Criminal charges against coyote hunter stem from “political pressure” says attorney

April 14, 2016

1:02 PM

Sean Virtue

Kurt Rausch, right, with attorney Michele Tjader.

The criminal charges issued by the Dane County District Attorney’s Office against coyote hunter Kurt Rausch are politically motivated, says his attorney.

“They came about due to political pressure from an online petition,” Michele Tjader told Court Commissioner Scott McAndrew during Rausch’s initial appearance Thursday morning.

Rausch, who received a signature bond, is charged with two felony counts of mistreatment of animals and one misdemeanor for the negligent handling of a firearm for the fatal shootings of two pet dogs in the Badfish Creek Wildlife Area on Jan. 22. At the time, the Department of Natural Resources declined to press charges.

Each felony count carries a fine up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to three years. Rausch faces an additional fine up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to nine months for the misdemeanor charge.

According to the criminal complaint, Rausch was hunting for coyotes at night when he mistook two dogs belonging to Deanna Clark for coyotes. One dog he shot died immediately. The other died days later. The Dane County sheriff’s report on the incident noted that Rausch was “visibly upset and shaken. [He] stated he never meant for this to happen.”

Assistant District Attorney Tim Helmberger proposed three bail conditions for Rausch — that he be banned from hunting, from possessing a dangerous weapon and from contacting Clark. Tjader argued against the first two conditions, offering that Rausch was a lifelong hunter, had never had a DNR citation and has no criminal history.

McAndrews agreed, noting that bail is not supposed to be punitive and that the incident occurred three months ago. “I don’t see a danger to the public,” he said. But he did specify that Rausch not contact Clark in any manner.

Tjader declined to answer questions or allow her client to speak to reporters after the hearing.

The preliminary hearing for Rausch is set for April 27.

Comments (6)

Comment Feed

No Winners Indeed

I wholeheartedly agree with the "No Winners" post. This was an accident. For those who want to cast blame, note that the defendant was neither cited by the police nor DNR. As someone who hunts, I can assure you that if DNR felt this was anything beyond a mistake, they would have cited him. They do not mess around.

The criminal complaint in this matter contains facts that are skewed in favor of the state. That is how all criminal complaints are drafted. I'm sure a more balanced version will come out as this matter proceeds.

I personally chose not to hunt at night, because I think hunting in the daylight can be tricky enough, but he was doing nothing wrong by hunting at night. And, if you have a coyote call in the woods, and you see two coyote looking dogs approach, 90+% of hunters would be thinking that coyotes were approaching. Night hunting is largely silhouette hunting. You are looking at the shapes, and do not have extreme detail because it is dark out. And as noted above, reflective vests are useless if you do not have light reflecting off of them. And even if you do have a light, most dog vests to not have reflective coating on the front chest area, so you would not get reflection there either. Not to mention that you would largely focus on the head and ears.

Again, both the police and DNR chose at the time, with the best available facts, not to issue a citation. He was not cited for shooting the dogs or for allegedly putting the dog owner in harms way. Months later, following an online petition, the DAs office files charges. Seems pretty political. In any other county, this would not be charged, IMHO.

This was a mistake that is awful for both parties, not felony type conduct, which by the way requires that you show "intent." Classic example of overcharging. The DAs office overcharges (unethical IMO) and then tries to force people to plea to a lesser charge. Happens every day. Ironically, to my knowledge, no hunter who has accidentally shot a person while hunting in this WI has ever been brought up on charges. And I'm referring to actual accidents, not confrontations in the woods.

Everyone, including DNR should try to learn from this and perhaps either ban night hunting or ban off leash from coyote hunting areas, at least at night. Recipe for disaster, as we see here.

This is not about blaming the dog owner or the hunter. This should be about learning how to improve the existing laws to reduce the likelihood of anything like this happening again. This was a mistake and should be treated as such.

If you want to be disgusted by bad hunting behavior, check out the recent video of the hunters who shot the deer and then "rode" it while it was dying. That is the type of behavior that should result in criminal charges, not this incident.

Carlos more than 8 years ago

See it a lot in Georgia

I have seen hunters dump dogs at our shelter, they have shot dogs and killed others by cutting off their heads. Would you shoot at animals when you're not sure what your killing? Seems like some sort of training in "hunting" is needed.

Rainmoss more than 8 years ago

No Winners

Turning a pack of dogs loose at night and allowing them to run unleashed through a coyote hunting area is a complete recipe for disaster. In addition to the risk of the dogs getting shot, they might also step into coyote traps which are legally set at that time of year, or they might run into and get injured by any number of objects that are not as visible as they would be in the daytime. I am assuming that the area was posted for hunting.

Reflective vests won't work at night unless there is a light shining on them from the viewer's point of view, and most coyote hunters use night-scopes on their guns to keep from spooking their prey. Night-scopes do not emit any light, and therefore there would have been no reflection from the vests. A more appropriate choice for the dogs would have been those clip-on flashers attached to the dog's collar.

The hunter was engaged in a legal activity, and I am assuming that the area was posted for hunting. He was waiting for a canine to show up, and two of them did. After quickly identifying them as such, he made two shots that went exactly where he was aiming - hardly "reckless shooting". It sounds like the last thing he was expecting was that the dogs were part of a pack of domestic canines running at large. It also sounds like he was regretful, and responsible enough to call 911. If he were drunk, I doubt if he would have wanted the authorities involved.

This was an incredibly unfortunate incident for both people involved, and I empathize with both of them. It's really a shame that this matter is going to court - nothing will get settled, nothing will bring the dogs back, and both parties will have to re-live the incident again and again. Will it really solve anything if this hunter is fined or jailed for an incident that wasn't entirely his fault, and that he regretted? Will the dog owner feel "vindicated" somehow, and feel less responsible for the role she played in this incident? There's plenty of blame to go around, and plenty of guilt to go around. IMHO, both of them will feel even worse than they do now, and lawyers will be the only ones to benefit.

Interested Observer more than 8 years ago

Night hunting with lights

This guy was hunting with lights, not with a night-vision scope. That means:
1. He should have been able to see the reflective vests.
2. Everything out of the bean of light would have been obscured, and his night vision would have been shot.

He shot at something without being sure of his target. That alone is irresponsible. There could have been a person just out of his light beam.

Since when is walking in the woods at night with your dogs considered dangerous? Since night hunting year-round has become legal, which is only recently. These dogs were on voice command, and traps can't be set on the trail or even near the trail. The owner had no idea that hunting at night was legal, because it hasn't been previously. Dogs have very good night vision, unlike humans, so it is unlikely that the dogs would have gotten in trouble so close to their owener, except for the guy with the gun and spotlight.

At the very least, this guy should be banned from hunting at night, since he has such poor judgement. And he should be sentenced to care for injured animals or clean out the pens at the Humane Society.

RoadKill Bill more than 8 years ago

He was reckless or deliberate. Neither one is tolerable.

The very fact that traps are allowed in State Parks that are here for all of the citizens to enjoy and that night year round coyote hunting is allowed are both dangerous and beyond any rationale. But the very fact that he shot not once but twice without being able to see what he was shooting was reckless and irresponsible. He may well have been shooting a deer or a person for all he knew. I can see shooting by mistake once but twice ? He either was shooting recklessly or deliberately. It cant be neither. In either case he deliberately shot pet dogs or he shot without knowing what he was shooting because he couldnt see and that was reckless. He deserves to be punished AND those laws need to be changed. Walkers hand picked DNR and the removal of scientist positions is one of the many disastrous things that that POS Walker and the idiots who voted for him have done to our state that will take decades to repair.

annac more than 8 years ago

Huh.

It seems that you're going to great lengths to find a way to blame the victim here, while downplaying the simplest reading of the facts, which is that the shooter broke the law while violating the first rule of firearm safety: Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. The fact that prosecuting him won't bring the dogs back to life and the fact that he's sorry for what he did have no bearing on this or any other criminal act. And I say this as a gun owner and a hunter. There is no guilt to go around here other than the shooter's.

Kurt amann more than 8 years ago