Washington Hunter
Well-known member
State one of 20 to deny tags to out-of-state violators
HENRY MILLER
Statesman Journal
April 9, 2006
Almost 900 Oregon residents whose fishing and hunting licenses have been suspended in the state could lose those privileges in 19 other states.
And almost 4,000 people with similar loss of privileges in those states--including some from Oregon who have violations as out-of-state hunters or anglers--could lose their licenses and tags here, according to figures from Oregon State Police.
Both are a result of Oregon's participation in the Interstate Wildlife Violators Compact.
Oregon was one of the original members when the compact was initiated in 1989 but never had enforced it.
Under the compact, suspension of hunting or fishing privileges in one state revokes them in all 20.
In addition to Oregon, the states in alphabetical order are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
Until now, because of lack of computer muscle, officials said they couldn't afford to go after those people.
"No. 1, we have the database to track this stuff, and the database was never set up, so we were unable to participate in the compact," said Capt. Walt Markee of the Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division. "We've set up a database at Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon State Police are working on it jointly.
"We never got it done; Oregon couldn't get it done, and I think that part of the problem was the money."
It's about time the state cracked down, said Wendell Locke, the president of the Santiam River Chapter of Safari Club International and founder of the Columbia County Chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association.
"I've pushed for years for it to happen. I've been trying to get them to do it for about 10 years," he said. "It's sad that Oregon decided to wait 20 years before they did it."
The issue of violators state-hopping when their licenses were pulled has galled Fish and Wildlife troopers for years, Markee said.
"What we've noticed, and other states have noticed it, too, is that sometimes your worst violators go from state to state, and they get suspended in Oregon and go 'oh, well, I'll go hunt in Idaho,' " he said. "And then they get caught in Idaho, and say, 'well, I guess I'll go to California.'
"And they're traveling all over the place."
After the decision was made to start enforcing the compact, somebody had to be first.
And on March 21, Michael Andrew Francis, an administrative law judge in Portland, issued a proposed order to suspend the hunting privileges of three Oregon residents.
None of the three -- Kyle C. Cordano of Tualatin and Andre and Nicholas Larrison of Oregon City -- have in-state wildlife violations pending in Oregon.
But on Nov. 22, 2004, all had their hunting privileges suspended for three years in Idaho after they pleaded to shooting at a decoy after legal hunting hours using a spotlight from a public highway.
And that became Oregon's test case.
On April 12, 2005, Cordano and the Larrisons were notified by letters from Fish and Wildlife that they faced similar suspensions here because of the Idaho pleas.
That started the ball rolling for the first time on the so-far yearlong compact-enforcement process in Oregon.
Jesse Wm Barton of Salem, the lawyer for the three, said the arguments against suspending their hunting privileges are simple: Why me? Why now? And why Idaho law for people who live in Oregon?
"The real question is did the state ever enter the compact?" Barton asked, talking about the gap between 1989 adoption and 2005 enforcement when the letters to his clients went out.
"And the next question is: If it did, how long can the suspensions be?"
The three had no clue that they faced potential loss of hunting in 19 other states, including their home state, when they pleaded, Barton said.
"They 'fessed up to it," he said. "They realized they'd done wrong, and they admitted it. They went out to Idaho and they pled. They admitted what they'd done wrong.
"And once they're done admitting, some wildlife official out there comes up to them and said 'oh, and you guys can expect to get suspended in Oregon.' They said 'wha?' ... They never heard about it."
Barton's accompanying argument is that even if it suspensions are handed out under the compact, those should be for the two years, Oregon's standard for such violations, not the three years that Idaho imposed.
The suspension there runs through November 2007.
But if the three had pleaded to the same violations in Oregon on the same date, their suspensions would run out this November, Barton said.
The response from Oregon officials is that under the compact, the suspension is concurrent in both states.
"The order that came from the away state, basically Idaho in this case, was a period of three years, on Nov. 22, 2004," said Larry Cooper, the deputy administrator for the Wildlife Division at Oregon Fish and Wildlife. "So it kind of engages at wherever the process comes out.
"Idaho is done with sanctions on Nov. 22, 2007, and that's when this (suspensions in Oregon) would run through."
Ironically, Cordano and the Larrisons applied for and received resident licenses and tags in Oregon during the time between the Idaho suspension and notification about the compact enforcement, Oregon wildlife officials said.
But they won't face any legal difficulties for that, Cook said.
"The agency decided that we're just going to focus prospectively," he said about Fish and Wildlife officials' decision not to pursue the issue.
Barton said his clients haven not yet decided whether to appeal.
They three have 30 days -- until April 20 -- from the date of Judge Francis' proposed order to file what are called "written exceptions" with the Fish and Wildlife Commission, the final decision-maker.
A discussion and vote on any written exceptions and suspensions probably would be at the May or June commission meeting, at the earliest, said Bill Cook.
Cook is an assistant attorney general for Oregon who represented Fish and Wildlife in the filing and at the hearing.
If the suspensions are imposed, Oregon officials said they then will start going after the others in the database of violators en masse.
"They are on hold until we find out about all the details of this case," Ron Anglin, the Wildlife Division administrator for Fish and Wildlife. " ... once we've got that all worked out, then we'll move forward with full implementation."
Copyright 2006 Statesman Journal, Salem, Oregon
HENRY MILLER
Statesman Journal
April 9, 2006
Almost 900 Oregon residents whose fishing and hunting licenses have been suspended in the state could lose those privileges in 19 other states.
And almost 4,000 people with similar loss of privileges in those states--including some from Oregon who have violations as out-of-state hunters or anglers--could lose their licenses and tags here, according to figures from Oregon State Police.
Both are a result of Oregon's participation in the Interstate Wildlife Violators Compact.
Oregon was one of the original members when the compact was initiated in 1989 but never had enforced it.
Under the compact, suspension of hunting or fishing privileges in one state revokes them in all 20.
In addition to Oregon, the states in alphabetical order are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
Until now, because of lack of computer muscle, officials said they couldn't afford to go after those people.
"No. 1, we have the database to track this stuff, and the database was never set up, so we were unable to participate in the compact," said Capt. Walt Markee of the Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division. "We've set up a database at Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon State Police are working on it jointly.
"We never got it done; Oregon couldn't get it done, and I think that part of the problem was the money."
It's about time the state cracked down, said Wendell Locke, the president of the Santiam River Chapter of Safari Club International and founder of the Columbia County Chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association.
"I've pushed for years for it to happen. I've been trying to get them to do it for about 10 years," he said. "It's sad that Oregon decided to wait 20 years before they did it."
The issue of violators state-hopping when their licenses were pulled has galled Fish and Wildlife troopers for years, Markee said.
"What we've noticed, and other states have noticed it, too, is that sometimes your worst violators go from state to state, and they get suspended in Oregon and go 'oh, well, I'll go hunt in Idaho,' " he said. "And then they get caught in Idaho, and say, 'well, I guess I'll go to California.'
"And they're traveling all over the place."
After the decision was made to start enforcing the compact, somebody had to be first.
And on March 21, Michael Andrew Francis, an administrative law judge in Portland, issued a proposed order to suspend the hunting privileges of three Oregon residents.
None of the three -- Kyle C. Cordano of Tualatin and Andre and Nicholas Larrison of Oregon City -- have in-state wildlife violations pending in Oregon.
But on Nov. 22, 2004, all had their hunting privileges suspended for three years in Idaho after they pleaded to shooting at a decoy after legal hunting hours using a spotlight from a public highway.
And that became Oregon's test case.
On April 12, 2005, Cordano and the Larrisons were notified by letters from Fish and Wildlife that they faced similar suspensions here because of the Idaho pleas.
That started the ball rolling for the first time on the so-far yearlong compact-enforcement process in Oregon.
Jesse Wm Barton of Salem, the lawyer for the three, said the arguments against suspending their hunting privileges are simple: Why me? Why now? And why Idaho law for people who live in Oregon?
"The real question is did the state ever enter the compact?" Barton asked, talking about the gap between 1989 adoption and 2005 enforcement when the letters to his clients went out.
"And the next question is: If it did, how long can the suspensions be?"
The three had no clue that they faced potential loss of hunting in 19 other states, including their home state, when they pleaded, Barton said.
"They 'fessed up to it," he said. "They realized they'd done wrong, and they admitted it. They went out to Idaho and they pled. They admitted what they'd done wrong.
"And once they're done admitting, some wildlife official out there comes up to them and said 'oh, and you guys can expect to get suspended in Oregon.' They said 'wha?' ... They never heard about it."
Barton's accompanying argument is that even if it suspensions are handed out under the compact, those should be for the two years, Oregon's standard for such violations, not the three years that Idaho imposed.
The suspension there runs through November 2007.
But if the three had pleaded to the same violations in Oregon on the same date, their suspensions would run out this November, Barton said.
The response from Oregon officials is that under the compact, the suspension is concurrent in both states.
"The order that came from the away state, basically Idaho in this case, was a period of three years, on Nov. 22, 2004," said Larry Cooper, the deputy administrator for the Wildlife Division at Oregon Fish and Wildlife. "So it kind of engages at wherever the process comes out.
"Idaho is done with sanctions on Nov. 22, 2007, and that's when this (suspensions in Oregon) would run through."
Ironically, Cordano and the Larrisons applied for and received resident licenses and tags in Oregon during the time between the Idaho suspension and notification about the compact enforcement, Oregon wildlife officials said.
But they won't face any legal difficulties for that, Cook said.
"The agency decided that we're just going to focus prospectively," he said about Fish and Wildlife officials' decision not to pursue the issue.
Barton said his clients haven not yet decided whether to appeal.
They three have 30 days -- until April 20 -- from the date of Judge Francis' proposed order to file what are called "written exceptions" with the Fish and Wildlife Commission, the final decision-maker.
A discussion and vote on any written exceptions and suspensions probably would be at the May or June commission meeting, at the earliest, said Bill Cook.
Cook is an assistant attorney general for Oregon who represented Fish and Wildlife in the filing and at the hearing.
If the suspensions are imposed, Oregon officials said they then will start going after the others in the database of violators en masse.
"They are on hold until we find out about all the details of this case," Ron Anglin, the Wildlife Division administrator for Fish and Wildlife. " ... once we've got that all worked out, then we'll move forward with full implementation."
Copyright 2006 Statesman Journal, Salem, Oregon
