Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2015, 10:21:33 PM
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1627.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1627.pdf)
Post by: 3Under on January 23, 2015, 10:51:33 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2015, 10:52:02 PM
If there is no additional penalty, how does this differ from basic trespassing?Exactly....
Post by: dreamunelk on January 24, 2015, 07:16:35 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 24, 2015, 07:44:02 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 24, 2015, 08:15:56 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 24, 2015, 09:16:13 AM
Unfortunately I have had arguments with trespassers that weren't "really trespassing" they were just on clearly posted private property(every 200 feet) to pick up shed elk antlers. They were on foot and said "if we would have driven our quad onto the property then we would have been trespassing" Trespassing is trespassing no matter if you are hunting elk or just shed hunting. It is dumb that we have to adjust the law to spell it out for some but that is what my experience has been.
Post by: Jingles on January 24, 2015, 09:30:21 AM
If you are on private property without the owners permission you are trespassing. End of story...,
Doesn't make a rats azz what your excuse is..... Shed hunting, retrieving game, enjoying nature, looking for lost dog.... Excuse's are like azzholes everybody has one and they all stink....
Post by: The scout on January 24, 2015, 09:42:48 AM
Post by: mfswallace on January 24, 2015, 10:18:08 AM
I had to vote yes on this one. As a small private land owner and love to hike around my 40 acres with my two young daughters looking for shed antlers and just overall enjoying the property. They are too small to go for all day hikes with me in the NF so I sometimes plant sheds for them to find on our property. Sometimes we have actually found naturally shed antlers on our property.
Unfortunately I have had arguments with trespassers that weren't "really trespassing" they were just on clearly posted private property(every 200 feet) to pick up shed elk antlers. They were on foot and said "if we would have driven our quad onto the property then we would have been trespassing" Trespassing is trespassing no matter if you are hunting elk or just shed hunting. It is dumb that we have to adjust the law to spell it out for some but that is what my experience has been.
Call Leo's if they need clarification
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2015, 09:16:06 PM
All about extraction of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Can't pull the money card on this one. You would face the same potential penalties under this offense as you would under a basic trespass charge.
Post by: Jingles on January 24, 2015, 09:25:15 PM
About the only thing this different then a basic trespass charge is that it's a fish and wildlife offense, so if you were convicted it would count as a conviction towards license suspension (2 or 3 convictions depending on the offense in a 10 year period.)All about extraction of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Can't pull the money card on this one. You would face the same potential penalties under this offense as you would under a basic trespass charge.
Still the same thing already have a law on the books for trespassing no need to be redundant with another trespassing law.... and as far as a license suspension do you really think a suspended license is going to stop someone that was breaking the law already? If you do you are probably one of the folks that believe Illegal immigrants are deserving of Amnesty even though they broke the law to get into the US.......
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 25, 2015, 06:07:30 AM
About the only thing this differs from a basic trespass charge is that it's a fish and wildlife offense, so if you were convicted it would count as a conviction towards license suspension (2 or 3 convictions depending on the offense in a 10 year period.)All about extraction of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Can't pull the money card on this one. You would face the same potential penalties under this offense as you would under a basic trespass charge.
But does it change which coffer the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ goes to, say DWF instead of the county or state??
Post by: Eli346 on January 25, 2015, 08:53:46 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2015, 09:09:42 AM
Nope...Only time WDFW gets fine money is for court ordered restitution or for mandatory poaching civil fines mainly of big game.About the only thing this differs from a basic trespass charge is that it's a fish and wildlife offense, so if you were convicted it would count as a conviction towards license suspension (2 or 3 convictions depending on the offense in a 10 year period.)But does it change which coffer the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ goes to, say DWF instead of the county or state??All about extraction of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Can't pull the money card on this one. You would face the same potential penalties under this offense as you would under a basic trespass charge.
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2015, 09:23:31 AM
Post by: Birdguy on January 25, 2015, 09:31:32 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 25, 2015, 10:02:33 AM
Someone needs to tell the legislators that there's free food, alcohol, and sex in Syria so they'll leave this state and quit trying to steal our money!:yeah: :chuckle: :mor:
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2015, 07:09:15 PM
So how do you determine if they are shed hunting? If they already have some I suppose but.... In the future the sheds would be inside the pack and they are just taking a walk...And then you would still charge them with trespass.
Post by: Firedogg on January 30, 2015, 01:33:26 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 30, 2015, 01:40:49 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 30, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
Do we really need more laws that say the same ole thing?
If you are on private property without the owners permission you are trespassing. End of story...,
Doesn't make a rats azz what your excuse is..... Shed hunting, retrieving game, enjoying nature, looking for lost dog.... Excuse's are like azzholes everybody has one and they all stink....
More laws that say the same thing means more charges for one action. It's all about revenue, baby.
Post by: Firedogg on January 30, 2015, 02:39:09 PM
"More laws that say the same thing means more charges for one action. It's all about revenue, baby."
No revenue at all, it's a misdemeanor crime and some prosecutors are not even enforcing it. Snohomish County is one I can think of that publicly stated so. So it's one more level of frustration for property owners and LEO knowing nothing will be done.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 30, 2015, 02:47:14 PM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on January 30, 2015, 02:57:18 PM
HB 1627 sponsored by Representative Schmick (R) would expand WA's hunting while trespassing law to include the activity of collecting wildlife parts (such as antlers) from private property. However, under the current law if you are convicted of hunting while trespassing you lose your hunting license for 2 years, under this bill you would NOT lose your license if you are convicted simply for collecting wildlife parts.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1627.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1627.pdf)
Not true. To lose your license while trespassing you have to had killed something. Just hunting while trespassing you do not lose your license.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 30, 2015, 03:06:32 PM
I agree it would be better if they actually enforced what was on the books but they find grey areas to get around it and not enforce it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 30, 2015, 03:29:57 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 30, 2015, 03:48:29 PM
I get it. They were trespassing on your place. They should've been charged with it. But, they weren't. How much more effective would the new law be if the LE and prosecutor respond the same way with that? I think what they're telling you is you aren't getting any help from LE on trespassing, regardless of the law. You may need to take it into your own hands. Sometimes the pins accidentally come out of all four tire valves at once. I think it's atmospheric or something. Stuff happens.I have heard of it happening with footballs, I guess the same thing could happen to tires. :chuckle:
And I am not sure what more would come of it with another law. Like someone else said probably just more frustration for the landowners when that doesn't get enforced either. Luckily karma has a way of working things out. I see that one of the guys that thinks that trespassing is okay came on here and complained about someone trespassing on his place, then it was a different story. Funny how that works.
Karma..
Post by: sakoshooter on January 30, 2015, 06:23:48 PM
Post by: buckfvr on January 31, 2015, 04:28:12 PM
All about extraction of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
:yeah: The creative minds of wdfw working on sources of revenue.............its all about revenue.
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2015, 08:14:55 PM
This was brought forward by a random Republican Representative NOT WDFW.All about extraction of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$:yeah: The creative minds of wdfw working on sources of revenue.............its all about revenue.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 01, 2015, 07:02:11 AM
Don't remember blaming DFW exclusively....... :chuckle:Someone needs to tell the legislators that there's free food, alcohol, and sex in Syria so they'll leave this state and quit trying to steal our money!:yeah: :chuckle: :mor:
Post by: floatinghat on February 02, 2015, 07:23:12 AM
If there is no additional penalty, how does this differ from basic trespassing?Exactly....
said it for me
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2015, 10:00:25 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 26, 2015, 03:20:31 PM
How about some good 'ol back alley justice, instead of another *censored* law to generate revenue for the state. God I hate this state....
Post by: bigtex on February 26, 2015, 04:13:43 PM
I thought the public had voting rights, WTF ! They come up will these stupid laws, no matter what side you're on and vote this crap in without public input.............As far as I know your in Joel Kretz's district, Kretz voted in favor of this bill.
How about some good 'ol back alley justice, instead of another *censored* law to generate revenue for the state. God I hate this state....
People can provide public input. There were no citizens that spoke in opposition to this bill at it's hearing.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 26, 2015, 04:19:26 PM
I thought the public had voting rights, WTF ! They come up will these stupid laws, no matter what side you're on and vote this crap in without public input.............As far as I know your in Joel Kretz's district, Kretz voted in favor of this bill.
How about some good 'ol back alley justice, instead of another *censored* law to generate revenue for the state. God I hate this state....
People can provide public input. There were no citizens that spoke in opposition to this bill at it's hearing.
I am in Kretzs district. I noticed his wolf bill got shot down without any vote too. I still think it's a dumb law.
Public input doesn't mean much nowadays bigtex. I think we all know that.
Post by: bigtex on March 10, 2015, 08:09:24 PM
Post by: Special T on March 11, 2015, 09:32:59 PM
Thanks for keeping us abreast to issues Big Tex.
Post by: mfswallace on March 11, 2015, 09:43:16 PM
Another worthless bill that makes legislators feel good that they did something...
Thanks for keeping us abreast to issues Big Tex.
This does seem like money wasted :bash:
Post by: bigtex on March 11, 2015, 09:48:00 PM
The penalties for this offense and criminal trespass 2nd degree are exactly the same.
The only thing that this offense would do is count towards fishing/hunting license suspension. Right now if your removing sheds from private property and are convicted of criminal trespass 2nd degree it does not impact fishing/hunting licenses. If this bill were to pass you could be charged under this law, if you were convicted it would count as a fish and wildlife conviction and if you obtain 2/3 fish and wildlife convictions within a 10 year period your license is suspended for 2 years.
Post by: dreamunelk on March 11, 2015, 09:56:30 PM
Just say no!
Post by: Rainier10 on March 12, 2015, 07:16:58 AM
this bill needs to die! It is another attempt to privatize wildlife. You are either trespassing or not! Under this bill you could have to pay to shed hunt. So if you are big timber you can charge varying rate. Say $100 for walk-in and if you want to pick up sheds than it is $200!So if your not a big timber company, just a small guy like me with 100 acres between winter ground and spring habitat it should just be a free for all on my property? Well, free for all except for me, I still have to pay the taxes on my place. I have to go to work to pay those taxes and these guys can go to my place during the week and pick up the sheds. It's fun spending a weekend on your own little piece of heaven with your kids looking at some other guy's boot tracks and not finding a single shed.
Just say no!
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 12, 2015, 07:27:36 AM
The common question regarding this bill is how is it different then a basic trespass charge?
The penalties for this offense and criminal trespass 2nd degree are exactly the same.
The only thing that this offense would do is count towards fishing/hunting license suspension. Right now if your removing sheds from private property and are convicted of criminal trespass 2nd degree it does not impact fishing/hunting licenses. If this bill were to pass you could be charged under this law, if you were convicted it would count as a fish and wildlife conviction and if you obtain 2/3 fish and wildlife convictions within a 10 year period your license is suspended for 2 years.
It would also be in addition to a trespassing charge, wouldn't it? And like the trespassing charge, wouldn't fly in court if the land isn't posted and the "picker" hadn't been previously warned off the property? If so, I don't have a problem with this bill. We shouldn't have unfettered access to someone's private land and the resources thereon, especially if we know it's private.
Post by: fireweed on March 12, 2015, 08:57:27 AM
The common question regarding this bill is how is it different then a basic trespass charge?
The penalties for this offense and criminal trespass 2nd degree are exactly the same.
The only thing that this offense would do is count towards fishing/hunting license suspension. Right now if your removing sheds from private property and are convicted of criminal trespass 2nd degree it does not impact fishing/hunting licenses. If this bill were to pass you could be charged under this law, if you were convicted it would count as a fish and wildlife conviction and if you obtain 2/3 fish and wildlife convictions within a 10 year period your license is suspended for 2 years.
does everyone who hunts sheds have to have a hunting license? I don't think so, so this law provides different levels of punishment for license holders and non-license holders. SAround here the tweekers do anything they can to get a buck--collect metal, pick agets, and I'm sure horn hunting is on their list of ways to pay for a fix. Doubt they have hunting licenses. The bill sounds fishy in a legal sense--two punishments for same offense depending if the person has a hunting license or not..
Post by: Jacque on March 12, 2015, 09:01:55 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 12, 2015, 09:07:47 AM
Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.
The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 12, 2015, 09:23:25 AM
Post by: bowbuild on March 12, 2015, 10:11:45 AM
It's my property and I'll do what I damned well want with it. If I want to cut all the frigging trees down I will, If I want o build a pond I will. If I put up a fence and post it with signs that say NO TRESPASSING AND THIS MEANS EVERONE I will and if I catch trespassers and hold them at GUN POINT I WILL. If it is anywhere except on a direct route from public property to nearest door of residence they are trespassing to include the police....
You guys that think you can point guns at anyone....keep thinking that....the trespasser will go away with a ticket, and YOU will have your own court date. :hello:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 12, 2015, 10:47:27 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 12, 2015, 10:50:26 AM
Post by: bowbuild on March 12, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
Bowbuild, you can't read bluster? C'mon.
Yes, and no....and I have had a firearm pointed at me...on timber property, been threatened and I don't like guys that would risk a life for a non-life threatening reason. Blowing smoke is fine, but to put it to practice is illegal and a good way to get shot yourself. :)
Post by: Jacque on March 12, 2015, 01:52:48 PM
No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws. There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory. When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them. If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.
The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 12, 2015, 02:09:28 PM
No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws. There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory. When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them. If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.
The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. :dunno:
Sorry, but it's not redundant. Presently, if someone enters your unlocked home and takes your television set and gets caught, they're guilty of trespass (entering), and of theft, instead of just trespass. Is that redundant? No, it's not. So, why are the resources on your property any less valuable than your personal household possessions? Answer: they aren't. Redundant would be if you were charged with two kinds of trespass. But, these are two related but different charges for two separate actions; trespassing and stealing (your resources). Jacque, may I make a wild assumption that you don't own any land that's not fenced or posted? Because, the only people I can see opposing this would be those who have nothing to lose if it goes away.
I don't own land where you can find sheds or mushrooms or berries. But if I did, I'd want every available deterrent to people coming onto it to take my stuff. If you're not a trespasser and thief (and I'm not saying you are), why would this law bother you? It will cost us no more to enforce it and it'll help private landowners keep what's theirs. There are people collecting sheds where it's clear they shouldn't be and they don't care. Sensitive wintering ranges that are supposed to be closed or private property which is clearly posted or fenced. Yet, the lure of the sheds or the money to be gained from them, causes unscrupulous people to steal from landowners. Landowners should have recourse.
Post by: Rainier10 on March 12, 2015, 04:17:41 PM
And it's not just shed antlers. I work hard on my property to clean, thin, fertilize and plant food. I do that so my property is better for the wildlife. Better habitat is better for the wildlife and increases the population. I am not paying for a piece of property, taxes every year, seed, fertilizer, salt licks, sweat and labor just somebody else can come up during the week and shoot deer, elk and turkeys when I am not there.
Post by: Rainier10 on March 12, 2015, 05:00:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 12, 2015, 05:44:40 PM
A prosecutor can file both charges however it is likely only one would stick through the plea deal. But that's why you file multiple charges, if you file just the one you may not end up getting a conviction at all. File multiple and it gives the prosecutor something to work with.The common question regarding this bill is how is it different then a basic trespass charge?It would also be in addition to a trespassing charge, wouldn't it? And like the trespassing charge, wouldn't fly in court if the land isn't posted and the "picker" hadn't been previously warned off the property? If so, I don't have a problem with this bill. We shouldn't have unfettered access to someone's private land and the resources thereon, especially if we know it's private.
The penalties for this offense and criminal trespass 2nd degree are exactly the same.
The only thing that this offense would do is count towards fishing/hunting license suspension. Right now if your removing sheds from private property and are convicted of criminal trespass 2nd degree it does not impact fishing/hunting licenses. If this bill were to pass you could be charged under this law, if you were convicted it would count as a fish and wildlife conviction and if you obtain 2/3 fish and wildlife convictions within a 10 year period your license is suspended for 2 years.
In order for the charge to work the prosecutor must prove that the offender knew they were on the land of another and that the owner didn't allow the access.
Post by: bigtex on March 12, 2015, 05:47:18 PM
:yeah:Sorry, but it's not redundant. Presently, if someone enters your unlocked home and takes your television set and gets caught, they're guilty of trespass (entering), and of theft, instead of just trespass. Is that redundant? No, it's not. So, why are the resources on your property any less valuable than your personal household possessions? Answer: they aren't. Redundant would be if you were charged with two kinds of trespass. But, these are two related but different charges for two separate actions; trespassing and stealing (your resources). Jacque, may I make a wild assumption that you don't own any land that's not fenced or posted? Because, the only people I can see opposing this would be those who have nothing to lose if it goes away.No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws. There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory. When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them. If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. :dunno:
I don't own land where you can find sheds or mushrooms or berries. But if I did, I'd want every available deterrent to people coming onto it to take my stuff. If you're not a trespasser and thief (and I'm not saying you are), why would this law bother you? It will cost us no more to enforce it and it'll help private landowners keep what's theirs. There are people collecting sheds where it's clear they shouldn't be and they don't care. Sensitive wintering ranges that are supposed to be closed or private property which is clearly posted or fenced. Yet, the lure of the sheds or the money to be gained from them, causes unscrupulous people to steal from landowners. Landowners should have recourse.
There are already laws specific for the unlawful hunting on private property, the unlawful gathering of forest products on private property, and unlawfully riding an ATV/ORV on private property.
Post by: fireweed on March 13, 2015, 07:25:03 AM
No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws. There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory. When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them. If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.
The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. :dunno:
Sorry, but it's not redundant. Presently, if someone enters your unlocked home and takes your television set and gets caught, they're guilty of trespass (entering), and of theft, instead of just trespass. Is that redundant? No, it's not. So, why are the resources on your property any less valuable than your personal household possessions? Answer: they aren't. Redundant would be if you were charged with two kinds of trespass. But, these are two related but different charges for two separate actions; trespassing and stealing (your resources). Jacque, may I make a wild assumption that you don't own any land that's not fenced or posted? Because, the only people I can see opposing this would be those who have nothing to lose if it goes away.
I don't own land where you can find sheds or mushrooms or berries. But if I did, I'd want every available deterrent to people coming onto it to take my stuff. If you're not a trespasser and thief (and I'm not saying you are), why would this law bother you? It will cost us no more to enforce it and it'll help private landowners keep what's theirs. There are people collecting sheds where it's clear they shouldn't be and they don't care. Sensitive wintering ranges that are supposed to be closed or private property which is clearly posted or fenced. Yet, the lure of the sheds or the money to be gained from them, causes unscrupulous people to steal from landowners. Landowners should have recourse.
This law is goofy because, in your example, it would be like this: the thief without a driver's license who walked or takes the bus to your house and committed a crime gets less punishment than the thief that happens to have a drivers license but committed the exact same crime the exact same way.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 13, 2015, 07:39:06 AM
No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws. There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory. When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them. If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.
The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. :dunno:
Sorry, but it's not redundant. Presently, if someone enters your unlocked home and takes your television set and gets caught, they're guilty of trespass (entering), and of theft, instead of just trespass. Is that redundant? No, it's not. So, why are the resources on your property any less valuable than your personal household possessions? Answer: they aren't. Redundant would be if you were charged with two kinds of trespass. But, these are two related but different charges for two separate actions; trespassing and stealing (your resources). Jacque, may I make a wild assumption that you don't own any land that's not fenced or posted? Because, the only people I can see opposing this would be those who have nothing to lose if it goes away.
I don't own land where you can find sheds or mushrooms or berries. But if I did, I'd want every available deterrent to people coming onto it to take my stuff. If you're not a trespasser and thief (and I'm not saying you are), why would this law bother you? It will cost us no more to enforce it and it'll help private landowners keep what's theirs. There are people collecting sheds where it's clear they shouldn't be and they don't care. Sensitive wintering ranges that are supposed to be closed or private property which is clearly posted or fenced. Yet, the lure of the sheds or the money to be gained from them, causes unscrupulous people to steal from landowners. Landowners should have recourse.
This law is goofy because, in your example, it would be like this: the thief without a driver's license who walked or takes the bus to your house and committed a crime gets less punishment than the thief that happens to have a drivers license but committed the exact same crime the exact same way.
That happens all the time with current laws - not goofy at all. If you drive to an area, poach, and are caught you can lose your rig and all the equipment you have on you at the time. If you poach and don't drive to the scene, they can't take your rig because it wasn't used in the commission of a crime. Are you of the opinion that seizure laws to do with poaching are bad laws? And, this has nothing to do with stealing resources from a landowner.
Let me put it this way: what if you owned a tract of timber land. Would you consider that there are already enough laws if someone took a cord of wood off your land and was charged only with trespassing? Shouldn't we change the timber theft laws so that there's only one charge - trespassing? The landowner should be protected against the theft of all of his resources. Someone with 1,000 acres of land in the NE corner of the state may have sheds on his property worth literally thousands of dollars. Why should this resource receive less protection than his timber receives?
I have a hard time understanding opposition to this bill. I you guys are collecting sheds the "right" way, then I would think that supporting someone who has resources on private property would be a no-brainer. I don't get it. :dunno:
I'm about done with this one. You know where I stand and why - landowner resource rights. If you're still unsure about why, please read through my previous posts. Have a great weekend legally collecting sheds and mushrooms, all! :tup:
Post by: Jingles on March 13, 2015, 12:54:52 PM
If you see nothing wrong with this post your address as I need some spending cash and hey as long as you think it is ok to steal might as well hit your place first as you won't complain until it happens to you then of course it is wrong. I believe that is called hypocrisy......
And if you think it is bluster keep thinking that I have been there done that before and am not afraid to do it again.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 13, 2015, 01:02:34 PM
So because when you left the house this morning and you thought you shut the door but in fact it didn't completely shut and Joe *censored* the rag man came by saw the door open and walked in decided that he liked your 54 inch flat screen TV so he took it It is alright because the door wasn't completely shut? So how is this any different than if someone was walking across your property liked the sheds they found and took them. It is still stealing from PRIVATE PROPERTY where you were not authorized to be.
If you see nothing wrong with this post your address as I need some spending cash and hey as long as you think it is ok to steal might as well hit your place first as you won't complain until it happens to you then of course it is wrong. I believe that is called hypocrisy......
I assume you're addressing Jacque or fireweed, right?
Post by: Jingles on March 13, 2015, 01:11:58 PM
So because when you left the house this morning and you thought you shut the door but in fact it didn't completely shut and Joe *censored* the rag man came by saw the door open and walked in decided that he liked your 54 inch flat screen TV so he took it It is alright because the door wasn't completely shut? So how is this any different than if someone was walking across your property liked the sheds they found and took them. It is still stealing from PRIVATE PROPERTY where you were not authorized to be.I am addressing anyone that thinks it is ok to steal from anyone else just because they might or might not have more than the thief has be it cash, property, or whatever. The ones that say it is ok to pick up sheds from private property that they were trespassing on are the same ones that probably steal trail cameras on public property......
If you see nothing wrong with this post your address as I need some spending cash and hey as long as you think it is ok to steal might as well hit your place first as you won't complain until it happens to you then of course it is wrong. I believe that is called hypocrisy......
I assume you're addressing Jacque or fireweed, right?
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 13, 2015, 01:35:44 PM
Post by: Jacque on March 13, 2015, 02:05:35 PM
Post by: fireweed on March 14, 2015, 10:27:55 AM
If the landowner that they fall on owns them, then taking sheds is already "stealing" and should already be illegal, right? Trespassing and taking sheds is no different that trespassing and taking cedar, or fence posts, or anything. It's already two crimes.
This law seems to codify that the "state" owns the sheds just like they own the wildlife. If they can link shed hunting to hunting licenses through the law, next you will need a hunting license to pick up shed antlers. Seems like a logical step. then the tweeker that gets caught trespassing and taking shed antlers gets hit with three offenses: trespassing, stealing, and harvesting sheds without a hunting license. I guess that would be ok.
Post by: Jacque on March 14, 2015, 02:06:16 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 14, 2015, 09:47:17 PM
I guess one question I have is: who currently (under state law) owns Shed antlers?Shed's are considered "wildlife" and as a result are the property of the state.
If the landowner that they fall on owns them, then taking sheds is already "stealing" and should already be illegal, right? Trespassing and taking sheds is no different that trespassing and taking cedar, or fence posts, or anything. It's already two crimes.
This law seems to codify that the "state" owns the sheds just like they own the wildlife. If they can link shed hunting to hunting licenses through the law, next you will need a hunting license to pick up shed antlers. Seems like a logical step. then the tweeker that gets caught trespassing and taking shed antlers gets hit with three offenses: trespassing, stealing, and harvesting sheds without a hunting license. I guess that would be ok.
RCW 77.08.010
The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife members.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 14, 2015, 10:59:23 PM
Post by: mfswallace on March 14, 2015, 11:11:14 PM
I guess one question I have is: who currently (under state law) owns Shed antlers?Shed's are considered "wildlife" and as a result are the property of the state.
If the landowner that they fall on owns them, then taking sheds is already "stealing" and should already be illegal, right? Trespassing and taking sheds is no different that trespassing and taking cedar, or fence posts, or anything. It's already two crimes.
This law seems to codify that the "state" owns the sheds just like they own the wildlife. If they can link shed hunting to hunting licenses through the law, next you will need a hunting license to pick up shed antlers. Seems like a logical step. then the tweeker that gets caught trespassing and taking shed antlers gets hit with three offenses: trespassing, stealing, and harvesting sheds without a hunting license. I guess that would be ok.
RCW 77.08.010
The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife members.
If the gov't is for the people and run by the people isn't it our wildlife?? :boxin:
Post by: fireweed on March 15, 2015, 09:46:44 AM
Correct. The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession. State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.
Its clearer now. Sheds on private land are not owned by the landowner, but owned by the state, and someone who trespasses and picks up shed antlers on private land is not "taking my stuff the same as taking a TV", but they are stealing from the state, the same as poaching. Thus the "need" for a new law that punishes via a hunting license (that the criminal may or may not have). If there is money to be made off state wildlife somewhere, it seems it is pretty logical to soon require a hunting license to pick up shed antlers, and impose a limit etc., Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10. There is a bill for a "rock collecting license" why not a shed collecting license?
Post by: idahohuntr on March 15, 2015, 10:15:59 AM
I think the "need" for this new law is that trespassing to pick up sheds is much more rampant than trespassing and hunting because the penalty is low in the sense that its not a F&W violation that results in license loss...if I understand correctly. Most shed hunters are also regular hunters and so it may keep the less honest more honest if license revocations are a real possibility.Correct. The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession. State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.
So sheds on private land are not owned by the landowner, but owned by the state, thus the "need" for a new law?
I read the text of the bill and here is an interesting thing for landowners to consider...illegally collected wildlife parts (e.g., those collected by trespassers) are forfeited to the state. So if I catch a trespassing shed hunter with some nice sheds from my place I'm thinking I would tell the guy to hand 'em over and not to come back and I won't call the police "this time" :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on March 15, 2015, 06:34:19 PM
No it doesn't. About 5 years ago the state prohibited the possession of unclassified marine invertebrates such as sand dollars.Correct. The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession. State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10.
Post by: Man Tracker on March 16, 2015, 08:21:09 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 09, 2015, 08:28:12 PM
Post by: lokidog on April 09, 2015, 11:54:18 PM
No it doesn't. About 5 years ago the state prohibited the possession of unclassified marine invertebrates such as sand dollars.Correct. The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession. State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10.
And this is as stupid as most of the laws the state tries to pass to protect the "state" from a non-existent problem or to try to get more money out of its citizens or to try to place into laws the current law/policy makers "beliefs".
Maybe I can get the state to come pick up deer poop in my yard since all the "parts" are theirs, there's a bunch of deer DNA in that stuff you know....
Post by: billythekidrock on April 10, 2015, 05:27:11 AM
No it doesn't. About 5 years ago the state prohibited the possession of unclassified marine invertebrates such as sand dollars.Correct. The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession. State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10.
Are you saying it is against the law for a child to take home a dead sand dollar? If so, can you provide a link?
Post by: bigtex on April 14, 2015, 06:46:19 PM
It now goes to Inslee for his signature, it will take effect in June...
Post by: billythekidrock on April 14, 2015, 07:14:18 PM
Read the regsAre you saying it is against the law for a child to take home a dead sand dollar? If so, can you provide a link?No it doesn't. About 5 years ago the state prohibited the possession of unclassified marine invertebrates such as sand dollars.Correct. The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession. State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10.
Cop out.
Post by: Humptulips on April 14, 2015, 08:55:59 PM
No it doesn't. About 5 years ago the state prohibited the possession of unclassified marine invertebrates such as sand dollars.Correct. The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession. State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10.
Are you saying it is against the law for a child to take home a dead sand dollar? If so, can you provide a link?
I don't believe so. There is a limit on "Relic Shells" (5 lbs.) and I believe the dead shells fall under this. A live sand dollar is another story and you can't take them
Post by: bigtex on April 14, 2015, 09:57:14 PM
Live sand dollars are illegal to take. Dead sand dollars have a 5lb limit.I don't believe so. There is a limit on "Relic Shells" (5 lbs.) and I believe the dead shells fall under this. A live sand dollar is another story and you can't take themAre you saying it is against the law for a child to take home a dead sand dollar? If so, can you provide a link?No it doesn't. About 5 years ago the state prohibited the possession of unclassified marine invertebrates such as sand dollars.Correct. The state owns the wildlife (and parts) until reduced to posession. State wildlife being on private land does not constitute any form of private ownership.Heck, the state has a dead sand dollar limit of 10.
Post by: stevemiller on April 14, 2015, 09:58:59 PM
We're in complete agreement, then. Just unsure why you quoted me. It's quite clear from all my posts that I think stealing from a private landowner is wrong and should carry an additional punishment. :dunno:Trying to read this in its entirety,Stopped on this first.I agree stealing is wrong but i dont agree that stealing from someone that owns private land should get treated diff. than someone that steals from anyone that doesnt own. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on May 05, 2015, 11:20:15 PM
Post by: Skillet on May 06, 2015, 05:58:32 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 06, 2015, 06:08:27 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2015, 07:40:58 PM
Thanks
Post by: Maverick on May 06, 2015, 08:04:35 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 08:08:07 PM
Here's my issue with this. If a guy that hunts is caught trespassing and picking up sheds then he can lose his hunting license for two years and a fine. If someone that doesn't hunt trespasses and picks up sheds what's their punishment? Just a fine?
Not true. Someone convicted of this offense will not lose their license for simply taking sheds. In order for the license revocation to occur they must have two other fish and wildlife offenses within the past 10 years which is the standard fish and wildlife suspension policy.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:12:25 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2015, 08:16:52 PM
ANYONE that is for any law that specifically goes after any specific group is no sportsman,and should not be looked upon seriously by anyone that feels every user group should be treated equally.:yeah:
Get rid of all the rules and laws against poachers. That is one group that all hunters should support and anyone that supports rules and laws against poaching is not a real sportsman. NOT!
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:18:12 PM
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:21:38 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 06, 2015, 08:22:15 PM
ANYONE that is for any law that specifically goes after any specific group is no sportsman,and should not be looked upon seriously by anyone that feels every user group should be treated equally.
Huh?
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2015, 08:25:32 PM
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:25:45 PM
You see all these laws are only for sportsman hunters and fisherman.I havnt seen any new laws pushed for bad drivers,jay walkers,etc only things that take away hunting fishing and gun rights.Here's my issue with this. If a guy that hunts is caught trespassing and picking up sheds then he can lose his hunting license for two years and a fine. If someone that doesn't hunt trespasses and picks up sheds what's their punishment? Just a fine?
Not true. Someone convicted of this offense will not lose their license for simply taking sheds. In order for the license revocation to occur they must have two other fish and wildlife offenses within the past 10 years which is the standard fish and wildlife suspension policy.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:27:38 PM
Really you dont get it?Laws are supposed to be equal no matter what group a person is in it should not be harsher on one group than anotherANYONE that is for any law that specifically goes after any specific group is no sportsman,and should not be looked upon seriously by anyone that feels every user group should be treated equally.
Huh?
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2015, 08:29:14 PM
Do you pay attention to any of the new laws, have you heard about the distracted driving laws? Are they just targeting sportsman that text or use cell phones?You see all these laws are only for sportsman hunters and fisherman.I havnt seen any new laws pushed for bad drivers,jay walkers,etc only things that take away hunting fishing and gun rights.Here's my issue with this. If a guy that hunts is caught trespassing and picking up sheds then he can lose his hunting license for two years and a fine. If someone that doesn't hunt trespasses and picks up sheds what's their punishment? Just a fine?
Not true. Someone convicted of this offense will not lose their license for simply taking sheds. In order for the license revocation to occur they must have two other fish and wildlife offenses within the past 10 years which is the standard fish and wildlife suspension policy.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2015, 08:31:12 PM
What?! Laws should be equal no matter who you are? Is that why the legal alcohol limit for bartenders and people with CDLs are half of the legal limit of everyone else?Really you dont get it?Laws are supposed to be equal no matter what group a person is in it should not be harsher on one group than anotherANYONE that is for any law that specifically goes after any specific group is no sportsman,and should not be looked upon seriously by anyone that feels every user group should be treated equally.
Huh?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:32:18 PM
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:33:18 PM
I didnt say they werent I said they shouldnt be there is a diff.What?! Laws should be equal no matter who you are? Is that why the legal alcohol limit for bartenders and people with CDLs are half of the legal limit of everyone else?Really you dont get it?Laws are supposed to be equal no matter what group a person is in it should not be harsher on one group than anotherANYONE that is for any law that specifically goes after any specific group is no sportsman,and should not be looked upon seriously by anyone that feels every user group should be treated equally.
Huh?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 08:34:42 PM
SB 5105 would make a 4th DUI a felony http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2015&bill=5105You see all these laws are only for sportsman hunters and fisherman.I havnt seen any new laws pushed for bad drivers,jay walkers,etc only things that take away hunting fishing and gun rights.Here's my issue with this. If a guy that hunts is caught trespassing and picking up sheds then he can lose his hunting license for two years and a fine. If someone that doesn't hunt trespasses and picks up sheds what's their punishment? Just a fine?Not true. Someone convicted of this offense will not lose their license for simply taking sheds. In order for the license revocation to occur they must have two other fish and wildlife offenses within the past 10 years which is the standard fish and wildlife suspension policy.
HB 1582 would increase traffic fines, and significantly for speeding http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2015&bill=1582
SB 5502 would make it illegal to have an open marijuana container in a vehicle http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2015&bill=5002
SB 61015 goes after left lane drivers http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2015&bill=6105
Yup there's no bills aimed at bad drivers....
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 08:37:46 PM
If you get caught so many times in so many years do they take your drivers license?Yes
3 serious offenses in a 5 year period or 20 moving violations in a 5 year period. License is then revoked for 7 years.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:38:45 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2015, 08:39:28 PM
Then we will have to disagree, I think a bartender should know better about alcohol and its ability to impair driving and they should be held to a higher standard. I think the same holds true for Master Hunter's should also be held to a higher standard and punished more severely for infractions. And finally I think that hunter or fisherman that holds a license should be more aware of private property laws and should get a stiffer punishment than somebody just out hiking around.I didnt say they werent I said they shouldnt be there is a diff.What?! Laws should be equal no matter who you are? Is that why the legal alcohol limit for bartenders and people with CDLs are half of the legal limit of everyone else?Really you dont get it?Laws are supposed to be equal no matter what group a person is in it should not be harsher on one group than anotherANYONE that is for any law that specifically goes after any specific group is no sportsman,and should not be looked upon seriously by anyone that feels every user group should be treated equally.
Huh?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:40:07 PM
20 huh.i guess hunter really are more hazardous than bad drivers not.If you get caught so many times in so many years do they take your drivers license?Yes
3 serious offenses in a 5 year period or 20 moving violations in a 5 year period.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 08:47:00 PM
State law says that some minor fish and wildlife offenses which are natural resource infractions don't have license suspension. You can get a barbed hook ticket everyday for the rest of your life and your fishing license won't be suspended.20 huh.i guess hunter really are more hazardous than bad drivers not.If you get caught so many times in so many years do they take your drivers license?Yes
3 serious offenses in a 5 year period or 20 moving violations in a 5 year period.
You get 20 traffic infractions and your driver's license is revoked for 7 years. That includes speeding, no insurance, snowmobile violations, ATV violations, etc.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 08:49:34 PM
Ok I dont want to sound like i am personaly attacking anyone but I see out of your list so far a change in fines and penalties twice and two that are not laws yet is that correct?Open marijuana container was passed in a different bill that contained numerous marijuana provisions.
The left lane driver bill is new, give it some time.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:52:17 PM
So would it be correct to say like I already did no new laws?Only added to laws.Ok I dont want to sound like i am personaly attacking anyone but I see out of your list so far a change in fines and penalties twice and two that are not laws yet is that correct?Open marijuana container was passed in a different bill that contained numerous marijuana provisions.
The left lane driver bill is new, give it some time.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 08:55:03 PM
Open marijuana container is a brand new law.So would it be correct to say like I already did no new laws?Only added to laws.Ok I dont want to sound like i am personaly attacking anyone but I see out of your list so far a change in fines and penalties twice and two that are not laws yet is that correct?Open marijuana container was passed in a different bill that contained numerous marijuana provisions.
The left lane driver bill is new, give it some time.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 08:57:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 08:59:19 PM
whats the rcw?There is no RCW yet. An RCW for a totally new offense isn't assigned until the law takes effect.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 09:02:59 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 09:10:03 PM
Oh lol thats what i thought.As i have stated and some of YOU tried to poke fun at me there is no law until it has an rcw. so i stand by what i said.If you cant be honest enough to admit that the examples you have used to prove your point against my statement are invalid at this time well then thats not my problem.Not true.
Once a bill is passed and signed by the governor it becomes "session law" each bill then has a law number, for the wildlife parts it is Chapter 154, 2015 Laws. All an RCW does is codify the law.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 09:11:31 PM
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 09:12:15 PM
Can someone be prosecuted for a law that doesnt have an RCW yet?Oh lol thats what i thought.As i have stated and some of YOU tried to poke fun at me there is no law until it has an rcw. so i stand by what i said.If you cant be honest enough to admit that the examples you have used to prove your point against my statement are invalid at this time well then thats not my problem.Not true.
Once a bill is passed and signed by the governor it becomes "session law" each bill then has a law number, for the wildlife parts it is Chapter 154, 2015 Laws. All an RCW does is codify the law.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 09:17:40 PM
As long as the effective date has passed, yes.Can someone be prosecuted for a law that doesnt have an RCW yet?Oh lol thats what i thought.As i have stated and some of YOU tried to poke fun at me there is no law until it has an rcw. so i stand by what i said.If you cant be honest enough to admit that the examples you have used to prove your point against my statement are invalid at this time well then thats not my problem.Not true.
Once a bill is passed and signed by the governor it becomes "session law" each bill then has a law number, for the wildlife parts it is Chapter 154, 2015 Laws. All an RCW does is codify the law.
The WA Code Reviser is the one who assigns an RCW. It can take several months for them to actually assign an RCW. So when there is a case of a law going into effect and it still hasn't been codified as an RCW there is a temporary "code" assigned to it. A couple years ago we saw this with the new shark fin laws, the effective date had passed but no RCW yet, so there was a "code" which started with a C and if I am correct it references the law number. Typically, however there is an RCW by the effective date, but there have been cases where that's not true.
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2015, 09:25:42 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2015, 09:26:30 PM
Im gonna slow down and give some examples of my own,lets see what you few say.If im trespassing and shed hunting Im gonna be fined differently than someone that is trespassing and picking berries?Im trespassing in my truck hunting so Im gonna be fined differantly (they will confiscate all my belongings that I have with me at the time) than i would be if i was doing the same but not during hunting season no weapon,and camping.ETC and these things are ok with you few?Let me answer slow, yes you should be. Just like a bartender should be punished differently for drinking and driving, a master hunter for violating the law and yes a hunter should be punished differently.
Have you taken the state hunter education class? Trespassing is a big issue, asking landowner permission is big, knowing where you are is big. The biggest complaint private landowners have about hunters is trespassing. It is an important issue all hunters should be very aware and mindful of it.
Bottom line yes I think you should be held to a higher standard and have a better understanding about trespassing if you are a hunter. I think we all need to be more mindful of how we represent ourselves to the general public.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 09:36:37 PM
You say lisenced people should be held to a higher standard because they should know better,I thought that if you were an adult you were expected to know better wow,what happened to the ignorance is no excuse to the law?So now it doesnt matter if your ignorant or not if you are lisenced you should know better,Meanwhile they are cooking up new rules and regs at a neck breaking pace not even attorneys can keep up with whats legal and not.Let alone some average joe but thats all ok with you I see.I also see that you did not answer my question to you about the english and non english speaking people did you not have an answer or what?You are the one that put yourself in this debate,Do you feel that it would be fair to be fined because you speak the language and understand the language better but no fine for the other?This is all in what i am talking about with user groups being treated the same.So in a nut shell what you are saying is that since i went through hunters ed. and I didnt heck way to old to need it but anyways,I should no better than to kill an out of season animal without a tag but since joe snuffy didnt go through hunters ed he doesnt know any better so they shouldnt treat him the same as they do me because he didnt go through hunters ed?Im gonna slow down and give some examples of my own,lets see what you few say.If im trespassing and shed hunting Im gonna be fined differently than someone that is trespassing and picking berries?Im trespassing in my truck hunting so Im gonna be fined differantly (they will confiscate all my belongings that I have with me at the time) than i would be if i was doing the same but not during hunting season no weapon,and camping.ETC and these things are ok with you few?Let me answer slow, yes you should be. Just like a bartender should be punished differently for drinking and driving, a master hunter for violating the law and yes a hunter should be punished differently.
Have you taken the state hunter education class? Trespassing is a big issue, asking landowner permission is big, knowing where you are is big. The biggest complaint private landowners have about hunters is trespassing. It is an important issue all hunters should be very aware and mindful of it.
Bottom line yes I think you should be held to a higher standard and have a better understanding about trespassing if you are a hunter. I think we all need to be more mindful of how we represent ourselves to the general public.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2015, 10:01:09 PM
Do I want to debate penalities for english as a second language citizens versus those that speak english as their first language? No I don't see the point to going down that path on this thread. Start another one if you want to debate that.
I answered your question that pertains to this topic. If you don't understand that we disagree I am not sure what you want me to do. What fun would life be if everyone thought exactly like you? Well we wouldn't be having this debate because this topic that you think is such a bad law that was unanimously approved wouldn't have happened. Guess what? Not everyone agrees with you, so much so that this bill was introduced and passed.
Have you been watching this poll? As people read the thread and get more information on the topic the votes in favored have increased faster than the initial votes against. I would be willing to bet that now that many are more informed of what some of the issues are they may want to change their vote to be in support of this bill.
I will debate all you want but take some Ritalin and try to stay on topic.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 10:30:38 PM
really,Wait it just did lol.what do you think this whole topic is about?This topic is about just that,A law has been made that will make a horn hunter a criminal that they will prosecute more so than say a hiker picking berries.The prosecution is the same. Criminal trespass 2nd degree and unlawful removal of wildlife parts from private property are both misdemeanors...
It's not like trespass is a misdemeanor and this wildlife offense is a gross misdemeanor.
And fyi, if your "hiker picking berries" had been picking mushrooms on private property they would face a different law solely for removing forest products on private property. And actually in that case the guy taking a mushroom from private property faces a bigger penalty then someone removing sheds or a "basic" trespassing charge.
Post by: stevemiller on May 06, 2015, 10:34:39 PM
and this brings up my point,Its diff. only because of the user group.Both are trespassing,both are stealing,1 is taking somthing that fell off an animal,the other is food growing for an animal why should they be diff.really,Wait it just did lol.what do you think this whole topic is about?This topic is about just that,A law has been made that will make a horn hunter a criminal that they will prosecute more so than say a hiker picking berries.The prosecution is the same. Criminal trespass 2nd degree and unlawful removal of wildlife parts from private property are both misdemeanors...
It's not like trespass is a misdemeanor and this wildlife offense is a gross misdemeanor.
And fyi, if your "hiker picking berries" had been picking mushrooms on private property they would face a different law solely for removing forest products on private property...
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 10:45:04 PM
They shouldnt.But if they both go on private and take something shouldnt they then be charged the same?Whether 1 is a hunter and the other is just a hiker
If a hiker takes a horn on private property they will be charged under the same law as a "hunter" taking a horn. The law just says you can't take horns on private property without permission. It doesn't say hunters are to be prosecuted under X law and non-hunters Y law.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 10:57:22 PM
Like bigtex said if LEO is called they use the same tech as everyone else and if everything is not updated and you go hunt that same spot you have for 30 years but the title just changed hands a few weeks earlier and is now owned by an anti hunter or whatever,Since you are hunting and trespassing you lose it all.But if you do all the above but are not hunting you dont.This I and most have a problem with.Where do you get the impression that if you are hunting and trespassing you lose it all?
Additionally, if you can prove that you reasonably believed the land was not privately owned you can't be convicted of hunting while trespassing.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 11:24:40 PM
If you are hunting on private property and are convicted you will only lose your hunting rights if you killed an animal, or you have previous fish and wildlife convictions within the past 10 years. An officer can take your truck/rifle for any violation if they can tie it to a fish and wildlife offense, notice I said can and not will/must. If someone exceeds the trout limit by 1 an officer is not going to seize the guy's boat. If your caught hunting on private property and haven't killed anything the chances of an officer seizing the gun is slim to none, the truck won't happen. Now if you killed an animal, they may take the gun. But I know of many people who have illegally killed an animal and the officer didn't take the rifle. For many people losing their tag for the season, an animal, and a fine is enough.Correct me if im wrong 1)If Im hunting and on private property,I lose my truck,hunting rights for a period,My game if I have it my rifle etc. 2)if im not hunting but am trespassing picking mushrooms,Do you take my truck,next years hunting license,The mushrooms bags or buckets etc?Like bigtex said if LEO is called they use the same tech as everyone else and if everything is not updated and you go hunt that same spot you have for 30 years but the title just changed hands a few weeks earlier and is now owned by an anti hunter or whatever,Since you are hunting and trespassing you lose it all.But if you do all the above but are not hunting you dont.This I and most have a problem with.Where do you get the impression that if you are hunting and trespassing you lose it all?
Additionally, if you can prove that you reasonably believed the land was not privately owned you can't be convicted of hunting while trespassing.
For your mushroom pickers an officer can seize the mushrooms, buckets/bags, etc. They cannot take your truck for mushrooms, but they can for wood. If you have two previous forest products convictions in your lifetime your ability to get a forest products permit is suspended for 3 years. They cannot take your hunting license because it has nothing to do with hunting.
Realistically, from a penalty standpoint the brush/berry/mushroom/wood removal from private property is stiffer then the hunting on private property or trespass in the 2nd degree. The forest product violation is up to a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail, the hunting and trespass 2nd degree is $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail.
Also need to remember for the hunting violation it is a defense that:
(a) The premises were at the time open to members of the public for the purpose of hunting, and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining on the premises;
(b) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain on the premises for the purpose of hunting or retrieving hunted wildlife;
(c) The actor reasonably believed that the premises were not privately owned; or
(d) The actor, after making all reasonable attempts to contact the owner of the premises, retrieved the hunted wildlife for the sole purpose of avoiding a violation of the prohibition on the waste of fish and wildlife as provided in RCW 77.15.170. The defense in this subsection only applies to the retrieval of hunted wildlife and not to the actual act of hunting itself
So if the lands truly were sold yesterday and are now closed to the public and you didn't know it, you can't be convicted.