Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2021, 06:17:31 PM
-Funding for three new WDFW Officer positions focused on salmon fisheries enforcement.
-Funding one new WDFW Law Enforcement Captain position to serve as a liaison with NOAA/NMFS, tribes, and bordering states on fisheries enforcement issues
-Providing funding to WDFW who will in-turn provide the funding to the WA Attorney General's Office for funding the equivalent of 2.5 Assistant Attorney Generals to prosecute cases natural resource cases which are declined by county prosecutors.
The prosecutor funding is an interesting one. Under the state Fish & Wildlife Code if a county prosecutor fails to charge someone with a fish and wildlife offense WDFW can then ask the WA AG to file charges. Now typically this is done in rare cases. However, in the budget request the funding will be used by the "Attorney General’s Office to prosecute hundreds of environmental crimes turned away by county prosecutors each year due to lack of resources." Personally, I think this is a great move and should be supported by anyone who wants to see fish and wildlife violators actually penalized.
As for the funding for this, all three funding proposals are funded by the General Fund (taxes) and not WDFW license dollars.
Post by: timberfaller on December 16, 2021, 06:20:06 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 16, 2021, 06:20:16 PM
Prolly use that prosecution money to hook up wolf poaching too
Post by: Moose Master on December 17, 2021, 04:40:10 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 17, 2021, 04:54:26 PM
Post by: Bareback on December 17, 2021, 05:01:44 PM
Yes, yes! By all means, let’s defund LEO’s and forgo prosecuting drug offenses, or thieves walking right out of retail outlets with carts full of goods etc...and concentrate efforts on fishing violations! :chuckle:
Haven’t you noticed…….. they only pursue/prosecute those that can pay. It’s government economics/ Return On Investment.
Post by: huntnphool on December 17, 2021, 05:17:07 PM
Yes, yes! By all means, let’s defund LEO’s and forgo prosecuting drug offenses, or thieves walking right out of retail outlets with carts full of goods etc...and concentrate efforts on fishing violations! :chuckle:
Haven’t you noticed…….. they only pursue/prosecute those that can pay. It’s government economics/ Return On Investment.
Touche’
Post by: Duckslayer89 on December 17, 2021, 05:24:48 PM
Post by: Wphunt on December 17, 2021, 06:06:14 PM
Inslee announced his supplemental budget request for 2022 this week. His budget for WDFW includes:
-Funding for three new WDFW Officer positions focused on salmon fisheries enforcement.
-Funding one new WDFW Law Enforcement Captain position to serve as a liaison with NOAA/NMFS, tribes, and bordering states on fisheries enforcement issues
-Providing funding to WDFW who will in-turn provide the funding to the WA Attorney General's Office for funding the equivalent of 2.5 Assistant Attorney Generals to prosecute cases natural resource cases which are declined by county prosecutors.
The prosecutor funding is an interesting one. Under the state Fish & Wildlife Code if a county prosecutor fails to charge someone with a fish and wildlife offense WDFW can then ask the WA AG to file charges. Now typically this is done in rare cases. However, in the budget request the funding will be used by the "Attorney General’s Office to prosecute hundreds of environmental crimes turned away by county prosecutors each year due to lack of resources." Personally, I think this is a great move and should be supported by anyone who wants to see fish and wildlife violators actually penalized.
As for the funding for this, all three funding proposals are funded by the General Fund (taxes) and not WDFW license dollars.
Wdfw law enforcement is pitifully low. I’m glad there will be a few more badges out there. I lived in Colorado and Idaho before Washington and got checked multiple times per year in both places. In Washington it’s like they don’t exist.
Post by: WapitiTalk1 on December 17, 2021, 06:21:33 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 17, 2021, 08:26:49 PM
But if a prosecuter won't pick up a case ,it usually has something to due with lack of evidence.
I'm not a fan of Bob Ferguson our AG trying to push crappy gun laws every year.
I think it's a waste of tax payer money ,like normal.
To try and pick up wildlife cases that prosecuter has trashed.
I would rather see them get a few more wardens then give the AG any funding. Take the AG money and give it to enforcement also.
Post by: snake on December 17, 2021, 09:20:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 17, 2021, 09:32:09 PM
But if a prosecuter won't pick up a case ,it usually has something to due with lack of evidence.Not entirely true. There's counties, especially the more populated ones, who will hardly prosecute any fish and wildlife cases simply because they don't have the staffing. Many counties don't even have enough prosecutors to prosecute "people vs people" crime as it is.
When officers submit cases to a prosecutors office and the case is rejected the prosecutor will explain why they won't prosecute. Lack of prosecutorial resources is often the most cited reason.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: Duckslayer89 on December 17, 2021, 09:41:26 PM
yes more officers to make sure your barbs are pinched and you have enough life jackets on board. definitely needed. not...
Exactly. More policing for the guys following the rules already.
Post by: Broomd on December 17, 2021, 10:01:56 PM
Post by: Scruffy on December 17, 2021, 10:51:52 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2021, 12:17:53 AM
But if a prosecuter won't pick up a case ,it usually has something to due with lack of evidence.Not entirely true. There's counties, especially the more populated ones, who will hardly prosecute any fish and wildlife cases simply because they don't have the staffing. Many counties don't even have enough prosecutors to prosecute "people vs people" crime as it is.
When officers submit cases to a prosecutors office and the case is rejected the prosecutor will explain why they won't prosecute. Lack of prosecutorial resources is often the most cited reason.
Interesting that you make excuses for lack of prosecution for F&W offenses, yet ignore real crime prosecution! :rolleyes:
And let me be clear BT, I’m not advocating F&W offenses...just pointing out the hypocrisy! ;)
Post by: hunter399 on December 18, 2021, 01:18:03 AM
The AG should pick up a few extra cases without funding.But if a prosecuter won't pick up a case ,it usually has something to due with lack of evidence.Not entirely true. There's counties, especially the more populated ones, who will hardly prosecute any fish and wildlife cases simply because they don't have the staffing. Many counties don't even have enough prosecutors to prosecute "people vs people" crime as it is.
When officers submit cases to a prosecutors office and the case is rejected the prosecutor will explain why they won't prosecute. Lack of prosecutorial resources is often the most cited reason.
Interesting that you make excuses for lack of prosecution for F&W offenses, yet ignore real crime prosecution! :rolleyes:
And let me be clear BT, I’m not advocating F&W offenses...just pointing out the hypocrisy! ;)
I'd rather have more enforcement on the ground,finding people that are guilty of wildlife crime,then giving our AG any money.
AG
Governer
Losers
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2021, 04:31:46 AM
Actually I've always said there needs to be more prosecutors in the state to handle crime in general, which just about every LEO in the state would agree with. In fact I've said numerous times on this site that there should be a proportionate amount of LEOs to prosecutors in each county. The more LEOs you have the more prosecutors you have.But if a prosecuter won't pick up a case ,it usually has something to due with lack of evidence.Not entirely true. There's counties, especially the more populated ones, who will hardly prosecute any fish and wildlife cases simply because they don't have the staffing. Many counties don't even have enough prosecutors to prosecute "people vs people" crime as it is.
When officers submit cases to a prosecutors office and the case is rejected the prosecutor will explain why they won't prosecute. Lack of prosecutorial resources is often the most cited reason.
Interesting that you make excuses for lack of prosecution for F&W offenses, yet ignore real crime prosecution! :rolleyes:
And let me be clear BT, I’m not advocating F&W offenses...just pointing out the hypocrisy! ;)
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on December 18, 2021, 06:02:07 AM
Ya I kinda figured that was coming. What's the point in finding someone guilty of anything if no one prosecutes.Actually I've always said there needs to be more prosecutors in the state to handle crime in general, which just about every LEO in the state would agree with. In fact I've said numerous times on this site that there should be a proportionate amount of LEOs to prosecutors in each county. The more LEOs you have the more prosecutors you have.But if a prosecuter won't pick up a case ,it usually has something to due with lack of evidence.Not entirely true. There's counties, especially the more populated ones, who will hardly prosecute any fish and wildlife cases simply because they don't have the staffing. Many counties don't even have enough prosecutors to prosecute "people vs people" crime as it is.
When officers submit cases to a prosecutors office and the case is rejected the prosecutor will explain why they won't prosecute. Lack of prosecutorial resources is often the most cited reason.
Interesting that you make excuses for lack of prosecution for F&W offenses, yet ignore real crime prosecution! :rolleyes:
And let me be clear BT, I’m not advocating F&W offenses...just pointing out the hypocrisy! ;)
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
I'll ask a question though .......
What do you believe is the number 1 wildlife crime that prosecutors drop the most.
Littering
No liences
Poaching
Hunting at nite
ECT,ECT,ECT.
Two part question.
How many cases a year are truly dropped in a year.no fine,nothing.
I mean dropped from the face of earth like it never happened.
I'm not expecting hard numbers ,just your best guess ,so us here on HW can get a feel for what may be going on.
Post by: HillHound on December 18, 2021, 07:58:40 AM
Try to bust the guys fishing while let the people breaking their windows out walk free:yeah:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 18, 2021, 08:19:35 AM
Also read as...bust the guys that vote against him, free the ones that vote for him.Try to bust the guys fishing while let the people breaking their windows out walk free:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 18, 2021, 08:29:58 AM
Post by: RB on December 18, 2021, 10:18:07 AM
Inslee announced his supplemental budget request for 2022 this week. His budget for WDFW includes:
-Funding for three new WDFW Officer positions focused on salmon fisheries enforcement.
-Funding one new WDFW Law Enforcement Captain position to serve as a liaison with NOAA/NMFS, tribes, and bordering states on fisheries enforcement issues
-Providing funding to WDFW who will in-turn provide the funding to the WA Attorney General's Office for funding the equivalent of 2.5 Assistant Attorney Generals to prosecute cases natural resource cases which are declined by county prosecutors.
The prosecutor funding is an interesting one. Under the state Fish & Wildlife Code if a county prosecutor fails to charge someone with a fish and wildlife offense WDFW can then ask the WA AG to file charges. Now typically this is done in rare cases. However, in the budget request the funding will be used by the "Attorney General’s Office to prosecute hundreds of environmental crimes turned away by county prosecutors each year due to lack of resources." Personally, I think this is a great move and should be supported by anyone who wants to see fish and wildlife violators actually penalized.
As for the funding for this, all three funding proposals are funded by the General Fund (taxes) and not WDFW license dollars.
If this helps prosecute offenders it will be a great thing! How many times have wee seen the headline of a poacher with a trunk load of fish and nothing really happens. Those that know how to manipulate the law and know they will not be prosecuted are more likely to re-offend, but once the law is actually enforced and these poachers start to feel the affects it should slow them down quite a bit. :twocents:
Post by: duckmen1 on December 18, 2021, 10:55:25 AM
Post by: furbearer365 on December 18, 2021, 10:58:42 AM
Post by: Pinetar on December 18, 2021, 11:02:34 AM
I am 100 percent for enforcement, in other states I actually enjoy seeing Wardens and will go out of my way to converse with them. But in this crap hole of a state with all its idiotic laws, i dont trust for one second that The King is looking out for any hunter/fisherman's interest or the well bring of our game. If anything, I bet hes loading up on Wardens so he can pass more laws with less hunting and fishing, and using the new "additions" to enforce it. He is a scum bag that I personally will never trust
:yeah: 100%
Post by: hunter399 on December 18, 2021, 11:22:51 AM
Then it sounds 👍
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2021, 12:32:32 PM
Actually I've always said there needs to be more prosecutors in the state to handle crime in general, which just about every LEO in the state would agree with. In fact I've said numerous times on this site that there should be a proportionate amount of LEOs to prosecutors in each county. The more LEOs you have the more prosecutors you have.But if a prosecuter won't pick up a case ,it usually has something to due with lack of evidence.Not entirely true. There's counties, especially the more populated ones, who will hardly prosecute any fish and wildlife cases simply because they don't have the staffing. Many counties don't even have enough prosecutors to prosecute "people vs people" crime as it is.
When officers submit cases to a prosecutors office and the case is rejected the prosecutor will explain why they won't prosecute. Lack of prosecutorial resources is often the most cited reason.
Interesting that you make excuses for lack of prosecution for F&W offenses, yet ignore real crime prosecution! :rolleyes:
And let me be clear BT, I’m not advocating F&W offenses...just pointing out the hypocrisy! ;)
Increasing the number of prosecutors is pointless if they are told to not prosecute. We are seeing this same scenario unfold all across the country in blue states. :twocents:
Post by: chukarchaser on December 18, 2021, 12:49:33 PM
Post by: buckfvr on December 18, 2021, 01:13:47 PM