Post by: huntnphool on August 04, 2009, 09:46:18 PM
Post by: mulehunter on August 04, 2009, 09:47:15 PM
Mulehunter
Post by: Wea300mag on August 04, 2009, 09:50:03 PM
Post by: BENCHLEG on August 04, 2009, 09:52:07 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on August 05, 2009, 06:12:04 AM
Post by: jackelope on August 05, 2009, 07:04:04 AM
Do they have a legal defense fund? :dunno:
you want to contribute to the defense of the poachers?
hmmmmm....
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 05, 2009, 08:16:06 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on August 05, 2009, 07:33:26 PM
I would be curious to learn of the details of this grizzly incident.
Post by: JBar on August 05, 2009, 07:40:06 PM
Post by: head hunter on August 05, 2009, 08:41:30 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on August 05, 2009, 08:53:40 PM
I suggest learning a bit more about the case before defending them.
I'll defend them sight unseen for a little :twocents: :chuckle:
Post by: sooperfly on August 05, 2009, 11:07:13 PM
Included are the affadavit: http://wenatcheeworld.com/assets/pdf/WW6805485.pdf
And the charges: http://wenatcheeworld.com/assets/pdf/WW6805585.pdf
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwenatcheeworld.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcsi.dll%2Fbilde%3FSite%3DWW%26amp%3BDate%3D20090805%26amp%3BCategory%3DNEWS04%26amp%3BArtNo%3D708059912%26amp%3BRef%3DAR%26amp%3BMaxW%3D580%26amp%3Btitle%3D1&hash=ffe2f4df7958e2d8750be60174c02c8fb167ab1d)
Post by: SHANE(WA) on August 05, 2009, 11:36:36 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on August 06, 2009, 05:19:18 AM
I am thinking that they thought they shot a blackie, strange color phase, with really really long fur and huge claws.... Heck,they even paraded it around town and were showing it off to others.....then someone smartened them up about it....and they dozed it under to get rid of it..... Sounds like a couple of knuckleheads....not sure I would call this one poaching. Big game violation nonetheless...
Post by: 509er on August 06, 2009, 05:42:43 AM
Post by: GoldTip on August 06, 2009, 07:12:35 AM
So, is inadvertently shooting a grizzly because you mistakenly thought it was a black bear...poaching?
I am thinking that they thought they shot a blackie, strange color phase, with really really long fur and huge claws.... Heck,they even paraded it around town and were showing it off to others.....then someone smartened them up about it....and they dozed it under to get rid of it..... Sounds like a couple of knuckleheads....not sure I would call this one poaching. Big game violation nonetheless...
Yep, it's illegal and should be. There has been a bear ID picture in the hunting regs for mulitple years now and warns about the fact you could run into one in unit 113. Hell, I been scouting that unit for the last month and there is signs all over the in woods telling you to make sure you I.D. your bear. My bet is if they'd have turned themselves in once someone pointed out to them it was a grizzly, they woudn't be facing the charges that they now are.
Post by: GoldTip on August 06, 2009, 07:34:15 AM
There are pictures all over up in Leclerc creek area, telling you to know your bears (with pics) just like Goldtip said. A while back there was some test thing with pictures of bears to see if you could tell them apart, anyone know where that went?
That was Montana's qualifier test to purchase a black bear tag. I suggested that to the biologist up there that they do something like that here as well.
Post by: ICEMAN on August 06, 2009, 07:38:29 AM
Post by: Slider on August 06, 2009, 07:47:38 AM
Post by: bobcat on August 06, 2009, 08:08:03 AM
It probably would've been cheaper to go on a guided moose hunt in Canada.
I wonder if they filled their moose tags.
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 08:29:45 AM
Maybe they should have something like the montana bear id test before you get a bear tag. Oh gotta hear the response to that :chuckle:
Post by: WDFW-SUX on August 06, 2009, 08:31:20 AM
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 08:32:21 AM
Post by: bobcat on August 06, 2009, 08:35:37 AM
Sounds unintentional to me.
Yeah I agree. I wouldn't call it poaching.
Post by: JBar on August 06, 2009, 08:40:14 AM
Post by: Broken nock on August 06, 2009, 08:42:41 AM
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 08:45:39 AM
Post by: bobcat on August 06, 2009, 08:55:06 AM
There's no excuse for not knowing how to ID your bear species. However I believe the punishment should be lesser if there was no evidence that it was intentional. I agree completely that it is illegal and punishable. Who bets these guys get more punishment for accidentally killing a grizzly bear than the kid who killed the lady on Sauk Mountain?
:yeah:
Post by: Machias on August 06, 2009, 09:26:53 AM
Post by: bobcat on August 06, 2009, 09:39:37 AM
Post by: GoldTip on August 06, 2009, 09:50:23 AM
Post by: halflife65 on August 06, 2009, 10:06:49 AM
Unlikely that any excuses will be accepted for this... It was probably a mistake given that evidently they were driving around and showing it off but they are going to pay for it. Trying to hide it is going to make it much worse for them...
Post by: bjersti09 on August 06, 2009, 11:47:01 AM
Post by: woodywsu on August 06, 2009, 12:16:21 PM
Post by: C-Money on August 06, 2009, 02:54:14 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on August 06, 2009, 03:22:53 PM
I know a person that knows the two guys that did this. It is unfortunate but here is the story I got. They were hunting for Black bear on a rainy day. The bear that was killed was soaking wet and the hair was matted down and dark in color when killed. Sounds like it was a mistaken identity. From what I am being told the hunters are good people. The hunters did not know what they had killed untill sometime later. Take these statements for what they are, second hand info. I do not know them myself.
Mistakes get made - that doesn't make them acceptable. Not acceptable to try to hide it either. That latter makes it poaching in my book.
I'm mostly concerned about the potential for restrictions on legal bear hunting due to too many *censored*es not being sure of what they are shooting. Hikers, moose, grizzly bears - none of these are excusable.
It only takes a few bad acts for all of us to lose a season, a hunting area ... that is why we cannot condone "mistakes". If we as sportsmen don't have zero tolerance for bad acts by other hunting license holders - we all stand to lose.
Post by: bowhunter1972 on August 06, 2009, 05:16:31 PM
Post by: C-Money on August 06, 2009, 05:49:23 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on August 06, 2009, 10:54:35 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 07, 2009, 12:10:31 PM
Sorry fellas but for me anyways, it's a clear case of poaching, whether it was intentional or not. MoronsI agree. You need to know what you're shooting at or have the self control to pass on a shot on a questionable animal.
Post by: jackelope on August 07, 2009, 04:08:54 PM
Sorry fellas but for me anyways, it's a clear case of poaching, whether it was intentional or not. MoronsI agree. You need to know what you're shooting at or have the self control to pass on a shot on a questionable animal.
X2, or
x10...where ever we're at.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on August 08, 2009, 07:39:27 AM
X2, orSorry fellas but for me anyways, it's a clear case of poaching, whether it was intentional or not. MoronsI agree. You need to know what you're shooting at or have the self control to pass on a shot on a questionable animal.
x10...where
And they didn't recognize it before loading it up and hauling home :dunno: No excuse, no logic can excuse it. :bash:
Post by: hangumhi on August 10, 2009, 10:06:59 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on August 10, 2009, 10:14:51 PM
Fine them (sure) take there hunting privledges away (sure) but no jail...
Post by: Machias on August 10, 2009, 10:15:20 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 10, 2009, 10:53:32 PM
Sounds unintentional to me.
Maybe they should have something like the montana bear id test before you get a bear tag. Oh gotta hear the response to that :chuckle:
Ray I agree with your comment.....Many hunters who especially live in areas of the state with no grizzlies have no idea they are really in the woods in NE WA. I have been all over these mountains and have never seen one, but some idiot shot one less than 10 miles from my house a few years back and I think had to pay $10,000. The state should require a bear test like MT does. Only takes a few minutes to do it from any computer. :twocents:
you guys know I am normally against any extra laws, but I think this would help educate those who need it the most.... :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on August 10, 2009, 10:59:15 PM
There's no excuse for not knowing how to ID your bear species. However I believe the punishment should be lesser if there was no evidence that it was intentional. I agree completely that it is illegal and punishable. Who bets these guys get more punishment for accidentally killing a grizzly bear than the kid who killed the lady on Sauk Mountain?
Ray, I agree with you here too.....they are in far deeper doodoo....sad thing is, it sounds like they innocently made a mistake, but then used poor judgement in their reaction to the mistake. I simply can not imagine anyone moving anything they thought was illegal from truck to truck in a motel parking lot....that in itself indicates it probably wasn't intentional, and indicates just how uneducated some hunters are about hunting....thus my reasons for saying there should be a bear test. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on August 11, 2009, 03:05:14 PM
Post by: Machias on August 11, 2009, 04:55:34 PM
Monetary fines won't bring this bear back nor will jail time and they're obviously not dangers to society so quit with the get a rope attitude.
Look don't be mad but this line is really funny coming from a guy with a name like hangumhi. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Kain on August 11, 2009, 05:41:41 PM
http://fwp.mt.gov/bearid/default.html
We could even ask WDFW to add the link to their site. A little hunter proactive action might go a long way here.
Post by: bearpaw on August 11, 2009, 06:01:01 PM
Monetary fines won't bring this bear back nor will jail time and they're obviously not dangers to society so quit with the get a rope attitude.
Look don't be mad but this line is really funny coming from a guy with a name like hangumhi. :chuckle: :chuckle:
thats good..... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: elkaholic on August 11, 2009, 08:47:38 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 08, 2009, 03:20:31 PM
Post by: spur_ride on September 08, 2009, 03:36:22 PM
Post by: colockumelk on September 08, 2009, 03:57:12 PM
I'll try to explain it as simply as possible. From what I understand in order for the prosecution to prosecute them they have to prove what's known as mens rea. Which is criminal intent. Basically this means in order to be convicted of a crime it has to be proved that you acted with the intent to commit a crime. In this case the prosecution has to prove that they shot that bear knowing it was a grizzly and not accidentally shot it thinking it was a black bear.
A defense attorney should be able to do this given the story that I've read on here.
However, it will be easy for the prosecution to convict them of trying to hide the evidence by burying it. They will have to pay the penalties and fines or jail time for that.
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on September 08, 2009, 04:54:56 PM
Exactly!
Some of you guys sure like the guilty before proven innocent approach. As politicized as "endangered" species are, there is no chance in hell they would get a fair shake. Just look at some of the other post made about people protecting their property and then still getting nailed. Some sure are self-richeous when it comes to the law.
FYI The law isn't everything.
Sorry, but got looking at the site again after congratulating a member on a kill and saw this post. Had to respond. :P
shoulda taken it back and set it on fire lol, why on earth if you messed up and take it to them? so they can still nail you, This state sucks, u try to do the right thing and they will nail you no matter what. Then you wonder why people try to hide it :chuckle: well no *censored*, they shot a grizz and didnt know, thats why they frickin burried it!!! Did they screw up yes.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 09, 2009, 04:53:30 PM
For example, you shoot one animal, bag limit one, and two drop dead, it is a violation regardless of your intention to kill only one, or both animals.
Post by: colockumelk on September 09, 2009, 04:59:25 PM
That's all I'm saying. DL I'll defer to you because I"m sure you have alot more experience than this. I was just saying since they didn't intend to shoot a grizzly but intended to shoot a black bear; If the defense attorney can prove that they did in fact intend to shoot a black bear and not a grizzly they can get the charges knocked down to something else, other than a massive $10k fine and jail time. Just my :twocents:/2. (That's one cent since it's not even worth 2 cents:)
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2009, 07:37:13 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 09, 2009, 07:43:31 PM
Sure they are guilty, but in my book, not the max fine.....
If they were trying to sneak it from the beginning then I would agree with the max penalty, but I think they were innocent until the guy at the motel scared them with reality and they didn't know what to do, so they headed for home and eventually buried it thinking the problem would go away....stupid for sure....
Post by: bobcat on September 09, 2009, 07:46:34 PM
I don't know what I would have done if I was put in that situation.
I might have been just as stupid and done the same thing. :o :bash:
Post by: 509er on September 09, 2009, 07:47:04 PM
I think their biggest problem is the fact that they transported the bear after they were told it was a grizzly. If they wouldn't have done that and instead called the WDFW and confessed at that time then it wouldn't have been nearly so bad. Not to mention that they buried it after they got it home.
:yeah:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 11, 2009, 01:11:43 PM
Yes Actus Reas is the actual criminal act. But, in order to get a convinction you need to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt." In order to get this you need the Actus Reas which is the criminal act, as well as prove the Mens Reas "guilty mind."
That's all I'm saying. DL I'll defer to you because I"m sure you have alot more experience than this. I was just saying since they didn't intend to shoot a grizzly but intended to shoot a black bear; If the defense attorney can prove that they did in fact intend to shoot a black bear and not a grizzly they can get the charges knocked down to something else, other than a massive $10k fine and jail time. Just my :twocents:/2. (That's one cent since it's not even worth 2 cents:)
Negligence couldn't substitute? Like "failing to take the time to identify the target?" Do these guys realize they are carrying high power rifles, not BB guns?
These jokers got trigger happy and killed a griz :bash: After they realized it, they buried the evidence instead of turning themselves in :yike:
I think the prosecutor could get them with negligence or intent :'(
I don't like the idea of jail time, but I do think they should be fined. People make mistakes, so I don't like the idea of giving someone jail time over something that didn't affect another human being. However, I do think a fine would get the point across that they need to be more careful.
8)
Curtis
Post by: bearpaw on September 11, 2009, 07:34:56 PM
But if I was the judge, I would speak pointedly to the arresting wildlife officer and tell him he needs to speak to the chief of enforcement and WDFW needs to get a Grizzly Bear test online, and it needs to be a prerequisite for a bear license.
In my opinion 50% of the blame lies with the state for lack of education.... :twocents:
I will be willing to lay $100 on the line that 50% of the hunters in the woods could not pass the Montana bear test the first time... ;)
Post by: hayes202 on September 13, 2009, 12:51:30 PM