Interesting

[Outdoor Writer]

>>That means both you and your target must be more than ¼ mile from any homes in the area.<<

 

Now there's an interesting comment supposedly written by a wildlife manager from a thread in another section.

 

Here's how the law reads:

 

A.R.S.17-309

Violations; classification

 

A. Unless otherwise prescribed by this title, it is unlawful for

a person to:

 

4. Discharge a firearm while taking wildlife within

one-fourth mile of an occupied farmhouse or other

residence, cabin, lodge or building without permission

of the owner or resident.

 

-TONY

[Red Rabbit]

Poorly written and ambiguous. Is it saying discharging within a quarter mile, or wildlife within a quarter mile? What is the phrase "within one-fourth mile" modifying?

[Outdoor Writer]

Doug,

 

Yuppers. As written, I've always interpreted it to mean ONLY the actual discharge of a firearm must occur at that distance.

 

When I read the GM's interpretation the incident with the elk shot in the subdivision last fall immediately came to mind. If his take on it is right, and that bull was less than 1/4-mile from any dwelling (I seem to recall it definitely was), a law was broken, even though the SHOOTER was supposedly more than 1/4-mile away. -TONY

[CouesWhitetail]

I guess I always assumed it was both the shooter and the animal just for the safety of those that might be in the houses. People could easily be out working or walking the area around the house.

 

Tony is there a time when you thought about taking an animal within a 1/4 mile of an occupied house? Just wondering if you have a specific example in mind.

 

Amanda

[Outdoor Writer]

Amanda,

 

The only REAL incident that comes to mind is the one I already cited in my other message -- the elk on last year's governor's tag. I don't recall if a citation was issued or not.

 

I agree with you, however, that safety is certainly an issue and would have much to do with it.

 

But let's take a hypopthetical of a cabin in the woods and make a triangle (see below) with that cabin at the right angle of two of the legs. Now let's say there's an elk standing 300 yards due east of that cabin along one leg and a hunter is due south, 500 yards away on the other leg. That means he would be shooting along the hypotenus and nowhere near the cabin itself.

 

 

The way the law is actually written, my interpretation would make it legal since the DISCHARGE of the firearm would take place farther than the 1/4-mile specified within the law. Under the WM's interpretation, it would be a violation.

 

Obviously if the elk is standing quite near or on the porch, it would then become an issue, but it might also be addressed under other stautes, perhaps as reckless endangerment, etc.

 

And no, I have never been in a situation IN AZ where I had to worry about shooting that close to an occupied building at BIG GAME, but I have legally (with permission of the owner) discharged a firearm within 1/4-mile of such at small game many, many times. I have also done so on big game in other states, but also with permission of the owners.

 

Interestingly enough, back in the late 1980s, a bunch of us were invited by the owner to hunt doves on a farm in southwest Phx. Rather than tell the tale again, here's the subsequent Last Shot column I later wrote in AZ HUNTER & ANGLER. -TONY

 

SHERIFF SPOILS DOVE OPENER

 

The August LAST SHOT column concerning Arizona State Trust Lands revealed that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department deputy who denied access to a citizen was unaware of the statute that permits licensed hunters and fishermen to legally trespass on trust lands. September's column covered the subject of poaching and obeying the game laws. Coincidentally, this column will intertwine with that one.

 

On September 1, at the invitation of President Michael Bond, I joined about 40 other members of the Phoenix chapter of Safari Club for a pancake breakfast and dove hunt on a private dairy farm southwest of Phoenix. The organizers of the shoot had obtained permission from the owner.

 

At first light, we spread out along the two private dirt roads on the farm to await the morning flight of birds. An hour later, a Maricopa County Sheriff's Department car with two uniformed officers --- one male and one female --- drove up and stopped to tell each one of us we were hunting illegally.

 

My conversation with the male half of the duo went something like this:

 

"I'm going to have to ask you to leave," the deputy said. You're hunting within a quarter of a mile of those houses." He cocked his head in the direction of a row of houses.

 

To me, all of the homes seemed to be much farther away. "I can't really argue with you because I haven't measured the distance, but they look like they're at least a half-mile away," I said.

 

The deputy then pointed to a farm shed less than 100 yards away. "What about that one?" he asked.

 

"That's only a hundred yards away, but it's not occupied. Besides even if it was, we have permission to hunt here. In fact, I could be shooting off of the farmer's back porch if I wanted to."

 

"Do you have written permission on you?" he asked.

 

"I don't need written permission. All I need is verbal permission. If you're so concerned, drive over and ask the farmer.

 

"How many birds do you have?"

 

I reached down and counted the doves on my bird belt. "Six," I replied.

 

The deputy said, "You're done hunting anyway. You've got your limit."

 

By this time, I was starting to get angry. The last thing I needed was a game law violation on my record. On the other hand, I thought no court possibly could find me guilty of a citation from a deputy with little knowledge of the game laws. With a degree of sarcasm, I let my displeasure be known, almost daring him to write me a ticket. "The limit happens to be ten, and no more than six may be whitewings," I told him. "If you plan on enforcing the game laws, you should know what they are."

 

"It seems you're the one who doesn't know them. You'd better leave or I will cite you."

 

I though twice about wanting a citation. Resisting the urge to challenge the deputy further, I picked up my spent cases while the deputy spoke to the others. We all then joined up over coffee.

 

In the meantime, I already was thinking about this column. Ironically, the subjects of my last two columns had merged, so to speak, to affect me personally.

 

I later found out the female deputy was a detention officer for the sheriff's department and lived in one of the houses the male deputy had said we were too close to. Unfortunately for us, two hunters who were not part of our group had parked near her house and had hunted quite close to it. A few of their errant shots had peppered her car and roof. Since we were hunting nearby, we too were deemed lawbreakers. As a result, rather than call the game department, she contacted the county sheriff's substation in Avondale for assistance. She no doubt figured that would provide her a quicker response.

 

Of course, if the deputy who answered the call knew anything about ballistics, he would have realized the chance of our teeny no. 8 shot coming remotely close to any of the houses, even if they were within a quarter-mile, was highly unlikely. The small pellets from the low-based loads probably travel no more than 150 yards, at best.

 

After the two officers left, one of our group hopped in his truck, drove to the nearest house and clocked the distance to the spot we were hunting. It measured just under a half-mile.

 

Still fuming from the morning's undue harassment, I called the Avondale substation later in the day and spoke to Officer Ott. I asked for the deputy's name. Ott told me the car's license number was not enough to identify the deputy. When he asked why I wanted it, I told him. I also cited the pertinent laws regarding the accusations. Here's how they read:

 

BUILDINGS - It is unlawful to discharge a firearm within one quarter-mile of an occupied building while hunting without permission of the owner or occupant. (Title 17, 17-309, #4 of 1987 Arizona Game & Fish Regulations)

 

DOVE LIMIT - Ten (10) mourning and white-winged in the aggregate, of which no more than six (6) may be white-winged doves. (Commission Order 19, Federal Migratory Bird Regulations)

 

As anyone can readily see the deputy was off base on all counts. The law makes no mention of the need for written permission, and a ramshackle stock shed definitely fails to meet the criteria of an occupied building. (NOTE the wording change of the current law!) As for the dove limit, the numbers are quite clear.

 

I sympathized with Ott when he told me most of his officers did nothing but police dove hunters on opening morning. At the same time I expressed my concern at how a peace officer can answer complaints and cite violators when he is ignorant of the laws.

 

Officer Ott said he would mention the confrontation to his supervisors. A few days after the incident, I spoke with Bill Powers, the head of the game department's enforcement division. He concurred with my assessment of the unfortunate incident. I suggested he send numerous copies of the regulations to each substation. Surprisingly, he said before the season began he had mailed over 30,000 memos outlining the 1987 dove hunting regulations to every law enforcement officer in the state. The department had done this to eliminate exactly what occurred, Powers said.

 

At least one individual evidently failed to read the pertinent memo. Or perhaps, because the person doing the complaining just happened to be a fellow officer, the correct statutes made little difference?

 

Regardless of the reason, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department needs to have their officers bone up on the multitude of Arizona's laws, or it should leave the enforcement of such laws to the agencies who do know them.