37 replies to this topic

[Arc Light]

http://www.utsandieg...t-dfg-investig/

[Broncowilly]

Wow, that sounds pretty scandalous!

[ShooterJohn]

As it stands I guess we'll see what the outcome is in court. Oral permission is not written permission and the barn was on another property but still within the 150 yards allowed by law. It does sound like sour grapes of the locals but I doubt he'll ever get his trophy back and he'll get find probably too.

[True2ThySelf]

It sounds like the hunter was technically in the wrong on two things.
1. He didn't get written permission from the land owner to hunt on private property
2. He didn't get written permission from both land owners to hunt within 150 yard safety buffer zone from both land owners.

With that said, I think he got a bad deal.

[KNOCKED UP]

That really sucks, and it sounds like
the game warden had alterior motives.
Tom

[OrneryOlMofo357]

I think he got a bad deal too. Im thinking a bit of jealousy is involved. Its a shame to lose a once in a lifetime trophey. And I cant help but think of the stories I read where Poachers merely get a slap on the wrist. But rules are rules unfortunately.

[KNOCKED UP]

Now days you need to take a lawyer hunting with you,
Just to make sure you are hunting/fishing corectly.
Tom

[modoc squeek shooter]

I agree with Grant, but weather he gets the trophy buck back or not, the law can't take away the fact that he did hunt and take the trophy. Trouble with a lot of people when they are issued a badge is it goes to there head, not saying that is true with all law enforcement officers, but I have personally known several that should have their badge removed and put were the sun don't shine. Ed

[Bennie]

Hope this guy gets this deer back. I am on his side on this one. He had permission to hunt where he was. In my books a yes and hand shake are as good as any piece of paper. I know the law does not look at it that way, but I was raised by good men who taught me that a man is only as good as his word.

[Bisley]

Now days you need to take a lawyer hunting with you,
Just to make sure you are hunting/fishing corectly.
Tom

Why? Both rules that were broken have been in standing affect for ages. No surprise on either one of them. Kind of like catching a record fish a day or two after the creek or fishing season closed.The next day after is not "close enough", or where else do you draw the lines? The DFG book is nowhere even near as thick or complicated as the DMV book, so why do we cry more when we get cited by DFG for breaking laws than we do by regular LEO on traffic stops? It really is not that tough a book to decipher.........

[OrneryOlMofo357]

Well then Bisley... produce a Map that clearly shows zones 1 & 2 for hunting at night. Laws are easy to figure out Eh? Just being sarcastic here..lol But the Laws are sometimes very difficult to interpret. Heck even travling with a Gun while hunting in this Menure State is tough these days.! JMO lol

[Bisley]

I will admit to night hunting zones being difficult to interpret, but "No shooting within 150 yards of any dwelling (notice it doesn't state what property it is on, just no shooting within 150 yards of it)" or "Must have written permission" not being real hard to interpret .
Not saying I am by any means perfect, I have been cited for myself, but I will always stand up and say that I was in the wrong whether I agreed with what was printed in black and white or not. A man did his job and wrote someone up for what was done wrong (in my case also). He did not make the laws, just enforced them. That is the reason I hate to hear the DFG Officers criticized so badly. I can not stand to hear about a person belittled for doing their job correctly, no matter what it is.

[Broncowilly]

Bisley, I understand your point. The written Game laws are just that however don't you find it just the slightest bit odd that the DF&G warden went to the land owner and asked to use his .22 in the area where this archer did? A clear violation of what he charged the archer with. He also had an interest in this deer. There is such a thing as conflict of interest and this whole issue has the hint of it. A LEO whether DF&G or other should have the good sense to steer clear of any look of impropriety and in this case I believe it looks as if he steered into it instead of away from it. This warden had an interest or a stake in this deer, he should have bowed out and let another warden handle it. This type of behavior has the potential to ruin a good case, not saying this is. JMHO, not trying to start any argument.

[Frank]

Well this can become quite an argument for either side I guess...

However, there are HUGE differences in the TYPE of laws we (all) break. A parking ticket is not as bad or as potentially deadly as running a red light... but they both can get a ticket... IF the LEO WANTS to.

I mean this was with a bow and arrow on private land with permission from the land owner. Hardly a poacher or one that is deliberately trying to break the law. I have to wonder just how many folks actually have written permission to hunt on one's private land anyhow?

This has all the makings of sour grapes &/or an over zealous warden, that probably felt like the hunter poached HIS deer.

Did he break the law? Sure he did... Do folks get off with a warning for breaking the law? Sure they do, all the time!! I'm one of them, and pisses my wife off to no end... as she never gets out of a ticket. No different here either!!

[Broncowilly]

There is such a thing as letter of the law vs spirit of the law. That is one of the hardest concepts for new LEOs to grasp.

[ShooterJohn]

I think there is more to this story than could be written. It sounds like sour grapes on the part of the towns people and the warden.

[OrneryOlMofo357]

Good replies from everyone thus far. and each has their own merit. I live on a Ranch that I dont own. Am I in violation of hunting coyotes here? I have no written permission, but the Rancher loves the fact that I keep the Coyotes under control. Am I in violation? What if a Game Warden wanted a certain Coyote on this land But I got to it first? Would I go down in flames? That is what this case looks like to Me. There are old outbuildings all around this ranch that are uninhabited. If I shoot a Coyote within the 150 yd range, am I in violation? I just hope that this fellow ends up in front of a judge that has some common sense. The possibility of an arrow penetrating the side of a Barn at over 100 yds away and possibly doing bodily harm is very difficult to swallow. But that is how the law is written. The Owner gave verbal permission to hunt... but the State requires written permission. I only hope for the best with this Dangerous Illegal Deer Hunter.

[Broncowilly]

OOMF, well put.

[Bisley]

Let's set the 150 yard thing aside for a minute and look at what else was done wrong here. What is wrong with this statement?:

“He cited me for hunting too close to the barn, and I looked it up, and it does say 150 yards from a barn. But this barn was on an adjacent property, and all I could see was the roof through trees.”

So by his own admission he has broken one of the scared "Ten Commandments of Hunting": Know your target and your surroundings. Seeing a roof, and only a roof is not knowing your surroundings. How in the world would/could he have even known i nobody was there or if they were have a barnyard dance if all you could see was the roof? Isn't that a lot like shooting the buck on top o the hill without knowing for sure what is on the other side? Kind of like "But I have never seen anyone there before", right? That statement in itself is enough for me to justify the 150 yard enforcement. And if you don't think an arrow will easily fly 100+ yards you have never seen one skip across theground and into the next county while shooting at rabbits. Is that not correct TD? At least mine do.......

And as far as the written part goes, it must be kind of important since every hunting forum you go on has a pinned thread about it with a orm to print out and a statement of warning about it and the liability of not having it.

Permission to hunt form... - Predator Hunting - California Predators Club Forums

But again, this is the other side of the story, as there is always two sides. Unfortunately we will never hear the entire of either one of them. But like it or not, the Officer did not break any laws and the hunter did. You can not deny that.

Of, by the way BW, I do not find it odd that the Officer asked to shoot the same place the hunter did. That is actually good work on his part by not only finding out where he shot from, but also if the land owner offered any warnings, all without raising any red flags. Pretty good work actually, you have to admit.

[OrneryOlMofo357]

Id think that if there was a barnyard dance going on at the time the fellow would prolly heard the fiddles playing from only 100 yds away. I have shot lots of arrows so My point is that unless the Barn was "inhabited" and then had paper walls there was no way that an arrow was gonna harm anyone within the structure. I know what an arrow can and can not do. Penetrating a Barn with at least 1/2" to 3/4" siding It would not happen. Was he even shooting towards the barn? This is all speculation on all of our posts, so what really went on we may never know.

[modoc squeek shooter]

The way I read it is: The hunter, by the letter of the law was wrong: The warden was a jerk.

I hunt many ranches without written permission, in fact there is only one that I have written permission on. Most are just a phone call or see the owner in town. So by the law I am an outlaw.

We had a warden up here a couple years ago, I think he was trying to fill his ticket book lol, he isn't here anymore. Some of his cites were perty damn ridiculous. Ed

[OrneryOlMofo357]

Amen Ed... My thoughts exactly.

[Broncowilly]

Of, by the way BW, I do not find it odd that the Officer asked to shoot the same place the hunter did. That is actually good work on his part by not only finding out where he shot from, but also if the land owner offered any warnings, all without raising any red flags. Pretty good work actually, you have to admit.

Actually I don't agree with this. I've been in law enforcement for a number of years and I am usually on the side of the LEO. There is something not right about how any of this was handled, on the surface. This DF&G warden, by his own admission, had a stake in this deer and his involvement with any part of the investigation reeks of impropriety. That is the kind of stuff that will get a case tossed out every time. If the DA will even touch it. As far as the no written permission? That is as easy as it gets to toss out. The land owner has the right to allow whomever he wants on his property. It is an assumed crime at the time of discovery when a DF&G warden cites for hunting on property without written permission. Once the land owner proclaims his approval, there is no longer a crime. No prosecutor will touch the trespass issue. There has to be a victim. So it boils down to him hunting within 150 yards of a barn.

I just smell something not quite right about this. Bisley, you and I do not agree wholly on this issue. That is apparent. I do however invite opposing view discussion as this thread has produced. This is what has made this site such a darn good one and that is why I come back again and again.

[Bisley]

Bisley, you and I do not agree wholly on this issue. That is apparent. I do however invite opposing view discussion as this thread has produced. This is what has made this site such a darn good one and that is why I come back again and again.

Ain't that the truth

This is all speculation on all of our posts, so what really went on we may never know.

And besides being the absolute truth, I think this is why I hate to see anyone, the shooter or the Officer, judged too harshly.
Guess there's a lot to be said for just taking a "meat animal" and staying low-key

[Broncowilly]

[Lone Wolf]

I thought it was 150 yards from an OCCUPIED building? does anyone know if the barn was occupied?

[ShooterJohn]

I thought it was 150 yards from an OCCUPIED building? does anyone know if the barn was occupied?

Doesn't really matter if the barn was occupied or not. It is grouped together with any occupied dwelling on that property. So if there is someone living on that property their barn would be included. Just lawyer speak but that's how it is.

DEADLY WEAPONS: It is unlawful for any person, other than the owner, person in possession of the premises, or a person having the express permission of the owner or person in possession of the premises, to hunt or to discharge while hunting, any firearm or other deadly weapon within 150 yards of any occupied dwelling house, residence, or other building or any barn or other outbuilding used in connection therewith. The 150-yard area is a “safety zone.” It is unlawful for any person to intentionally discharge any firearm or release any arrow or crossbow bolt over or across any public road or way open to the public, in an unsafe manner. (FGC 3004)

[Bisley]

I don't know about here, but I can tell you that the barns in other states double as garages, work/repair shops, pantries, and general storage. All the family I have that own them are in them quite frequently on a daily basis and is why I cringed when I read that he could see just the roof and not the rest o the building or if anyone was out there.

[OrneryOlMofo357]

And on that thought... Bisley... would an arrow from 100 yds away penetrate a Barn? Sided in at least 1/2' prolly 3/4" ? And then possibly pass through injuring the persons at a Barn dance? You have to be kidding. Wouldnt the noise of the Barn dance have foiled the plot of the Illegal hunter in the first place? What? This fellow wasnt shooting Pen raised Ditch Chickens... It was a Deer... A Trophey! I dont want to start anything... but did you vote for Obama? This is rediculous.

[ShooterJohn]

Unfortunately it really doesn't matter as the person could be outside the barn and therefore the law. If it wasn't illegal he wouldn't have gotten the ticket. Petty as it was the law is the law.