Post by: HuntnFishnRyan on September 26, 2017, 07:09:20 PM
I'm guilty of saying to someone to make sure not to hunt for bear caught on trail camera since the area was now baited. I should give that person the benefit of the doubt. I will keep that to myself in the future.
Post by: Elkcollector82 on September 30, 2017, 06:04:44 AM
I'm guilty of saying to someone to make sure not to hunt for bear caught on trail camera since the area was now baited. I should give that person the benefit of the doubt. I will keep that to myself in the future.
[/quote]
So when can someone hunt the bear caught on their camera? When does a "bait" site not considered a bait site? You see a bear headed in the direction of your camera 100 yards from it. Is it safe to shoot it? How about a mile away?
Here's another one. Your out coon hunting with your dogs. You drive around the corner see a bobcat, lion or a bear. You gonna jump out and shoot it or let it walk cause your truck is loaded with hounds?
Post by: bearpaw on September 30, 2017, 06:41:23 AM
It would seem if you are not actively baiting and there is no longer bait at the bait site that you could shoot the bear. I'm not aware of any length of time requirements. :dunno:
I'm not sure if there is a distance requirement or how a warden would interpret how far you must be from a known deer or elk bait site before you can shoot a bear. :dunno:
Regarding having hounds in possession and shooting game not allowed to be taken while hound hunting, just having dogs in possession may keep you from taking the animal, but that is arguable and it would be nice to know the legal answer? :dunno:
Is there an LEO reading this who can answer these questions?
Post by: runamuk on September 30, 2017, 06:53:23 AM
Circumstances are not always how you envision it. A person could have shot from a dirt road in the center if a 1000 acre private property so shooting from the road is not always illegal. Hell shooting in a no hunting area us not always gonna be illegal because situations occur. Hunts with hounds still happen even though it is banned.
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
Post by: skeeter 20i on September 30, 2017, 07:10:03 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
Post by: ghosthunter on September 30, 2017, 07:27:28 AM
I am out grouse hunting with my lab. Come around a corner and see a bear which I also have a tag for. Can I jump out grab my rifle and hunt the bear while the lab stays in her crate??
Can you have your lab in camp. While you are out hunting bear?
My truck at all times when I am out in the woods has a full compliment of assorted firearms in the vault.
Post by: bearpaw on September 30, 2017, 07:29:47 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
This was posted in the Lurkers, Esteemed members topic and I split it off since I thought these questions need to be a topic of their own so they don't threadjack the other topic. I think the OP was saying he was guilty of saying that to another member in the past before the forum revision.
Negative comments to other members is specifically an issue we are watching closely for on the forum now and I think it has already made a big difference. Some of you need to let go of the past and embrace the new forum! :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on September 30, 2017, 07:31:48 AM
So this one always bothers me.
I am out grouse hunting with my lab. Come around a corner and see a bear which I also have a tag for. Can I jump out grab my rifle and hunt the bear while the lab stays in her crate??
Can you have your lab in camp. While you are out hunting bear?
My truck at all times when I am out in the woods has a full compliment of assorted firearms in the vault.
Another great question that hopefully an LEO will answer?
Post by: ghosthunter on September 30, 2017, 07:35:45 AM
My buddies and I often at night get into discussions on if a Leo can enter your tent or cook shack without permission or a warrant?
I understand they can inspect coolers.
But I have always held that your tent or other shelter where there was reasonable expectation of privacy, would be off limits.
Post by: bearpaw on September 30, 2017, 07:37:43 AM
And while we are asking Leo questions......
My buddies and I often at night get into discussions on if a Leo can enter your tent or cook shack without permission or a warrant?
I understand they can inspect coolers.
But I have always held that your tent or other shelter where there was reasonable expectation of privacy, would be off limits.
@bigtex Maybe he can help with this one?
Post by: baker5150 on September 30, 2017, 08:39:59 AM
And while we are asking Leo questions......
My buddies and I often at night get into discussions on if a Leo can enter your tent or cook shack without permission or a warrant?
I understand they can inspect coolers.
But I have always held that your tent or other shelter where there was reasonable expectation of privacy, would be off limits.
@bigtex Maybe he can help with this one?
They had an episode of rugged justice where a LEO tries to make conot act with a couple in an RV and he stated hecouldn't enter or search the rv without permission or a warrant. Tents or cook shacks could be a different story but I wouldn't think so.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 30, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
And while we are asking Leo questions......
My buddies and I often at night get into discussions on if a Leo can enter your tent or cook shack without permission or a warrant?
I understand they can inspect coolers.
But I have always held that your tent or other shelter where there was reasonable expectation of privacy, would be off limits.
@bigtex Maybe he can help with this one?
They had an episode of rugged justice where a LEO tries to make conot act with a couple in an RV and he stated hecouldn't enter or search the rv without permission or a warrant. Tents or cook shacks could be a different story but I wouldn't think so.
Cook shacks, yes. Tents? no.
Quote
RCW 77.15.094
Search without warrant—Seizure of evidence, property—Limitation.
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law.
Post by: olyguy79 on September 30, 2017, 11:18:13 AM
:yeah:And while we are asking Leo questions......
My buddies and I often at night get into discussions on if a Leo can enter your tent or cook shack without permission or a warrant?
I understand they can inspect coolers.
But I have always held that your tent or other shelter where there was reasonable expectation of privacy, would be off limits.
@bigtex Maybe he can help with this one?
They had an episode of rugged justice where a LEO tries to make conot act with a couple in an RV and he stated hecouldn't enter or search the rv without permission or a warrant. Tents or cook shacks could be a different story but I wouldn't think so.
Cook shacks, yes. Tents? no.QuoteRCW 77.15.094
Search without warrant—Seizure of evidence, property—Limitation.
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law.
And it all depends on the state.
Game wardens in Idaho for example have wider search authority than WDFW.
The Supreme Court in California ruled a couple years ago if you simply leave a fishing area game wardens can stop you and search your car, doesn't matter if they suspect a violation or not.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: olyguy79 on September 30, 2017, 11:19:29 AM
So this one always bothers me.You'd be good to go. Now if your dog was out chasing the best that'd be a different story.
I am out grouse hunting with my lab. Come around a corner and see a bear which I also have a tag for. Can I jump out grab my rifle and hunt the bear while the lab stays in her crate??
Can you have your lab in camp. While you are out hunting bear?
My truck at all times when I am out in the woods has a full compliment of assorted firearms in the vault.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkcollector82 on September 30, 2017, 11:56:06 AM
Post by: jmscon on September 30, 2017, 11:59:41 AM
All I hear are crickets from the LEO's :bash:
Patience little grasshopper, patience
Post by: bigtex on September 30, 2017, 05:58:07 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkcollector82 on September 30, 2017, 06:07:27 PM
Olyguy is correct in his statements. I'll answer the rest in a few days guys. Traveling right now.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Thanks @bigtex
Post by: runamuk on September 30, 2017, 06:21:58 PM
It's about the general public assuming they know all the things about all the things when actually they do not.
Like trail cam= bait WRONG I know several who put up cams no bait to count critters, collect data etc. I do it to look for trespassers the side effect is I also learn what critters are strolling through.
Post by: gasman on September 30, 2017, 07:45:06 PM
Post by: RB on September 30, 2017, 07:52:08 PM
Post by: HuntnFishnRyan on September 30, 2017, 08:47:14 PM
My trail cam has no bait it simply collects data for me, so are my bears baited? NO.
Circumstances are not always how you envision it. A person could have shot from a dirt road in the center if a 1000 acre private property so shooting from the road is not always illegal. Hell shooting in a no hunting area us not always gonna be illegal because situations occur. Hunts with hounds still happen even though it is banned.
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
I completely agree with you about rushing to judgement and not considering circumstances. As bearpaw said, this was moved from another thread. In doing so it appears my good intentioned comment got all twisted around. I was not making a blanket statement that ALL trail cams are baited. The comment was in regards to a specific trail cam with a bear chewing on a tube feeder in front of the cam. I shall hope you would agree that bear is off limits in that area. Here is the thread: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,218651.msg2908678.html#msg2908678 As far as the guy standing in road shooting animal in the road....once again this was about a specific thread where OP said it was on FS road. I didn't want to bring up all the details to preserve a bit of anonymity for the guy and not to stir up trouble or point fingers.
"This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call." I find this ironic because I feel the same way. I double and triple check to make sure my posts are spell checked, grammar checked, checked for anything that might offend anyone yet someone still gets offended. Kinda makes you not want to post right? Take care guy.
Post by: runamuk on October 01, 2017, 06:50:38 PM
My trail cam has no bait it simply collects data for me, so are my bears baited? NO.
Circumstances are not always how you envision it. A person could have shot from a dirt road in the center if a 1000 acre private property so shooting from the road is not always illegal. Hell shooting in a no hunting area us not always gonna be illegal because situations occur. Hunts with hounds still happen even though it is banned.
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
I completely agree with you about rushing to judgement and not considering circumstances. As bearpaw said, this was moved from another thread. In doing so it appears my good intentioned comment got all twisted around. I was not making a blanket statement that ALL trail cams are baited. The comment was in regards to a specific trail cam with a bear chewing on a tube feeder in front of the cam. I shall hope you would agree that bear is off limits in that area. Here is the thread: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,218651.msg2908678.html#msg2908678 As far as the guy standing in road shooting animal in the road....once again this was about a specific thread where OP said it was on FS road. I didn't want to bring up all the details to preserve a bit of anonymity for the guy and not to stir up trouble or point fingers.
"This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call." I find this ironic because I feel the same way. I double and triple check to make sure my posts are spell checked, grammar checked, checked for anything that might offend anyone yet someone still gets offended. Kinda makes you not want to post right? Take care guy.
Ironic is that I am still a girl, have been since I joined in 2008 and never did change.
Lots b of people think bears on cameras are baited, wasn't you I was calling out more the concept bear+trailcam=baited. Again wasn't you I was calling out about roads, so many see road and think illegal forgetting there are miles and miles of roads that are not under any jurisdiction other than the land owner. Also many hunt outside WA where the rules are totally different.
I have seen these rush to judge for so long and have been guilty myself a few times. Hence why I think people need to slow their roll and realize they may not actually understand what they think is an obvious breaking of a rule.
Post by: Man Tracker on October 01, 2017, 08:35:09 PM
A question that comes up often is, Is the tent abandoned or just being left for a short period. If it makes sense that it may be abandoned, a LEO could probably look in to see if anything potentially dangerous (firearms) needs safekeeping. Seeing a violation without an immediate safety issue would require a warrant to search/secure.
Due to the mobility of vehicles, courts may give a little move leeway to LE than a tent or shack that isn't leaving the area. But the courts are always making entertaining rulings, some make sense. some don't. But privacy rights are a big deal and the courts do try to respect them,even if a few LEO's don't. Sorry to be long winded. Maybe BiGTex can provide more clarity.
Post by: Elkcollector82 on October 01, 2017, 08:41:26 PM
I'm guilty of saying to someone to make sure not to hunt for bear caught on trail camera since the area was now baited. I should give that person the benefit of the doubt. I will keep that to myself in the future.
So when can someone hunt the bear caught on their camera? When does a "bait" site not considered a bait site? You see a bear headed in the direction of your camera 100 yards from it. Is it safe to shoot it? How about a mile away?
Here's another one. Your out coon hunting with your dogs. You drive around the corner see a bobcat, lion or a bear. You gonna jump out and shoot it or let it walk cause your truck is loaded with hounds?
[/quote]
What's your take on these @Man Tracker
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2017, 08:55:36 PM
You have some reasonable expectation of privacy in your tent or cook shack. I assume (shame on me)that it is on public property you are asking about? Generally speaking a LEO would need consent, a warrant, or a reasonable belief that some exegent circumstances require you to enter. Court rulings are kinda all over, but much depends on whether it is state or federal law being enforced. You have a greater degree of privacy under the WA state constitution than most other places.
A question that comes up often is, Is the tent abandoned or just being left for a short period. If it makes sense that it may be abandoned, a LEO could probably look in to see if anything potentially dangerous (firearms) needs safekeeping. Seeing a violation without an immediate safety issue would require a warrant to search/secure.
Due to the mobility of vehicles, courts may give a little move leeway to LE than a tent or shack that isn't leaving the area. But the courts are always making entertaining rulings, some make sense. some don't. But privacy rights are a big deal and the courts do try to respect them,even if a few LEO's don't. Sorry to be long winded. Maybe BiGTex can provide more clarity.
Only thing I'd differ on is most cook shacks I've seen aren't in the sleeping or private areas and most are open air unless closed up at night or everyone's hunting, but during cooking it's usually open air? Unless someone is cooking right next to their bunk inside their tent there'd be less issues poking through the coolers there in the "cook shack"
Post by: Man Tracker on October 01, 2017, 08:56:38 PM
LEO need only reasonable suspicion to make a stop or detain you, probable cause is needed for an arrest. Beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. The rule of thumb is, Is it more likely than not that a violation is being committed? Often a toss up. I hope to God today's officers have the common sense and good grace to realize that an open mind and some active listening will usually lead to making the proper decision. But...
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2017, 08:57:34 PM
as for the rest of the questions it's a judgement call
Quote
I hope to God today's officers have the common sense and good grace to realize that an open mind and some active listening will usually lead to making the proper decision. But...
....But, don't give them ammo!
That is, be far enough away from whatever illegal thing it is that requires a judgement call that you don't invite trouble. Stuff happens, you could be 50 yards from a bait site and have no clue it's there and no way to prove that it wasn't you. So know your area and keep your eyes open, bait sites require frequent traffic from vehicles, people and bears, if I see a well padded down path I wonder why the bears are moving down that path so frequently
Post by: bigtex on October 02, 2017, 06:55:43 PM
You have some reasonable expectation of privacy in your tent or cook shack. I assume (shame on me)that it is on public property you are asking about? Generally speaking a LEO would need consent, a warrant, or a reasonable belief that some exegent circumstances require you to enter. Court rulings are kinda all over, but much depends on whether it is state or federal law being enforced. You have a greater degree of privacy under the WA state constitution than most other places.:yeah:
A question that comes up often is, Is the tent abandoned or just being left for a short period. If it makes sense that it may be abandoned, a LEO could probably look in to see if anything potentially dangerous (firearms) needs safekeeping. Seeing a violation without an immediate safety issue would require a warrant to search/secure.
Due to the mobility of vehicles, courts may give a little move leeway to LE than a tent or shack that isn't leaving the area. But the courts are always making entertaining rulings, some make sense. some don't. But privacy rights are a big deal and the courts do try to respect them,even if a few LEO's don't. Sorry to be long winded. Maybe BiGTex can provide more clarity.
The WA Constitution does afford for greater privacies/protections than the US Constitution and most other state constitutions. It's a reason why anyone who says WA is a "police state" obviously has no legal experience. There are many, many, many things LEOs in WA can't do yet they can in sometimes all other 49 states :twocents:
Post by: hunter399 on October 02, 2017, 07:03:25 PM
This topic should put more light on the reason for my question.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=218837.msg2912951;topicseen#new
Post by: dreamunelk on October 02, 2017, 07:12:37 PM
I have a question ,what is a person's rights on getting a bear out of your backyard that won't leave?
This topic should put more light on the reason for my question.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=218837.msg2912951;topicseen#new
Remove the food source!
Post by: quadrafire on October 02, 2017, 07:14:40 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 02, 2017, 07:20:00 PM
:yeah:I have a question ,what is a person's rights on getting a bear out of your backyard that won't leave?Remove the food source!
This topic should put more light on the reason for my question.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=218837.msg2912951;topicseen#new
To the original question. It would have to fall under the legal hunting season, hours, rules, etc in order for the person to shoot the bear, or WDFW can issue a damage/depredation permit.
Post by: hunter399 on October 02, 2017, 07:30:29 PM
Thanks for reply.:yeah:I have a question ,what is a person's rights on getting a bear out of your backyard that won't leave?Remove the food source!
This topic should put more light on the reason for my question.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=218837.msg2912951;topicseen#new
To the original question. It would have to fall under the legal hunting season, hours, rules, etc in order for the person to shoot the bear, or WDFW can issue a damage/depredation permit.
Post by: csaaphill on October 02, 2017, 08:33:22 PM
I don't see any exigent circumstances in those words Nor do I see any wording about having any kind of suspicion allowing for an unwarranted search.
Nor does it say Warrants are just giving willy nilly it say's none shall be granted unless two or more witnesses.
Everyone calls for law and order that there is your law and order anything else is Lawlessness. :twocents:
Post by: olyguy79 on October 02, 2017, 08:56:58 PM
:sry: But if we lived like this says then all these questions would never come up.And if you're a believer in the Constitution you should also be a believer in the SCOTUS which has authorized the acts you describe as being constitutional. Don't like it? Well blame our founding fathers for not outlining it in the constitution, and creating the SCOTUS to handle such matters.
I don't see any exigent circumstances in those words Nor do I see any wording about having any kind of suspicion allowing for an unwarranted search.
Nor does it say Warrants are just giving willy nilly it say's none shall be granted unless two or more witnesses.
Everyone calls for law and order that there is your law and order anything else is Lawlessness. :twocents:
Bigtex is correct, WA's constitution allows for more protections than the US constitution. I can name several situations that are 'legal' under the 4th Amend of the US Constitution but have been found to be illegal under the WA Constitution.
Post by: csaaphill on October 02, 2017, 09:35:26 PM
No! they did well enough it's the peoples fault for allowing it to begin with. They also gave us countless quotes to fall back on when questions of Constitutionality arose: Of which no one has ever really cared to actually listen to to begin with it seems.:sry: But if we lived like this says then all these questions would never come up.And if you're a believer in the Constitution you should also be a believer in the SCOTUS which has authorized the acts you describe as being constitutional. Don't like it? Well blame our founding fathers for not outlining it in the constitution, and creating the SCOTUS to handle such matters.
I don't see any exigent circumstances in those words Nor do I see any wording about having any kind of suspicion allowing for an unwarranted search.
Nor does it say Warrants are just giving willy nilly it say's none shall be granted unless two or more witnesses.
Everyone calls for law and order that there is your law and order anything else is Lawlessness. :twocents:
Bigtex is correct, WA's constitution allows for more protections than the US constitution. I can name several situations that are 'legal' under the 4th Amend of the US Constitution but have been found to be illegal under the WA Constitution.
Jefferson or someone like him did mention to future Generations to look towards the reason and general thinking of why they made such protections in the first place when trying to define the Constitution, or bill of rights.
So no it wasn't their fault it was the succeeding Generations for not guarding and fighting harder to keep the absolutes absolute as it was designed.
I believe they purposely left the Bill of rights as is and not defined in hopes people wouldn't sell off to the highest bidders.
As for the question NO! I do not like it one bit but know there's more likely nothing I'm going to be able to do about it. Just putting forth knowledge I know for what it's worth regardless if people listen or not.
People harp about lack of knowledge as being one of the reasons why people get ignorant and compliant, but never fully address the fullness of what that means.
Actually here is the quote:
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us]
conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
Post by: smithkl42 on October 02, 2017, 10:09:43 PM
To the original question. It would have to fall under the legal hunting season, hours, rules, etc in order for the person to shoot the bear, or WDFW can issue a damage/depredation permit.
I was the original author of that thread. Leaving aside the joke with which I started the post, the context is that there was a bear that showed up in my backyard, after shooting hours, and was taking apart my compost pile.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/c9bQfQENbPl4XvBf0uQ_gT8UTHLioTXBLO2766n0A6vdS48dvwv6-_-xPlnBXE--PAZD8FcQGkZKPXWRAe1_6OC6Tluo6WmSpP2zgjsqlmcMqUMrTxQVxUj7awkPybfg68tHqKsHGez5e1very2aAS0m9YgF8tj572FZaPFV3ANxQwr34NLDecMpfCmdvvronDYDN7tQ2iTVULgStIIhP99vLAfw-hrZH94IAM8WA9LaLGYNYcFbBt8o28NKYiIhlCkbDVu3AzVunRJH5vSTWghCsDsb3oOfGy3L0qPUF_Ae5fM-43exIbMPfVr7h3qvrKr_D0H2cBNRcpefjbaJ5_8KG-HenCxQTiHcQvqeU3k6EBjctpEu42Yx8o0RHZfMVmDSoe0qjEDHT-j1rzsM5rd1P5oxvUf6LW_raw6jQQP_NkGgM2f7Gzd6U2elr04SPRdAwSj_GJmAjYyBTLT_GB5L2kYddsoeEVQAcGn5CYiE5Iymqk211F-nKr5GBSjNm0_DpnjGnkPZ2C9zlSnXif3l1k9wV59zaN3A-I19fsbyVZz44lkHPSSDSmWJYsxEFyLj7B3R0pLvVZNsvObSHdyV4B6GYOgsBzfOuQWp4h0=w1271-h954-no)
I tried shooing it off, and it wouldn't leave. I've got young kids, and really didn't want it hanging around. So I grabbed my daughter's 15-lb toy bow and a couple of her dull target arrows, and landed a couple of them on the bear from a reasonably safe distance. As expected, they bounced off, but one thumped it hard enough that it must have surprised it, and it took off.
I explicitly was *not* hunting it, nor was I intending to injure it - if that had been my intent (as it would have been two hours earlier), my hunting bow was close at hand. I just wanted to haze it enough that it didn't feel necessary to come back anytime soon. (And I haven't seen it since.)
My strong belief is that this was legal - the bear was damaging my property, was representing a threat to my family, and I took reasonable, measured and humane actions to drive it off. That certainly seems within the spirit and indeed the letter of the regs as I've seen them. But because it was a toy "bow" (as opposed to, say, throwing a couple rocks at it), I think some folks were worried that a warden might think otherwise. Obviously I don't, as I'm here talking about it :-).
Any additional thoughts?
Post by: Mudman on October 02, 2017, 10:44:19 PM
Post by: Bob33 on October 03, 2017, 05:51:20 AM
If a bear was eating my camp food and I shot it in season and tag would that be baiting? Its easy to say Know the area, do homework etc and we try but when you get arrested for a crime like that opinions change. Must think both angles to understand.Does your camp food meet the definition of "bait"?
(d) As used in this subsection, "bait" means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
Post by: ghosthunter on October 03, 2017, 06:10:48 AM
You have some reasonable expectation of privacy in your tent or cook shack. I assume (shame on me)that it is on public property you are asking about? Generally speaking a LEO would need consent, a warrant, or a reasonable belief that some exegent circumstances require you to enter. Court rulings are kinda all over, but much depends on whether it is state or federal law being enforced. You have a greater degree of privacy under the WA state constitution than most other places.
A question that comes up often is, Is the tent abandoned or just being left for a short period. If it makes sense that it may be abandoned, a LEO could probably look in to see if anything potentially dangerous (firearms) needs safekeeping. Seeing a violation without an immediate safety issue would require a warrant to search/secure.
Due to the mobility of vehicles, courts may give a little move leeway to LE than a tent or shack that isn't leaving the area. But the courts are always making entertaining rulings, some make sense. some don't. But privacy rights are a big deal and the courts do try to respect them,even if a few LEO's don't. Sorry to be long winded. Maybe BiGTex can provide more clarity.
Only thing I'd differ on is most cook shacks I've seen aren't in the sleeping or private areas and most are open air unless closed up at night or everyone's hunting, but during cooking it's usually open air? Unless someone is cooking right next to their bunk inside their tent there'd be less issues poking through the coolers there in the "cook shack"
Not so fast, our cook shack is enclosed.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2017, 06:47:36 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. :dunno:
Post by: baker5150 on October 03, 2017, 07:15:46 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. :dunno:
Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2017, 07:53:38 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. :dunno:
Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.
But that won't help someone else who's ignorant of the law and reading the post, though. Some people just immediately assume everything's an attack. They're wrong far more than they're right on this forum.
Post by: baker5150 on October 03, 2017, 08:04:19 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. :dunno:
Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.
But that won't help someone else who's ignorant of the law and reading the post, though. Some people just immediately assume everything's an attack. They're wrong far more than they're right on this forum.
Can you blame them? Things seam to be looking up, but the trolling has been out of control for some time now.
If someone assumes an illegal act, ask in a pm first. Then start another informative thread to educate if they feel so inclined.
Too many good threads get ruined because someone needs to chime in without any factual information.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2017, 08:57:15 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. :dunno:
Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.
But that won't help someone else who's ignorant of the law and reading the post, though. Some people just immediately assume everything's an attack. They're wrong far more than they're right on this forum.
Can you blame them? Things seam to be looking up, but the trolling has been out of control for some time now.
If someone assumes an illegal act, ask in a pm first. Then start another informative thread to educate if they feel so inclined.
Too many good threads get ruined because someone needs to chime in without any factual information.
I guess I haven't seen much of the trolling. But then again, I'm rarely on here, so...
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2017, 11:19:03 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. :dunno:
Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.
But that won't help someone else who's ignorant of the law and reading the post, though. Some people just immediately assume everything's an attack. They're wrong far more than they're right on this forum.
Can you blame them? Things seam to be looking up, but the trolling has been out of control for some time now.
If someone assumes an illegal act, ask in a pm first. Then start another informative thread to educate if they feel so inclined.
Too many good threads get ruined because someone needs to chime in without any factual information.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by trolling? But we have clamped down on the negativity and that includes bashing the forum or other members!
Post by: Elkcollector82 on October 03, 2017, 11:30:13 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. :dunno:
Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.
But that won't help someone else who's ignorant of the law and reading the post, though. Some people just immediately assume everything's an attack. They're wrong far more than they're right on this forum.
Can you blame them? Things seam to be looking up, but the trolling has been out of control for some time now.
If someone assumes an illegal act, ask in a pm first. Then start another informative thread to educate if they feel so inclined.
Too many good threads get ruined because someone needs to chime in without any factual information.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by trolling? But we have clamped down on the negativity and that includes bashing the forum or other members!
With that said. Great job. You and others mods keep up the great work :tup:
Post by: baker5150 on October 03, 2017, 11:45:34 AM
This is why some of us won't ever post half the stuff we do because so many rush to judgment without knowing enough to make that call.
True story right there.
That's some of it but mostly, I think experienced forum members tell people about the illegal stuff they post as a service, not an internet bashing. I would think someone would want to know if they were doing something illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the rules and no one says anything, they'll likely continue to be ignorant and get nailed for it sooner or later. :dunno:
Best done in a PM as opposed to the open forum, internet bashing is mostly taken out of it that way.
If I received a pm about a possible illegal situation I posted, I would find it easier to think the message was sent with good intent, and any embarrassment is limited.
But that won't help someone else who's ignorant of the law and reading the post, though. Some people just immediately assume everything's an attack. They're wrong far more than they're right on this forum.
Can you blame them? Things seam to be looking up, but the trolling has been out of control for some time now.
If someone assumes an illegal act, ask in a pm first. Then start another informative thread to educate if they feel so inclined.
Too many good threads get ruined because someone needs to chime in without any factual information.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by trolling? But we have clamped down on the negativity and that includes bashing the forum or other members!
I think things are a TON better since the new rules/layout/etc. took place.
By trolling I meant that there were a few who seamed to love to point out anything they could find to cause a stir. This seamed to happen a lot if a legality issue was in the mix. The "clamp down" seams to have been exactly what was needed, and I commend the mods and you, Bearpaw for taking action.
I hope no one, especially Pman thinks I was trying to bash him/them or the forum. Pman is certainly one of the good ones on here, he's always willing to have a civil discussion and keep it civil.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2017, 11:47:44 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on October 03, 2017, 01:11:20 PM
But....
Fact is that it is up to the LEO discretion to write you a visit to court or not. It is THERE that you can/will find out if what you did is actually illegal.
Post by: Elkcollector82 on October 03, 2017, 01:31:45 PM
One side of me would love to throw out all sorts of hypothetical situations because I think it would be fun......
But....
Fact is that it is up to the LEO discretion to write you a visit to court or not. It is THERE that you can/will find out if what you did is actually illegal.
It's only money right. Can't take it with you when you die. :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on October 03, 2017, 09:28:00 PM
I'm here to say the law would not be on your side.To the original question. It would have to fall under the legal hunting season, hours, rules, etc in order for the person to shoot the bear, or WDFW can issue a damage/depredation permit.I was the original author of that thread. Leaving aside the joke with which I started the post, the context is that there was a bear that showed up in my backyard, after shooting hours, and was taking apart my compost pile.
I tried shooing it off, and it wouldn't leave. I've got young kids, and really didn't want it hanging around. So I grabbed my daughter's 15-lb toy bow and a couple of her dull target arrows, and landed a couple of them on the bear from a reasonably safe distance. As expected, they bounced off, but one thumped it hard enough that it must have surprised it, and it took off.
I explicitly was *not* hunting it, nor was I intending to injure it - if that had been my intent (as it would have been two hours earlier), my hunting bow was close at hand. I just wanted to haze it enough that it didn't feel necessary to come back anytime soon. (And I haven't seen it since.)
My strong belief is that this was legal - the bear was damaging my property, was representing a threat to my family, and I took reasonable, measured and humane actions to drive it off. That certainly seems within the spirit and indeed the letter of the regs as I've seen them. But because it was a toy "bow" (as opposed to, say, throwing a couple rocks at it), I think some folks were worried that a warden might think otherwise. Obviously I don't, as I'm here talking about it :-).
Any additional thoughts?
1- Damaging your property: I'll be blunt, boohoo. State law requires a damage/depredation permit be issued in order for someone to take an animal who is doing damage. Otherwise anyone could say "well Officer that 5 point buck walked into my rose bushes and started tearing them up so I shot it, I want the horns and meat."
2- Representing a threat to your family: Based off what you said, no it didn't. A bear simply in a compost pile is not a threat to your family. Did it charge you? Did it growl at you? The self-defense claim is made often with bears and rarely is it found to be true.
3- You did not hunt the animal: By the letter of the law yes you did, harassment (you call it hazing) is included in the definition of "hunt"
4- "That certainly seems within the spirit and indeed the letter of the regs as I've seen them": Actually it's just the opposite. You will not find a RCW/WAC supporting what you did.
Post by: Humptulips on October 03, 2017, 10:57:42 PM
I'm here to say the law would not be on your side.To the original question. It would have to fall under the legal hunting season, hours, rules, etc in order for the person to shoot the bear, or WDFW can issue a damage/depredation permit.I was the original author of that thread. Leaving aside the joke with which I started the post, the context is that there was a bear that showed up in my backyard, after shooting hours, and was taking apart my compost pile.
I tried shooing it off, and it wouldn't leave. I've got young kids, and really didn't want it hanging around. So I grabbed my daughter's 15-lb toy bow and a couple of her dull target arrows, and landed a couple of them on the bear from a reasonably safe distance. As expected, they bounced off, but one thumped it hard enough that it must have surprised it, and it took off.
I explicitly was *not* hunting it, nor was I intending to injure it - if that had been my intent (as it would have been two hours earlier), my hunting bow was close at hand. I just wanted to haze it enough that it didn't feel necessary to come back anytime soon. (And I haven't seen it since.)
My strong belief is that this was legal - the bear was damaging my property, was representing a threat to my family, and I took reasonable, measured and humane actions to drive it off. That certainly seems within the spirit and indeed the letter of the regs as I've seen them. But because it was a toy "bow" (as opposed to, say, throwing a couple rocks at it), I think some folks were worried that a warden might think otherwise. Obviously I don't, as I'm here talking about it :-).
Any additional thoughts?
1- Damaging your property: I'll be blunt, boohoo. State law requires a damage/depredation permit be issued in order for someone to take an animal who is doing damage. Otherwise anyone could say "well Officer that 5 point buck walked into my rose bushes and started tearing them up so I shot it, I want the horns and meat."
2- Representing a threat to your family: Based off what you said, no it didn't. A bear simply in a compost pile is not a threat to your family. Did it charge you? Did it growl at you? The self-defense claim is made often with bears and rarely is it found to be true.
3- You did not hunt the animal: By the letter of the law yes you did, harassment (you call it hazing) is included in the definition of "hunt"
4- "That certainly seems within the spirit and indeed the letter of the regs as I've seen them": Actually it's just the opposite. You will not find a RCW/WAC supporting what you did.
I do not believe you are correct.
While Harassment of wildlife does not seem to be defined per WAC or RCW, I do not believe shooting a toy arrow at a bear in your backyard rises to the level of Harassment. In the Living with Wildlife section under bears the Department recommends "Temporary scare techniques".
My understanding of the OP was this was done for safety reasons and not because of supposed damage to a compost pile.
I cannot believe any court would consider this encounter with a toy arrow anything but a temporary scare technique considering the circumstances..
Post by: Gringo31 on October 04, 2017, 01:35:36 PM
Post by: fish vacuum on October 05, 2017, 02:18:45 AM
Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on October 05, 2017, 07:05:44 AM
I see no questions in the original post.:yeah:
Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk