Got a response from the WDFW concerning CWP

[Machias]

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the recently amended archery regulation now authorizing bowhunters with a valid concealed pistol license to carry a sidearm while archery hunting.  Your e-mail has been forwarded to me for a response.

 

Please be advised that the chief of our enforcement program has no authority to mandate any hunting rules or regulations.  The chief—along with all of our Fish and Wildlife Officers—is responsible for enforcing hunting laws and rules, not making them.

 

RCW 9.41.060(, Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms, authorizes an exception to the restriction on carrying firearms for “…any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping….”  The operative word to pay attention to is “lawful.”  Bowhunters in Washington State are regulated by rules promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Commission.  Those rules are specific to bowhunters who choose to purchase a Washington State license to hunt big game with archery tackle.  The commission has delegated authority from the legislature to adopt rules governing the time, place and manner of lawful hunting activity.  Those rules can be as restrictive or as relaxed as they deem appropriate to the species hunted.

 

The commission has always been concerned about the potential for individual bowhunters to use a sidearm to unlawfully kill big game.  Knowing that individuals with concealed pistol licenses (CPL) are thoroughly vetted through a criminal background history check, the commission has a high level of confidence that CPL holders will not wish to jeopardize their license.  There is no such assurance with the general hunter who does not possess a CPL.

 

You should also know that representatives of the bowhunting community—not WDFW staff—are the ones that proposed this regulation to the Fish and Wildlife Commission and they are the ones that sought to distinguish between CPL holders and non-CPL holding archers.

 

Mik Mikitik

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Enforcement Program

Hunter Education Division


 

[Machias]

Honestly, if you are a leader of the bowhunting community and you pushed for this because YOU believe the average bowhunter cannot be trusted to be lawful, you should resign immediately, you don't deserve to be a voice for the bowhunting community! IMO!!

[boneaddict]

First of all, at least they responded.  Thats better than most.   and I agree Machias.

[Gobble]

Honestly, if you are a leader of the bowhunting community and you pushed for this because YOU believe the average bowhunter cannot be trusted to be lawful, you should resign immediately, you don't deserve to be a voice for the bowhunting community! IMO!! 

+1 


I have to say that a good portion of the "Bowhunting Community" aka special groups are a bunch of elitist a$$holes IMO and I'm not talking about people here, just some of the organizations. To think that someone is going to shoot a animal because they don't have a CWP is just plain stupid 
And I bowhunt!!!!

[oneezreiter]

I agree that it is pretty dumb to require a CPL but I can see how it would make it an easier sell.  At least it is a step in the right direction.  Now we just have to get them to change the wording.  I am a bit of an optimist though.

[rainshadow1]

So... get a Consealed Permit... How is this a problem?

[Machias]

So... get a Consealed Permit... How is this a problem?

It's not a problem Steve, except no one else out in the woods at the same time is required to have one.  Hikers, bikers, fishermen, berry pickers, horse and mule riders, everyone can have a loaded weapon (CONCEALED) and they do not need a CPL, but a bow hunter or muzzleloader carrying in plain view needs a CPL.  This doesn't bother you?

[JoshT]

It's not a problem Steve, except no one else out in the woods at the same time is required to have one.  Hikers, bikers, fishermen, berry pickers, horse and mule riders, everyone can have a loaded weapon (CONCEALED) and they do not need a CPL, but a bow hunter or muzzleloader carrying in plain view needs a CPL.  This doesn't bother you?

No one else in the woods has a valid tag for the harvest of a big game animal either. Again... I guess it's a necessary compromise. Because someone has a CPL... they can't tell them where and when they can pack... so my guess is: they made an effort to appease those CPL holding bowhunters and MZ hunters... because they basically had to (public land, so you can't discriminate against the carrying of a pistol). But, they also wanted to compromise the integrety of the season for archers and MZ hunters as little as possible... hence the CPL requirement.

This is the exact thought process I originally predicted... though it is pretty lame to think that just because a person has a CPL... somehow they're of higher moral fiber than the average non-CPL holding bowhunter. I understand that this change has you befuddled... but I think it's better than a stick in the eye... if you want to carry a sidearm... get a CPL and quit bitching. If you're just looking to make a stink over the fact that you don't like the way the change is worded or explained... then you've done a pretty good job.

As for you're lovely anecdote about the biker, fisherman, berry picker, and bowhunter (on the other post about the same subject)... I've thought about that too. I've come to the conclusion that the archer gets the violation because he/she has willfully given up their right to carry a firearm and place restrictions upon themselves with the purchase of the tag... the fisherman, biker, and berry picker did not agree to these terms... so they're not held to them. All this seems like a valid compromise to me.

[Machias]

Actually what befuddles me JoshT is sheeple like yourself who don't get fired up over  like this, you just roll over and ask to be pounded some more.

[JoshT]

It's not BS...

If you hunted with a MZ or bow last year... you couldn't even have a gun in the truck, let alone on your person. This is a violation of my right to carry a pistol under the conditions of my CPL... regardless of what the game rules say. So, they had to make the concession in the game regulations to CPL holders because this is a "Must Issue" state.... and they can't restrict your rights to carry in areas that are out of their control. But, they didn't have to make the same concession to other hunters who don't have a CPL, because their rights to carry aren't protected at the same level as the CPL holders... hence the way it's written.

I don't like the way the letter was worded, or the way they use the CPL checking process to assign higher morals to the CPL holder... but the regulation makes sense to me. YOU PUT THE RESTRICTIONS ON YOURSELF BY PURCHASING A BOW OR MZ TAG... YOU, NOT ANYONE ELSE.

[Machias]

JoshT are you a bowhunter?  Muzzleloader?

[gottatree]

If this does not make everybody pissed off that reads this response, we will never get the WDFW to hear us. We will continue to loose more and more every year After reading the new regs the department just screwed me out of a lot of money. I went back to N. Dakota and purchased two hounds to run Yotes and they outlawed it this year. Never heard about this rule change!!!!!!! Anybody want to buy two coyote dogs??

[Machias]

Sorry to hear that for you gottatree.  Are you aware of the reasoning for the outlawing of hunting coyotes with dogs?

[JoshT]

What difference does it make? I'm a law abiding CPL holder... I can carry a pistol whenever and wherever I want (within the law)... game regulations can not restrict that right. A bow or mz tag can... but my CPL superceeds those restrictions... and that was the concession made in the game regs.

Pretty simple if you look at it from that perspective. I don't understand what you're so worked up about... this isn't a restriction of your rights... if not for this concession, the regulation would be in violation of my rights as a CPL holder. The WDFW realized this, and made the appropriate changes... that's all. It is not an attack on bow or mz hunters... but rather a correction to the established regulation that ammends a wrong done to CPL holders (although I can see how you view it as such, particularly the way the letter from the WDFW was worded).

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match here... and I hate the fact that we have any restrictions and regulations on the possestion and carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens. I can, do, and will fight any thing that I view as an attack on those rights... but I don't see this as a violation... rather I see this as the proper ammendment to make.

[whacker1]

I see both arguments and will for now get a Concealed Weapon Permit.