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

[Firestone]

My comment is directed towards the original questions options. giving the elk a free education, wildlife harassment, and being inconsiderate. I believe it's none of those choices, because its no different then calling in a bull and passing on it. And I don't need a tag to call in elk, nothing illegal about it.

 

[slick]

The biggest question for the OP-

Did you have a calling contest and get outmatched by a person that had no intent to harm/kill the animal under a current hunting season?
(Illegal-actively and directly interfering with someone's hunt)

Or did you just run into people along the road or camp that had cameras and were calling in bulls and chatted with them?
(Nothing illegal here)

Does that change things sndmn11?

 

[wapitibob]

nobody is getting cited for bugling at an elk, the thought is ridiculous.

 

[sndmn11]

The biggest question for the OP-

Did you have a calling contest and get outmatched by a person that had no intent to harm/kill the animal under a current hunting season?
(Illegal-actively and directly interfering with someone's hunt)

Or did you just run into people along the road or camp that had cameras and were calling in bulls and chatted with them?
(Nothing illegal here)

Does that change things sndmn11?

I think your second scenario is describing a conversation about the non hunters calling elk (whether filming or photographing or practicing etc) but the hunter wasn't aware or witness? If that's close, no I wouldn't write that citation.

In the first scenario I believe you are describing something I would write readily if I was dispatched to it. I think you could check your elements off with three questions:
To non hunter: "were you calling elk?" Yes
To anyone: "was there an elk?". Yes
To hunter: "did the calling interfere?" Yes

Very possible hunter could say it didn't interfere, then no violation.
Very possible no elk was present, no violation.

That is not to say that I don't see some of the gray area in that statute, it is simply to say that if I were the responding law enforcement officer I read the statute text, I see if the elements are satisfied to the point of probable cause, and I do my job. Person on person crimes are easy because nearly all of the time the reporting party/victim called in because they want it pursued criminally. I would have to research further, and I won't, but in Colorado some misdemeanors and petty offenses (the statute in question is a M2) can be pursued by a witness or victim signing the citation as the complainant, rather than the govt. holding that honor.

I don't think law enforcement officers are cruising around listening for elk calls and then looking to stick people with hunter harassment citations in Colorado. I do think they would happily write one if a hunter reported that a non-hunter was interfering with their hunt in such an obvious way. Just like most municipalities have noise ordinances that go unenforced until someone reports a violation.

 

[Laramie]

Spoke to my buddy. He said the way the Colorado law is written, and in several other states, a citation is possible but the situation would have to be intentional for him to write. He said the non hunter would have to obviously, in his judgement, be trying to call an elk away from the hunter, thus intentionally disrupting the hunt. He is not a warden in Colorado for what that's worth.

 

[Erict]

My, how short a memory some of you have. This general topic (unlicensed person calling elk) was discussed not long ago (click HERE). Quite a few seemed to have no problem with an unlicensed hunter calling for a licensed hunter. I wrote to CO and this was their reply. Oddly, they rewrote their own law by adding a requirement about "having a means to take". I still disagree, but at least in CO, this is what they say:
_______________________________________
Hello,

Thank you for contacting Colorado Parks and Wildlife. I understand you are inquiring about a non-hunter calling wildlife. I have shared your inquiry with our lead law enforcement investigator Ty Petersburg. To "Hunt" would also mean that you would have the means to "take" wildlife as well. If the person has no means to take wildlife- then I would not consider it hunting. Therefore, non-hunters can call wildlife. If we forbid any person from "calling" wildlife because it would mean they were hunting, any kid who makes a wolf howl while they are camping or pretends to bugle like a bull elk in Estes Park would be in violation.

Respectfully,
Bradley Gabrielski
Communication Center Wildlife Coordinator
License, Reservations & Customer Operations section
_________________________________________

Colorado Revised Statutes 33-1-102 states: (25.5) "Hunt" means to pursue, attract, stalk, lie in wait for, or attempt to shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or take wildlife. "Hunt" does not include stalking, attracting, searching, or lying in wait for wildlife by an unarmed person solely for the purpose of watching or taking photographs of wildlife."

Food for thought, but based on the answer from CO, they would not/could not take action for:
- Opening day of elk season, PETA members hit popular spots with electronic elk callers. They don't have means to take animals, so they are not hunting, so electronic calls are not prohibited.
- Joe SixPack has elk tag. His 4 unarmed brothers have no elk license, but they call and "push" the entire mountainside towards Joe. They have no means to "take" so they are not "hunting" and can call.

Good luck.....

 

[JPD350]

Case Dismissed

 

[sndmn11]

- Opening day of elk season, PETA members hit popular spots with electronic elk callers. They don't have means to take animals, so they are not hunting, so electronic calls are not prohibited.

Good luck.....

You're reasoning on this is precisely why the statute I cited exists.

 

[sndmn11]

Spoke to my buddy. He said the way the Colorado law is written, and in several other states, a citation is possible but the situation would have to be intentional for him to write. He said the non hunter would have to obviously, in his judgement, be trying to call an elk away from the hunter, thus intentionally disrupting the hunt. He is not a warden in Colorado for what that's worth.

Strange how those with a background in Colorado law enforcement understand Colorado statutes the first try when compared to someone from a different state and not in law enforcement

 

[slick]

I’m confused. Which happens often.

Weren’t you saying you could bust them sndmn11?

And the green states otherwise?

 

[sndmn11]

I’m confused. Which happens often.

Weren’t you saying you could bust them sndmn11?

And the green states otherwise?

I don't know what you are asking.

 

[slick]

Sorry I was on my phone..

I thought originally you were saying “I would cite them- I’m from Colorado and LE this is the statute they broke”
Now the above green colored text that’s a reply from Colorado states they won’t be cited for calling without means to take (aka camera).

I’m just confused. Maybe I misunderstood you the entire time, but I thought you original statement was/is directly conflicting with the response above.

 

[Laramie]

Strange how those with a background in Colorado law enforcement understand Colorado statutes the first try when compared to someone from a different state and not in law enforcement

Did you not read the statement above posted by erict? Obviously the department you work for does not agree with your view.

And I'm not sure what you even mean. The warden I spoke to does understand the Colorado law, as well as several other states. He said he would only write if the non hunter was "obviously " intentionally calling to call an elk away from a hunter. Not at all the case you have tried to make for several posts.

 

[Bubblehide]

Sorry I was on my phone..

I thought originally you were saying “I would cite them- I’m from Colorado and LE this is the statute they broke”
Now the above green colored text that’s a reply from Colorado states they won’t be cited for calling without means to take (aka camera).

I’m just confused. Maybe I misunderstood you the entire time, but I thought you original statement was/is directly conflicting with the response above.

Look up the hunter harassment law.

 

[SpringM1A]

If you're elk hunting mostly open country then calling isn't required nearly as much as glassing to locate & a possible ambush! If elk hunting dark timber country & are a runner & gunner you'd best learn how & when to locate & put elk on the ground! I hunt both & find the need to call is very important as the need arises! Timing is everything! Calling to open country elk can backfire, we need to be smart when doing so for best results! Good look Bruce on your strategy for this years hunts, care to share it?

 

[AZxp]

I lost IQ points reading this post and I didn't have many to spare.
Don't call if a tagholder is close by simply out of mountain courtesy but there is no way you're breaking a law if on public land.

 

[slick]

Look up the hunter harassment law.

Yep aware of it.

I’m in Laramie’s camp.

 

[sndmn11]

Did you not read the statement above posted by erict? Obviously the department you work for does not agree with your view.

And I'm not sure what you even mean. The warden I spoke to does understand the Colorado law, as well as several other states. He said he would only write if the non hunter was "obviously " intentionally calling to call an elk away from a hunter. Not at all the case you have tried to make for several posts.

I sure did. EricT is talking about someone calling for a hunter. That is completely different than someone calling for purposes other than lawful hunting...the original question was about people who are calling WITHOUT a hunter.

If a person is calling WITHOUT a hunter, can it not be anymore "obvious", even though "obvious" is not in the statute, that their intention is to call the elk away from other hunters?

Can you ask your friend what burden of proof "obvious cause" is? That's a new one on me, and doesn't resonate national or international level.

Very simply, I am 100% certain that interfering with a lawful hunter in Colorado is 2nd degree misdemeanor, and calling elk "just to call" fits the elements.

 

[Laramie]

I sure did. EricT is talking about someone calling for a hunter. That is completely different than someone calling for purposes other than lawful hunting...the original question was about people who are calling WITHOUT a hunter.

If a person is calling WITHOUT a hunter, can it not be anymore "obvious", even though "obvious" is not in the statute, that their intention is to call the elk away from other hunters?

Can you ask your friend what burden of proof "obvious cause" is? That's a new one on me, and doesn't resonate national or international level.

Very simply, I am 100% certain that interfering with a lawful hunter in Colorado is 2nd degree misdemeanor, and calling elk "just to call" fits the elements.

Don't focus on what Eric wrote himself but rather Bradley's response. Maybe read it twice... as a stand alone comment that would be used in court.

Obviously is a pretty easy term to define. Without doubt is what it means to me.

I would agree that interfering with a hunter is a violation. Calling elk, even as defined by your department via the quote above, is not interfering.

 

[Carr5vols]

I probably violated a lot of hunters and animals this past week. Didnt have an elk tag but 3 of us shot grouse in an area i know there were elk and elk hunters...i am sure this was way more harm to elk hunters than someone calling for fun.