What do you think of this "hunter"

[Nwcid]

Here is a thread from another board I am on that is really sick, Northwest Dive Club • View topic - Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...

People like this really make the rest of us look so bad.

Read More

 

[Greenbug]

I sure wouldn't appreciate someone harrassing me while I was out hunting legally. Even if his attitude was cocky or whatever, what right do you have to harass him if he is "hunting" legally?

 

[unklekippy]

I guess I don't understand. Was he poaching? If so, send those photos to the polic and let them do what the law states. If he was doing something legal in a legal place, who is anybody to bully him out of there? For the record, I have no clue what the laws of diving or "octopus hunting" are, but based on the posts on the diving site it seems that if he were doing something illegal the proper authorities would be notified.

 

[samuelm16]

nothing illegal done ? am i missing something?

 

[Nwcid]

Your all right. Nothing illegal in this case. But still of amazingly poor taste and his only point was to kill it to "show off". There also seems to be questionable means of taking it and WDFW has been contacted (in the posts) along with several of his other activities.

The area this guy took it from is a popular rec area where people go to see these wonderful creatures who are use to seeing people observe them on a daily basis. While I would not call them tame animal they are not use to needing to run away from people.

Just because something is legal does not make it right.....

 

[keystir]

I don't get it, If it's legal then the kid should be left alone. If not, call the proper authorities. This is why we have laws, so folks like this don't end up killing each other over a stupid octopus. I hope the kid gets some legal recourse if the diver actually follows through on his harassment threats.

 

[PBinWA]

Sounds like the "community" is going to take care of it. I would have outed him more publicly though. No need to hide is info - he certainly isn't.

 

[Nwcid]

If you read the thread you will see that the push is to change the law. I think the big shock comes from that fact that you wouldn't think you needed a law. You would thinking morals, common sense and common decency would be enough.


I was not sure what I was trying to say and now I think I have it. The problem is not the "hunting" of the GPO in general, well for some I am sure it is. The main outcry is the location and the reason. If the guy want to go down the open shore line and actually hunt them I say good for him, even better if he was planning on eating it. He took it from and area where they are use to people so that takes most of the hunting out of it. The second part of it is he took it from a popular recreation area that many people like to enjoy just for the sake of showing it off.

 

[nwwoodsman]

If he was doing it legally then I say good for him and nice score. I buy a license and tag for the species for which I'm hunting. It drives me bat bubblegum crazy when someone tells me they don't want me legally hunting a deer, coyote, elk, or whatever species near their place because they like to watch them or, even worse, feed them which is illegal. Wild animals are not pets and should not be treated as such. A portion of the money I pay for licenses, tags, ammo, and firearms goes towards wildlife management. As a shareholder in that wildlife I have every right to harvest whatever I want and where I want as long as I'm doing it legally.

 

[lamrith]

This would be like hunting in the petting zoo. This is one of the few breeding and spawn location for these GPO, that is the issue. Rather than go out and really truly hunt to earn the kill, he went and picked-off nesting/mating animals in a space that has always been a sanctuary for them..

Legal does not mean morally or ethically right.

NWCID nailed it in his last post, we are all shooters here and most are probably hunters, nobody is against hunting. But HOW you do it and where I would think we can all agree does matter..

 

[salmonriverjohn]

While packing out quarters of a bull Elk, I was confronted at the gate by three people and it turned ugly. It was the last quarter to pack thankfully, and the animal had been taken approx. 2 miles in and was taken on Miami timber land. They were all males, around their mid 20's. All 3 were the long haired, wired glasses, scraggly bearded types that you would expect to be at a street protest, not out viewing "their" wildlife, as they put it. I was told that I must feel real big for killing this poor 4 point, and how would I like it if they did that to me?
At this point apprehension set in to a whole new level. I tried the approach that the animal would be fully used to feed my family, and that it was legally harvested using legal methods, and that they needed to stand down and back off. The really mouthy one picked up his ski pole/hiking pole and approached me from the back of his Subaru with the pole in both hands as if to use it on me.
I then did the only thing I felt I could, I pulled my rifle from my shoulder, loaded it and as calmly explained that this was going to stop now. I told them that I had far more respect for the animal that I had just shot, quartered and pack to my rig than I had for them at the moment, and that if they escalated this further, then I would be forced to defend myself and the results would be a big mess for all of us.
There was a few more words exchanged, and yes they were all taking pics of myself and rig, and stated they were calling the police, to which I strongly advised them too, and told them it was they who were violating the law. Fortunately, a neighbor from down the road (this was just behind my property) showed up a little late for the pack out, but in time to witness the end of the confrontation. He advised them also that they were way out of line, and that he, not being as old or restrained as I, would be glad to "explain" it further to them if they wished. Thankfully they decided to leave, all the while calling me a murderer, killer and others. I called the local stated game officer as a preemptive move and truthfully explained what had taken place. He asked if they had assaulted me physically in any way, I explained that I hadn't let it come to that, but that it had been very close.
He took their info, we had a few chuckles and all was well for all involved.

The reason I tell this, is to say that while doing something I knew to be completely legal, they found it to be unethical, distasteful, against their morals and values. If one doesn't agree with the laws or lack there of, do something to change them. To confront someone in a challenging manner because you disagree with their "legal" right to life, liberty and happiness is to invite and invoke a response you may not have expected or looked for. While I wouldn't hunt in the Salmon river estuary that is not to far from my home, as many Elk tend to congregate there in the fall, and I feel that it's an area that should be given wildlife sanctuary status, I would never confront the people that choose to do so. In my eyes, it should be an Elk viewing area, as many people pull over on hwy 101 to do so, it's surrounded by paved roads, and is a small section that is boarded with homes, but that is in my eyes. Until the local law is changed, those that choose to do so, are free to harvest them there. I'm sorry for the rant, but some folks take their personal beliefs, values and morals and try to force others to capitulate to their standards, whether or not others have the legal rights and freedoms to do otherwise. Just my own opinion mind you.
John.

 

[snooopidydoo]

woodsman & John Nailed it IMHO.
If it's legal it's the same thing as the nut cases that frown on the hunting most of us do every year.
As hunters we are putting our money into the conservation, environment, and the research needed to keep species healthy and regulated. If the GPO was threatened or endangered that would be an entirely different story. Sounds to me that this is a good "Excuse" to turn this area into a preserve.
My only hobby is reef keeping, i love diving and love reefs, fish, and invertebrates but this has escalated a little far.
I'm sick on being threatened when I'm hunting legally, And it is against the law to harass somebody who has taken game legally.

 

[longcolt]

While packing out quarters of a bull Elk, I was confronted at the gate by three people and it turned ugly. It was the last quarter to pack thankfully, and the animal had been taken approx. 2 miles in and was taken on Miami timber land. They were all males, around their mid 20's. All 3 were the long haired, wired glasses, scraggly bearded types that you would expect to be at a street protest, not out viewing "their" wildlife, as they put it. I was told that I must feel real big for killing this poor 4 point, and how would I like it if they did that to me?
At this point apprehension set in to a whole new level. I tried the approach that the animal would be fully used to feed my family, and that it was legally harvested using legal methods, and that they needed to stand down and back off. The really mouthy one picked up his ski pole/hiking pole and approached me from the back of his Subaru with the pole in both hands as if to use it on me.
I then did the only thing I felt I could, I pulled my rifle from my shoulder, loaded it and as calmly explained that this was going to stop now. I told them that I had far more respect for the animal that I had just shot, quartered and pack to my rig than I had for them at the moment, and that if they escalated this further, then I would be forced to defend myself and the results would be a big mess for all of us.
There was a few more words exchanged, and yes they were all taking pics of myself and rig, and stated they were calling the police, to which I strongly advised them too, and told them it was they who were violating the law. Fortunately, a neighbor from down the road (this was just behind my property) showed up a little late for the pack out, but in time to witness the end of the confrontation. He advised them also that they were way out of line, and that he, not being as old or restrained as I, would be glad to "explain" it further to them if they wished. Thankfully they decided to leave, all the while calling me a murderer, killer and others. I called the local stated game officer as a preemptive move and truthfully explained what had taken place. He asked if they had assaulted me physically in any way, I explained that I hadn't let it come to that, but that it had been very close.
He took their info, we had a few chuckles and all was well for all involved.

The reason I tell this, is to say that while doing something I knew to be completely legal, they found it to be unethical, distasteful, against their morals and values. If one doesn't agree with the laws or lack there of, do something to change them. To confront someone in a challenging manner because you disagree with their "legal" right to life, liberty and happiness is to invite and invoke a response you may not have expected or looked for. While I wouldn't hunt in the Salmon river estuary that is not to far from my home, as many Elk tend to congregate there in the fall, and I feel that it's an area that should be given wildlife sanctuary status, I would never confront the people that choose to do so. In my eyes, it should be an Elk viewing area, as many people pull over on hwy 101 to do so, it's surrounded by paved roads, and is a small section that is boarded with homes, but that is in my eyes. Until the local law is changed, those that choose to do so, are free to harvest them there. I'm sorry for the rant, but some folks take their personal beliefs, values and morals and try to force others to capitulate to their standards, whether or not others have the legal rights and freedoms to do otherwise. Just my own opinion mind you.
John.

Welcome to the land of the bunny huggers! Don't you know its a sin to harm Bambi, Thumper and Smoky the Bear? Shame on you. I am sure they will have a big conference back at Starbucks over their lattes and talk about what a big Brute you were.

 

[Mark W.]

Actually the actions taken by the 3 people in salmonriverjohns story were in fact commiting a crime by

Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.994 (1995))

1995 OREGON REVISED STATUTES
TITLE 41. WILDLIFE
CHAPTER 496. APPLICATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF WILDLIFE LAWS PENALTIES

496.994. Obstructing the taking of wildlife prohibited.
(1) A person commits the offense of obstructing the taking of wildlife if the person, having no right to do so, interferes with the lawful taking, or the process of taking, of wildlife by another with the intent to prevent the taking.

(2) Obstructing the taking of wildlife is a Class A misdemeanor.

(1987 c. 473 § 2; 1989 c. 171 § 67; 1995 c. 468 § 1)

Packing out the meat is surely part of the laws intent when it talks about "or the process of taking," I remeber when this law was passed and it was specifically intended to protect legal hunters from this very kind of hippy tree hugger crap in the woods.

 

[PDXSparky]

The reason I tell this, is to say that while doing something I knew to be completely legal, they found it to be unethical, distasteful, against their morals and values....... Just my own opinion mind you.
John.

In your case, I agree with you. You were legal and you were hunting for a valid purpose (IMO) for food.

Your story is not the same situation as the GPO killer. He wasn't hunting for food. He was killing for "sport". You weren't hunting in an area that most people wouldn't consider hunting, he was.

He was totally out of line doing what he did, "legal" or not.

 

[snooopidydoo]

In your case, I agree with you. You were legal and you were hunting for a valid purpose (IMO) for food.

Your story is not the same situation as the GPO killer. He wasn't hunting for food. He was killing for "sport". You weren't hunting in an area that most people wouldn't consider hunting, he was.

He was totally out of line doing what he did, "legal" or not.

Do you KNOW for a FACT that he wasn't killing for food? Evidence?

 

[Keane]

In your case, I agree with you. You were legal and you were hunting for a valid purpose (IMO) for food.

Your story is not the same situation as the GPO killer. He wasn't hunting for food. He was killing for "sport". You weren't hunting in an area that most people wouldn't consider hunting, he was.

He was totally out of line doing what he did, "legal" or not.

According to his facebook post, he WAS hunting for food, and had eaten at least parts of it. It was also a male (according to him), and the only evidence they have to the contrary is what he allegedly said in the initial confrontation.

The guy is kind of a jerk based on the facebook posts/attitude with the initial confrontation, so I think he said the eggs bit just to piss them off. Frankly, he didn't break the law, and just because someone wants to look at something, doesn't mean you shouldn't hunt it.

 

[Nwcid]

If you are bored and want to read the comments under the topic on this site, https://www.facebook.com/bubblesbelow there are people that are much more articulate then myself explain whey they are upset.

Like any time some comments are way off base.

 

[Nwcid]

Do you KNOW for a FACT that he wasn't killing for food? Evidence?

No one does for sure. My understanding from reading comments from someone that is an active hunter base on the time the first pics were taken until the night pics were taken the animal had not been dressed properly and would not be fit for consuming.

Again I do not know, that is just my understanding.

 

[the4thshake]

Section 1 (b):


77.15.210 Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife — Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish[, shellfish,] or wildlife if the person:

(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or

(b) Harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife or lawful predator control with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof.

(2) Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife is a gross misdemeanor.

(3) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife that the person charged was:

(a) Interfering with a person engaged in hunting outside the legally established hunting season; or

(b) Preventing or attempting to prevent unauthorized trespass on private property.

(4) The person raising a defense under subsection (3) of this section has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. [2001 c 253 § 30; 1998 c 190 § 24.]


77.15.212 Damages due to violation of RCW 77.15.210 — Civil action.
Any person who is damaged by any act prohibited in RCW 77.15.210 may bring a civil action to enjoin further violations, and recover damages sustained, including a reasonable attorneys' fee. The trial court may increase the award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the damages sustained. A party seeking civil damages under this section may recover upon proof of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The state of Washington may bring a civil action to enjoin violations of this section. [2000 c 107 § 238.]