PORT TOWNSEND — A Port Gamble S’Klallam tribal officer said he thought an elk had been poached when he and another tribal officer detained three elk hunters near Brinnon on Oct. 3.
Tribal officer Gus Goller’s statement was part of a 168-page report on an investigation by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office.
County Prosecuting Attorney Juelie Dalzell released the report, which had been sealed, to the public Tuesday.
“There is no reason not to release it now,” Dalzell said.
Dalzell said she has not decided if her office will file charges in the case.
“All the investigating agencies have it, but it will still be awhile before I make a decision as far as charging goes,” she said.
Tribal investigation
Dalzell said she had released the report to the tribe last week to help it in its independent investigation.
Ginger Vaughan, spokeswoman for the tribe, said Tuesday she was unsure if the tribe had received the report from Dalzell.
She added that the tribal investigation is continuing.
The state and county investigation was prompted by a complaint filed by Adam Boling of Brinnon, one of the three hunters, with the sheriff’s office on Oct. 5.
Boling said in his complaint that he, his 2-year-old son and Boling’s two friends, Shelton residents Don Phipps and Danny Phipps, were detained illegally by law enforcement agents of the Port Gamble S’Klallam tribe’s natural resources department after one of the hunters killed an elk on private land.
The tribal officers did not cite the hunters.
Boling questioned the jurisdictional right of the tribal officers to detain them.
Reason for detention
Statements by Goller and fellow Port Gamble S’Klallam Nautral Resource Officer Dale Clark tell why they approached the men for what they believed was an illegal hunt.
“I was approached by several bystanders who told me the person who shot the elk was armed with a rifle,” Goller said in his written statement.
“I was aware there was no modern elk rifle season open in that area, except tribal.
“I also noticed the location of the downed elk was in close proximity to several residences and my first impression was the firearm was not discharged in a safe area,” he said.
Based on the information he had at the time, Goller said he decided to remove his patrol rifle from his vehicle and take it while attempting contact with the hunters.
“I slung it over my chest pointed down,” he said.
Goller also said that, as he walked to the gate access to the property along U.S. Highway 101, he saw several signs posted against hunting, trespassing, and identifying the area as private property.
He said he saw one sign that said “Notice, government property.”
“At that point, based on all the information I had gathered to that point, I felt the suspects involved had poached the elk,” Goller said in his statement.
Findings in report
The report — which goes into detail about how, where and when a hunting party shot and killed an elk near the Brinnon General Store on Oct. 3 — presents the same findings that state Department of Fish and Wildlife Deputy Chief Mike Cenci released in a prepared statement on Oct. 26.
In the report, investigators determine that the elk was legally shot and that the hunters were not trespassing at the time of the hunt or in subsequently retrieving the elk.
Also, a timeline prepared by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that the hunters were detained and handcuffed for approximately 44 minutes as tribal officers investigated the situation.
Authority to act?
The question raised in the county and state investigation is if the tribal officers had the authority to take action that day.
The tribe said in a statement released Oct. 16 that the officers were within their jurisdiction and operating on the tribe’s “usual and accustomed hunting grounds” when they detained the men.
On Oct. 26, Cenci said he agreed with the tribe’s assertion that it has the authority to regulate its membership on its usual and accustomed hunting grounds, and also said he agreed that the tribe has the right to ask about the identity of individuals to establish if there is a tribal connection.
But he felt the method of approach taken by the officers was beyond their authority.
“While the officers in question declined to be interviewed, I’m going to make an assumption and say that they probably thought they were operating in good faith as to what they thought their authority was,” Cenci said.
“In actuality, they went beyond the scope of what their authority is, at least in our view.”
Dalzell has said that, if she finds cause to file charges, that the charges could range from gross misdemeanors to felonies.
Dalzell said any decision on charges was still weeks away.
“We want to be careful with this and get it right,” she said.
________
Reporter Erik Hidle can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at erik.hidle@peninsuladailynews.com.
