Thoughts on this story

[Zach]

Is this young man getting railroaded on a technicality or is he guilty?

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012...hy-buck-now-part-dfg-investig/?page=1#article

 

[canvsbk]

Sounds like BS to me.

 

[nmelktrout]

Tough call, especially without reading the statute/regulation regarding shooting within 150 yards of a barn. Additionally, it was difficult to tell from my initial read of the article exactly how far from the barn the hunter was when he shot. If he shot the deer within 150 yards of the barn, he is most likely guilty of the initial violation. I do not believe (without reading the regulation itself) that boundary lines such as property boundaries or fencelines waive these types of proximity regulations (essentially it wouldn't matter if the barn was on a neighboring property or not if he made the shot within the 150 yard boundary of ANY barn). Unfortunately for the hunter, his intent (not to violate the regulation) and/or understanding of just how far away from the barn he was (mistake) will likely NOT provide him with a valid defense.

There may be exceptions contained in the wording of the regulation that will play to his defense, but it sounds like the poor guy made the killing shot within the 150 yard zone. Whether or not he knew the barn was there (which he openly admits), the citing officer likely has no discretion with regard to whether or not to cite the hunter if he in fact knew that the violation had taken place. In fact, he would likely lose his job if word got out that he had known about the violation and not cited the hunter. Sounds like the officer may have his own personal feelings about not killing the deer, but I don't see that as providing any defense. Will likely come down to the exact distance the hunter was from the barn when made the shot.

Tough call for certain, especially when it seems that the hunter is an upstanding citizen AND hunter. Hate to see any well-intentioned hunter lose an incredible deer like that because of such a seemingly trivial violation. That said, rules like this are put in place for a reason (usually for the safety of any potential livestock or humans). But, there may be exceptions to the rule and the D.A. will have to make the decision whether to prosecute. It also sounds like this guy will have enough legal help to see him through if he is prosecuted. Any California attorneys on here willing to do a little research on a Friday night???
-Cody

 

[Deleted member 20812]

the citing officer likely has no discretion with regard to whether or not to cite the hunter if he in fact knew that the violation had taken place. In fact, he would likely lose his job if word got out that he had known about the violation and not cited the hunter. -Cody

It's not very often that an officer doesn't have discretion on whether or not to issue a citation. If someone kills a bighorn sheep without a license, yeah they might lose their job for not issuing a citation. For this, I highly doubt it.

It's also very possible there are other facts to this story that haven't been told.

 

[Zach]

Here is the CA code:

(a) 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."
(b) 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 other established way open to the public in an unsafe
and reckless manner.

 

[Zach]

It's not very often that an officer doesn't have discretion on whether or not to issue a citation. If someone kills a bighorn sheep without a license, yeah they might lose their job for not issuing a citation. For this, I highly doubt it.

It's also very possible there are other facts to this story that haven't been told.

Just from watching episodes of Wild Justice on NatGeo, I've seen several GW's use discretion and write a lesser or no citation than they could have. This GW stated he'd been hunting this particular buck. If I was an attorney, I'd start finding out where he's been hunting since most of the people who state to have seen this buck alive say he's been staying on PL.

One thing that I thought of while discussing this with my cousin, was the original intent of the 150yd rule meant for rifles?

When I lived in SoCal I hunted near this area on public land. Never saw anything like this roaming around.

 

[nmelktrout]

Thanks, Zach. Looks like he may have a defense given the wording of the reg you have attached. Based on the article it appears that he did have permission from the person in possession of the premises he was hunting on to both hunt AND discharge a deadly weapon while hunting. The hunter will first have to prove that the oral permission he received is "express permission." Seems like he will be able to prove this as there is no requirement in this particular section of code that "express" permission be written ("express permission" could be defined elsewhere). Assuming that a bow is defined by the State of California as an "other deadly weapon," the issue is whether the hunter would also need permission from the adjacent landowner to hunt and shoot on those portions of property he has permission to be on if they fall within the neighboring barn's safety zone. Seems crazy, but I'd turn to caselaw to see how and if the CA courts have interpreted the issue.

As for the discretion issue. Given the current anti-hunting environment in California and notoriety and record-breaking size of that buck, I'd say the officer erred on the side of caution. Let a citation slide on an animal like that and you can bet your job as a warden would be on the line. Especially if the buck was killed on a piece of property everyone knows and if that property is in an area where the safety zone rule is particularly relevant.
-Cody

 

[huntRme]

Wow, this is tricky. It looks like he satisfied the permission requirement on one hand, but the building in question was on a different property where he did not have permission. Hmmm.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

I think it's a screwjob myself. I don't want people to be popping off rounds or shooting arrows an unsafe distance from occupied buildings but I think the GW is trying to send a message to outsiders to stay out. This kid is paying the price for success. If he had shot some dinky forkhorn, the warden probably wouldn't have said boo about it. I'd be interested in hearing how this comes out.

 

[Corax]

He may have a problem. The fact that the barn is on a different property is actually worse - his permission from the owner would probably cover the barn if it was on the same property. The regulations probably do not distinguish between bow and rifle as far as distance.

The first rangefinder I owned was purchased to deal with exactly this situation - I was hunting a small property in NJ, which bounded another small one to the South, and a big one to the North. The South property had buildings on it which, as it turned out, were about 200 yards away from my stand.

Another issue - if you are hunting out of state - due to the Lacey act a misdemeanor or even a civil offense can become a federal felony since you are crossing a state line.

 

[shoots-straight]

He could practice next to the barn, right? BS law at a minimum.

 

[streamer]

I don't like it, hope it works out for him to the better.

 

[nmelktrout]

It's tough to speculate without knowing all the facts, that's for certain. There is definitely a lot of emotion involved with this story and I truly hope the dude has the citations dropped and gets his deer back. These stories always make me cringe..

 

[sweetnectar]

This is just another example of too many laws, too much government etc. Illegal everything! This says it all for me.

http://youtu.be/QlfvnOCeAjU

 

[noharleyyet]

Equine feces.....

 

[DWarcher]

Sounds like this kid is getting a bad deal...

 

[birddog32]

Hope the DA drops the charges and gives the kid his deer back

 

[weedkiller]

I think one thing I would check into is how often this violation has been cited in other instances. There are many laws out there that are not enforced anymore.

 

[sagebrush]

In CA, you are required to have written permission in your possession while hunting on private property unless you are the owner or person in possession.

 

[putm2sleep]

who cares, its CA.