Will there be an elk season with coronavirus

[Gearqueer]

The state issues the tag, so if they close the season the tag wouldn’t be valid.

Makes sense, but hypothetically speaking, how would they close a season? Does a hunter have a duty to know that their season was closed or cancelled? When has that ever happened with deer, elk, etc? The state has already declared and put out literature that a hunter DOES have a duty to read and know. What duty does a hunter have to make sure the state didn’t reverse itself?

I’m thinking like a defense lawyer here (which I am not) so humor me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brsnow]

Makes sense, but hypothetically speaking, how would they close a season? Does a hunter have a duty to know that their season was closed or cancelled? When has that ever happened with deer, elk, etc? The state has already declared and put out literature that a hunter DOES have a duty to read and know. What duty does a hunter have to make sure the state didn’t reverse itself?

I’m thinking like a defense lawyer here (which I am not) so humor me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am sure it would be communicated pretty clear and ignorance has never been a solid defense. Other states did cancel hunting seasons this spring.

 

[Scoutman]

Colorado can't afford to close seasons, lost enough revenue from oil and gas that hasn't been replaced yet, but who knows, no common sense on front range for sure. They are working on beef now. 15 years in state, headed to California conditions as fast as they can.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[cmbbulldog]

Listened to part of the commissioner’s meeting today. Didn’t sound like anybody was planning to close anything. Only real talk was about international people that drew tags... and they are giving refunds and points back in those cases.

 

[Gearqueer]

I am sure it would be communicated pretty clear and ignorance has never been a solid defense. Other states did cancel hunting seasons this spring.

Agreed, and I’d certainly expect that they would make it clear. Like calling each tag holder or mail a certified letter.

When it happened to me in Illinois this spring it was nothing anywhere resembling clear. DNR made a press release about the special hunt areas being closed. I heard about that by rumor and googled it myself. Nothing mailed, no phone call, no employees answering questions on the phone, and then there was a vague press release about how private land hunting was still okay if hunter had a “valid tag,” but didn’t say if a special hunt area tag was considered valid if used on private ground. There was much left open to interpretation other than the fact that they weren’t issuing refunds or tag transfers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fatlander]

If you were issued a piece of certified paper that says you can take said animal in said area at said times, it would take another certified paper issued at a later date to make it legal (illegal).

And even then it may not be legal for the state to do such a thing. If a law isn’t passed that you’re in violation of, there isn’t anything stopping you when there is codified law allowing what you did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brsnow]

If you were issued a piece of certified paper that says you can take said animal in said area at said times, it would take another certified paper issued at a later date to make it legal (illegal).

And even then it may not be legal for the state to do such a thing. If a law isn’t passed that you’re in violation of, there isn’t anything stopping you when there is codified law allowing what you did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol

 

[fatlander]

Lol

What’s funny? If you have the paperwork required to take an animal it would take a codified law to prevent you from doing so. Executive orders aren’t law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gearqueer]

And even then it may not be legal for the state to do such a thing. If a law isn’t passed that you’re in violation of, there isn’t anything stopping you when there is codified law allowing what you did.

Like I said, the ensuing court cases would be interesting.

Defense Attorney: Officer, is there codified law stating that elk are hunted in unit X between the dates of X?
Warden: yes
Attorney: did the state sell and issue a tag to defendant pursuant to that code?
Warden: yes
Attorney: Has elk season ever been closed unexpectedly in unit x? Or was defendant given official notification that the game law had changed unexpectedly?
Warden: no, but we told the news that we closed the season to protect the public.
Attorney: Does that press release nullify the state code? Is there anything written in that code giving the state the right to close the season last minute?
Warden: No
Attorney: Was my client social distancing or was he causing unsafe COVID practices?

What would you say if you were the judge?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brsnow]

What’s funny? If you have the paperwork required to take an animal it would take a codified law to prevent you from doing so. Executive orders aren’t law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read the fine print, there is always fine print.

 

[wind gypsy]

The governor here in Montana is threatening to put us back into phase one restrictions again, that would bring back the 14 day restrictions and closing stuff down...

Really hoping this happens after my backpack scouting trip next week.

 

[fatlander]

Read the fine print, there is always fine print.

Yes there is. It is up to the individual to know and follow codified law of the land. An executive order effectively bypasses due process of the law as it is practiced in the United States of America. Therefore, that burden is placed on the government, not the private citizen. It is not the private citizens responsibility to keep up with the Kardashians of our current political climate.

So again I say, if the state does not verify that the private citizen in question was aware that an executive level decision changed the legality of their hunt, the burden falls on the state. And even still an executive order may very well be thrown out by a court from jump street. Checks and balances are a beautiful thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brsnow]

What’s funny? If you have the paperwork required to take an animal it would take a codified law to prevent you from doing so. Executive orders aren’t law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least in CO you need to sign your license for it to be valid, you are agreeing to the states rules. They are worth a read. I was researching the 80% let off rule but ended up looking through it all. For a legal mind such as yours, you would enjoy it.

 

[mlgc20]

Like I said, the ensuing court cases would be interesting.

Defense Attorney: Officer, is there codified law stating that elk are hunted in unit X between the dates of X?
Warden: yes
Attorney: did the state sell and issue a tag to defendant pursuant to that code?
Warden: yes
Attorney: Has elk season ever been closed unexpectedly in unit x? Or was defendant given official notification that the game law had changed unexpectedly?
Warden: no, but we told the news that we closed the season to protect the public.
Attorney: Does that press release nullify the state code? Is there anything written in that code giving the state the right to close the season last minute?
Warden: No
Attorney: Was my client social distancing or was he causing unsafe COVID practices?

What would you say if you were the judge?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My guess is the prosecuting attorney would point out that all hunters are subject to the Constitution of the State of Colorado. Then he would direct the court to Colorado Statute 24-33.5-704, which covers the governors emergency response powers. It states in section 2, "Under this 7, the governor may issue executive orders, proclamations, and regulations and amend or rescind them.  Executive orders, proclamations, and regulations have the force and effect of law."

The Constitution goes on to say in part 7 that the governor may, "Suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the procedures for conduct of state business or the orders, rules, or regulations of any state agency, if strict compliance with the provisions of any statute, order, rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency;"

From there, claiming ignorance of the law would be fruitless. The defense could try to argue that the Covid-19 pandemic did not meet the criteria of an emergency. But IMO, they would lose that argument.

I'm not saying I like that governors have this much unilateral power. But, this concept is in the Constitution of most states.

 

[Gapmaster]

All I know is the mountains are LOADED with people these days. Everyone must be unemployed
Ive never seen so many people mid-week camping/fishing/hiking.

I would bet OTC archery elk areas will be PACKED come September

it’s been the same way here all summer. I’ve never seen so many people at our swimming holes or riding up in the hills. Wish they would go back to work!!

 

[Gearqueer]

My guess is the prosecuting attorney would point out that all hunters are subject to the Constitution of the State of Colorado. Then he would direct the court to Colorado Statute 24-33.5-704, which covers the governors emergency response powers. It states in section 2, "Under this 7, the governor may issue executive orders, proclamations, and regulations and amend or rescind them.  Executive orders, proclamations, and regulations have the force and effect of law."

The Constitution goes on to say in part 7 that the governor may, "Suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the procedures for conduct of state business or the orders, rules, or regulations of any state agency, if strict compliance with the provisions of any statute, order, rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency;"

From there, claiming ignorance of the law would be fruitless. The defense could try to argue that the Covid-19 pandemic did not meet the criteria of an emergency. But IMO, they would lose that argument.

I'm not saying I like that governors have this much unilateral power. But, this concept is in the Constitution of most states.

mlgc20,

Interesting, and thanks for looking that up. Should the D.A. decide to pursue charges based off COVID executive orders they would definitely have to bring up a statute such as you mentioned. I think some judges would squirm in their chair because they’d hate to make a ruling based off a temporary (and hopefully expired) executive order. Although I think you certainly could be right about a fruitless argument of ignorance, it may be just as likely they would drop the charges to avoid the whole ordeal knowing that the arrest and preliminary hearing would be enough to prove they did their due diligence in upholding COVID orders.

Either way, not worth a hunter putting themselves into the position of the civil disobeyer. I don’t think anyone would want to be involved in that case; not the Game Warden, Prosecution, judge, and definitely not the hunter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mlgc20]

mlgc20,

Interesting, and thanks for looking that up. Should the D.A. decide to pursue charges based off COVID executive orders they would definitely have to bring up a statute such as you mentioned. I think some judges would squirm in their chair because they’d hate to make a ruling based off a temporary (and hopefully expired) executive order. Although I think you certainly could be right about a fruitless argument of ignorance, it may be just as likely they would drop the charges to avoid the whole ordeal knowing that the arrest and preliminary hearing would be enough to prove they did their due diligence in upholding COVID orders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hopefully all of this will be moot. Then we can get out in the woods and chase critters, instead of worrying about legal mumbo jumbo.

 

[DEEF]

The Constitution goes on to say in part 7 that the governor may, "Suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the procedures for conduct of state business or the orders, rules, or regulations of any state agency, if strict compliance with the provisions of any statute, order, rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency;"

The State prosecutor would have to show how the hunters action(s) "in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency". Seems like a very difficult proof given they would have to quantify infection transmission details of this particular case, which would be as unknown to them as 1000yrd shot in a 60 mph wind. Given the context of a solo hunter with or without infection, a claim that refusal to comply with Emergency objectives created risk to others would be difficult to justify; unless, the marxist judge sees a great opportunity. This hypothetical scenario would be a waste of government time and resource. Unfortunately, we have people on thread who believe the government ought be the "safety enforcer" of this un-professional, un-trustworthy, politically fueled virus event.

The most disturbing thing to me is the culture of "shaming" and "name calling" of those who advocate their freedom to be self-sufficient. The coraling of attitudes which reject governing dictatorship are most disappointing. Instead of governing leaders who educate with sound reasoning, example, and admonishment of reasonable hygiene and self-governance, we have idiots ordering infected patients back into their nursing home. We have fellow hunters showcasing their inferred higher moral fortitude because they aren't comfortable with the truth that viral-mucous doesn't spread by proper hygiene actions and social distance.

If Americans wake up to the real problem, our season open concern would feel much different than the workings of dictatorship nauseating our stomachs. Restricting people from outdoor activities which contribute to their health and wellness is absolutely un-warranted and un-intelligent. Restricting people from foraging to obtain sustenance is absolutely Marxist and condemnable. There is a distinction between shared suffering and forced suffering, let us be mindful of the difference.

 

[cnelk]

Below is a response from the N. Colorado Sheriff Justin Smith to the latest executive order from the Governor Polis.


I’m away from the office, but I have read the governor’s most recent executive order issued today.

Here is my feedback.

The power of the state executive is limited by statute (and more broadly by the separation of powers in our constitution) There are specific powers granted to a governor during a declared disaster. Those are outlined and limited under Colorado statute. There is also authority granted to the director of the CDPHE relating to public health emergencies under statute.

This executive order cites the governor’s authority during a disaster, not the authority of CDPHE during a public health emergency.

Simply put, no matter the intentions of this governor, no authority to create a new law or an expanded definition of trespassing exists under his authority.

COVID-19 remains a challenge to all Coloradans. However,that challenge does not create new executive authority - for the current governor or anyone else.

 

[brsnow]

Below is a response from the N. Colorado Sheriff Justin Smith to the latest executive order from the Governor Polis.


I’m away from the office, but I have read the governor’s most recent executive order issued today.

Here is my feedback.

The power of the state executive is limited by statute (and more broadly by the separation of powers in our constitution) There are specific powers granted to a governor during a declared disaster. Those are outlined and limited under Colorado statute. There is also authority granted to the director of the CDPHE relating to public health emergencies under statute.

This executive order cites the governor’s authority during a disaster, not the authority of CDPHE during a public health emergency.

Simply put, no matter the intentions of this governor, no authority to create a new law or an expanded definition of trespassing exists under his authority.

COVID-19 remains a challenge to all Coloradans. However,that challenge does not create new executive authority - for the current governor or anyone else.

Sheriff’s are typically elected officials so they certainly need to appease their constituents, that is why we have a court and legal system to address these issues.