I think even a person with no hunting experience can understand how simple it will become for a poacher to get away with shooting a deer illegally. There is no doubt that number of trophy bucks killed illegally will go up exponentially. Most hunters are ethical and the change won’t make any difference to those hunters. They will still unload their weapons and stop hunting at legal hours in the afternoon or wait to load their weapons until legal hours in the morning. There are others however that follow the rules solely out of fear of being caught for violating. The cost of the citation or the embarrassment for being caught makes them follow the rules and removing the likelihood of getting caught is going to remove the only deterrent they had. Then of course are the people who are just outlaws and will take advantage of any opportunity and have no regard for the law. The fact that it will be nearly impossible for a warden to catch them under the proposed rule means they will be able to poach with almost no chance of getting caught. This rule change is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. The argument being used to push for the change is that wardens are running around issuing large numbers of citations to hunters for “hunting” just a few minutes before or after hunting hours or to hunters that have ceased actively hunting but still have loaded weapons. This is simply not true. There are roughly 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin. Out of all of those hunters, in the last three years combined wardens have issued a total of 274 citations for hunting before or after hours. 115 in 2014, 109 in 2015, and 50 in 2016. That’s less than four hundredths of one percent of hunters that have been affected in three years combined. I reviewed every one of the citations issued in 2015 and 2016 individually. In 2015 only seven citations were issued for hunting 15 minutes or less before/after legal hours and fifteen for between 15 and 30 minutes before/after hours. In 2016 only fifteen citations were issued for less than 15 minutes, and twenty-one for 15-30 minutes. In every single one of those instances the hunters were actively hunting with loaded weapons. In more than half of those citations, the hunter actually shot at game. The hunter whose watch is off by a few minutes or either doesn’t have or happen to look at his watch is not the one that gets citations. This is because wardens have the ability to use discretion in determining if the hunter is intending to break the law. Officer discretion is something all law enforcement officers are trained extensively on and use every day.
In 2015 83% of the citations involved shooting game before/after hours, 73% were for thirty or more minutes before/after hours, and 60% included additional violations such as shining, shooting from a road, illegal bait, or not tagging animals. The numbers for 2016 were similar. Clearly it is not a case of wardens out to get hunters who have violated by two minutes.
Others have said “what about when I have deer under me at closing time?” Virtually all hunters have been in this situation. It’s closing time and there is game around that we don’t want to spook by getting out of our stand. All it takes to be legal is to unload your gun or take your arrow/bolt off your bow or crossbow. If you aren’t stealthy enough to do that without spooking game, you might want to take up another sport because you aren’t likely to be able to successfully shoot when you get the chance. I frequently take my arrow off my bow and lower my bow to the ground when I have deer within shooting range. Most of the time the deer don’t even notice and move on within a few minutes so I can quickly get down and get away from my stand. Occasionally deer may spook at the movement on the ground but they can’t associate it with human activity so I am free to get down without the deer being any the wiser. Another argument has been that an individual is legally entitled to open carry or concealed carry by permit a loaded weapon 24 hours a day so we need to change the rule to shooting hours. Again this is perfectly legal and hunters can’t be cited by a warden for a hunting hour violation unless they are actively pursuing game. Walking back to your truck after dark with a loaded gun because you are afraid of wolves, bears, or your fellow man isn’t going to get you a citation. It didn’t happen once in the two years’ worth of citations that I reviewed and none of the wardens I talked to about this issue had ever even heard of that scenario in the field.
Even if there were a case of an overzealous warden issuing a citation in a circumstance that is was not warranted, we still have a legal system that protects us as individuals. Citations must be based on facts and evidence of violation. Supposing we had a “dirty” warden, a judge would also have to overstep for an individual to be found guilty of a violation in error. Overwhelmingly people support wardens in their efforts to catch game thieves and want to make it possible for them to more effectively do their jobs. Changing the law from hunting hours to shooting hours will effectively make it impossible for wardens to catch violators and they will be forced to abandon efforts to do so. There simply is not enough time in their schedules allow it considering they have many other duties.
This question was originally pushed by a Natural Resources Board member to be an advisory question on the Conservation Congress’ spring hearing questionnaire last year. It passed overwhelmingly in most counties but it quickly became apparent that question didn’t make it clear what the overall implications of the wording change would mean. I had several conversations with sportsmen (including Congress delegates) who very quickly changed their opinion on the rule change one they understood the implications of the change. When the question came up for debate at the Congress’ annual meeting and the rule was explained more clearly, it was unanimously voted down. Some have claimed that this is an overstep by the Congress, but the reality is that the original question wasn’t worded very well and once it was more clear, the delegates recognized how negative this change would be for resource management and did the right thing.
What’s next? I suppose the next step would be to change the rule to a harvesting rule where the hunter would actually have to sit late, shoot at, hit, and recover an animal before they were in violation. This rule change is one that has gone too far and the Legislature should leave things just the way they are.
Skoo kum- said-"The problem is that under a current rule change approved by the Natural Resources Board that exact scenario will become perfectly legal. The rule change would change regulation language from hunting hours to shooting hours. "
Please show where this rule change from hunting hours to shooting hours allows for the killing of game outside of the posted legal times?
If you have to make up claims to support your argument you have already failed.
"A “hunter” sitting in a deer stand well after dark, loaded rifle (bow, or crossbow) in hand, battery operated spotlight at the ready, waiting for that huge buck he keeps getting on camera after dark to come into a bait pile so he can kill it and sneak it home under cover of darkness ."
"The problem is that under a current rule change approved by the Natural Resources Board that exact scenario will become perfectly legal."
In the worst case scenario...WORST CASE...you may want lawyer. They say talk is cheap until you hire a lawyer! If you're not guilty, spending time at court would be time well spent in my book.... as well as a lawyer. If your guilty, figure you can fool the court - that is a WASTE of time If you can come up with a better way - please let me know.
Obviously you pay closer attention to Taylor Swift than reading comprehension. I said that someone waiting to shoot a deer was still legal. Not that someone could shoot a deer and still be legal.
As I said the fantasy of hunters getting citations for being in their stand just a few minutes by overzealous wardens is just not true. In two years it didn't happen one time. As Bloodtrail said, even if it did happen the hunter has the opportunity for a pre-trial conference and likely wouldn't go to court.
If this rule did make it through the Legislature, it means that animals will have to die or get wounded in order for wardens to cite the violator because they actually have to shoot to be illegal.
The fact that a handful of people are eager to make it so easy for people to poach is beyond me. Buy a watch. Look up hunting hours and follow them. Piece of cake.
I am talking about the criminal justice system - change it if you don't like it, but that's the way the apples fall my friend.
Our current law is quite clear when it’s time to put down the rattling antlers, put away the grunt or bleat call along with the duck/goose call and to when you need to stop stalking a whitetail deer.
What this new proposal is asking us for, is too allow for all those activities to take place without concern until an actual shot is fired from either a gun, bow or crossbow. Anyone would have the legal grounds to continue to “hunt” and then IF they decide to pull the trigger or drop the string, then and only then could enforcement action take place. On top of this, we will now require a conservation warden to be in place to take enforcement action based solely on a gun shot, wisp of an arrow or bolt through the air.
We ask allot from our Warden staff, I don’t believe having them (Wardens) close enough to hear an arrow or bolt being shot is realistic or safe situation for anyone.
Proponents to our current law will tell you that this new law will take away “discretion” from the wardens. They will tell you “that there will be no more mistakes in issuing citations” they will also tell you that it “makes things easier.” Some will say wardens “assume intent” when they issue these citations.
I can tell you from my professional experience, citations are not written on assumptions. “Hunting after hours” is what is referred to as a “civil forfeiture” or a fine. The amount of evidence required to write this citation is referred to as “clear and convincing.” This is the standard any prosecutor in the State will require.
Every day a warden works he or she makes many “discretionary” decisions in their line of work. “Was that woman holding a fishing pole?”, “Was that guy actually riding his ATV on the highway?” or “Did that hunter just shoot four times at that duck?” ”Was that guy actually running from me on his ATV or did he really not see and hear my lights and sirens?” Everyday wardens make those discretionary decisions and many more. That’s what we expect them to do and that is what we pay them to do for us.
Making a decision whether or not a person is hunting late is no different than any other decision these men and women make every day in the field. To now ask our wardens to wait until a shot is fired I believe is not only counterproductive and a foot up for violators, but a safety concern for our wardens.
I also believe that the question that was presented regarding “hunting hours “was jaded and misleading to many residents of this State. It mislead both my wife and I, as we voted “Yes” to the question only to discuss it later with someone who voted “No.” It purports or leads sportsman and woman to believe that this could be a major issue in our State. My wife and I thought so. But I can now tell you with confidence that this is NOT the case. Here’s why!
The US Fish and Wildlife Service reported that last year (2015) there was 717,381 single licenses purchased by sportsmen and sportswomen across the State of Wisconsin.
Now, assuming that everyone hunted at least one time last year – the numbers here may shock you.
Last year, the Department (WDNR) Wardens issued a grand total of 62 citations for “Hunting after Hours” Those 62 citations were collected from Gun Hunters/Archery/Crossbow Hunters and Waterfowlers.
Now if anyone would have done the math they would have found that the percent of people directly affected by our current law by being issued a citation amounted to a whopping EIGTH ONE THOUSANDS OF ONE PERCENT.
That’s right, EIGHT ONE THOUSANDS OF ONE PERCENT. Now even if you have decided that everything I have mentioned previously is a bunch of bunk – can anyone here support any further investigation or commentary on a proposed law change that only effects such an incredibly low…almost non-existent number?
Clearly, changing hunting to shooting hours and the number of successful violators in the State goes unchecked and needlessly put our Wardens in a potentially dangerous situation.
Disclaimer: This is not or should not be regarded as the opinion of the WDNR/WCC and only the views of this author.
Heck...I've plead guilty by default by paying the fine because I didn't want the hassle of taking time off of working and dealing with the courts.
Give me the name of the County man....
Shooting hours clears up those questions and it seems like a lot of energy spent on a non-event. Hunters that follow the rules will always follow them and those that choose to poach will......
The only time I had an arrow stay on the string after shooting time was after working 20 days in a row, driving seven hours through the night, getting camp squared away and heading into the woods. I fell asleep in my climber with maybe 15 minutes left. I think any warden would've heard me snoring.
I don't think there's any reason to be in a stand with an arrow nocked after shooting time. I don't think I'm hunting when I'm waiting in the morning.
So, my opinion is all screwed up. I don't want life to be easier for poachers. I don't want to be negatively impacted. I'm not shooting deer outside of shooting time.
Time to go watch some paint dry......
With 717,381 hunters and ONLY 62 citations STATEWIDE ....making this a Eight One Thousands of 1 per cent of the hunting population in WI how is this a problem? How is this such an outrageous problem. What is so urgent to fix here. Sixty Two citations? It doesn't even effect 1 per cent of us hunters and all you are screaming and yelling. Out of control wardens, heavy handed wardens - wardens who cannot make a decision... You need to catch your breathe Gentlemen and look at who this effects NOT EVEN ONE PER CENT OF US!!!!
Jackpine - What's up with the loaded gun and arrow on the string? I have done both multiple times. Please show me were this act is specified to be an illegal act?
And Captain Mike - Truth be told I rarely go to a trial to the Court or Jury - something is worked out or no one shows, Courts often live in the "Let's make a Deal" before going to trial. Could you imagine with todays population...everyone going to court/trial. That is an expense that the fine does even get close to covering.
The ONLY "Non- Event" here is 62 people out of 717,381 people receiving a citation for this offense in a years time. Unbelievable!!
walker and his cronies, want to strip all powers, dredge whatever waters, his friends want, and to heck with clean water, etc,,,,
shooting hours is just plain dumb, but so are most on this site,,,,, These guys buy into "I will protect your gun rights" while I destroy, your habitat.......
I am disgusted,,,,,, I only wish we had a candidate like Ron Kind,,,, Mary Burke was a joke herself, being anti trapping, that is how dumb the democrats are, but this guy will do more damage to hunting and fishing, than any anti ever could
No wonder so few citations are given out. Shooting an animal too early or too late is breaking the law. Pretty clear cut.
Now if I started to blow a grunt call or rattle antlers....I am toast, I am obviously hunting now.
With our NEW law for shooting hours I can do all that and suffer no repercussions ` HOW NICE.
Razor +1 .
I find it equally entertaining when a civilian like yourself thinks they know what or how a LEO works in the field . How they run their investigations, who they should cite and when the should do it. We pay Wardens to enforce the law, part of that is field interrogations. Yes, you lose time in the woods, but the warden is doing his/her job. Get over it.
You have to get over this "cry fest"/"pity-party" that includes crying over "losing money in court, losing money away from the job and now losing a whole morning of hunting"....
THATS how the system works.....for everyone. Why are you the only one bitchin about it and bad mouthing wardens is beyond me?
Congrats!!
In both instances the Court is relying on the word of the Officer.
In some, very few cases, video evidence of the violation occurs. The intersection has a camera installed or the party was video taped hunting late. That is physical evidence and great to have.
And yes, saving posts is quite weird.
BT
Aren't the stealhead running? Get out the house and do some fishing.
Say What? "The up and up" What does that mean?
Evidence collection is done for a number of reason(s) and none even nearly approach the "the up and up" theory presented here by CaptMike.
The level of evidence collection is solely based upon the degree of the incident being investigated.
Simply put, evidence is most often collected for prosecutorial reasons. It supports the innocence or guilt of a party involved in a crime scene or specific incident. Evidence can clear a man or woman as easily as it can provide a basis to charge someone criminally.
So - we collect evidence for those reasons and we save evidence for the prosecution. If the DA decides he will not charge and he OK's with the evidence being destroyed...destroyed it will be. If we feel we can gather more info on this case, we may keep it and try to collect more info. Cases of homicide are never destroyed until solved and then kept for forever. The evidence officer in any department keeps close tabs and every piece of evidence and nothing is entered or removed without their knowledge and documentation. Happy Hunting!
Ahhh...OK. Whatever........You have a good day now.
