Hunter makes $109 mistake in rare incident

David Marks of Spokane has discovered a $109 incentive to comply with Washington’s mandatory game harvest reporting requirement.

That’s the amount on the ticket he received recently for not logging on to the Department of Fish and Wildlife Web site or calling (877) 945-3492 to report the whitetail buck he shot in Unit 127 last October.

Washington’s 2004 Big Game Hunting Seasons and Rules pamphlet clearly stated that the mandatory reports are to be filed each year no later than Jan. 31. The pamphlet also clearly noted that hunters would not be able to buy a 2005 hunting license until they filed their 2004 reports. No other penalty was mentioned.

The 2005 rules pamphlet announces the new $10 penalty for not reporting this year’s hunting activity by the Jan. 31 deadline. The penalty was approved this year by the Washington Legislature to help the department boost compliance with game harvest reporting.

Getting timely information on the date and location of big-game hunting activity is important to wildlife managers who must set the next year’s seasons and harvest quotas.

Marks admits he missed the deadline.

But Dave Ware, Fish and Wildlife’s big-game manager in Olympia, said Marks has plenty of company. More than 35 percent of Washington’s hunters were negligent in filing timely reports last year, Ware said.

“The state has been trying to get better compliance with the reporting,” said Capt. Mike Whorton, department regional enforcement chief in Spokane. “In the last few years we’ve been ratcheting up the mandatory reporting requirements. We tried the educational route and the incentive route (entering those who filed reports on time into special big-game permit drawings). Now we’ve headed into a tougher lockdown of the licensing system for people who don’t comply.”

Still, few people outside the agency know about the potential for a $109 fine – except David Marks.

The day before the 2004 deer season, Marks, 36, had a friend help him access the Fish and Wildlife Department Web site and file his 2003 deer harvest report. The timing was eight months too late to be of any use to the agency for setting the 2004 seasons, but the report had to be filed before Marks could buy his 2004 license.

“I got my buck on Nov. 16,” he said. “I know this because I took a picture of it with the tag on its horns with my cell phone, and the date’s on it and everything.”

He said he butchered the meat at home and took the head to a taxidermist. “It wasn’t that nice a buck, but I had been thinking of having them take the cape off so I could put it on a nice 6-by-7 pointer I got 10 years ago,” Marks said. “I didn’t have the money to mount that one, but I’ve been saving the horns.”

After talking to the taxidermist, that’s what he decided to do.

“We didn’t exchange any money or anything,” Marks said. “I said, ‘Let’s use this cape and I’ll bring in the other horns.’ “

Later that day, however, the taxidermist called Marks with the bad news that the deer head had not been properly cared for and the cape was unusable for a mount.

“I could have bought another one from him, but I got to thinking how expensive it was getting so I said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ and that was that. Game over.”

Not really.

Months later, in a routine review of the taxidermist’s books, a state wildlife enforcement agent noted gaps in the information logged for the deer. Marks contends the agent was not pleasant when he subsequently confronted relatives at his family business and seemed to be accusing him of other wildlife infractions.

“My dad called me and starts giving me this big lecture and I’m saying, ‘Dad, I didn’t do anything wrong,’ ” said Marks, admitting that he hadn’t even thought of the reporting requirement and noting that he was less than pleasant to the agent when they finally communicated with each other.

“Finally, I agree to meet him, and I showed him the photo of my buck wearing the tag and he said the investigation was closed and I could have my horns back,” Marks said. “But then he said that he’d put in too much time on the case and he had to give me something. So he gave me a ticket for not reporting my deer.”

Capt. Whorton declined to discuss details of the case, although he confirmed that Marks’ name came up during a routine investigation at the taxidermist shop.

“The wildlife parts reportedly belonging to Mr. Marks weren’t in the ledgers that are required to be filled in,” Whorton said. “When the officer followed up he found that the mandatory harvest report hadn’t been filed.”

Department officials say they don’t know how many tickets have been issued to hunters who have neglected to file the reports, but they concede that this case is an anomaly.

“It happens rarely, but that doesn’t mean it never happens,” explained Capt. John Broome, the department enforcement division spokesman in Olympia.

The frequency of the citation is difficult to peg since the statute that covers this infraction, RCW 77-15-280, also includes more commonly cited cases such as commercial fishermen who don’t properly report their catch.

This spring, the Washington Legislature debated for weeks before authorizing a $10 fine that is being charged to sportsmen who do not file reports by Jan. 31. The fine must be paid before the noncompliant hunters can buy another license.

Although it’s too late for David Marks, starting this year the simple $10 fine will replace the little-known misdemeanor charges and $109 fine that went on the books when mandatory reports were authorized four years ago, Ware said.

“We want to encourage compliance, but we’ve never wanted to make criminals out of hunters for not filing reports,” he said. “That’s why we went to the Legislature.”

Whorton confirmed that in the case of the David Marks deer, “There was nothing to show it was taken in violation of any other rule. … This isn’t something we go out and look for unless it comes up in the course of another investigation.”

Marks plans to contest the citation in court next week.

Meantime, while the $109 bail might be an incentive for hunters to comply with mandatory reporting, it had the opposite effect on Marks.

“I didn’t buy a tag this year,” Marks said.