Interpretation of the laws

[Old school]

Yesterday I called Montana Division of Wildlife Game and Fish. Talked with a Game Warden there about the laws and how they interpret and enforce them. I was particularly interested in how they interpret and enforce the law about “aiding” another hunter with electronic 2 way devices.

I brought up the scenario of the 2 elk hunters, hunting different locations on their morning hunt and communicating by text regarding what they were seeing and where they were seeing them. Then the 2 hunters meet up for lunch, talk and then swap areas they had hunted in the morning. If hunter “B” kills a bull that afternoon in the spot hunter “A” had hunted that morning and texts had been sent that morning as to where the elk were, was that illegal since technically they had used electronic communication? He said that was NOT illegal and not the spirit of the law at all. The hunters had left the elk in order to meet up for lunch - that was a big key, they left the elk. He also said that hunter “A” wasn’t using electronic devices to “aid” the other hunter in taking an elk. He said if you were directly communicating where the elk were and were there waiting for your buddy to show up to the spot you were directing him to, that would be illegal. Or even more obvious if you were spotting them from a high view point and “guiding” your buddy to them via phone or radio.

Lots of different twists and sometimes the law isn’t black and white. There are gray areas. The key he said was if you left the elk, you are then no longer using technology to “aid” someone into a herd or a particular animal.

Some may find this helpful and some maybe could care less. Just figured I’d post it in an attempt to be helpful to others - certainly not stirring the pot - I’ll leave the pot stirring to Swede

-Mitch

[Swede]

Another area of some ambiguity is tagging. I heard about a hunter getting ticketed for not tagging his deer soon enough. Apparently the game warden saw him shoot the deer. He watched him go to his downed animal and start butchering it. As the hunter was skinning, the game warden gave him a ticket for not having it tagged. The hunter took it to court and won. It was determined the tag is for transporting the animal. I would not want to go to court to argue the case since it is simple enough just to tag your animal immediately and the hunter could lose, but with the new electronic tags, I don't know what hunters will do. If I have no cell phone reception, do I leave the animal and find a spot with cell phone reception or butcher the animal first? I have not bothered to find out as I still get the paper tags.

Anyway FYI it is in my WT job description to: "functions as a master pot stirrer. Incumbent incites as many members as possible, and enrages lurkers so that they will join to correct any and all outrageous claims or observations".

[Indian Summer]

Key word is interpretation. The most important one is that of the law enforcement officer who you cross paths with. I can’t imagine why anyone would bother telling them you sent texts earlier in the day. I would highly suggest erring to the safe side which means silence is golden. Your attorney will tell you that.

Does anyone here recall the episode of the tv show Wardens that was filmed in Montana? The hunter was cited for failure to promptly tag his elk. He tagged it pretty quickly... but he took a picture first. Technically the very first thing you are supposed to do is punch and attach the carcass tag. They later found him innocent BUT... they never returned any part of the confiscated elk or reimbursed him for his license or other expenses. In other words he did nothing wrong but suffered a loss anyway. I can tell you from very extensive experience that lots of Montana LEOs are not your friend. I could waste your time with a lengthy story on how I put the stops to them trying to fine one of my hunters and seize his mountain lion. We had to go over the heads of the local F&G personnel to do it. Montana law enforcement or should I say infringement is a big part of the reason why I hunt Wyoming! Their game checks should be called interrogation stops where hunters are guilty until proven innocent! End of rant!

[saddlesore]

Right on the license , in Colorado, it says "Immediately up on killing the animal sign and detach tag. You do not have to attach the tag to the animal, unless you leave it hanging at the kill sight,or until you get back to camp.

[Swede]

I think all States have written or rewritten their tagging requirements to ensure game is tagged "immediately". Still I have no understanding why a game warden would rush in to ticket a person that, in the excitement of the moment, is taking pictures with his/her trophy. The buck, ram, bull, etc. is not going anywhere at that time, so what is the real problem? I agree with Indian Summer.

[Indian Summer]

The judge agreed too Swede. But still no compensation for losses. It should read “before moving animal from kill site”. That serves the intended purpose which is to avoid poaching.

[Swede]

You always lose when you go to court is situations like that. If nothing more, you have travel and loss of wages. If you get an attorney you have those expenses, and would you risk everything by representing yourself? One the other hand the game warden is paid to prepare and go to court. All expenses are fully covered for the cop.

[saddlesore]

Here is my take on game wardens.

First in importance, enforce game laws ( read write citations)

2nd .Manage wildlife.Pretty poor job is done in Colorado.

3rd.Help Hunters. Pretty much none existent. Most information they give you is wrong

[Indian Summer]

Here is my take on game wardens.

First in importance, enforce game laws ( read write citations)

2nd .Manage wildlife.Pretty poor job is done in Colorado.

3rd.Help Hunters. Pretty much none existent. Most information they give you is wrong

Except in Wyoming. Very pleasant. Just doing their job but not out of bounds. Sincerely happy for you if you were successful. I believe that they look at our success as a result of them doing a good job. The guy at the game check has become a friend and I look forward to seeing him each year.

[>>>---WW---->]

The older wardens used to be fairly good at interpreting the law. They actually had some people skills. But you had better watch out for these younger ones that don't really have all that many years of experience. They do everything strictly by the book and often look for the tiniest little thing they can find just to put a feather in their hat.

[Wyo67]

:mrgreen:

Here is my take on game wardens.

First in importance, enforce game laws ( read write citations)

2nd .Manage wildlife.Pretty poor job is done in Colorado.

3rd.Help Hunters. Pretty much none existent. Most information they give you is wrong

Except in Wyoming. Very pleasant. Just doing their job but not out of bounds. Sincerely happy for you if you were successful. I believe that they look at our success as a result of them doing a good job. The guy at the game check has become a friend and I look forward to seeing him each year.

What Joe said. I've never had a problem with Wyoming Game Wardens in 12+ years of hunting throughout the central and southern portion of the state.

[Lefty]

Unfortunately there are many hunting outdoor laws that lend themselves to too much interpretation.
My biggest complaint is the migratory baiting law. What makes a crop a baited field. . Some LEO included manure. Some included feeding cattle hay, other just driving onto a field could be considered "exposing grain.
Some went as far that bait was any type of attractant. The act of disking a snow covered field the soil was bait dumping water on ice covered even kicking a hole to "expose open water to place decoys.


Idaho has cleaned up the definition of an "outfitter" I was cautioned by a fellow in Law enforcement that the term compensation didnt necessarily mean money but something of value. Im not sure how a judge would view the exchange of a breakfast burrito and a mountain Dew as a "gift" when hunting with someone or even driving gear to the blind. An inconclusive obnoxious definition

The new Idaho trespass law was a mess when first proposed too. 35 years back Minnesota had a similar law,.. until September that fall
Land owners had to write written permission,.. with no exceptions. even close family,.. spouse, children,.. and even if hunting with each other. Just a bad law that was rescinded.

And there still seems to be problems with proof of sex,.. keeping the scrotum on the largest piece of meat on a 4 point doe is tough