Don't even look at deer if you see one!!!!!!

[Bubblehide]

Kellogg, you bring up a good point; but think about this: Take your conclusion, and change the scenario to using a flashlight or head mounted flashlight light when leaving camp in the dark. I don't know about you, but I come to the same conclusion. I can come up with many more examples, such as the last one I'll list; a person that lives in the woods waking up to a noise, grabbing a gun and a light to investigate, and finding a bear. Their original thought could have been it was a burglar, mischievous kids, and the list goes on.

And your 100% right, the law is much to broad, it in facts entraps pretty much anyone and everyone who ventures into the forest with a flashlight and a weapon, including many campers that only carry a weapon to defend themselves; and the law obviously needs revision so it is specific to it's intended target. This infact, might make a very good defense; not proving innocence, but swaying a judge to chose to not enforce this provision on the grounds that it is simply much to broad; it's happened in different situations.

 

[Cal Kellogg]

While I'm not a huge fan of sting operations, I would view these operations in a much more favorable light if they would A) give anyone that merely stopped a warning and B) only write people up that actually shot or showed intent to shoot the robo deer.....

 

[m57jager]

Jackrabbit,

I did think about that. Being in public safety myself I also know that the best thing you can get is an atta boy from the community you serve. This is the case in the eyes of admin especially. I guess it could get into the wrong supers hands and could be frowned on. Given the scenario and the leverage the DFG has to ticket you or not I think that this would be a good thing. How bout it DFG personnel, to write a atta boy letter or not?

Zekedawg,

He had a weapon but it was wasn't loaded nor was it readily accessible. My argument was not that a law was or wasn't broken. As it is written, yes he broke the law. The law was made to prevent and catch poachers, maybe even to stop that temptation of a potential poacher. Neither of which he is nor did the picture paint once all the facts were known. In the fire service we go out to calls of illegal fireworks all the time. That is black and white right there. We can fine people $1000+ each time. That's revenue and a very serious offense when you actually see the damage that can be done. Do we walk up and immediately fine the family of legal fireworks that maybe got some illegal ones and lit them off. No! We educate and warn them and if there is another call it's a different scenario. But why, they were clearly breaking the law. That's a lot of money and very hard for some to pay. Just because we can doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. The intent of the law was to keep people from lighting them off to prevent bodily harm and fires. If we can accomplish this while not dropping a huge fine on a family having fun then all to good. If DFG can look at the scenario and say, hmmmm, this guy clearly was not going to shoot that robodeer then use that thing God put on your shoulders and DO THE RIGHT THING! DFG is there to protect wildlife and regulate populations. They have lots of power to do so. They are their to protect for all Californians who pay their salaries, just like police and fire. They still need to have good customer service. The difference in all of these fields between any officer/firefighter and a good or great officer/firefighter is being able to use your head when you need to. This was clearly not done by the first scenario and a good example of it on my second scenario. Remember, they are there to help us not hurt us.

 

[spectr17]

Quick robo deer story. We're heading back from a check station in MO one afternoon. and there's a couple pickups in front of us we don't know. Suddenly smoke starts rolling off their tires and they almost pile up in the ditch. We see all the heads jerking left and look up and see a nice buck on the hillside. Then we see rifles in the other trucks getting yanked out of the gun racks and we cover our ears expecting all the shooting to start. I'm sweating thinking if a warden comes he's going to think we're with the other 2 trucks that are about to blaze away. But no shots ring out. We look over and all the farm boys are scratching their heads and pointing. We look at the deer again and it just didn't look right. Turned out it was a decoy and the other trucks finally just drove off. I wonder what those wardens were thinking that day. Later I heard our truck plate number mentioned on the scanner the wardens used when we checked in another deer so yeah, they had us pegged as road shooters even though we just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The robo deer was on a hillside and the wardens forgot to tilt him down, he was gazing out over the valley but we all knew he should have been looking down to the highway where all the commotion was.

 

[huntingbret]

Wow...it seems like the robo strikes again.

 

[Lahontan]

Also, I don't know how many times I have been on Hwy's like 36 west from Red Bluff at night or at 2 am and there were deer in the middle of the road. Obviously we screeched to a stop so as not to hit the deer. We watched them through the headlights and even looked on the sides of the road and gullies to see if more would run across as has happened. Case in point, I was in Oregon on Hwy. 138 just east of Roseburg going along the N. Umpqua when a deer ran into the passenger door of my truck. Seriously, the deer ran up the gully and hit between the two passenger doors. This scared the crap out of me. The insurance people were skeptical but when the adjustor came out and saw the marks, he confirmed it for me. They finally paid without fuss. Anyway, this season alone I counted over 20 deer one night as we drove along Hwy. 36 late at night. Aside from one really nice buck that ran across the road right in front of us, the rest were either standing in the road, running alongside the road or standing just off the road with the look like they may jump in our way. Of course we slow down and therefore see them with the headlights on. Of course we had rifles tucked away in cases in the back seat and of course we also had ammo as well. Intent, no way, but according to this reading, they could imply intent. I also don't like the whole sting operation thing except I don't like it because I think there are far better ways to go about catching poachers than to try for the legit hunter that gives into temptation or the guy driving by with headlights on. Can you imagine the ticket, " Sorry mr. Highway patrol officer, I was driving with my headlights off so that I don't break the DFG rules. I forgot that your rules superseed the DFG regs. Two conflicting laws should be enough to throw this out in court as needing clarification. What a waste of time and resources in an overburdened system. FUBAR!

 

[tony270]

I feel for your friend. But his intentions don’t matter. Because what he did in the legal realm is considered Prima Facie evidence of unlawful spot-lighting. And in my totally uneducated non-legal opinion the District Attorney can make a case like that stick. That’s because your friend had access to a weapon capable of killing a deer. He did shine a light on/towards a deer, and he had access to a weapon capable of taking one. It doesn’t matter if the weapon is locked in the trunk, a case, or whatever, as long as he had general access. A common method of operating that poachers use to hunt at night and is known to law enforcement and some hunter is to spot-light deer while night driving. When the poacher spots a deer in the vehicles headlights he either stops and or slows to get a better look, then he'll keep going so that when he retrieves the weapon the deer won’t get spooked. Then the poacher returns to take care of business. Not surprisingly, Law Enforcement is aware that some poachers keep a truck gun and spotlight available; so that anytime they spot a deer they’re ready.
I'd recommend that your friend hire an attorney, and that he avoid using a public defender. With a private attorney he’ll have a good chance at pleading to and receiving a lesser charge. All bets are off if he uses a public defender.

HH and Good Luck.

 

[BADBuckfever]

I feel for your friend. But his intentions don’t matter. Because what he did in the legal realm is considered Prima Facie evidence of unlawful spot-lighting. And in my totally uneducated non-legal opinion the District Attorney can make a case like that stick. That’s because your friend had access to a weapon capable of killing a deer. He did shine a light on/towards a deer, and he had access to a weapon capable of taking one. It doesn’t matter if the weapon is locked in the trunk, a case, or whatever, as long as he had general access. A common method of operating that poachers use to hunt at night and is known to law enforcement and some hunter is to spot-light deer while night driving. When the poacher spots a deer in the vehicles headlights he either stops and or slows to get a better look, then he'll keep going so that when he retrieves the weapon the deer won’t get spooked. Then the poacher returns to take care of business. Not surprisingly, Law Enforcement is aware that some poachers keep a truck gun and spotlight available; so that anytime they spot a deer they’re ready.
I'd recommend that your friend hire an attorney, and that he avoid using a public defender. With a private attorney he’ll have a good chance at pleading to and receiving a lesser charge. All bets are off if he uses a public defender.

HH and Good Luck.

Free legal advise, right on!
BTW I am curious, what is your connection to law enforcement?

 

[tony270]

BADBuckfever, my knowledge comes from years of life. I wasn't giving legal advice. You need to take a closer look at what I wrote. What part of, "And in my totally uneducated non-legal opinion", did you not understand? See the highlighted sentence in the same thread below. And what makes you think I'm connected to Law Enforcement? You looked at my profile and you should have noticed that I'm a Mechanic.

Originally Posted by tony270

I feel for your friend. But his intentions don’t matter. Because what he did in the legal realm is considered Prima Facie evidence of unlawful spot-lighting. And in my totally uneducated non-legal opinion the District Attorney can make a case like that stick. That’s because your friend had access to a weapon capable of killing a deer. He did shine a light on/towards a deer, and he had access to a weapon capable of taking one. It doesn’t matter if the weapon is locked in the trunk, a case, or whatever, as long as he had general access.

A common method of operating that poachers use to hunt at night and is known to law enforcement and some hunter is to spot-light deer while night driving. When the poacher spots a deer in the vehicles headlights he either stops and or slows to get a better look, then he'll keep going so that when he retrieves the weapon the deer won’t get spooked. Then the poacher returns to take care of business. Not surprisingly, Law Enforcement is aware that some poachers keep a truck gun and spotlight available; so that anytime they spot a deer they’re ready.
I'd recommend that your friend hire an attorney, and that he avoid using a public defender. With a private attorney he’ll have a good chance at pleading to and receiving a lesser charge. All bets are off if he uses a public defender.

 

[Ism415]

@ cal
I remember when they drained that. It was on the front page of marin ij with fish flopping every where and tHe Dfg warden was standing there really confused about why they were all there dieing. Yet nothing was done about it.... Painful!! Thanks for this post I had no idea I couldn't have a weapon in the trunk unloaded and see a nice deer and look at it and posably get a large fine.

Not fun for anyone

 

[BADBuckfever]

Whoa, big stallion! Take it easy. I was kidding around cause it was free legal advise. Whats with the heavy vibes? Your posts tend to be so serious. Oh well, to each his own.

You are soooooo detailed with the law etc... I thought you must have a law enforcement background of some kind. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Cal Kellogg]

There is no question that the guy with the flashlight broke the law as it is written...

Having said that the real question is whether the DFG is casting too broad of a net and if the criteria for writing a ticket is too low. For me the answer to both questions is yes...I'd like to see a citizen do something more substantial than stopping or shinning a light on Robo deer to get a ticket...Warning? Yes...Ticket? Not cool in my book....

I look at it this way....If you set Robo deer out in a hunting area and the criteria for a citation was someone taking a shot at it you might net one or two tickets for every 100 people that drove by, but if you lower the criteria to stopping or slowing and looking the number of tickets written is going to rise substantially....

Another point that I would make is this...Poaching is serious and I would like to see all poaching stopped...that's a given....

However when I hear about your average poaching bust whether it relates to fish or game I tend to look at it with a raised eyebrow. In most areas of the state, deer populations are in severe decline, as are the populations of gamefish like striped bass and salmon...Is poaching a factor in these declines? Sure...BUT in the scope of the factors driving these declines poaching falls way down on the list. In my opinion the DFG devotes a lot of resources in sting operations and other means of busting poachers for two reasons, first it creates a revenue stream and second it provides the department with good publicity.

I'd like to see the DFG taking a larger role in habitat restoration for both fish and wildlife. This seems to be the number one thing that could be done to bolster fish and game numbers, but alas there is no direct revenue to be created in this area....

I remember something that the DFG did a few years ago that I got involved in that serves as an example of the DFG's true motivation...In my opinion....I had been fishing at Eagle Lake in Norcal and came back home through Reno and got stopped at the bug station in Truckee...They had a sign flashing saying that all hunters had to pull to the side....

Heck I had been fishing so I didn't pull over...Each bay of the bug station was manned by a warden...My guy was very rude..."Why didn't you pull over?" he said..."I've been fishing, not hunting"..."Get over there" he says as he points to a group of trucks parked beside the road...Those are exact quotes of the entire conversation....

So I pull over and get checked....As I'm getting checked and my truck is being searched there are a number of hunters having their vehicles searched...There is a truck behind me with to senior citizen guys returning from out of state that had a cooler full of wrapped meat that you could tell had been processed at a butcher, since the packs were double wrapped in butcher paper and had stickers with the butchers name and number on each pack...Anyhow the DFG had removed all the packs from the cooler and had laid them out on the ground...They had also removed the guys rifles from their cases and laid them on the ground too...I was thinking what the hell is the point of this? But this really isn't within the scope of the point I'm trying to make.....

Fast forward a few weeks and I read a column by Carey Wilson (A DFG mouth piece and apologist in my view) In the piece she goes on for several paragraphs speaking about how the DFG had conducted an operation to prevent chronic wasting disease from entering California on such and such a date....Well I look at the calendar and realize that she is referring to the event at the bug station....As I read the article I'm thinking that it sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering why I was stopped since I was fishing and not hunting and clearly not importing anything into the state that threatened to spread CWD....

And Then I Get To The Last Paragraph....!!!!!!!!

In that paragraph she outlined in after thought fashion that during the operation to check for CWD...the DFG wrote over 100k in tickets for things they'd discovered while doing the CWD checks....

Was that operation about stopping CWD or writing tickets????

That guy in the Outlaw Josey Whales said..."Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"...He must have been at the bug station and read Wilson's article too...Ha

 

[Live2hunt]

Hmmmmm.........I wonder what happen if the guy try to argue in court that he was not spotlighting a deer. He was only spotlighting a machine, afterall the robo deer was a machine. I think if he play it that way, it would be hard for the prosecutor to prove the guy is actually spotlighting deer because there was no real deer involved.

 

[ZEKEDAWG]

the key point with this and the gated road thread in the black tail forum is to read the regulations and under stand them. then you can know what you can and can't do. if you are ever in a situation where legality comes up. having the information at hand when discussing the matter at the time with the LEO goes along way it shows you know the law and understand the intent of the law. intelligent conversation goes a long way.

We always tend to blame others for our misfortune. pay attention to you friends and co workers, no on ever takes the blame they want it to be someone elses fault.

The guy above could have been warned or he could have been ticketed, it all dependen on the reaction that he got form the leo and his expaination.

 

[Mr. Luckypants]

Man, this makes me wonder now. I like to take pictures of deer and other games during my hunt and sometime have my flash on. I wonder if this is considered "casting" a light on the game?

I guess if you drove by and took pictures of robo deer with the flash on you can potentially get a ticket?

 

[Common Sense]

I guess if you drove by and took pictures of robo deer with the flash on you can potentially get a ticket?

I reckon, course Big Brother may be watching us right now. Who knows? We may all get a citiation in our mailbox for discussing this issue!

 

[m57jager]

The guy above could have been warned or he could have been ticketed, it all dependen on the reaction that he got form the leo and his expaination.

Oh, ok. So you must have been the warden or the guy who it happened to to know this. I think not. Let me tell you, it doesn't work that way here. Our local warden doesn't care about intent of the law. She cares about how many people she can get something on. It's a personality and power thing locally. Those that live around here know what I'm talking about.

We always tend to blame others for our misfortune. pay attention to you friends and co workers, no on ever takes the blame they want it to be someone elses fault.

Like I stated before, nobody is blaming anyone. On the topic of intelligent conversation you really need to listen to the other side and respond accordingly. You can disagree with how things are done without placing blame anywhere but where it belongs. Everyone knows who was at fault by how the law is written. That doesn't mean it's right. So if some non-hunting type family is driving through the woods or 89 year old grandma and either one of them cast a light on a deer and have a semiauto pistol or derringer in the car for protection they better write their a$$es tickets too. Hell yeah they better. Because apparently doing the right thing has gone out the ....... window. When you live in the mountains, everyone cast light on wildlife at rare specimens(big bucks, bear, lion) to observe without intent to poach. It's LE(DFG) job to work a little and use their brain to figure out if that was a poaching situation or not. It's their job to figure that out. Like I said before, if you are an LE, Firefighter, Medic, DFG and you just do exactly what your protocals say without ever going the extra mile to go by the intent of the law, or go outside the box and think a little then you are mediocre at your job at best. Stay in the kitchen with your cookbook.

 

[Ism415]

I wanna know if the Dfg wardens on the site that have been fallowing this thread have any comment about it or would like to comment on the issue and I would like to know if they think it's a bit out of line of the warden to write this guy up and better yet I'd like to know if any of the wardens agree that Dfg was out of line if they would be willing to help this guy out in court and show up to support him if the facts we have read are correct. I think that would help us as hunters if a warden would stand up to the plate for us and speak on our behalf. It would show alot if wardens started standing up for thing they thought were redic.

Quick story on a out of control warden. My grandfather (retired Dfg warden) and grandmother were on an elk hunt and a kid had also gotten a tag and was on the hunt as well. There was a warden on site for this hunt. The kid sees a nice bull that the warden pointed out for the kid to shoot. Kid shoots it kills it and hits a cow passed it. U couldn't see the cow. The warden didnt even see it. How ever. The kid gets sited and his bull get confiscated. To me that isnt ok. Accidents happen. The kid should have got a given a break. After this instance my grandpa stated "that is why I took early retirement"
He no longer felt like people were given a fair break when they were in order

 

[Lahontan]

I see your point about Wardens speaking up, but I wouldn't expect or advise any wardens to comment on this thread or show up in court to help out a hunter who is stated to have broken the law by the organization he works for. This would be insubordination. The wardens job is to enforce policy, not make it. However, if a warden wanted to show up in court as a member of the public and not bring up that they are a warden, they have the right to do so just as we do. However, they should not be given any weight over the public. I doubt anyone would bring up the fact that they are a warden and disagree with the people asking them to enforce laws a certain way. This is the same in most public jobs. I think there is a misunderstanding out there that if you hold a public office that you should be required to speak up. You are right, the testimony would probably sway the court of public opinion ( probably no one is even listening) but that would be risking a job imo. I am in a similar opinion in my field, but that is not in my job description. It may sound hypocritical, but the bottom line is that wardens have very specific job criteria and should be expected to follow it accordingly. Judgement is required, and judgement seperates the good wardens from the great wardens. However, the same judgement is what calls 99% of actions into question when an issue arises. It is a tough job and I don't think I would want to do it. If we want something to change, then we really need to take it on ourselves to accomplish this, change the law and then expect DFG to carry out the law.

 

[betelgeuse]

I may get raked over the coals for this but there are good wardens and bad wardens, just like there are good cops and bad cops. My experience with wardens is 50/50. I have had my truck tossed for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The guy threatened my that I was lying and he was going to take me to jail. I have also had conversations with wardens and never been asked for my liscense. I have had a warden ask me "what kind of rockfish is that ? " I had a warden ask me if I had measured a halibut, it was 25 lbs. I laughed at him and said go for it. He was on the boat for 45 min going through every compartment.

IMHO some are good, and personable, others are jerks.

They have hard jobs but I dislike when the first words from their mouths are accusatory.

I guess I broke this law too when I turned around the other morning to park near my hunting spot and caught two does in the headlights, actually I guess I broke it twice as I jumped a deer with my headlamp on the way into my spot. The situation mentioned sounds excessive.