Post by: JDHasty on October 28, 2017, 03:15:50 PM
http://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/local/communities/gig-harbor/2017/10/23/deer-shot-bow-hunter-downtown-gig-harbor/792374001/
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 28, 2017, 03:21:35 PM
"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.
“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."
Post by: constructeur on October 28, 2017, 03:29:45 PM
In the end the hunter 'got his' and I'm sure that's all he concerned with at the moment, which is typical.
Post by: Stein on October 28, 2017, 03:39:49 PM
Post by: JDHasty on October 28, 2017, 03:49:56 PM
On one hand the fella put it all together, obtained permission, etc.; on the other hand this is such an easy way to stoke the anti hunting folks, or turn middle of the road folks into antis.
In the end the hunter 'got his' and I'm sure that's all he concerned with at the moment, which is typical.
Post by: Bob33 on October 28, 2017, 04:13:38 PM
Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.
"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.
“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 28, 2017, 04:33:18 PM
Reading the wastage RCW, the first part, regarding being in possession of big game and allowing it to recklessly go to waste:
"RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife—Penalty. (Effective until January 1, 2018.)
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted...."
A) Is it enough to meet the definition of possession by the landowner knowingly having it on his property even though he did not place it there?
B) Does refusing permission for a hunter to remove it, (thus preventing spoilage), meet the definition of recklessly allowing it to be wasted?
C) Why would WDFW Officer Summit make the statement about charging the landowner if he would not be able to follow through?
That is why I would be interested to hear if the hunter was able to recover his deer or if the owner refused and was in fact charged...
Post by: Bob33 on October 28, 2017, 05:22:15 PM
That is why I am curious to see how this shakes out.By that line of thinking a landowner would be required to salvage any game animal that happened to die on his property. I don't believe he does.
Reading the wastage RCW, the first part, regarding being in possession of big game and allowing it to recklessly go to waste:
"RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife—Penalty. (Effective until January 1, 2018.)
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted...."
A) Is it enough to meet the definition of possession by the landowner knowingly having it on his property even though he did not place it there?
B) Does refusing permission for a hunter to remove it, (thus preventing spoilage), meet the definition of recklessly allowing it to be wasted?
C) Why would WDFW Officer Summit make the statement about charging the landowner if he would not be able to follow through?
That is why I would be interested to hear if the hunter was able to recover his deer or if the owner refused and was in fact charged...
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 28, 2017, 05:26:55 PM
That is why I am curious to see how this shakes out.By that line of thinking a landowner would be required to salvage any game animal that happened to die on his property. I don't believe he does.
Reading the wastage RCW, the first part, regarding being in possession of big game and allowing it to recklessly go to waste:
"RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife—Penalty. (Effective until January 1, 2018.)
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted...."
A) Is it enough to meet the definition of possession by the landowner knowingly having it on his property even though he did not place it there?
B) Does refusing permission for a hunter to remove it, (thus preventing spoilage), meet the definition of recklessly allowing it to be wasted?
C) Why would WDFW Officer Summit make the statement about charging the landowner if he would not be able to follow through?
That is why I would be interested to hear if the hunter was able to recover his deer or if the owner refused and was in fact charged...
I will say it again, that is why I am curious to see how this works out.
What you, I, or anyone outside of the LEO and the Courts think or believe does not matter.
This just seems like a pretty good test case if the officer were to follow through with charges and it make it into and through the court system, thus giving us all an answer from those whose opinion truly does matter on situtations like this!
Nothing more, nothing less....
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 28, 2017, 06:50:34 PM
But I'm now curious about the city of Ocean Shores' no hunting law. Evidently they don't have that authority according to this article.
https://oceanshores.civicweb.net/document/3995
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 28, 2017, 06:54:36 PM
Interesting that, in certain areas they do allow bird hunting.
Post by: trophyhunt on October 28, 2017, 07:01:39 PM
disagree, the landowner if notified about what happened, should be liable if he doesn't let the hunter retrieve their game. Just my 2 cents!Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.
"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.
“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."
Post by: JDHasty on October 28, 2017, 07:01:56 PM
Good question!
Interesting that, in certain areas they do allow bird hunting.
IMHO these individuals are a menace.
By some people's way of thinking: We are all hunters and we need to stick together. This is a prime example of why I am very cautious and discerning when it comes to being another blinded subscriber to that theory.
It seems to me that common sense would dictate that this would not reflect well on the hunting fraternity with 95% or more of the public at large.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 28, 2017, 07:08:29 PM
Good question!
Interesting that, in certain areas they do allow bird hunting.
And bow hunting for carp.
Post by: JDHasty on October 28, 2017, 07:09:22 PM
disagree, the landowner if notified about what happened, should be liable if he doesn't let the hunter retrieve their game. Just my 2 cents!Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.
"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.
“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."
We have been there and the law is at the minimum, vague.
The property owner we dealt with, me just trying to help a fellow hunter who didn't know how to handle this mess, the property owner, even when he was told by WDFW enforcement officer: the hunter still will have a valid tag and will kill another deer if you don't let him retrieve the one laying dead on your property. Flat out Refused.
Go figure.
The guy sits on ten acres surrounded by hundreds of acres 80% of which allow hunting.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 28, 2017, 07:23:30 PM
disagree, the landowner if notified about what happened, should be liable if he doesn't let the hunter retrieve their game. Just my 2 cents!Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.
"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.
“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."
We have been there and the law is at the minimum, vague.
The property owner we dealt with, me just trying to help a fellow hunter who didn't know how to handle this mess, the property owner, even when he was told by WDFW enforcement officer: the hunter still will have a valid tag and will kill another deer if you don't let him retrieve the one laying dead on your property. Flat out Refused.
Go figure.
The guy sits on ten acres surrounded by hundreds of acres 80% of which allow hunting.
Probably figured he'd put it in his own freezer. Be interesting to look in his freezer. Or maybe he has an illegal grow on his property and doesn't want anyone stumbling onto it.
Post by: JDHasty on October 28, 2017, 07:40:24 PM
disagree, the landowner if notified about what happened, should be liable if he doesn't let the hunter retrieve their game. Just my 2 cents!Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.
"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.
“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."
We have been there and the law is at the minimum, vague.
The property owner we dealt with, me just trying to help a fellow hunter who didn't know how to handle this mess, the property owner, even when he was told by WDFW enforcement officer: the hunter still will have a valid tag and will kill another deer if you don't let him retrieve the one laying dead on your property. Flat out Refused.
Go figure.
The guy sits on ten acres surrounded by hundreds of acres 80% of which allow hunting.
Probably figured he'd put it in his own freezer. Be interesting to look in his freezer. Or maybe he has an illegal grow on his property and doesn't want anyone stumbling onto it.
Militant anti-hunter.
Once I was told which property it was on I knew it was not going to end well. I have never been caught up in that mess, but have witnessed it for decades.
The hell of it is a guy trespassed another property and killed a deer about a quarter mile from that very spot this week. It is dealing with these idiots that makes it so damnably frustrating for those who have developed long term relationships in that area.
The good thing is most every other property owner feels much relieved when we are actively hunting their properties, AND TELL US SO. What is even better is that those who do not allow access, for whatever reason, have said the same thing. When we are active they know that nothing goes unnoticed and so do the local yahoos who pull a lot, if not most, of these stunts.
Post by: snake on October 28, 2017, 07:50:03 PM
Post by: pd on October 28, 2017, 09:57:15 PM
Totally not smart
Sorry, I disagree. The warden stated on record that the hunter had permission of the land owner to shoot the animal, and the hunter had the proper documents. Perfectly legal.
You don't like it? Your opinion. I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion. The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.
Post by: Humptulips on October 28, 2017, 11:54:13 PM
Here in Hoquiam, you can't shoot any weopans in the city limits, bows included. Not even target practice in your own yard. It didn't used to be this way. Back in the day we'd set up targets in a safe location and shoot our bows to our hearts content.
I remember when that came about. I believe it was a Minister and his son legally killed two deer in the Ministers back yard. Same thing, bow hunting, in that case though I believe no one was the wiser until a dog dug up the entrails they buried there. Neighbors complained and before you know it all weapons including bows are outlawed from use within the city limits.
Post by: spin05 on October 29, 2017, 01:13:17 AM
Totally not smart
Sorry, I disagree. The warden stated on record that the hunter had permission of the land owner to shoot the animal, and the hunter had the proper documents. Perfectly legal.
You don't like it? Your opinion. I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion. The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.
I agree. Totally legal. What i dont like is them calling him a bow hunter. He is a rifle hunter,in a rifle season using a bow in a firearm restricted area. NOT a BOW hunter. Unless maybe he has the multi-season tag. Just something else to make bowhunters look bad.
Post by: X-Force on October 29, 2017, 03:38:37 AM
Hopefully he did.
Post by: JDHasty on October 29, 2017, 06:10:19 AM
Here in Hoquiam, you can't shoot any weopans in the city limits, bows included. Not even target practice in your own yard. It didn't used to be this way. Back in the day we'd set up targets in a safe location and shoot our bows to our hearts content.
I remember when that came about. I believe it was a Minister and his son legally killed two deer in the Ministers back yard. Same thing, bow hunting, in that case though I believe no one was the wiser until a dog dug up the entrails they buried there. Neighbors complained and before you know it all weapons including bows are outlawed from use within the city limits.
Ending up with laws like that passed, wherein you cannot practice with a bow in your own back yard is exactly this kind of idiocy leads.
FWIW, i learned of this from a neighbor who spends a lot of time in The Harbor and there are meetings being set up "to prevent this from happening ever again" and it would not surprise me if the outcome were the same response that Hoquium had. Gig Harbor is much less accepting of hunting in general than is Hoquium.
Post by: jvt on October 29, 2017, 07:46:33 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 29, 2017, 07:47:50 AM
I also don't agree the landowner would be liable. I've asked that exact question of wardens in my area and they say no, I do not have to allow anyone on to retrieve game and i would not be cited for waste by not giving access. I have heard of wardens in Idaho using this threat as leverage for hunters to retrieve game...but have not seen any examples or heard of any going through the legal process.Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.
"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.
“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."
Post by: beav1980 on October 29, 2017, 07:54:20 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 29, 2017, 08:59:27 AM
Totally not smart
Sorry, I disagree. The warden stated on record that the hunter had permission of the land owner to shoot the animal, and the hunter had the proper documents. Perfectly legal.
You don't like it? Your opinion. I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion. The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.
I agree. Totally legal. What i dont like is them calling him a bow hunter. He is a rifle hunter,in a rifle season using a bow in a firearm restricted area. NOT a BOW hunter. Unless maybe he has the multi-season tag. Just something else to make bowhunters look bad.
He was hunting with a bow. He's a bow hunter. Period. They were 100% correct in calling him that. What makes him a "rifle hunter" and not a bow hunter, when he actually was in fact hunting with a bow?
Post by: Curly on October 29, 2017, 09:53:48 AM
I hope the reporter mis-quoted the warden in that quote above. He is spreading misinformation with that quote. It's sad if the warden is actually misinformed in the law....
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 29, 2017, 10:26:02 AM
Here in Hoquiam, you can't shoot any weopans in the city limits, bows included. Not even target practice in your own yard. It didn't used to be this way. Back in the day we'd set up targets in a safe location and shoot our bows to our hearts content.
I remember when that came about. I believe it was a Minister and his son legally killed two deer in the Ministers back yard. Same thing, bow hunting, in that case though I believe no one was the wiser until a dog dug up the entrails they buried there. Neighbors complained and before you know it all weapons including bows are outlawed from use within the city limits.
I also knew of a few deer being taken back in the 70s out on Rennie Island which is in the city limits. Usually with a shotgun or a bow. That was a popular duck hunting place too. There may have even been a couple taken with rifles but I don't remember anybody ever getting bothered for hunting out there. Maybe after I moved to Alaska.
As for the boom in deer in the city, I personally believe they were lurking about but loose dogs running around kept them from relaxing out in the open. With leash laws being enforced like they are now, the deer are free to go where they want and they brought cougars into town with them. I remember a nice buck made it's way into Hoquiam back in the 70s and was running around down by Swansons and you'd have thought an alien landed from all the publicity it got. That was unheard of in those days.
Post by: JDHasty on October 29, 2017, 10:42:01 AM
He legally harvested a deer what's the issue? Although this isn't my style he got permission and did it legally. No charges so this is news that is lame.
It is totally classless and short sighted and may very well result in nobody being able to set up an archery target in their backyard and practice within the City limits in the future. It is in the news because it is what residents of Gig Harbor are talking about.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 29, 2017, 10:53:17 AM
yeah, quite a few bow hunters like to hunt the rifle tag because of rut timing.Totally not smart
Sorry, I disagree. The warden stated on record that the hunter had permission of the land owner to shoot the animal, and the hunter had the proper documents. Perfectly legal.
You don't like it? Your opinion. I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion. The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.
I agree. Totally legal. What i dont like is them calling him a bow hunter. He is a rifle hunter,in a rifle season using a bow in a firearm restricted area. NOT a BOW hunter. Unless maybe he has the multi-season tag. Just something else to make bowhunters look bad.
He was hunting with a bow. He's a bow hunter. Period. They were 100% correct in calling him that. What makes him a "rifle hunter" and not a bow hunter, when he actually was in fact hunting with a bow?
Post by: Bob33 on October 29, 2017, 11:23:05 AM
But not to worry, it's all legal.
Post by: Timberstalker on October 29, 2017, 11:35:35 AM
I live in a city in eastern King County that allows hunting with archery gear on private land. I can legally shoot a deer in my backyard with a bow. When I do and it runs across the street in front of a school bus of kids and dies in my neighbor's front yard it is likely he would allow me to retrieve it. When I drag it back across the street to my yard to gut it, I may get a visit by the police who were called by a concerned neighbor.
But not to worry, it's all legal.
Correct, you may be able to drink a beer as well, depending on your local open container rcw’s.
Post by: Bob33 on October 29, 2017, 11:45:42 AM
Before or after I shoot the deer?I live in a city in eastern King County that allows hunting with archery gear on private land. I can legally shoot a deer in my backyard with a bow. When I do and it runs across the street in front of a school bus of kids and dies in my neighbor's front yard it is likely he would allow me to retrieve it. When I drag it back across the street to my yard to gut it, I may get a visit by the police who were called by a concerned neighbor.
But not to worry, it's all legal.
Correct, you may be able to drink a beer as well, depending on your local open container rcw’s.
Post by: beav1980 on October 29, 2017, 01:02:11 PM
like Pierce County is about as bad as King County smh
Post by: BA Mongor on October 29, 2017, 06:20:42 PM
Had A Legal Tag
Shot It During Season
Shot It With A Legal Weapon
What is the %@$#% is the issue!
Good for him, and I hope it was a wall hanger to boot. To all the city folk or others that have an issue with it, they can stay indoors and watch Animal Planet !
Post by: Stein on October 29, 2017, 06:49:42 PM
You don't like it? Your opinion. I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion. The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.
There is more to the story than legality. Hunting is a privilege and one afforded to a minority of us that are hunters. If we do not manage public opinion and hunting develops a negative opinion, it will be game over. It may be perfectly legal to do something, but still not smart if you care about the future of hunting.
Some will quickly chime on that we have no obligation to appease the "antis" or whatever we call them. The fact of the matter is that 94% of the people that vote don't hunt.
Post by: BigGoonTuna on October 29, 2017, 07:14:47 PM
the really screwy thing is that hoquiam's city limits include rennie island and all the salt waterfront from the refuge to grays harbor city. Was really excited to have what looked like great duck hunting 5 minutes from my front door until i learned that. I lived on the edge of town and would have had ample opportunities to take 3 and 4 point bucks in my back yard (not to mention the big black bear that wdfw trapped at my neighbor's place in 2009)Here in Hoquiam, you can't shoot any weopans in the city limits, bows included. Not even target practice in your own yard. It didn't used to be this way. Back in the day we'd set up targets in a safe location and shoot our bows to our hearts conūtent.
I remember when that came about. I believe it was a Minister and his son legally killed two deer in the Ministers back yard. Same thing, bow hunting, in that case though I believe no one was the wiser until a dog dug up the entrails they buried there. Neighbors complained and before you know it all weapons including bows are outlawed from use within the city limits.
Post by: JDHasty on October 30, 2017, 09:36:28 AM
You don't like it? Your opinion. I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion. The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.
There is more to the story than legality. Hunting is a privilege and one afforded to a minority of us that are hunters. If we do not manage public opinion and hunting develops a negative opinion, it will be game over. It may be perfectly legal to do something, but still not smart if you care about the future of hunting.
Some will quickly chime on that we have no obligation to appease the "antis" or whatever we call them. The fact of the matter is that 94% of the people that vote don't hunt.
True story.
Hunting laws preserve wildlife, having a respect for others who don't share the same attitude you have about hunting preserves the hunter's opportunity to hunt. Because ethics generally govern behavior that affects public opinion of hunters, ethical behavior ensures that hunters are welcome and hunting areas stay open.
Post by: JDHasty on October 30, 2017, 09:50:08 AM
Had Permission To Hunt The Land
Had A Legal Tag
Shot It During Season
Shot It With A Legal Weapon
What is the %@$#% is the issue!
Good for him, and I hope it was a wall hanger to boot. To all the city folk or others that have an issue with it, they can stay indoors and watch Animal Planet !
It's too bad you weren't there to help him strap it to the hood of his car so he could drive around town showing it off and really rub the "city folk's" nose in
Had Permission To Hunt The Land
Had A Legal Tag
Shot It During Season
Shot It With A Legal Weapon
//s
This is what is posted on WDFW's website:
Remember that the future of hunting depends on hunters and non-hunters alike. Be considerate of non-hunters’ sensibilities, and strive to leave them with positive images of hunting and hunters.
Post by: idaho guy on October 30, 2017, 09:55:27 AM
Post by: snake on October 30, 2017, 08:12:10 PM
Lets get to the heart of the issue here Washington needs to pass a law immediately to prohibit naming backyard and city animals. First Bullwinkle and now "bucky" Really? I guess wildlife are just like the ones in the Disney movieDon't even start with bullwinkle again.....
Post by: spin05 on October 31, 2017, 01:36:59 AM
yeah, quite a few bow hunters like to hunt the rifle tag because of rut timing.Totally not smart
Sorry, I disagree. The warden stated on record that the hunter had permission of the land owner to shoot the animal, and the hunter had the proper documents. Perfectly legal.
You don't like it? Your opinion. I might not like it, either, but that would be my opinion. The hunter (and the property owner) agreed, that's the end of the story.
I agree. Totally legal. What i dont like is them calling him a bow hunter. He is a rifle hunter,in a rifle season using a bow in a firearm restricted area. NOT a BOW hunter. Unless maybe he has the multi-season tag. Just something else to make bowhunters look bad.
He was hunting with a bow. He's a bow hunter. Period. They were 100% correct in calling him that. What makes him a "rifle hunter" and not a bow hunter, when he actually was in fact hunting with a bow?
i got no problem with that. When i rifle hunted .I hunted Shelton at the end of the season in a firearm restricted area with my muzzloader and sometimes a shotgun. Do i call my self a shotgun hunter??? Do i call myself a blackpowder hunter. ?? Nope . I was a rifle hunter due to the Tag i carried and the seson i hunted. But call whatever you want. . I know some guys that just like shooting there bow and use it in a diffrent season. All the public sees is he is a bow hunter and all the bad press that came along with it.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 31, 2017, 04:51:51 AM
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said.
I hope the reporter mis-quoted the warden in that quote above. He is spreading misinformation with that quote. It's sad if the warden is actually misinformed in the law....
Officer Summit is clearly wrong. The landowner can prohibit the hunter from entering his (or her) lands to retrieve the animal. What they likely cannot do is prohibit WDFW from retrieving the animal, but WDFW cannot then give it to the hunter because the animal is then property of WDFW and employees cannot give away government property.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1627&Year=2015
Post by: Curly on October 31, 2017, 05:09:26 AM
Yeah, my hope is that the author misquoted Summit. It's scary that a wdfw officer would get an issue like this wrong but we know he is wrong with what he said in that quote. I hope someone has educated Summit on the law after reading that article.“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said.
I hope the reporter mis-quoted the warden in that quote above. He is spreading misinformation with that quote. It's sad if the warden is actually misinformed in the law....
Officer Summit is clearly wrong. The landowner can prohibit the hunter from entering his (or her) lands to retrieve the animal. What they likely cannot do is prohibit WDFW from retrieving the animal, but WDFW cannot then give it to the hunter because the animal is then property of WDFW and employees cannot give away government property.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1627&Year=2015
Post by: Bob33 on October 31, 2017, 06:11:55 AM
The landowner can restrict WDFW from his property to retrieve the animal. The question is whether the landowner could then be charged with wastage. If he were I believe he would win the case.Yeah, my hope is that the author misquoted Summit. It's scary that a wdfw officer would get an issue like this wrong but we know he is wrong with what he said in that quote. I hope someone has educated Summit on the law after reading that article.“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said.
I hope the reporter mis-quoted the warden in that quote above. He is spreading misinformation with that quote. It's sad if the warden is actually misinformed in the law....
Officer Summit is clearly wrong. The landowner can prohibit the hunter from entering his (or her) lands to retrieve the animal. What they likely cannot do is prohibit WDFW from retrieving the animal, but WDFW cannot then give it to the hunter because the animal is then property of WDFW and employees cannot give away government property.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1627&Year=2015
Post by: ctwiggs1 on October 31, 2017, 06:38:34 AM
The landowner can restrict WDFW from his property to retrieve the animal. The question is whether the landowner could then be charged with wastage. If he were I believe he would win the case.Yeah, my hope is that the author misquoted Summit. It's scary that a wdfw officer would get an issue like this wrong but we know he is wrong with what he said in that quote. I hope someone has educated Summit on the law after reading that article.“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said.
I hope the reporter mis-quoted the warden in that quote above. He is spreading misinformation with that quote. It's sad if the warden is actually misinformed in the law....
Officer Summit is clearly wrong. The landowner can prohibit the hunter from entering his (or her) lands to retrieve the animal. What they likely cannot do is prohibit WDFW from retrieving the animal, but WDFW cannot then give it to the hunter because the animal is then property of WDFW and employees cannot give away government property.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1627&Year=2015
I've heard several stories about land owners telling hunters and WDFW employees to "pound sand", and nothing happening. The animal rots and no charges are issued.
It's frustrating but if you think about the land owners perspective, they should be allowed to determine who comes on their property regardless of circumstance. WDFW should not have instant access because they have a badge.... That's one of our constitutional rights.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 31, 2017, 08:04:33 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on October 31, 2017, 08:07:11 AM
Makes you wonder, why would anyone want a large dead animal rotting on their property and drawing in scavengers?
Probably just bury it while chanting "Hands up Don't Shoot!"
In all honesty, depending on the circumstances... I know there are times when I wouldn't let people come on my property. We had guys that used to come onto my dads property growing up and jump shoot ducks on fields we were trying to keep cold throughout the week. Pretty irritating. The few really do ruin it for the many.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2017, 08:16:04 AM
Would be nice to know if he is not given permission to retrieve it, if WDFW purses this...I don't agree that the landowner is liable for the deer going to waste if he doesn't allow access.
"Even though the wounded deer left the Moss property and moved onto another private property where it was pursued, that doesn’t really matter, Summit said. The permission given by the property owner where the deer was first shot allows for the specific hunt to continue.
“The best we can hope for is that the hunter will drop their bow or other weapon and go knock on the door of the property owner where the animal died, let them know what happened and ask if it’s OK to retrieve the animal.
“The owner of the property where the deer actually died can forbid a hunter from collecting the animal, and they can call the police, but they can be held liable for the dead deer and can be charged with the wasting of the animal,” Summit said."
I don't know. If he refuses to allow the hunter to retrieve it, he needs to let the WDFW know so the animal can be salvaged.
"RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife—Penalty. (Effective until January 1, 2018.)
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted..."
He possesses the game even though he didn't "take" it. If he allows it to be wasted, he's in violation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2017, 08:36:36 AM
Had Permission To Hunt The Land
Had A Legal Tag
Shot It During Season
Shot It With A Legal Weapon
What is the %@$#% is the issue!
Good for him, and I hope it was a wall hanger to boot. To all the city folk or others that have an issue with it, they can stay indoors and watch Animal Planet !
You really don't see an issue? Or is it that you've got your feet so firmly set in concrete, the damage to the image of hunting is completely lost on you?
I get it. We're being attacked from all sides. They want our guns. They want to bring in wolves to kill of all the game animals to end hunting. PETA just put up a billboard across the street from your house which draws a confusing line between a horse and a cow (I would think about including the horse and rabbit to the right of the red line). It won't ever end until it ends. If we're not careful, we can certainly hasten the demise of our hunting heritage by utterly refusing to see the damage that a high profile kill like this can cause. I guarantee that the city council will now vote for a rule which prohibits hunting within city limits. Before the highly publicized, downtown death of their favorite hand-fed ungulate, no such rule was being considered. We have to use good judgement if we wish to keep the non-hunting 96%+ of the WA population on our side. I personally don't believe this was good judgement.
Post by: JDHasty on October 31, 2017, 08:49:03 AM
Had Permission To Hunt The Land
Had A Legal Tag
Shot It During Season
Shot It With A Legal Weapon
What is the %@$#% is the issue!
Good for him, and I hope it was a wall hanger to boot. To all the city folk or others that have an issue with it, they can stay indoors and watch Animal Planet !
You really don't see an issue? Or is it that you've got your feet so firmly set in concrete, the damage to the image of hunting is completely lost on you?
I get it. We're being attacked from all sides. They want our guns. They want to bring in wolves to kill of all the game animals to end hunting. PETA just put up a billboard across the street from your house which draws a confusing line between a horse and a cow (I would think about including the horse and rabbit to the right of the red line). It won't ever end until it ends. If we're not careful, we can certainly hasten the demise of our hunting heritage by utterly refusing to see the damage that a high profile kill like this can cause. I guarantee that the city council will now vote for a rule which prohibits hunting within city limits. Before the highly publicized, downtown death of their favorite hand-fed ungulate, no such rule was being considered. We have to use good judgement if we wish to keep the non-hunting 96%+ of the WA population on our side. I personally don't believe this was good judgement.
I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears a jerk who was invited by a third party to shoot rockchucks on another individual's land get into an argument with the property owner whether or not it was OK for him to shoot there w/a high-power, semi-auto rifle. "Why's that? If it's legal, I don't understand what your problem is."
Before telling entire entourage to get the ______ off his property and never come back the property owner did offer an explanation as to why... which is a heck of a lot more than I would have done.
As things stand today, thanks to attitudes like that, the entire ten mile stretch of land fronting both sides of the canal (almost entirely owned by six or seven family members) is "we don't allow any shooting here except longtime friends and family."
The property owner also told me that he had allowed a group of hunters to jump shoot waterfowl along the canal that runs through the property, but not quail or pheasant. After his son witnessed the guys hunting pheasants the "hunters" proceed to tell the property owner that since pheasant season is open and they have the proper license so there was "no harm-no foul." This family used to be very generous when it came to access, particularly given that their property is so close to one of the larger towns in central WA. Today if you haven't known them for decades there is no use in asking.
Post by: Skillet on October 31, 2017, 09:34:36 AM
This is exactly the type of poor decision making by hunters that causes the non-hunting public to say "There oughtta be a law!"
And there will be a law that prevents this specific type of wastage, but it will be one that also prevents practicing with his bow in his own yard. :twocents:
But hey - it was legal, and he got his deer, right?
Oh, wait...
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 31, 2017, 12:12:43 PM
When I worked in game management, I can't even recall the number of p.o.'ed nonhunting wildlife lovers I talked to who were enraged at what the deer had done to their landscaping and gardens, who demanded a solution from the state that didn't involve hunting. And, get a dog and build a high fence were not acceptable solutions. Like it or not, legal hunting is still the best way to control wildlife populations - even where people live who might get upset by hunting.
Post by: idaho guy on October 31, 2017, 04:20:25 PM
Urban wildlife is one of the most challenging and frustrating aspects of game management - especially big game. Archery is a discrete way to control urban and suburban wildlife. The other realistic ends for urban deer? Vehicle collision, mauled by dogs, poached, or enticing predators into the same areas where little kids play. From a herd management perspective, a deer legally harvested from a conflict area is preferable to one way out in the woods. Even with the best of skills and intentions, wounded animals cross property lines. I disagree with the philosophy that this guy acted poorly even though it is not my kind of "hunt".
When I worked in game management, I can't even recall the number of p.o.'ed nonhunting wildlife lovers I talked to who were enraged at what the deer had done to their landscaping and gardens, who demanded a solution from the state that didn't involve hunting. And, get a dog and build a high fence were not acceptable solutions. Like it or not, legal hunting is still the best way to control wildlife populations - even where people live who might get upset by hunting.
Well said and a realistic perspective from someone who has "been there" and understands wildlife management thanks for posting!
Post by: mkcj on October 31, 2017, 05:06:53 PM
Post by: JDHasty on October 31, 2017, 05:33:37 PM
I'm going to bet that ALL hunting and use of all weapons will be BANNED in Gig Harbor very soon and once other small cities hear about this they will follow. I hope it was worth it....but then again shooting a tame deer clearly was in that "hunters" mind
I concur. I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is inevitable when you have individuals running around who have no regard for the sensibilities of the majority of the voting public. It is a shame the "bow hunter's" name and photo did not accompany the article so that he gets proper attribution for what will be his legacy.
Post by: Bob33 on October 31, 2017, 06:14:32 PM
Post by: Humptulips on October 31, 2017, 07:16:45 PM
I say this coming from seeing what has happened with trapping. Most people have no exposure to trapping and generally speaking people are pretty dismissive of things that are foreign to them. So it has been with trapping but then a few years ago we started seeing some of the reality TV shows that show trappers.
It has spurred a lot of interest even though I am aghast at some of the things they show.
Perhaps an article about harvesting, butchering and preparing one of these deer might be a good thing if done properly. Maybe a can of worms but sounds like a good PR project for a sportsmans group.