I've followed this case on the forum since the beginning. I have no inside knowledge, just what I've read. Here is my take (let me know what I have wrong).
Given:
Tod Riechert is very rich.
He uses his money and relies on "guides".
He gets raffle permits and governor tags in many states each year.
He shot Bullwinkle (a somewhat tame bull) in a closed unit for that permit.
Calls were made from TR's guide to WDFW.
Questions were asked about the use of a muzzleloader since it was a firearm restricted area and because the bull was sort of a celebrity.
Was it illegal to shoot the bull? Yes.
Should TR have known it was illegal? Yes.
Should TR's guide have known it was illegal? Yes.
Should WDFW have readily known it was illegal? Yes.
Did a wdfw officer give the okay? It seems so.....Yes.
It seems that TR relied on his guide to know the rules and the guide read the permit rules and decided that because GMU 334 allowed "true spike" hunting he reasoned that it then allowed branched bull hunting. Now, whether or not his reasoning is flawed doesn't matter because he obviously wasn't 100% sure on his reasoning so he calls WDFW. Seems that at least a couple of calls were exchanged and someone at wdfw agreed with the guide's reasoning and gave him the go ahead.
Seems like most of the outrage should be toward the WDFW employee that gave the go-ahead. Seems like if it is true that WDFW gave the go-ahead, then it is b.s. that when WDFW investigated that they came to the conclusion to prosecute. How do they decide it's a good idea to prosecute when their employee said to shoot? (Of course maybe I'm wrong and WDFW did not give permission, but it is starting to seem like they did.)
Anyway, there seems to be a lot of screw-ups happening in this case and lots of blame to be had. I think WDFW is probably fortunate that the judge threw it out based on a technicality.
