCWs. There is no statute that says only game animals can't be wasted. The wastage statutes simply say wildlife (along with fish, etc). WDFW has then published the regs which say "game animal" yet there is no legal backing to only say "game animal." If you were to go per the statute in the regs it should say wildlife, and I believe it should be changed.
Post by: stevemiller on June 08, 2014, 07:16:34 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2014, 07:22:36 PM
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2014, 07:28:42 PM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Lucky1 on June 08, 2014, 08:09:59 PM
I don't need anymore pelts, so I am not sure what I am going to do with the next one.
We have too many laws in my opinion. They are confusing and some of them conflict with each other. You almost need to consult an attorney before you go hunting or fishing. God help you if you make an enemy of someone who works in government. They can always find something you are doing wrong, or accuse you and make you get a lawyer to prove your innocence. :twocents:
Post by: HuntandFish on June 08, 2014, 08:44:57 PM
Lets say you are in a GMU where it is legal to hunt Deer and or Elk. The adjacent GMU is closed to hunting Deer and or Elk. You cannot be in one GMU and shoot into another GMU that is closed. Same applies to private property from public land.Those are different issues. In the first instance, the individual is hunting illegally by hunting where a season is not open. In the second instance, he is hunting a legal specie during a legal season. The issue is trespass, not illegal hunting.
I believe the correct way to state this is, you are standing in a closed gmu (that is state land so shooting is legal) and shot a legal animal with legal equipment and license in an open gmu. Than this is a good analogy, and I also think this is a good point and might have a decent chance of standing up in court.
What say you BigTex? Hunting on private property without permission?
Regards,
H&F
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2014, 01:27:20 PM
_________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Coyote hunting and wastage of wildlife
From: Curly
First of all, I couldn't get the help section at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/help/ (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/help/) to work for me. There seems to be something wrong with the site.
My question has to do with hunting of coyotes. The hunting regulations (page 81) No. 2, says: Waste of Wildlife: "You may not allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted."
My question is this: is a coyote a game animal and if I shoot one can I just leave it where I shoot it?
(Seems like the RCW dealing with this issue doesn't make the distinction for "game" animals, I believe it just says "wildlife". So, I'm a little confused.
Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the reply:
Dear Curly,
Thank you for contacting the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
In order to hunt in Washington State a valid small or big game license is required regardless if it is a game animal or unclassified wildlife. Coyote are an unclassified animal and are not regulated by the Department. Since they are unclassified any weapon may be used to hunt them. Since they are unclassified, the regulation you were mentioning does not apply to coyote.
We recommend you check with the county sheriff for local ordinances that may preclude you from hunting in the area.
If you have more questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us again.
Sincerely,
Wildlife Program Customer Service
Post by: h20hunter on June 09, 2014, 01:30:21 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 01:35:26 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2014, 01:36:49 PM
So there it is....blast 'em....throw them in the brush and leave 'em be.Or dump it in your garbage can so a Grant County officer doesn't cite you for wasting it. :bash:
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2014, 01:37:00 PM
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2014, 01:41:37 PM
just a side note......that help link at wdfw that I mentioned in my email to wdfw does appear to be working now. It is helpful.
For instance, click on that link and enter "wastage" into the search function and a few topics come up. One of them is:
Quote
What is the definition of "wastage," and when does it apply?
You may not allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted.
You must make a reasonable attempt to remove and use all edible meat from the carcass of harvested game fish, game birds, and game animals.
I'll have to take a look at that RCW that Bigtex quoted before where he mentions "wildlife", but it seems like wdfw is saying coyotes are unclassified so that RCW does not apply. :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2014, 01:50:48 PM
What he said is that the RCWs and WACs are the only authoritative source of what is, and what is not legal. The RCW mentions "wildlife", and coyotes are wildlife.just a side note......that help link at wdfw that I mentioned in my email to wdfw does appear to be working now. It is helpful.
For instance, click on that link and enter "wastage" into the search function and a few topics come up. One of them is:QuoteWhat is the definition of "wastage," and when does it apply?
You may not allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted.
You must make a reasonable attempt to remove and use all edible meat from the carcass of harvested game fish, game birds, and game animals.
I'll have to take a look at that RCW that Bigtex quoted before where he mentions "wildlife", but it seems like wdfw is saying coyotes are unclassified so that RCW does not apply. :dunno:
(c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.
Also, the adverb "recklessly" is only included in the big game RCW; it is not included in the RCW pertaining to coyotes.
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2014, 01:55:43 PM
I still can't believe that wdfw is fine with officers writing for wastage on coyotes (or nutria) as was stated in another thread. :o
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2014, 02:03:37 PM
So coyotes are defined as wildlife even though they are unclassified? It is confusing. And it sure seems like the RCW's and WAC's need changed to address the issue..........not change the regs to match the RCW. Even the person answering questions at the help line says coyotes are unclassified so they don't fall under that RCW......so it seems like the intent for the law is what is written in the regs and that is for "game" animals.Yes.
I still can't believe that wdfw is fine with officers writing for wastage on coyotes (or nutria) as was stated in another thread. :o
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.08.010 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.08.010)
(75) "Wildlife" means all species of the animal kingdom whose members exist in Washington in a wild state. This includes but is not limited to mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. The term "wildlife" does not include feral domestic mammals, old world rats and mice of the family Muridae of the order Rodentia, or those fish, shellfish, and marine invertebrates classified as food fish or shellfish by the director. The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife members.
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2014, 02:31:16 PM
Doesn't the legislature have more important things to deal with than changing wildlife wastage laws? I never even would have thought it to be an issue except that it was stated in this thread about some officers in Grant and Adams counties writing citations to coyote hunters......
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2014, 02:39:10 PM
I assume it is rather difficult to get WAC's and RCW's changed. Wouldn't it be easier for the WDFW enforcement chief to let all his officers know that he doesn't want any of his officers writing someone up for wasting wildlife if they shoot a coyote and don't eat the meat?What if the Chief supports it? Some of those who have posted on here do.
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2014, 02:52:34 PM
I assume it is rather difficult to get WAC's and RCW's changed. Wouldn't it be easier for the WDFW enforcement chief to let all his officers know that he doesn't want any of his officers writing someone up for wasting wildlife if they shoot a coyote and don't eat the meat?What if the Chief supports it? Some of those who have posted on here do.
Just seems like an ethical issue to me. Some people see no problem leaving a coyote, some people do see a problem. I guess there is also the issue as to whether a coyote is left out in the open for everyone to see. But, to me there needs to be more definitive wording on what constitutes wastage. I mean, do they expect you to eat it for it to not be considered waste?
What if Bigtex is the Chief? Then that is scary because he sees no problem with his guys writing coyote hunters up for wastage. I'd like to know what circumstance the officer is writing for? The case this thread started out, the coyote would not have been visible to anyone except maybe if the farmer was to walk out through the field he may find it.
Bigtex was on another thread about Nutria telling someone that he shouldn't shoot nutria because he could get charged with waste of wildlife.
I do like the info Bigtex gives on this site; he is valuable. But he is contradicting what WDFW wildlife services is telling and contradicting what I bet 98% of hunters think in regards to waste of wildlife (which is what the regs say about "game").
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2014, 02:54:23 PM
:sry: for dragging this one out. It started out as a question where I knew the situation was an unethical one with some gray areas in there as far as what an officer might cite a guy for, but it ended up with an answer I no way could have predicted about being cited for wastage.
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2014, 03:03:34 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 03:05:43 PM
Post by: Curly on June 09, 2014, 03:12:43 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2014, 03:21:24 PM
I see the "Roadkill Cafe Cookbook" experiencing a surge in Washington state sales.
Post by: stevemiller on June 09, 2014, 03:23:33 PM
Post by: Buckmark on June 09, 2014, 03:47:50 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 09, 2014, 03:54:44 PM
I don't leave my coyotes lay...I make a big pile of them so the ravens and eagles have an easy spot to get their necessary energy during the winter months :chuckle:
But this discussion of the animal kingdom.... wow. Makes me think of all the critters I shoot to let lay. Rock chucks, pigeons, starlings or even mice?
I will say that in Alaska, you are not to waste ANYTHING! If you shoot a rock chuck, you better plan on skinning or eating it. Their waste laws are crystal clear. (from what I understand)
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2014, 04:02:08 PM
"The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife members."
If you shoot a cow elk in December, a fetus would be considered wildlife by this definition. Better not waste it!
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2014, 08:06:18 PM
I assume it is rather difficult to get WAC's and RCW's changed. Wouldn't it be easier for the WDFW enforcement chief to let all his officers know that he doesn't want any of his officers writing someone up for wasting wildlife if they shoot a coyote and don't eat the meat? (At least that seems like a solution until some point when the RCW's and WAC's can be revised.)
Doesn't the legislature have more important things to deal with than changing wildlife wastage laws? I never even would have thought it to be an issue except that it was stated in this thread about some officers in Grant and Adams counties writing citations to coyote hunters......
The easiest thing to get changes is the WAC because WAC's are changed by the agency boards/commissions. So all WDFW would have to do is say change the WAC, they give the commission a proposal, commission votes and approves it.
The RCW has to change by the legislature. Recently, WDFW LE has had a pretty run on changing RCWs on the violation/penalty side, they had two big overhauls in 2012 and 2014.
Now in order for the wastage law to change the change would need to come in the RCW, so thus the legislature. The RCW is the law that says "wildlife" so it would require the legislature to change that law to game animals, etc.
I am not contradicting what WDFW is saying. WDFW is basically contradicting what the law says, the state law says you can't waste wildlife, read the law yourself. Coyotes and all other animals are considered "wildlife" per state law.Just seems like an ethical issue to me. Some people see no problem leaving a coyote, some people do see a problem. I guess there is also the issue as to whether a coyote is left out in the open for everyone to see. But, to me there needs to be more definitive wording on what constitutes wastage. I mean, do they expect you to eat it for it to not be considered waste?I assume it is rather difficult to get WAC's and RCW's changed. Wouldn't it be easier for the WDFW enforcement chief to let all his officers know that he doesn't want any of his officers writing someone up for wasting wildlife if they shoot a coyote and don't eat the meat?What if the Chief supports it? Some of those who have posted on here do.
What if Bigtex is the Chief? Then that is scary because he sees no problem with his guys writing coyote hunters up for wastage. I'd like to know what circumstance the officer is writing for? The case this thread started out, the coyote would not have been visible to anyone except maybe if the farmer was to walk out through the field he may find it.
Bigtex was on another thread about Nutria telling someone that he shouldn't shoot nutria because he could get charged with waste of wildlife.
I do like the info Bigtex gives on this site; he is valuable. But he is contradicting what WDFW wildlife services is telling and contradicting what I bet 98% of hunters think in regards to waste of wildlife (which is what the regs say about "game").
As far as me being Chief. I have no problem with officers enforcing the laws that are on the books, are there laws they should concentrate their time on compaired to others, certainly. You can ask any LEO out there and they will tell you a handful of laws that they don't think should exist, yet they still do enforce. A large amount of WDFW Officers, especially the old timers don't think bear baiting should be illegal, yet they are out making baiting cases. I personally have a list of laws across the natural resource spectrum that I would abolish or amend, however until that day comes I must still enforce it. I am not saying officers should go looking for hunters carrying flashlights at night, dumping nutria, or leaving a coyote lay, but if they stumble across it, then sure they can do their job.
Post by: HawkCreek on June 09, 2014, 10:38:19 PM
I assume it is rather difficult to get WAC's and RCW's changed. Wouldn't it be easier for the WDFW enforcement chief to let all his officers know that he doesn't want any of his officers writing someone up for wasting wildlife if they shoot a coyote and don't eat the meat?What if the Chief supports it? Some of those who have posted on here do.
Bigtex was on another thread about Nutria telling someone that he shouldn't shoot nutria because he could get charged with waste of wildlife.
That was my thread. He never said I couldn't kill a nutria he said it wasn't legal to leave it lay. I was reading an outdated RCW (not that it matters since its come to light that wildlife and game are the same things on the rule books) that said over $250 or a game animal.
Yes I still thinks its a stupid law that I could be cited for if I killed an invasive species (called so by the very state that would cite me) but I'm not so old I can't learn a new trick. So I just pick it up and dump it in the trash, apparently that's enough. Whatever, it's not the first time I've played the games until things changed.
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 10:45:39 PM
Quote
Yes I still thinks its a stupid law that I could be cited for if I killed an invasive species (called so by the very state that would cite me) but I'm not so old I can't learn a new trick. So I just pick it up and dump it in the trash, apparently that's enough. Whatever, it's not the first time I've played the games until things changed.
Yes, it's an extremely stupid law. Even more stupid is the fact that the WDFW might actually enforce it, when it's an invasive species that the state would like to get rid of. :bash:
Now I have always tried to support the WDFW but with stuff like this, it's not so easy anymore. This is just ridiculous. It's beyond stupid :rolleyes:
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2014, 10:55:32 PM
Completely agree. Help us get rid of this invasive species.... but we will fine you if you let it go to waste....QuoteYes I still thinks its a stupid law that I could be cited for if I killed an invasive species (called so by the very state that would cite me) but I'm not so old I can't learn a new trick. So I just pick it up and dump it in the trash, apparently that's enough. Whatever, it's not the first time I've played the games until things changed.
Yes, it's an extremely stupid law. Even more stupid is the fact that the WDFW might actually enforce it, when it's an invasive species that the state would like to get rid of. :bash:
Now I have always tried to support the WDFW but with stuff like this, it's not so easy anymore. This is just ridiculous. It's beyond stupid :rolleyes:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2014, 10:55:54 PM
Like someone else said, don't move to Alaska then :chuckle:QuoteYes I still thinks its a stupid law that I could be cited for if I killed an invasive species (called so by the very state that would cite me) but I'm not so old I can't learn a new trick. So I just pick it up and dump it in the trash, apparently that's enough. Whatever, it's not the first time I've played the games until things changed.Now I have always tried to support the WDFW but with stuff like this, it's not so easy anymore. This is just ridiculous. It's beyond stupid :rolleyes:
But in reality, if WDFW asked the legislature to change "wildlife" to "game animal" to align it with the wording the pamphlet nobody would probably notice, because most hunters probably think that's the current law. However, such move would take legislative action. I wouldn't want to be the WDFW LE representative sitting in front of the House or Senate Natural Resource committee being asked why under current law it's illegal to waste any animal, but under a proposed bill it would be ok to waste anything else other than game animals. Think the PETA, bunny hugger type would be all over that?
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2014, 10:57:41 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2014, 10:59:15 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 11:00:33 PM
Like someone else said, don't move to Alaska then :chuckle:QuoteYes I still thinks its a stupid law that I could be cited for if I killed an invasive species (called so by the very state that would cite me) but I'm not so old I can't learn a new trick. So I just pick it up and dump it in the trash, apparently that's enough. Whatever, it's not the first time I've played the games until things changed.Now I have always tried to support the WDFW but with stuff like this, it's not so easy anymore. This is just ridiculous. It's beyond stupid :rolleyes:
But in reality, if WDFW asked the legislature to change "wildlife" to "game animal" to align it with the wording the pamphlet nobody would probably notice, because most hunters probably think that's the current law. However, such move would take legislative action. I wouldn't want to be the WDFW LE representative sitting in front of the House or Senate Natural Resource committee being asked why under current law it's illegal to waste any animal, but under a proposed bill it would be ok to waste anything else other than game animals. Think the PETA, bunny hugger type would be all over that?
I understand how it would look. That makes complete sense. Some things are better left unsaid. Sure. So then with it being simply a stupid technicality, even though the intent of the law was never meant to say that a person had to eat coyotes or nutria, or be cited with waste, why enforce the law? That's the issue. There is supposed to be such a thing as officer discretion. That's why we hopefully have "game wardens" who are pro-hunting. But if certain "game wardens" are citing people for wasting a coyote or a nutria, then to me these individuals must be anti-hunting. And that's a terrible thing to have any kind of an anti-hunting sentiment within the enforcement division of the WDFW.
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 11:11:25 PM
Better not dump anymore salt on slugs....
sent from my typewriter
:chuckle:
True statment.
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2014, 11:20:58 PM
Curly brought up the WDFW LE Chief telling his officers to not cite for a certain offense. One of the top things an LE administrator knows is not tell his officers to not enforce a law, why? Because at some point someone will unearth that statement and use it against the agency. Law enforcement agencies are getting FOIA'd all the time for such things, looking for "emphasis patrols" or quotas, decrease discretion, etc. I don't know how often PETA or similar groups submit a FOIA to WDFW but I would bet it's common. Suddenly one night on King5 you wil see "WA Fish and Wildlife allows Hunters to Shoot Coyotes & Waste Away" how terrible, blah blah, etc. The worst thing you can do is get some type of directive such as no enforcing X law in writing. And considering the current turmoil in WDFW, even if the Chief said it verbally, all it would take is a current or former employee to be like hey King5 check this out.I understand how it would look. That makes complete sense. Some things are better left unsaid. Sure. So then with it being simply a stupid technicality, even though the intent of the law was never meant to say that a person had to eat coyotes or nutria, or be cited with waste, why enforce the law? That's the issue. There is supposed to be such a thing as officer discretion. That's why we hopefully have "game wardens" who are pro-hunting. But if certain "game wardens" are citing people for wasting a coyote or a nutria, then to me these individuals must be anti-hunting. And that's a terrible thing to have any kind of an anti-hunting sentiment within the enforcement division of the WDFW.Like someone else said, don't move to Alaska then :chuckle:QuoteYes I still thinks its a stupid law that I could be cited for if I killed an invasive species (called so by the very state that would cite me) but I'm not so old I can't learn a new trick. So I just pick it up and dump it in the trash, apparently that's enough. Whatever, it's not the first time I've played the games until things changed.Now I have always tried to support the WDFW but with stuff like this, it's not so easy anymore. This is just ridiculous. It's beyond stupid :rolleyes:
But in reality, if WDFW asked the legislature to change "wildlife" to "game animal" to align it with the wording the pamphlet nobody would probably notice, because most hunters probably think that's the current law. However, such move would take legislative action. I wouldn't want to be the WDFW LE representative sitting in front of the House or Senate Natural Resource committee being asked why under current law it's illegal to waste any animal, but under a proposed bill it would be ok to waste anything else other than game animals. Think the PETA, bunny hugger type would be all over that?
The best way to fix this problem is to change the law, however that is easier said then done.
I never said that hundreds of people are being cited for this every year. I am sure people get warned all the time for it (officer discretion). However that being said, people are cited for it as well. Heck, prior to 2012 it was a misdemeanor (0-$1,000 and 90 days in jail) to waste wildlife with a value under $250, now its just an infraction (ticket)
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 11:26:11 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 11:28:05 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2014, 11:31:17 PM
One more quick question- would it be illegal to trap a mouse in my garage and "waste" it?Yes because they are not considered "wildlife."
"Wildlife" means all species of the animal kingdom whose members exist in Washington in a wild state. This includes but is not limited to mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. The term "wildlife" does not include feral domestic mammals, old world rats and mice of the family Muridae of the order Rodentia, or those fish, shellfish, and marine invertebrates classified as food fish or shellfish by the director. The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife members.
FYI, if you look at the Alaska hunting regs you will actually see the regulations for hunting/trapping mice :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2014, 11:35:06 PM
Okay, thanks for your perspective. That all makes sense, but I still think it's stupid. I guess the main problem in this state is the WDFW is forced to walk on eggshells around all the anti-hunting types that live here. What can we do, other than move to another state?Well I mean even if WDFW did say they wanted to change "wildife" to "game animals" for the wastage law it would still need legislative approval, and this would certainly be a touchy subject. So would WDFW be walking on eggshells at that point? I don't think so, I think it would show they had the balls to ask for it. If it got shot down then they can say it's the legislature's fault. I think the reason WDFW hasn't asked for the change is because they know it will get shot down, they don't want to be viewed as the wildlife agency who only cares about the deer, elk, etc. They would probably burn some bridges with such a proposal and you never know when WDFW may need to cross that bridge.
Post by: grundy53 on June 10, 2014, 04:56:08 AM
Okay, thanks for your perspective. That all makes sense, but I still think it's stupid. I guess the main problem in this state is the WDFW is forced to walk on eggshells around all the anti-hunting types that live here. What can we do, other than move to another state?Well I mean even if WDFW did say they wanted to change "wildife" to "game animals" for the wastage law it would still need legislative approval, and this would certainly be a touchy subject. So would WDFW be walking on eggshells at that point? I don't think so, I think it would show they had the balls to ask for it. If it got shot down then they can say it's the legislature's fault. I think the reason WDFW hasn't asked for the change is because they know it will get shot down, they don't want to be viewed as the wildlife agency who only cares about the deer, elk, etc. They would probably burn some bridges with such a proposal and you never know when WDFW may need to cross that bridge.
Meanwhile coyote hunters are left hanging in the wind.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: ICEMAN on June 10, 2014, 06:26:34 AM
I hope all those carp shooters collect and eat all of their carp...
sent from my typewriter
Or the tribes tossing salmon on the bank to rot in the sun...
Post by: Bob33 on June 10, 2014, 06:47:35 AM
Post by: HawkCreek on June 10, 2014, 06:56:26 AM
One more quick question- would it be illegal to trap a mouse in my garage and "waste" it?Yes because they are not considered "wildlife."
"Wildlife" means all species of the animal kingdom whose members exist in Washington in a wild state. This includes but is not limited to mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. The term "wildlife" does not include feral domestic mammals, old world rats and mice of the family Muridae of the order Rodentia, or those fish, shellfish, and marine invertebrates classified as food fish or shellfish by the director. The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife members.
FYI, if you look at the Alaska hunting regs you will actually see the regulations for hunting/trapping mice :dunno:
I thought nutria were an "invasive species" because they were leftovers from fur farms of long ago? This seems like legal "splitting hairs" to me. If they are invasive and not native how are they counted as wildlife? I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer.
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 09:29:38 AM
Officers in support of citing hunters for waste of coyotes leads me to sadly conclude that ucwarden is right.
:yeah:
It sounds to me that WDFW is too scared to fight for what is right. They are scared of PETA and HSUS and the like and wouldn't be interested in fighting for sportsmen because it is difficult. (Now, maybe they wouldn't even have to have a fight in changing the law if they didn't enforce it like that. 99.9% of hunters believe the law is for "game" animals like the regs say, so they shouldn't even be enforcing the letter of the law as written in the RCW.)
Take the wolf plan for instance; wdfw could have come out with a more realistic plan (and they could de-list coyotes now in the eastern third of the state) but it is easier to appease the wolf huggers than to fight for the sportsmen that they should be aligned with.
And take the cougar seasons and quotas. Those are probably set because they are afraid of fighting with the anti-hunting crowd.
They should not be enforcing laws like that wastage law. I still can't believe it was suggested to throw a yote in the garbage......to me, that is more of a waste then leaving it in the field.
The attitude I'm hearing is that it is ok for an officer to write someone up for anything that might fit and then let the court deal with it. I've heard the saying that "and the charge was upheld in court", as if that justified the citation. Well, I imagine most of the time a judge will side with the officer, and if that is how the law reads anyway.......how could the judge really side any other way? Plus, if I shoot a coyote in Grant County and get a citation because I left it lay there, then I don't want to have to take a trip back over there for a court case that I likely would lose anyway.
I guess i just wish we had officials in this state that did like Governor Otter in ID when he told his guys not to enforce laws against people shooting wolves. That is more extreme than an enforcement chief telling his guys not to enforce wastage laws on the likes of nutria, coyotes, moles, or whatever. Probably the only people that believe the wastage law is fine as written are animal rights fanatics.
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 09:30:34 AM
Post by: KimWar1911 on July 21, 2014, 12:34:06 PM
Post by: Curly on July 21, 2014, 12:46:45 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle:
:hello:
Post by: h20hunter on July 21, 2014, 12:49:22 PM
Post by: Curly on July 21, 2014, 12:50:56 PM
I still believe littering would fit better than trespassing for this type of case. :dunno:
Post by: Brad Harshman on July 21, 2014, 12:52:40 PM
Don't do it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: Stein on July 21, 2014, 01:01:56 PM
Removing all of the revisions gives you:
(c) Wasting wildlife: Taking or possessing wildlife classified as game birds and having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the game birds to be wasted.
And, from 160:
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.
Doesn't seem to cover coyotes, mice or slugs.
Post by: Curly on July 21, 2014, 01:32:14 PM
Looks like it was revised this year....
Removing all of the revisions gives you:
(c) Wasting wildlife: Taking or possessing wildlife classified as game birds and having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the game birds to be wasted.
And, from 160:
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.
Doesn't seem to cover coyotes, mice or slugs.
That is good news that they revised it. That isn't how it read back when this thread was being hashed out, was it?
(Now I won't have to throw the yotes in the garbage. My garbage man will be much happier now). :)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160)
Post by: Curly on July 21, 2014, 01:35:17 PM
RCW 77.15.160(2)(c)
The following acts are infractions and must be cited and punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW:
(2) Hunting infractions:
(c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.
Post by: Bob33 on July 21, 2014, 02:23:16 PM
Infractions (as amended by 2014 c 202). (2) Hunting infractions:
(c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.
Post by: Curly on July 21, 2014, 02:52:15 PM
What is the current law? Here is the law as amended by 204 c 48 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160):
(c) Wasting wildlife: ((
Post by: Bob33 on July 21, 2014, 03:35:16 PM
This is so confusing.It was amended twice in 2014. Scroll down to see the "Infractions (as amended by 2014 c 202.)"
What is the current law? Here is the law as amended by 204 c 48 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160):
(c) Wasting wildlife: ((Killing,)) Taking((,)) or possessing wildlife ((that is not)) classified as ((big))game birds and ((has)) having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the((wildlife)) game birds to be wasted.
"Reviser's note: RCW 77.15.160 was amended twice during the 2014 legislative session, each without reference to the other. For rule of construction concerning sections amended more than once during the same legislative session, see RCW 1.12.025."
Post by: pd on July 23, 2014, 11:25:40 AM
This is so confusing.It was amended twice in 2014. Scroll down to see the "Infractions (as amended by 2014 c 202.)"
What is the current law? Here is the law as amended by 204 c 48 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160):
(c) Wasting wildlife: ((Killing,)) Taking((,)) or possessing wildlife ((that is not)) classified as ((big))game birds and ((has)) having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the((wildlife)) game birds to be wasted.
"Reviser's note: RCW 77.15.160 was amended twice during the 2014 legislative session, each without reference to the other. For rule of construction concerning sections amended more than once during the same legislative session, see RCW 1.12.025."
Now I am confused. So exactly what is the law?
Post by: KimWar1911 on July 24, 2014, 02:37:48 AM
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 06:54:00 AM
Not sure why my post came up 8 times.It just has to do with the running slow and acting funny.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 24, 2014, 07:46:35 AM
If I saw someone shooting ANYTHING on our property, I would do everything possible to make sure he suffered the consequences. If there isn't a hunting law, surely the police will get him for littering as he just left waste on my property.
Oh, and we do allow hunting on our property for the most part - we just ask that people ask permission LIKE YOU SHOULD.
Curtis
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 08:18:51 AM
Why on earth would you shoot something just to leave it? That makes no sense to me.
Because it is a damned coyote. They are fawn eaters. Their population has increased and need knocked down a bit. The only good coyote is a dead coyote. Shoot a yote, save a fawn. :tup:
When wolves become legal in this state I'll shoot them and leave them too, except their fur will probably be worth some money.
Post by: Gringo31 on July 24, 2014, 10:44:53 AM
Quote
Why on earth would you shoot something just to leave it?
People doing anything on private property without permission need dealt with. But...to answer your question. Many folks see a coyote the same as a pigeon, rat, mouse, starling etc and treat them the same way.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 24, 2014, 10:48:02 AM
Curtis
Post by: h20hunter on July 24, 2014, 10:50:08 AM
What is it these days with people assuming they know what is right/wrong for the next person. Legal is legal.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 24, 2014, 10:52:13 AM
Yep - that's my opinion.
Curtis
Post by: snowpack on July 24, 2014, 10:56:17 AM
Post by: h20hunter on July 24, 2014, 10:56:43 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on July 24, 2014, 11:04:02 AM
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 11:16:24 AM
It is not legal to shoot onto private property without permission, regardless if you haven't entered the private land. This would likely lead you to an Unlawful discharge of a firearm (charge) and possible malicious mischief of striking the private property and trespassing for shooting onto someone else's property w/o permission RCW 9. Also as other threads point out it would be a waste of game violation if you kill it and leave it.
I think it is this thread that points out the waste of wildlife law (not game though since a coyote is unclassified wildlife). :twocents:
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 11:20:03 AM
Ah, I'm sorry. I was under the impression you were speaking in general about leaving a yote for the birds. I agree 100% regarding private property. My mistake.
I thought he was talking speaking in general about leaving a yote...... :dunno:
And, just to be clear, I also agree that it isn't a good idea to shoot without permission........that is why I didn't. I just wanted to find out where in the law it would not be legal to shoot the yote..........I that part has been answered as well. :twocents:
Post by: Hi-Liter on July 24, 2014, 11:45:49 AM
It is not legal to shoot onto private property without permission, regardless if you haven't entered the private land. This would likely lead you to an Unlawful discharge of a firearm (charge) and possible malicious mischief of striking the private property and trespassing for shooting onto someone else's property w/o permission RCW 9. Also as other threads point out it would be a waste of game violation if you kill it and leave it.
I think it is this thread that points out the waste of wildlife law (not game though since a coyote is unclassified wildlife). :twocents:
It also depends on the what mood the prosecutor is in to charge you with waste of game violation if it reckless probably, if you shoot more than one and leave it probably doesn't matter what species but the conduct that it was committed in. It just depends
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 12:02:40 PM
This is so confusing.It was amended twice in 2014. Scroll down to see the "Infractions (as amended by 2014 c 202.)"
What is the current law? Here is the law as amended by 204 c 48 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.160):
(c) Wasting wildlife: ((Killing,)) Taking((,)) or possessing wildlife ((that is not)) classified as ((big))game birds and ((has)) having a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and recklessly allowing the((wildlife)) game birds to be wasted.
"Reviser's note: RCW 77.15.160 was amended twice during the 2014 legislative session, each without reference to the other. For rule of construction concerning sections amended more than once during the same legislative session, see RCW 1.12.025."
Now I am confused. So exactly what is the law?
So, Bob33 or anybody else that knows this stuff, is the latest revision 2014 C 202 ?
Shown here: "(c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted."
If so, then it is against the law to waste a coyote, crow, nutria, or mole, or whatever.......basically any living thing. (But if you bring it home and throw it in the garbage you can avoid getting caught). ;)
Post by: huntingfool7 on July 24, 2014, 01:27:23 PM
Montana actually seems to be much more strict with some of their hunting laws. In this scenario, it would be illegal in Montana because shooting from roads is illegal, in Washington it's only illegal if done negligently.I think you could be cited for negligently shooting from the road.
In this case, my guess is the bullet would be cited for trespassing. :chuckle:
Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.
Post by: bobcat on July 24, 2014, 01:29:07 PM
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 02:03:29 PM
Huntingfool7- I think you're right!
Except that in the location in question, the shot would have happened from within the road R/W but well off the maintained portion of the roadway so that law wouldn't apply in this case. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on July 24, 2014, 02:07:38 PM
yote shishkabobs, dog pot pie, canine jerky, howling burgers, or growling backstraps! :yike: :chuckle:
Post by: huntingfool7 on July 24, 2014, 02:09:46 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on July 24, 2014, 02:17:01 PM
I'm trying to decide what sounds better?Hotdogs!!! :chuckle:
yote shishkabobs, dog pot pie, canine jerky, howling burgers, or growling backstraps! :yike: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on July 24, 2014, 02:22:28 PM
I'm trying to decide what sounds better?Hotdogs!!! :chuckle:
yote shishkabobs, dog pot pie, canine jerky, howling burgers, or growling backstraps! :yike: :chuckle:
Oh yeah, an old time favorite, hotdogs, now commonly made from coyote lips and anus rather than beef lips and anus. :EAT:
Another option might be "yodeling meatballs" :chuckle:
Post by: huntingfool7 on July 24, 2014, 02:25:13 PM
Can you back that up? Or is that your best guess? So are you leaning on the guys fence post when you take the shot? Do you know that fence post is the property line? From your description, it sounds like your feet might be trespassing in this particular case.Huntingfool7- I think you're right!
Except that in the location in question, the shot would have happened from within the road R/W but well off the maintained portion of the roadway so that law wouldn't apply in this case. :twocents:
Negligent discharge of a firearm, shooting from a roadway (negligently) or trespassing. Sounds like 2 out of 3 would apply in this case. I've said more than once on this forum that a guy should always fight a citation (mostly referring to traffic stuff). I don't see a reasonable argument for the Judge in this case.
I believe the glove fits!
Post by: huntingfool7 on July 24, 2014, 02:26:11 PM
Post by: Bob33 on July 24, 2014, 02:39:13 PM
http://www.dallastexaslaw.com/articles/NOTRESPS.pdf (http://www.dallastexaslaw.com/articles/NOTRESPS.pdf)
To be guilty of civil trespass, a person does not have to do any actual harm to the other's property, just interfering with the property is sufficient. Interfering can be entering onto the land, or causing something to enter onto the land, remaining on the land, or letting something remain on the land.
The most common type of trespassing is just to enter the property, such as walking on the land or hunting on the land. But you can be a trespasser without setting foot on the property. If you throw rocks at a house or a bullet goes across the land, you are letting something enter onto the land.
http://blog.lawinfo.com/2011/05/05/can-someone-trespass-on-your-property-if-they-never-touch-the-ground/ (http://blog.lawinfo.com/2011/05/05/can-someone-trespass-on-your-property-if-they-never-touch-the-ground/)
If someone breaks into your property, walks across your yard and steals your pink flamingo in front of your house, they’re at least guilty of trespass. But what about the air space around your property? There is an old Latin phrase, “cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum” which, loosely translated, means that a person who owns the soil owns it all the way to heaven. Basically, if you own the land, you own the air space above the land. For example, if someone is shooting at a duck, the duck flies over your land and the shooter pulls the trigger hitting the duck over a public lake, you can sue even though no bullet landed on your property. The theory behind this is that the shooter interfered with the “quiet undisturbed, peaceful enjoyment…” of your property.
Post by: Curly on July 24, 2014, 03:45:45 PM
And yes huntfool7, I can back that up. I never took the shot, but if I had I likely would have shot from the other side of the ditch and prior to the fenceline. I would likely have used some trees for a rest that were on the other side of the ditch. And yes, the fence is the R/W line as far as anyone would care. I don't think a survey needs to be done to decide this what if scenario. :) How can you say that from my description my feet would be trespassing? :dunno: :chuckle:
Quote
Can you back that up? Or is that your best guess? So are you leaning on the guys fence post when you take the shot? Do you know that fence post is the property line? From your description, it sounds like your feet might be trespassing in this particular case.
Negligent discharge of a firearm, shooting from a roadway (negligently) or trespassing. Sounds like 2 out of 3 would apply in this case. I've said more than once on this forum that a guy should always fight a citation (mostly referring to traffic stuff). I don't see a reasonable argument for the Judge in this case.
Post by: Bob33 on July 24, 2014, 04:32:12 PM
Now maybe this thread can get to 100 pages.
Post by: Curly on July 30, 2014, 12:38:47 PM
BIGFOOT.Thread killer! :)
Now maybe this thread can get to 100 pages.