Legal question

[stevemiller]

OR wildlife having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more,Thats word for word right here.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Hunting infractions, section 2. Subsection C:

     (2) Hunting infractions:

     (a) Eggs or nests: Maliciously, and without permit authorization, destroying, taking, or harming the eggs or active nests of a wild bird not classified as endangered or protected. For purposes of this subsection, "active nests" means nests that contain eggs or fledglings.

     (b) Unclassified wildlife: Taking unclassified wildlife in violation of any department rule by killing, hunting, taking, holding, possessing, or maliciously injuring or harming wildlife that is not classified as big game, game animals, game birds, protected wildlife, or endangered wildlife.

     (c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.

[Blacktail Sniper]

OR wildlife having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more,Thats word for word right here.

You are quoting the wrong RCW.

[stevemiller]

I see,Not quoting the wrong one just a differant one.Diff. in penalty I guess.

[Curly]

They really need to change the wording in the regs if officers are going to be writing hunters up for leaving coyotes or crows or nutria or whatever.  Page 81 says: "Waste of Wildlife: You may NOT allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted."  Seems inconsistent for the regs to say "game" animal or "game" bird but the RCW simply says wildlife.

BTW - I can't find it in the regs anymore, but didn't it used to say that cougar meat could be thrown out?

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[Bob33]

They really need to change the wording in the regs if officers are going to be writing hunters up for leaving coyotes or crows or nutria or whatever.  Page 81 says: "Waste of Wildlife: You may NOT allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted."  Seems inconsistent for the regs to say "game" animal or "game" bird but the RCW simply says wildlife.

BTW - I can't find it in the regs anymore, but didn't it used to say that cougar meat could be thrown out?

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

Inconsistent, but of no consequence in this instance. A coyote is both wildlife and a game animal.

[Curly]

They really need to change the wording in the regs if officers are going to be writing hunters up for leaving coyotes or crows or nutria or whatever.  Page 81 says: "Waste of Wildlife: You may NOT allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted."  Seems inconsistent for the regs to say "game" animal or "game" bird but the RCW simply says wildlife.

BTW - I can't find it in the regs anymore, but didn't it used to say that cougar meat could be thrown out?

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

Inconsistent, but of no consequence in this instance. A coyote is both wildlife and a game animal.

The wdfw publication on coyotes says differently:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/coyotes.html

Legal Status

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife does not classify coyotes as game animals, but a state license is required to hunt or trap them (RCW 77.32.010). The owner, the owner's immediate family, employee, or a tenant of real property may kill or trap a coyote on that property if it is damaging crops or domestic animals (RCW 77.36.030). A license is not required in such cases. Check with your county and/or local jurisdiction for local restrictions. Except for bona fide public or private zoological parks, persons and entities are prohibited from importing a coyote into Washington State without a permit from the Department of Agriculture and written permission from the Department of Health. Persons and entities are also prohibited from acquiring, selling, bartering, exchanging, giving, purchasing, or trapping a coyote for a pet or export (WAC 246-100-191)."

Another inconsistency?


Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[aaronoto]

What is the state's definition of "wastage?"  I don't see anything in the regs or the RCW that explicitly states that waste = not eating but a lot of people are drawing that conclusion.  As we've learned in this thread, reckless waste can include shooting a coyote and leaving it lay - that does not mean it's illegal to kill coyotes, it just means technically I can't shoot it and leave it lay… and that's IF an officer chooses to cite me with it depending on the totality of the circumstances.

The individuals bigtex referred to may have only been cited for it because they were doing everything else legally, but where in general idiots with the enforcement officer.  Or, going back to the OP's question - maybe they were cited because they shot it from a right of way, while the coyote was on private property, didn't retrieve it so no trespassing - so the only thing left for an officer to do was to cite them for reckless waste since they didn't technically break any other laws, but the officer clearly feels (as do most in this thread) that the act was wrong.

As hunters we need to use good judgment and common sense.  Let's say the state put in an exclusion for coyotes from the reckless waste law and some idiot decided it would be cool to shoot a pile of coyotes on public property and leave a half dozen or so in a pile at the trailhead for all to see.  That guy all of a sudden has broken no laws but clearly has crossed the line ethically as a hunter.  Sometimes a little gray area for officer discretion is a good thing to have… 

[Bob33]

They really need to change the wording in the regs if officers are going to be writing hunters up for leaving coyotes or crows or nutria or whatever.  Page 81 says: "Waste of Wildlife: You may NOT allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted."  Seems inconsistent for the regs to say "game" animal or "game" bird but the RCW simply says wildlife.

BTW - I can't find it in the regs anymore, but didn't it used to say that cougar meat could be thrown out?

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

Inconsistent, but of no consequence in this instance. A coyote is both wildlife and a game animal.

The wdfw publication on coyotes says differently:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/coyotes.html

Legal Status

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife does not classify coyotes as game animals, but a state license is required to hunt or trap them (RCW 77.32.010). The owner, the owner's immediate family, employee, or a tenant of real property may kill or trap a coyote on that property if it is damaging crops or domestic animals (RCW 77.36.030). A license is not required in such cases. Check with your county and/or local jurisdiction for local restrictions. Except for bona fide public or private zoological parks, persons and entities are prohibited from importing a coyote into Washington State without a permit from the Department of Agriculture and written permission from the Department of Health. Persons and entities are also prohibited from acquiring, selling, bartering, exchanging, giving, purchasing, or trapping a coyote for a pet or export (WAC 246-100-191)."

Another inconsistency?


Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

It seems to be.  RCW 77.08.010 defines a game animal as "wild animals that shall not be hunted except as authorized by the commission." Since a hunting license is required to hunt a coyote, it appears that the hunting is authorized by the commission.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.08.010

They're listed in WAC 232-28-342, which is titled "Small game and other wildlife seasons and regulations".

[Curly]

Discretion seems like a good thing but what happens if you get an anti-hunter warden who wants to nail anyone who does something that is technically against the law, and you get an enforcement chief that has no problem with said officer writing citations because there is a law saying it's illegal.  That see s wrong to me.  Another example of a warden citing someone on a bs charge is a story told several months ago on this board where a warden almost cited a guy for spotlighting when he was merely walking out in the dark with a headlamp on.  Bigtex had no problem with officers citing someone in similar cases and no problem with officers writing citations for wasting a coyote.  So, I'm starting to see problems with officer discretion. .......Although in general I think they should be able to use discretion, but if officers can write for bs charges like walking out after dark with headlamps on or for wasting a coyote, then it does make me question it.  Maybe it is a management problem though.......it shouldn't be  OK for management to be OK with officers writing citations like that. :2CENTS

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[Curly]

They're listed in WAC 232-28-342, which is titled "Small game and other wildlife seasons and regulations".

Makes me wonder if they are "other wildlife".  Afterall wdfw does state on their website that coyotes are not classified as game.  I think that is what most of us believe, and why most of us are under the impression that we can waste a coyote.

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

What is the state's definition of "wastage?"  I don't see anything in the regs or the RCW that explicitly states that waste = not eating but a lot of people are drawing that conclusion.  As we've learned in this thread, reckless waste can include shooting a coyote and leaving it lay - that does not mean it's illegal to kill coyotes, it just means technically I can't shoot it and leave it lay… and that's IF an officer chooses to cite me with it depending on the totality of the circumstances.

The individuals bigtex referred to may have only been cited for it because they were doing everything else legally, but where in general idiots with the enforcement officer.  Or, going back to the OP's question - maybe they were cited because they shot it from a right of way, while the coyote was on private property, didn't retrieve it so no trespassing - so the only thing left for an officer to do was to cite them for reckless waste since they didn't technically break any other laws, but the officer clearly feels (as do most in this thread) that the act was wrong.

As hunters we need to use good judgment and common sense.  Let's say the state put in an exclusion for coyotes from the reckless waste law and some idiot decided it would be cool to shoot a pile of coyotes on public property and leave a half dozen or so in a pile at the trailhead for all to see.  That guy all of a sudden has broken no laws but clearly has crossed the line ethically as a hunter.  Sometimes a little gray area for officer discretion is a good thing to have…

Aaron brings up good points, especially in his final paragraph. A lot of coyote hunters do "let it lay" and quite honestly I have seen some areas where hunters have done so and my blood boils. I have seen hunters shoot a coyote and move on, just leave it in an open field for anybody to come by and see, how does that look for hunters? These individuals didn't try and throw it in the brush to try and hide it or anything, just completely obvious in a field, and I have seen that many times. To me that shows disrespect to the land owner/manager as well as anybody else who will be using that land.

Aaron to answer your question look back at previous posts. There is no definition in WA for what is wasting an animal/fish and what isn't. Realistically it is up to the officer and finally a judge.

[Bob33]

What is the state's definition of "wastage?"  I don't see anything in the regs or the RCW that explicitly states that waste = not eating but a lot of people are drawing that conclusion.  As we've learned in this thread, reckless waste can include shooting a coyote and leaving it lay - that does not mean it's illegal to kill coyotes, it just means technically I can't shoot it and leave it lay… and that's IF an officer chooses to cite me with it depending on the totality of the circumstances.

The individuals bigtex referred to may have only been cited for it because they were doing everything else legally, but where in general idiots with the enforcement officer.  Or, going back to the OP's question - maybe they were cited because they shot it from a right of way, while the coyote was on private property, didn't retrieve it so no trespassing - so the only thing left for an officer to do was to cite them for reckless waste since they didn't technically break any other laws, but the officer clearly feels (as do most in this thread) that the act was wrong.

As hunters we need to use good judgment and common sense.  Let's say the state put in an exclusion for coyotes from the reckless waste law and some idiot decided it would be cool to shoot a pile of coyotes on public property and leave a half dozen or so in a pile at the trailhead for all to see.  That guy all of a sudden has broken no laws but clearly has crossed the line ethically as a hunter.  Sometimes a little gray area for officer discretion is a good thing to have…

Aaron brings up good points, especially in his final paragraph. A lot of coyote hunters do "let it lay" and quite honestly I have seen some areas where hunters have done so and my blood boils. I have seen hunters shoot a coyote and move on, just leave it in an open field for anybody to come by and see, how does that look for hunters? These individuals didn't try and throw it in the brush to try and hide it or anything, just completely obvious in a field, and I have seen that many times. To me that shows disrespect to the land owner/manager as well as anybody else who will be using that land.

Aaron to answer your question look back at previous posts. There is no definition in WA for what is wasting an animal/fish and what isn't. Realistically it is up to the officer and finally a judge.

It seems to me that leaving something in plain view is a completely different concept that wastage. Big game hunters leave gut piles in the middle of a field. That can be just as offensive but it's not wastage. Conversely, hiding a dead deer in the bushes out of the public's view with the head cut off and the entire carcass left is clearly wastage.

[Curly]

This is an example of why we need laws spelled out.  It seems like an ethical issue.  Some people see no problem leaving a coyote where it lays and apparently others have issues.  The regs say game animals cannot be wasted but are confusing as to whether a coyote would be classified as a game animal; (I believe most of us hunters believe they are not game animals).  If wdfw feels otherwise they should let us know before we have an encounter with a warden in the field who feels differently.  Then apparently the RCW conflicts with the regs..........This all gets confusing for people.

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[ghosthunter]

That would have been a good response.

I could not believe I was being issued a ticket. I will not hunt out there again.

Fir Island has had ton of problems. They are on high alert out there.
I just stay away.
They have some serious fines and rules out there. 
Off topic.