Calling in elk without a tag - wild game harassment or fun?

[sndmn11]

How is calling an animal in "intentional interference with lawful hunting" if the guy calling has only the intention of taking pictures and has no knowledge of another hunters efforts. As far as causing the animal to "flee", that is not a given at all. I have called a pile of bulls in guiding and hunting that never spooked. The "flee" is far from a given.

In my opinion...

I think you and the rest of us know that is not the intention of the law and it would have absolutely zero chance of holding up in court. Now if a non-hunter was intentionally calling to an elk that he knew was being pursued by a hunter, it would be a completely different story. That said, I can't see a game warden ever writing a ticket for that and if they did, the CA would throw it out.

Different perspective - Is sending out a locator bugle while scouting pre-season or at night during season harassing wildlife? How about a guy scouting for turkeys- can he send out an owl hoot or a yelp to get a gobble? Lets say a guy is holding out for a 350" bull and calls a 300" away from another guy that would have been happy with the 300" bull- should he be guilty of intentional interference?

Would it be annoying if a guy ruined my hunt by calling without a tag? Of course but it isn't any more annoying than the nature hikers out with their 3 dogs scaring the heck out of the herd, the UTV riders tearing it up at last light driving the elk another mile deeper, or the mushroom hunters that march right into the elks bedding area with no regard to me, the hunter.

Bottom line, a LQ tag doesn't give you personal rights to the areas access or the different ways that people recreate on the land.

I don't read intentional interference as a joined term. I read it as a state of mind (intentional) for the action and a result (interference), versus interfering being the intent. Regardless, the nomenclature in (2) is simply the name; it is not the elements that compose the statute. The statute does not mention within the elements the hunter, or knowledge of a hunter. The elements mention the intention (A) of alarm/distract/frighten and what those intentions cause (the results) being flight. It then outlines in specificity three separate realms of actions in which those intentions can be exhibited. It doesn't read as a specific intent crime, it reads as a general intent crime much in the same way that if you torched a building and killed someone would still result in a homicide charge regardless as to if the person's death was accidental.

I think it would be an extremely easy conviction; person made noise by intentionally calling and the elk fled from the lawful hunter. (2)(A)(I) done and easy.

I didn't say anything about harassing wildlife, the statute doesn't either. The statute is plainly called HUNTER harassment. The statute would not in and of itself prohibit anyone from calling outside of a lawful hunting season, because it is specific to harassment of a hunter. The cannot be a lawful hunter outside of the legal hunting season.

Whether the tag is limited or unlimited has any bearing on the statute. If it did, the statute would state it.

It is very clear to me based on the penalties that this is a tool that can be used in this very instance. With a penalty of 20 hunting license suspension points, it is obvious that it is not solely intended to thwart anti-hunters and those who hunt are also viewed as likely violators.

 

[Laramie]

I don't read intentional interference as a joined term. I read it as a state of mind (intentional) for the action and a result (interference), versus interfering being the intent. Regardless, the nomenclature in (2) is simply the name; it is not the elements that compose the statute. The statute does not mention within the elements the hunter, or knowledge of a hunter. The elements mention the intention (A) of alarm/distract/frighten and what those intentions cause (the results) being flight. It then outlines in specificity three separate realms of actions in which those intentions can be exhibited. It doesn't read as a specific intent crime, it reads as a general intent crime much in the same way that if you torched a building and killed someone would still result in a homicide charge regardless as to if the person's death was accidental.

I think it would be an extremely easy conviction; person made noise by intentionally calling and the elk fled from the lawful hunter. (2)(A)(I) done and easy.

I didn't say anything about harassing wildlife, the statute doesn't either. The statute is plainly called HUNTER harassment. The statute would not in and of itself prohibit anyone from calling outside of a lawful hunting season, because it is specific to harassment of a hunter. The cannot be a lawful hunter outside of the legal hunting season.

Whether the tag is limited or unlimited has any bearing on the statute. If it did, the statute would state it.

It is very clear to me based on the penalties that this is a tool that can be used in this very instance. With a penalty of 20 hunting license suspension points, it is obvious that it is not solely intended to thwart anti-hunters and those who hunt are also viewed as likely violators.

It is obvious you have convinced yourself.

I disagree with you and think you would be hard pressed to find a CA willing to prosecute.

 

[sndmn11]

It is obvious you have convinced yourself.

I disagree with you and think you would be hard pressed to find a CA willing to prosecute.

What would you disagree with from the basics? person made noise by intentionally calling and the elk fled from the lawful hunter

The law enforcement officer who would be writing the citation just has to get to probable cause, he/she doesn't have to hit beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am fine disagreeing, but I am curious what reasonable doubt you might try to instill on what I have above in italics?
-In Colorado you can trespass without knowingly doing so. One cannot argue no specific intent because this example and the statute in question are not specific intent crimes.
-Calling to an elk is prima facie to the entire statute; calling isn't accidental.

Literally all one has to do is (A) by doing (I) or (II) or (III), super simple. Also, please note that there are no affirmative defenses, or stipulations to the statute that allow accidents or mistakes to nullify the result.

 

[Laramie]

What would you disagree with from the basics? person made noise by intentionally calling and the elk fled from the lawful hunter

The law enforcement officer who would be writing the citation just has to get to probable cause, he/she doesn't have to hit beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am fine disagreeing, but I am curious what reasonable doubt you might try to instill on what I have above in italics?
-In Colorado you can trespass without knowingly doing so. One cannot argue no specific intent because this example and the statute in question are not specific intent crimes.
-Calling to an elk is prima facie to the entire statute; calling isn't accidental.

Literally all one has to do is (A) by doing (I) or (II) or (III), super simple. Also, please note that there are no affirmative defenses, or stipulations to the statute that allow accidents or mistakes to nullify the result.

Just calling to an elk won't make him "flee" from a hunter. People make all kinds of noises that do however and many are intentional. They may not know they are scaring an elk but literally anyone recreating can screw up a person's elk hunt. All part of public land hunting.

Wood cutting
Doors slamming
Yelling from a mountain to to hear the echo
Kids playing
Dogs barking
Horns honking
Target practice

A photographer making elk calls is a lot less intrusive than most other non hunters recreating on public land.

It would have zero chance standing up in court... let it go man

 

[slick]

What would you disagree with from the basics? person made noise by intentionally calling and the elk fled from the lawful hunter

The law enforcement officer who would be writing the citation just has to get to probable cause, he/she doesn't have to hit beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am fine disagreeing, but I am curious what reasonable doubt you might try to instill on what I have above in italics?
-In Colorado you can trespass without knowingly doing so. One cannot argue no specific intent because this example and the statute in question are not specific intent crimes.
-Calling to an elk is prima facie to the entire statute; calling isn't accidental.

Literally all one has to do is (A) by doing (I) or (II) or (III), super simple. Also, please note that there are no affirmative defenses, or stipulations to the statute that allow accidents or mistakes to nullify the result.

The assumption that the elk fled.

What if it was called in, milled about looking for a cow/bull that isn't there, and then walked away unscathed and unbothered looking for more bulls/cows, or going to get a drink of water, or beat on a tree.

The person with the camera calling to the elk would have to actually draw the bull away from a hunter. How far can you cast that stone? "Well there are hunters 5miles away and the elk "fled" them to come in to your call. Therefore, hunter harassment." I find that it hard to believe that would stick.

 

[sndmn11]

Just calling to an elk won't make him "flee" from a hunter. People make all kinds of noises that do however and many are intentional. They may not know they are scaring an elk but literally anyone recreating can screw up a person's elk hunt. All part of public land hunting.

Wood cutting
Doors slamming
Yelling from a mountain to to hear the echo
Kids playing
Dogs barking
Horns honking
Target practice

A photographer making elk calls is a lot less intrusive than most other non hunters recreating on public land.

It would have zero chance standing up in court... let it go man

None of those things you listed are an intentional act to "alarm, distract, frighten" on the surface. They surely might be, but they are easily cast aside as unintentional. THOSE would have a tough time meeting the burden to cite or convict and would require a significant amount of context and circumstances to be substantiated. Making a noise that is notorious as a way to interact with the elk, such as calling, is indefensible to that intent. ESPECIALLY at the level of probable cause. Was the person who was calling elk PROBABLY intending to "alarm, distract, frighten"? There is no other reason to call elk.

You can't take a sentence in statute and add paragraphs of "what if's" in the Colorado Revised Statutes to come up with an excuse to break the law. They are literal writings with literal meanings; NO hidden meaning exists because if there was more intent behind the statute it would literally be written in the statute.

Hunter harassment, at least in my opinion, should be something that none of us tolerates.

 

[slick]

No one better call elk ever. Those Governor's tag holders could be half way across the state.

 

[sndmn11]

The assumption that the elk fled.

What if it was called in, milled about looking for a cow/bull that isn't there, and then walked away unscathed and unbothered looking for more bulls/cows, or going to get a drink of water, or beat on a tree.

The person with the camera calling to the elk would have to actually draw the bull away from a hunter. How far can you cast that stone? "Well there are hunters 5miles away and the elk "fled" them to come in to your call. Therefore, hunter harassment." I find that it hard to believe that would stick.

If the hunter reported it to law enforcement that would be enough. If the statute intended to put a number on distance, it would have. Nothing in Colorado's statue says anything about distance. The very simple two elements need to be met, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Short Track]

I use my Fox call just to see if it works. Does not work for me......
I tried numerous deer calls. Worked once. Don't use them anymore.

 

[slick]

I would write the citation based on:
(2) A person commits intentional interference with lawful hunting, trapping, and fishing activities if he:
(a) Acts with intent to alarm, distract, or frighten prey and causes prey to flee by:
(I) Use of any natural or artificial source of noise or light;
(II) Giving chase to prey on foot or by use of any vehicle;
(III) Throwing objects or making movements;

2) is simply the name of the offense and introduction to the elements of the offense.
A) is satisfied because the intention is to distract the animal from whatever they were doing by eliciting a response to the calling. If the animal flees (don't they all) then (2) is fully satisfied.
(I)/(II)/(III) do not all need to be satisfied, only one option. Making a noise such as a call satisfies (I), moving towards an animal that one has located by sight/sound/smell satisfies (II), "making movmements" in (III) is satisfied if the animal sees the person. Again, one option from (I)/(II)/(III) need be satisfied

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Definition of flee: run away from a place of danger
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The prey isn't fleeing.

No one better walk around the woods of Colorado in sndmn's area of jurisdiction.

I honestly have nothing against LE, but to be caught with a camera and a bugle tube isn't illegal.

edit to add: attract would be an addition for your statute if you want this to hold up.

 

[HighUintas]

It's kinda like bird calling.

Whatever. I would but I don't want to make the elk smarter and I'd feel a little bad if I was screwing up a nearby hunters day.

 

[sndmn11]

I would write the citation based on:
(2) A person commits intentional interference with lawful hunting, trapping, and fishing activities if he:
(a) Acts with intent to alarm, distract, or frighten prey and causes prey to flee by:
(I) Use of any natural or artificial source of noise or light;
(II) Giving chase to prey on foot or by use of any vehicle;
(III) Throwing objects or making movements;

2) is simply the name of the offense and introduction to the elements of the offense.
A) is satisfied because the intention is to distract the animal from whatever they were doing by eliciting a response to the calling. If the animal flees (don't they all) then (2) is fully satisfied.
(I)/(II)/(III) do not all need to be satisfied, only one option. Making a noise such as a call satisfies (I), moving towards an animal that one has located by sight/sound/smell satisfies (II), "making movmements" in (III) is satisfied if the animal sees the person. Again, one option from (I)/(II)/(III) need be satisfied

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Definition of flee: run away from a place of danger
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The prey isn't fleeing.

No one better walk around the woods of Colorado in sndmn's area of jurisdiction.

I honestly have nothing against LE, but to be caught with a camera and a bugle tube isn't illegal.

edit to add: attract would be an addition for your statute if you want this to hold up.

Is where the hunter is not a place of danger?

 

[Laramie]

None of those things you listed are an intentional act to "alarm, distract, frighten" on the surface. They surely might be, but they are easily cast aside as unintentional. THOSE would have a tough time meeting the burden to cite or convict and would require a significant amount of context and circumstances to be substantiated. Making a noise that is notorious as a way to interact with the elk, such as calling, is indefensible to that intent. ESPECIALLY at the level of probable cause. Was the person who was calling elk PROBABLY intending to "alarm, distract, frighten"? There is no other reason to call elk.

You can't take a sentence in statute and add paragraphs of "what if's" in the Colorado Revised Statutes to come up with an excuse to break the law. They are literal writings with literal meanings; NO hidden meaning exists because if there was more intent behind the statute it would literally be written in the statute.

Hunter harassment, at least in my opinion, should be something that none of us tolerates.

Believe what you will. I'm done trying to talk sense into you. For what it's worth, I have a buddy that is a warden. I'll give him a call to ask his opinion. If he sides with you, I'll come back on to say I'm wrong.

 

[sndmn11]

Believe what you will. I'm done trying to talk sense into you. For what it's worth, I have a buddy that is a warden. I'll give him a call to ask his opinion. If he sides with you, I'll come back on to say I'm wrong.

Sounds like a plan. Does he work in Colorado?

 

[Ucsdryder]

Believe what you will. I'm done trying to talk sense into you. For what it's worth, I have a buddy that is a warden. I'll give him a call to ask his opinion. If he sides with you, I'll come back on to say I'm wrong.

I’d be curious to know 2 things. Maybe when you talk to your warden buddy you can ask him…

1. If he came across some guys in the woods and asked for hunting licenses and they said “we’re just calling elk in”, would he write a ticket?

2. If no, does he feel that the law ALLOWS him to write a ticket if he chose to. For example, same 2 guys tell him to go eff himself and his mother, they can do whatever they want. Can he write them the ticket Sndmn11 is referring to?

 

[slick]

I just don't agree with your definition of flee.

Where you state (don't they all) No, that's another assumption.

Not all animals flee.

There are animals who have been attracted to an artificial noise made by me that came into my line of sight and left unscathed and un-molested. Aka- they did not flee.

But because I have a camera, you would cite me?

 

[Firestone]

I believe its no different then calling in a bull and passing on it cause it's not big enough.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I believe its no different then calling in a bull and passing on it cause it's not big enough.

Wouldn’t it be different because you possessed a tag to hunt them in that specific area?

 

[slick]

Shit- look at how many times Rinella and Newburgs camera men screw things up. Better get them on your books.

If the camera person screws up someones hunt by calling in a bull that sucks, cite them.

Not every bull is being hunted....

 

[sndmn11]

I’d be curious to know 2 things.

1. If he came across some guys in the woods and asked for hunting licenses and they said “we’re just calling elk in”, would he write a ticket?

2. If no, does he feel that the law ALLOWS him to write a ticket if he chose to. For example, same 2 guys tell him to go eff himself and his mother, they can do whatever they want. Can he write them the ticket Sndmn11 is referring to?

I think the better question is if a hunter reported to law enforcement that non-hunters we're interfering with the hunt, would they follow the statute?

If there's no reporting party, there's no hunter victim, there's no violation.

I just don't agree with your definition of flee.

Where you state (don't they all) No, that's another assumption.

Not all animals flee.

There are animals who have been attracted to an artificial noise made by me that came into my line of sight and left unscathed and un-molested. Aka- they did not flee.

But because I have a camera, you would cite me?

I didn't define flee, you did.

Definition of flee: run away from a place of danger

The hunter is dangerous. If the elk moves away from the hunter, then it is moving away from the place of danger. In your hypothetical, you are a photographer and not a danger, correct?