Elk Hunter Violation?

How about using/having in possession lead shot in a non-tox zone, hunting "a little early" or a "little late," forgotten license, trespassing because one wasn't sure of boundaries, having a bird over the possession limit, shooting a protected species (such as a prairie chicken in a pheasant area), forgetting to put a plug in the magazine (even though the guy was only using 3 shells), someone entering a regulated hunting area too early to ensure the best field ahead of those who acknowledge the regulations, shooting a bird in a "safety zone," shooting across a roadway (even if no one else is around)? Forgetting or not knowing is an excuse, not a reason. If enough folks bend enough rules, eventually there will be a deleterious cumulative effect on game populations, hunting access, and hunting opportunities.

Can you give me a valid reason why willful non-compliance with any law/regulation even "just a little bit" should be okay (excluding life or death scenarios)?
 
It's a mindset issue I guess. My mindset is if someone isn't affecting someone else than they aren't doing anything wrong.

If someone leaves their hunting license in another pair of pants than the ones they are hunting they have no affect on me. Me personally I'd not hunt without my license but if somebody else does who are they hurting? A warden can look it up anyway.

If somebody is hunting 5 minutes early to try and hit a roost area before the birds leave they are hurting everyone else who does follow the rules in that area.

Big difference in those 2.

Most autos can hold 4 shells even with the plug in btw.
 
We are all entitled to our own opinion, but I don't share your mindset. I'll leave it at that.
 
I agree with most of what you say Koja, but when the law is written in a way that can be interpretted in more than one way, it is a bad law or you have to use common sense when applying it. If a bow hunter shoots an elk and gives an hour before he or she starts to track it, yet the warden on the hill seen it fall over and lay there for 45 minutes dead, does he write the ticket because the hunter did not rip his tag yet? First and foremost you get to the animal within a reasonable time and determine if it is dead. Then you can begin the process of validation of your tag. They found the animal in a swampy area and like anyone else I know probably said shit what do we do to get him out of there. 20 some minutes can be immediately in some cases. It could take 20 minutes to get to an animal. It has taken me 45 minutes before traversing some nasty ground before I made it to my elk. I dropped my pack sat down , made a radio call and then pulled out my tag to sign and date and tear it. Then put it back in my pocket since we do not have to tag the actual animal until it is back at camp or in a vehicle for transport. There was no intent on these elder statesmen to not tag the animal and reuse the tag for another elk and the elk was tagged before they even knew the game warden was there and then showed up on scene. It is so much different then using lead shot in a steel shot zone because the wording of the law can't be interpreted any different. If they would have a law that said it must be tagged within 10 minutes of the time death is verified it would be more etched in stone.
 
Common sense says you have to recover the carcass first to confirm that you have in fact killed an animal, but once you do, then you must tag it immediately - that pretty much etches it in stone. I shot a goat back home years ago; it fell off a ledge. It took some 3-hours to safely reach the carcass. When we got to the carcass, I confirmed that the goat was dead, notched my tag, slipped the tag in a durable plastic pouch I carried specifically for that purpose, & secured it inside of the goat's ear thus ensuring I wouldn't deface or lose it on the pack-out. A warden observed the entire hunt from stalk to recovery; he even helped me get it to a spot where I could gut it safely. I received no ticket. "Immediately upon killing" is a pretty simple concept; you obviously have to confirm that the animal is dead/"killed." The reg doesn't say "notch tag upon firing a shot." Nor would establishing a time limit to find a downed or wounded critter be feasible. Folks are making this much more complex than it is. The Op in question recovered the elk but did NOT notch & attach his tag immediately upon recovery. I didn't author that regulation, but I religiously & successfully complied with it over many years on many successful big game hunts with no issues. After a recovered carcass was immediately tagged, then came time for high-fives, hero shots, gutting/skinning, etc. Recognize why tagging regulations in their various prescribed forms exist -- to thwart those out there who would attempt to harvest more than their fair share of game animals by reusing a tag. No, I'm NOT saying that was the intent in the Op's case, but it is why such regulations exist. No one other than the "elder statesmen" knows what their intent was, but I'll take the Op's story at face value; we also have to acknowledge the fact that he failed to notch & affix his tag to the carcass immediately upon recovery. Regulations aren't perfect, but inconsistently-applied regulations are even less-perfect and do generate confusion. As I said earlier, I'm sorry for the hunter's grief, but he made the mistake not the warden who was just doing his job.

Folks have debated my factual rationale, but not one of you has answered this question, which is at the heart of the matter: "Can you give me a valid reason why willful non-compliance with any law/regulation even "just a little bit" should be okay (excluding life or death scenarios)?" Hunters both local & non-resident have not had an issue with this particular regulatory requirement for many years, excluding those who failed to comply & were caught doing so. I guess my final thought on the topic is this: If you aren't willing to understand & comply with hunting regulations and don't want to risk a citation, don't hunt.
 
Last edited:
koja48 said:
Can you give me a valid reason why willful non-compliance with any law/regulation even "just a little bit" should be okay (excluding life or death scenarios)?
Click to expand...

No Koja I can't give you a valid reason for why willful non-compliance is Ok. However this was not a situation of willful non-compliance. If it was Willful he would have not gotten a ticket! He would have never told the warden that he tagged it 20 minutes late. He would have just told him him he tagged it instantly.

The end result was that the authorities decided what he did was not a violation. I think that speaks volumes about the wardens actions.
 
Newbi here guys.

Its easy to see fault with the CO in this instance but I am guessing this guy went to the local paper and told his story to the reporter. Reporters love writing about stuff when law enforcement does not look good. This article is one mans interpretation. I would like to hear the CO's point of view but we never will.

And states attorney's drop slam dunk cases all the time especially when it turns political like this one did.

My guess, there is more to the story and I know we are hearing only one point of view.
 
david0311 said:
NO--but I don't bitch or complain when I do get a ticket either--:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think we would be debating this issue if the hunter got a $200 ticket and went on his merry way. I happen to believe that you would complain if you got pulled over for speeding and then they took your car away.

Those of you who think the warden was correct in doing what he did. Do you think the penalty fit the crime?
 
Jakeismydog2 said:
I don't think we would be debating this issue if the hunter got a $200 ticket and went on his merry way. I happen to believe that you would complain if you got pulled over for speeding and then they took your car away.

Those of you who think the warden was correct in doing what he did. Do you think the penalty fit the crime?
Click to expand...

If we believe the article is true and not leaving out any facts, no. I don't think the penalty fit the crime. I bet the CO has a different point of view. I would like to read his PC statement before I through him under the bus so to speak.

I have read to many articles written by reporters that are completely wrong so its tough for me to judge without hearing both sides.
 
Wyoming law is also realistic. You can keep the tag in your pocket during transportation so you don't lose it. I learned that the hard way one time.
 
david0311

Jakeismydog2 said:
I don't think we would be debating this issue if the hunter got a $200 ticket and went on his merry way. I happen to believe that you would complain if you got pulled over for speeding and then they took your car away.

Those of you who think the warden was correct in doing what he did. Do you think the penalty fit the crime?
Click to expand...

Why don't you read the comments of koja48 and 3car again--they pretty much lay out a good sound opinion and options

Your example above is a little extreme and non sequitur
 
Nice to hear that logic ended up prevailing. I still wholeheartedly agree with This statement from the second to last paragraph of the article. "He said the presence of the videographer escalated the incident."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top