Response and reply to my WDFW letter (new email)

[Kain]

Mr. Mikitik,

Thank you for your response.  I have included your response and have added my comments to each paragraph in  bold.  My original email and your response are also included below.


On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Wildthing (DFW) <Wildthing.Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov> wrote:

"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."

I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Officers have an impossible job when it comes to enforcement of our hunting and fishing regulations.  All hunters that I know would love to see more resources going towards enforcement.  It doesnt matter how many regulations the WDFW imposes, good or bad, if there is no enforcement.  I have taken the C.O.R.T. certification and will continue to do all I can to let WDFW management and state legislature know how important our officers are to wildlife management and our hunting future.  We are all on the same side.


"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 statement above is true as I understand the law.  The problem with it is that it would only apply to carrying concealed without a CPL.  Something that our elected state legislature has deemed acceptable while hunting.  The WDFW has the authority to impose whatever restrictions they want on archery big game tags to make using them a "lawful" outdoor activity.  I do not think this means forcing a citizen to surrender their rights that are guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution. 

          Washington State constitution, SECTION 24 "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

The operative words to pay attention to is "shall not be impaired".  A citizen of this state is not required to have a CPL to carry a weapon, in defense of himself, openly.  The "because we can" attitude I see coming from WDFW on this issue is awful.  Eliminating the right to carry concealed while enjoying the outdoors provided to citizen through RCW 9.41.060(, with a loophole, to just two minority hunting groups is very disturbing to say the least.  A CPL has nothing to do with the wildlife management or hunter safety and should not be a concern of the WDFW.  If it did, the WDFW would be requiring all hunter groups and other outdoor users to have one.  I mean a fisherman might shoot a sea lion if he has a concealed weapon.  A modern firearms hunter might use his stub nose revolver to shoot a deer if he is carrying without a CPL.  The excuse that CPL holders are some how more law abiding citizens is ridiculous.

"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."

The commissions concern is already addressed by the rule says:  "Modern handguns cannot be used to hunt big game or dispatch wounded big game during an archery, big game hunting season."  Imposing another level of restrictions on us is not only redundant it is insulting.  I am a citizen of this state and I am tired of being treated like I am some potential criminal.  Unless your officers are going to frisk all archery and muzzleload hunter this new rule is also almost impossible to enforce except for those who are carrying openly.  As I have said above carrying openly for protection is a right guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution and "shall not be impaired".
 
"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."

I dont know who these "representatives" are but I did not vote for them and they do not represent me or anyone in my family.  I would like to know who they are and what kind relationship they have with WDFW that gives them such clout within a government organization.  This rule change was added last minute after the on-line survey that WDFW put on.  If it had been part of the original rule change I'm sure you would have seen a more diverse opinion on this than just some pet organization.  WDFW's recent effort to involve the public in their drafting of the new hunting regulations is a wonderful thing.  I would hate to see my complaint have any adverse effect on future collaborations with the public.  At the same time I would hate to see WDFW use the recommendations of a few hunters override the majority.  I would also like to think that the WDFW would make sure that any rules they adopt are for the management of wildlife and hunter and public safety and not to promote some political agenda and most of all do not contradict or impair state law or the constitutions of the state of Washington and the United States.

Thank you for your time and I hope that you can forward these concerns to the people with the authority to change this unconstitutional rule.

Sincerely,
Naithan Kain




Wildthing (DFW) to me
show details 8:17 AM
   
Reply

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

(360) 902-8408


from   Naithan Kain <naithankain@gmail.com>
to   commission@dfw.wa.gov,
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov,
director@dfw.wa.gov,
turcocmt@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamSpokane@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamEphrata@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamYakima@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamMillCreek@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamVancouver@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamMontesano@dfw.wa.gov
date   Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:00 PM
subject   Complaint on the new CPL requirment.
mailed-by   gmail.com
hide details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
   
Reply

Explanation of complaint:
My Complaint is with the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife.  They recently made a change in the hunting regulations.  They are now requiring a concealed pistol license (CPL) to carry a pistol for personal protection while hunting during an archery or muzzleloader season.  My complaint is that this requirement is in violation of my rights as stated in the Washington State constitution, SECTION 24 "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

A citizen is not required to have a CPL to carry openly and according to RCW 9.41.060 a citizen is not required to have a CPL while engaging in a legal outdoor activity and carrying concealed.  My complaint is that the WDFW has created this rule not only in contradiction to the US and State constitutions and state law but has unfairly targeted archery and muzzleload hunters rights while not making the same requirement of modern firearm hunters and fisherman.  I am a legal  citizen of Washington and the United States and have no criminal history.
Thank you for your action on this matter

Naithan M. Kain

[JoshT]

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.

Wait for it..... ahhhhhh, wait for it........ TOLD YOU!!! 

Just messin' with you Kain... you know how I feel about the subject... but this is the exact line of reasoning that I was following in defense of this proposition. Notice that RCW 9.41.060 is only an adendum to the "lawful outdoor activity" part of the clause... they could do nothing about the CPL holder, so they had to allow it... just as I suspected.

[Kain]

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.

Wait for it..... ahhhhhh, wait for it........ TOLD YOU!!! 

Just messin' with you Kain... you know how I feel about the subject... but this is the exact line of reasoning that I was following in defense of this proposition. Notice that RCW 9.41.060 is only an adendum to the "lawful outdoor activity" part of the clause... they could do nothing about the CPL holder, so they had to allow it... just as I suspected.

  yeah I said you right on the "lawful outdoor activity" part.  It is the carrying openly that they are in violation.  I still dont know why you think a CPL gives you more right to carry openly than non-CPL citizen?  But we have exhausted that discussion.  I posted this so others might get involved as well.  A CPL is a good thing to have, but for the WDFW to decide that they can make it so you have to have one for reasons that have nothing to do with wildlife management or hunter safety is just wrong IMHO.

[JoshT]

I hear you... slippery slope on both sides.

[Kain]

Requiring a CPL to make it a lawful activity so it qualifies for not needing a CPL.    Only in government.   

[JoshT]

Requiring a CPL to make it a lawful activity so it qualifies for not needing a CPL.    Only in government.   

Classic... lmao!

[jackelope]

 

[Kain]

We are being good....so far.  Beside anyone who would quote some 'Tallica in their signature cant be all bad

[jackelope]

 

[Machias]

I'm.........not even going to comment.   

[Kain]

What do you guys think about archery and MZL hunters under the age of twenty-one not being able to carry for protection?  To get a CPL you have to be 21 and to carry a handgun while archery or MZL hunting you need a CPL concealed or not.  So an 18 year old cannot carry a handgun for protection while in the field archery or MZL hunting?  Seems wrong to me.  But if everyone is OK with this I guess there is nothing we can do.     I would hope no one ever needs to use their weapon to protect themselves from man or beast but can you imagine your 16 year old going to the next clear cut over and getting into trouble that might have been avoided if he had a handgun?     You can trust them with a rifle, shotgun or handgun (during modern firearms), MZL hunters could carry a black powder pistol but archers are just out of luck. 

 "Sorry kid that tweeker mugged you for your $1000 bow, $150 dollar camo, $200 dollar range finder, $100 boots, $200 bino's, that custom knife your gramps gave you and the keys to your car and house along with your wallet with your address and I.D. and left you miles in the woods.   And because you are a law abiding citizen he knew you would not have a gun on you."

Teenage archery hunters are gold mines.  Hope he can shoot that arrow good he only gets one.

[Snapshot]

For the record: The Washington Archery Coalition (WSAA, WSB & TBW) was asked about a year and a half ago by the Washington Muzzleloaders Association and the Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation if it would oppose a move to remove the restriction on sidearms for second amendment reasons. I polled TBW's membership and found a strong majority of them were not against the idea of the restriction going away. In fact many of them expressed safety concerns and said they liked the idea. I reported this to the Coalition. WSAA's polling showed similar results. The Coalition took a neutral position and testified that if people want the sidearm restriction to go away, then we weren't going to object. More recently we were asked if we cared whether a permit requirement was attached to it and we testified that it wasn't our fight in the first place and that we didn't care what the department decided to do.

Mik Mikitik is ignorant of the facts on the matter. His claim that bowhunting representatives pushed for the change is provocative and irresponsible (whether he intends it that way or not). Further, it is a matter of public record that the Commissioners asked for Enforcement’s input and opinion, and that, while they don’t set policy, Enforcement supported a permit requirement. It is also a matter of public record that organized bowhunting leadership told the Commission that because the Archery Coalition wasn’t who asked for the sidearm restriction to be removed in the first place that it didn’t care how it was done.

This simply wasn't the bowhunters' fight; bowhunting organizations didn't ask for it; they didn't push for it; the organizations told the department and the commission that however they chose to do deal with the issue was up to them.

Dale Sharp
TBW President

[Kain]

Interesting.  I dont know if it really matters if Mik is correct on who wanted the change or if it matters.  They made the changes they wanted to.  Sounds to me like they were looking for a scapegoat so they could make some restrictions.  The CPL requirement was added after the March 7th meeting.  They got someone that had a problem with it and jump on the chance to add some restrictions.  I sent an email about it after I saw the change but was told the time for public comment was over.

They had to give up the changes on bear season because of the amount of negative response about it.  If they were really concerned about bear population they would have kept at least some of the changes.  I saw a lot of negative comments on the cougar season changes but they went with them anyways claiming it was for management purposes.     I want to believe I can trust them and that they really care what us hunters think but will still make good decisions based on wildlife management needs.  But making rules based what is "socially unacceptable" and other nonsense makes me wonder.

[billythekidrock]

Again, I was at the meeting. Enforcement and the Legislature were the ones pushing for the CWP requirement.

[BULLZ-i]

OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS THE ARCHERY COMMUNITY HAS FINALLY GOTTON SOMECONCESSION IN THIER FAVOR IN REGUARDS TO NEW LAW CHANGES TO INCLUDE CONCEILED CARRY AND LETOFF RULE. (CLP IS A GOOD THING FOR SAFETY IMO)

 MAYBE IN THE FUTURE WE WILL SEE MECHANICAL BROADHEADS OR LIGHTED NOCKS.  ITEMS THAT WILL HELP TO RESPONSABLY AND HUMAINLY HARVEST THE ANIMALS IN A FASTER AND MORE PROFICIENT MANNER VERSUS POSSIBLE BAD HITS AND WOUNDED ANIMALS.

ALSO ON MY CHRISTMAS LIST IS LESS REDUCTION OF ARCHERY HUNTING GMU's AND SPECIAL TAGS.

(very sorry about the caps as I forgot, and didnt want to forget what i wante to say)