Road Hunting

[AzHuntingAddict]

In the last 12 years of hunting and guiding, I have yet to see a G&F warden durring my hunts...

 

+1 as I have yet to see a single game warden.

[ronaldo]

If you roll down the window and shoot a deer from the truck, You are road hunting ( depending on who see's you.) THATS MY Opinion on the whole situation. and really that's almost every ones opinion on it, there just too scared to say it on the internet. if you see a deer. record breaking or not, folks are gonna shoot it. end of argument, no matter what they say.

 

 

 

 

Heck if I cant roll down the window and shoot it from the truck, then drive right up to it I dont want the Tag...LOL

Thats how I roll...LOL

Ron

[mcelkhunter]

Hello All,

Interesting topic...here's my 2 cents. First let's start with a few definitions:

1) ARS 17-101 - Take - "Take" means pursuing, shooting, hunting, fishing, trapping, killing, capturing, snaring or netting wildlife or the placing or using of any net or other device or trap in a manner that may result in the capturing or killing of wildlife.

 

2) ARS 17-301B - Times when wildlife may be taken; exceptions; methods of taking - A person shall not take wildlife, except aquatic wildlife, or discharge a firearm or shoot any other device from a motor vehicle, including an automobile, aircraft, train or powerboat, or from a sailboat, boat under sail, or a floating object towed by powerboat or sailboat except as expressly permitted by the commission. No person may knowingly discharge any firearm or shoot any other device upon, from, across or into a road or railway.

 

Ok, now that we have the definitions, let's talk about the law. It's based on a reasonableness standard which means "what would a reasonable person do or think" Courtesy of wikipedia.org, below is the definition of a "reasonable person"

 

 

The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven.

 

The reasonable person standard holds: each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.[1][2] While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.[3][4]

 

This standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law. The standard also has a presence in contract law, though its use there is substantially different.[5] The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment.

 

Ok, still moving on...I've read several peoples' responses and many of them talk about how a WM interprets the law, or they can interpret it as they see fit. Someone even mentioned that they can interpret it as they need or want according to their agenda. It's unfortunate some people think negatively of the AGFD and it's WM's like this. If we look above at #1 (take) and #2 (17-301B), I don't believe there is any misinterpretation for #2 as it reads pretty clearly..."No person shall take wildlife or discharge a firearm or shoot any other device from a motor vehicle". The definition of "take" however is where everyone is getting hung up on how it's interpreted. In looking at it more carefully, I believe people are only getting hung up on the word "pursue" as many of the other verbs are pretty clear.

 

Many might ask why the word "pursue" in in the definition of take. People need a valid hunting license to pursue, capture and collect reptiles in AZ. Also, houndsmen need a valid hunting license to allow their dogs to pursue wildlife such as lions, bears, and raccoon's even if they are not successful. People can still be "taking" wildlife even if they fail to catch the snake or tree the lion or bear because they must "pursue" the wildlife first prior to capturing or killing it.

 

Now back to road hunting...in many cases (not always as described below), the issuance of a citation for 17-301B - take from a motor vehicle, requires an overt action such as someone actually shooting from the cab of the vehicle or sitting in a lawn chair in the bed of the vehicle (bow in hand with arrow knocked). For many, an overt action is required to enforce this law.

 

This law can also be enforced, however, based on what's called the "totality of the circumstances" which essentially means all things considered. This is probably where some of the interpretation issues mentioned in previous postings may have happened. For example, if I were sitting on a hill and I saw someone driving very very slowly back and forth along the same stretch of roadway for a long time and observed them stop several times in the middle of the road and glass, this is getting closer to road hunting. Let's say I contact them and they have the means to take wildlife readily accessible in the cab of the vehicle...now we are probably even closer. From what I have described above, can I prove in a court of law that the person was road hunting based on the totality of the circumstances?...maybe yes, maybe no. Some officers may pursue it and some may not. If I had video or very detailed notes over a long period of time, I probably could. If I had some type of overt action like pointing a gun out of the window, this would obviously be a best case scenario. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the state to prove the hunter was road hunting.

 

Remember, the key is, what would a reasonable person do or think? They wouldn't say you are road hunting when you leave your house to go hunting even though you are going to be pursuing wildlife and you have the means to kill or capture wildlife.

 

Hopefully this helps a little. Happy hunting to everyone.

 

Thanks,

Ben Brochu, Wildlife Manager 37B

bbrochu@azgfd.gov

520-591-7636

 

 

Very well done. Thank You!!

[mcelkhunter]

In the last 12 years of hunting and guiding, I have yet to see a G&F warden durring my hunts...

 

+1 as I have yet to see a single game warden.

 

 

I saw the same game warden twice this past deer season and saw another on an elk hunt a few weeks ago.

[gearsnagger]

Hello All,

Interesting topic...here's my 2 cents. First let's start with a few definitions:

1) ARS 17-101 - Take - "Take" means pursuing, shooting, hunting, fishing, trapping, killing, capturing, snaring or netting wildlife or the placing or using of any net or other device or trap in a manner that may result in the capturing or killing of wildlife.

 

2) ARS 17-301B - Times when wildlife may be taken; exceptions; methods of taking - A person shall not take wildlife, except aquatic wildlife, or discharge a firearm or shoot any other device from a motor vehicle, including an automobile, aircraft, train or powerboat, or from a sailboat, boat under sail, or a floating object towed by powerboat or sailboat except as expressly permitted by the commission. No person may knowingly discharge any firearm or shoot any other device upon, from, across or into a road or railway.

 

Ok, now that we have the definitions, let's talk about the law. It's based on a reasonableness standard which means "what would a reasonable person do or think" Courtesy of wikipedia.org, below is the definition of a "reasonable person"

 

 

The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven.

 

The reasonable person standard holds: each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.[1][2] While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.[3][4]

 

This standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law. The standard also has a presence in contract law, though its use there is substantially different.[5] The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment.

 

Ok, still moving on...I've read several peoples' responses and many of them talk about how a WM interprets the law, or they can interpret it as they see fit. Someone even mentioned that they can interpret it as they need or want according to their agenda. It's unfortunate some people think negatively of the AGFD and it's WM's like this. If we look above at #1 (take) and #2 (17-301B), I don't believe there is any misinterpretation for #2 as it reads pretty clearly..."No person shall take wildlife or discharge a firearm or shoot any other device from a motor vehicle". The definition of "take" however is where everyone is getting hung up on how it's interpreted. In looking at it more carefully, I believe people are only getting hung up on the word "pursue" as many of the other verbs are pretty clear.

 

Many might ask why the word "pursue" in in the definition of take. People need a valid hunting license to pursue, capture and collect reptiles in AZ. Also, houndsmen need a valid hunting license to allow their dogs to pursue wildlife such as lions, bears, and raccoon's even if they are not successful. People can still be "taking" wildlife even if they fail to catch the snake or tree the lion or bear because they must "pursue" the wildlife first prior to capturing or killing it.

 

Now back to road hunting...in many cases (not always as described below), the issuance of a citation for 17-301B - take from a motor vehicle, requires an overt action such as someone actually shooting from the cab of the vehicle or sitting in a lawn chair in the bed of the vehicle (bow in hand with arrow knocked). For many, an overt action is required to enforce this law.

 

This law can also be enforced, however, based on what's called the "totality of the circumstances" which essentially means all things considered. This is probably where some of the interpretation issues mentioned in previous postings may have happened. For example, if I were sitting on a hill and I saw someone driving very very slowly back and forth along the same stretch of roadway for a long time and observed them stop several times in the middle of the road and glass, this is getting closer to road hunting. Let's say I contact them and they have the means to take wildlife readily accessible in the cab of the vehicle...now we are probably even closer. From what I have described above, can I prove in a court of law that the person was road hunting based on the totality of the circumstances?...maybe yes, maybe no. Some officers may pursue it and some may not. If I had video or very detailed notes over a long period of time, I probably could. If I had some type of overt action like pointing a gun out of the window, this would obviously be a best case scenario. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the state to prove the hunter was road hunting.

 

Remember, the key is, what would a reasonable person do or think? They wouldn't say you are road hunting when you leave your house to go hunting even though you are going to be pursuing wildlife and you have the means to kill or capture wildlife.

 

Hopefully this helps a little. Happy hunting to everyone.

 

Thanks,

Ben Brochu, Wildlife Manager 37B

bbrochu@azgfd.gov

520-591-7636

 

 

Very well done. Thank You!!

I suppose a lion hunter cruising the back roads looking for a fresh lion track could be considered road hunting ! Like to see this one go to court... Like it was stated most of these citations can be beat in court if you choose to fight them.

I fought a citation for hunting after dark and won...I sat in my tree stand waiting for my buddy to pick me up for about 1 hour after dark , the only light I had was a pen light and a glow stick stowed in my pack! Now it is literally impossible to hold a pen light and draw a bow, aim and shoot ... Dumb a$$ WM wrote the ticket any how!!!!! Beat it in court eeeeezy ........ I believe the judge's last word on this was "Why is this in my court?" That WM no longer works for AZGFD! He made a practice of writing citations that were frivolous .....

[couesdiehard]

Thanks Ben,

I understood the WM I spoke with to be warning me that it could be interpreted as road-hunting but they also gave me the impression all along that it would require much more evidence than an uncased rifle in the vehicle. They were not beligerent only warning and I knew I was not road hunting so I knew it was not going to be a problem but I like to have a better understanding of what other evidence would need be present for a WM to start to consider a citation and I think you covered that well. Thanks again for the input.

Lee

[JLB]

I remember watching a "Wildlife Views" television program (sponsored by the AZGFD) years back where the AZGFD put a robo deer out near a road and then had the TV cameras rolling while officers hide in the bushes. There were many violators caught by this set-up. People who were sighted shot from an open jeep, from a pick-up, from the road bed, and from across the road bed. People not sighted were those who came to a stop, got out of the vehicle, moved off the same side of the road the deer was on, loaded their gun and then shot the fake deer.

 

This show actually became comical when multiple people were shooting the deer while officers were using bull-horns trying to tell them it was not a real deer. One father grabbed the rifle from a kid and shot the deer again when the kid's bullet failed to drop the deer. He was obviously showing his son the proper ethics of hunting.

 

This program kind of defined it for me and its' images have always stuck with me.