Oregon Man Gives Hunters a Black Eye: Mistakes Man Picking Flowers for a Deer

[LanceOregon]

Note: The writing below is my own, using info gathered from police reports.


A convicted felon engaging in poaching has accidentally shot and killed a man out picking flowers during Oregon's Deer season.

Elias Sontay, 20, of Woodburn, was killed by a single shot from a high powered rifle. He was out in the forest picking flowers and other plants, when the shooting took place.

The shooter, William C. Rogers, told authorities that he spotted movement and antlers in the brush, so he fired once but believed that he had missed. He admitted to police that he heard voices, but did not bother to check into it. Instead, he quickly left the area.

Sontay's companion spotted Rogers leaving the area in a vehicle with his cousin. He gave the license number of their vehicle to Oregon State Troopers, who then tracked Rogers down within a few hours.

It turns out that Rogers is a convicted felon, with a history of drug related convictions. So he could not legally possess any type of firearm. He was also hunting without a license, and hunting on private forested property with no permission from the owner.

Rogers now sits in the Marion County Jail waiting arraignment on numerous felony charges, including criminally negligent homicide.

The good news: None of the press reports about this case have referred to Rogers as being a hunter, thank goodness. It always burns me up greatly, when poachers are referred to in the press as being hunters.

The bad news: They all have described Rogers as being engaged in hunting. I sure wish that the press was intelligent enough to refer to cases like this as being what they really are: poaching.

Sadly, I've very seldom seem them make that distinction in these types of news accounts.

.

[NWPilgrim]

I like your distinction. If you are not pursuing game legally then you are not "hunting", you are poaching at best, or terrorizing others in the woods at worst.

Where is "criminally negligent homicide" on the scale of likely time in jail?

It irks me when someones gets a year or two for an 'accident" while driving or shooting so recklessly it is de facto intent to kill. If I drive 90 mph down a city street then I really don't care if I kill someone, and know it is quite probable. Likewise for shooting at a noise in the woods.

I bet if some of these "accidental" woods murders were punished with 20+ yrs more guys would think twice before shooting at noise. A couple of examples would change attitudes.

[Daryl]

So, a man was murdered by a poacher, and your primary concern is the mark this might have left on hunters?

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victim's family and friends.

Daryl

[Gbro]

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victim's family and friends.

And to add to that, that others recreating in the forest during open hunting seasons wear an article of blaze orange.
I have posted messages at trail heads where I hunt suggesting hikers do just that.

[Countertop]

Where is "criminally negligent homicide" on the scale of likely time in jail?

Its manslaughter. Generally lacks the requisite intent to be out and out murder (he wasn't intending to kill someone, he was just being reckless).

The problem for this goblin is that he was not only poaching (which may or may not be a felony in Oregon) but he was an otherwise prohibited person and his mere possession of a gun is a felony.

As a result, if Oregon has a felony murder statute, a prosecutor could (and probably will) raise this from the 2nd degree manslaughter to a 1st degree homicide/felony murder charge.

[teeroux]

I like your distinction. If you are not pursuing game legally then you are not "hunting", you are poaching at best, or terrorizing others in the woods at worst.

+1 It would be best for everyone to view it as unlawful activity (poaching) rather than it would have been legal (hunting) but ect. A fine line in conviction is intent. It could mean the difference between negligent homicide or accidental death.

[taylorce1]

I'd write a few letters to the editors of the papers. Tell them that the person was not hunting but poaching. Plus I'd see if you can't get your State wildlife dept to chime in on what the man was doing wasn't hunting. Even in the legal definition of poaching, calling it illegal hunting isn't mentioned:

The illegal shooting, trapping, or taking of game or fish from private or public property.

The poaching of game and fish was made a crime in England in the seventeenth century, as aristocratic landowners sought to preserve their shooting and property rights. Poor peasants did most of the poaching to supplement their diets with meat and fish.

In the United States, poaching was not considered a serious problem meriting legal measures before the twentieth century, because vast expanses of undeveloped land contained abundant sources of fish and game. The increased cultivation of land and the growth of towns and cities reduced wildlife habitats in the twentieth century. In the early 1900s, the U.S. conservation movement arose with an emphasis on preserving wildlife and managing the fish and game populations. Wildlife preserves and state and national parks were created as havens for wild animals, many of which were threatened with extinction.

Because of these changing circumstances, restrictions were placed on hunting and fishing. State game and fish laws now require persons to purchase licenses to hunt and fish. The terms of these licenses limit the kind and number of animals or fish that may be taken and restrict hunting and fishing to designated times of the year, popularly referred to as hunting and fishing seasons.

Therefore, persons who fail to purchase a license, as well as those who violate the terms of their licenses, commit acts of poaching. Most poaching in the United States is done for sport or commercial profit. Rare and endangered species, which are protected by state and federal law, are often the targets of poachers.

Poaching laws are enforced by game wardens, who patrol state and national parks and respond to violations on private property. Poachers are subject to criminal laws, ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. Penalties may include steep fines, jail sentences, the Forfeiture of any poached game or fish, the loss of hunting and fishing license privileges for several years, and the forfeiture of hunting or fishing equipment, boats, and vehicles used in the poaching.

[davlandrum]

:barf: seriously :barf:

[Brian Pfleuger]

This guy is such a dirt-ball that he gives FELONS a bad name. Geez. Pathetic. Life in prison comes to mind.

[grubbylabs]

We had a shooting a few weeks ago around us as well, the shooter was legal to hunt but he did not have a tag for a "noise it the bush" But rather he had a deer tag. I just don't understand shooting when you don't have a clearly identified target.

[Double Naught Spy]

The good news: None of the press reports about this case have referred to Rogers as being a hunter, thank goodness. It always burns me up greatly, when poachers are referred to in the press as being hunters.

Lance, you make the connection quite clear between the shooter and hunters, saying that he gives hunters a black eye. If he wasn't hunting, then how can he give hunters a black eye? Oh wait, he was hunting, hence the connection.

The bad news: They all have described Rogers as being engaged in hunting. I sure wish that the press was intelligent enough to refer to cases like this as being what they really are: poaching.

The press is not wrong. You just don't like it because they don't portrary Brooks in a negative enough light. One form of poachng is hunting without a license, as is hunting out of season, or any other breech of the hunting regulations where the taking of game is illegal.

[LateNightFlight]

With this person's criminal history, I would bet this was an opportunistic thrill kill by a psychopath. He went to the area to shoot something, and that's what he did.

Proof of "Intent" can be a tricky element of the law, but a convicted felon with significant criminal history should support murder charges. I doubt the defense can argue he was simply too stupid to know the difference between a deer and a person picking flowers. It is not the purpose of a psychopath to care about any difference between the two; "out poaching deer" was merely an excuse.

My thoughts are with the family of the victim. May justice prevail.

[shortwave]

My prayers are with this family of the victim.

Could care less about this dirtball.

May justice prevail

May HARSH justice prevail.

Fixed it for ya.

[grubbylabs]

Sorry Double Naught but to most of us in the hunting community there is a big difference in hunters and Poachers, mainly hunters have ethics and abide by them. Poachers are just killers.

[Kreyzhorse]

Sorry Double Naught but simply engaging in the act of hunting doesn't make one a hunter any more than speeding makes one a Formula One driver.

A poacher and a hunter may both hunt. How you follow game laws when doing so decides if you are a poacher (ignores game laws) or a hunter (adheres to game laws).

[Art Eatman]

Kreyzhorse, it seems to me that you're nit-picking over the word usage.

What the hunting fraternity thinks of when the word "hunter" is used is positive. Most folks don't see poachers as other than scum, and had just as soon never abuse the word "hunting" by connecting it to a poacher.

IOW, forget the dictionary. Just think of common-usage connotations.

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry Double Naught but to most of us in the hunting community there is a big difference in hunters and Poachers, mainly hunters have ethics and abide by them. Poachers are just killers.

Wow, that distinction between hunters and poachers completely misses the mark. Poachers are not just killers, but people to take game illegally. In fact, not all poachers even kill their game. There is a booming trade in exotic live animals. Those who are procuring the live animals illegally are also poachers.

Hunting in a manner that is against the law is a form of poaching.

Sorry Double Naught but simply engaging in the act of hunting doesn't make one a hunter any more than speeding makes one a Formula One driver.

Wow, that analogy misses the mark as well. While speeding may not make one a Formula One driver, driving does make on a driver just like hunting does make one a hunter.

Funny thing, if I am caught speeding in my car, that is driving in a manner that is not legal just like one form of poaching is hunting in a manner than is not legal, I am still considered to be a driver...or do you think I am no longer a driver because I was speeding?

I find it interesting that you consider Ted Nugent to be a "famous hunter" despite the fact that he is a poacher.

[grubbylabs]

You completely over looked how I described a hunter, and yes poachers do also steel animals, but in the case at hand he was out to illegally kill an animal, not hunt it.

[Art Eatman]

Enough of the thread drift and nit-picking over words!