No baiting bears law unconstitutional?

[Dbax129]

According to this article I read at least one judge in Jefferson county believes the law violates the states constitution 14th amendment of due process and fair notice.  Without too much legal mumbo, a law or initiative can only deal with one subject, and the initiative that bans baiting bears also bans hunting them with dogs....  Not sure what you all think about this, or if this is something worth pursuing to anybody, but it was interesting.

6/16/2004 9:57:00 AM
County judge finds bear-baiting initiative unconstitutional
By Luke George
Leader Staff Writer


A Jefferson County District Court judge dismissed violations of a state bear-baiting law, marking the first time in the law's eight-year existence it has been overturned.

"It's a fair hunt principle; baiting isn't fair play," said Craig Bartlett, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife public information officer. "The [court] decision will make enforcing the law more difficult in Jefferson County."

Judge Pro Tem Karen Gates Hildt found Initiative 655 unconstitutional in Jefferson County District Court on June 7 and dismissed three cases against hunters who were charged with using bait to attract and kill black bear.

WDFW officers investigated a hunting camp near Forks in West Jefferson County on Aug. 2, 2003, at the beginning of the bear-hunting season. The 12 hunters were allegedly attracting the bear with scent on their clothing and threw bread and honey on the ground. They hunted on foot and in tree stands with the bait below, according to court documents.

Three of the hunters were formally charged with a gross misdemeanor, but their cases were dismissed by Judge Hildt. Thomas Durham, owner of Sport Shack in Olympia and one of the three hunters, wrote that he had been baiting black bear for years and continued to do so after it became illegal, according to a handwritten statement to WDFW enforcement on Aug. 2, 2003.

The statewide voter-approved initiative passed in 1996. It restricts both black-bear hunting with bait, and using dogs to hunt black bear, cougar, bobcat or lynx. In 1997 the Thurston County Superior Court challenged the constitutionality of the just-passed law and upheld it in regard to the two subjects of baiting and hunting with dogs.

On one hand, the Washington State Constitution states "no bill shall embrace more than one subject." On the other, "using any bait to attract a bear to kill it, is illegal," WDFW's Bartlett said. "The bear-baiting law is still in effect, and it is our job to enforce the law in at least 38 counties."

WDFW investigates six to 12 cases of bear-baiting each year on the Olympic Peninsula. Only one or two cases per year are prosecuted statewide, according to the WDFW.

When the cases of hunters Thomas Durham, Craig Stevenson and Christina Stannard came to Jefferson County District Court, each of their defense lawyers filed affidavits of prejudice against Judge Mark Huth. According to court records, none of the defendants has been tried in Jefferson County. When Judge Huth is either asked to recuse himself or is unavailable to hear a case, Judge Hildt automatically takes the case, according to court procedures. Hildt then heard the hunting cases in a non-jury trial.

Port Townsend attorney Chuck Henry represented Durham. "It was a tactical decision I don't care to discuss," Henry said of the effort to have Judge Huth not hear the cases.

Defense attorney John Stanislay of Tumwater, representing Stevenson and Stannard, wouldn't comment on the affidavit of prejudice either. Stanislay did state that the initiative is restrictive in nature and must contain only one subject to be constitutional in Washington. Otherwise it violates the 14th amendment of due process and fair notice.

"Judge Hildt did an excellent job analyzing the law and making a decision," Stanislay said June 14.

"The two [initiative] subjects don't have to do with the same thing," Henry noted. "You can't tell which subject the public intended to enact" – restrictions against baiting or restrictions against hunting with dogs.

Contacted Monday, Judge Hildt and Durham both declined comment.

http://www.ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=9788

[gasman]

the article is dated "6/16/2004".

its old and nothing has been done, 

[norsepeak]

 

[popeshawnpaul]

Interesting.  I'm betting the county will appeal...

[Mike450r]

That is very old.  I remember it somewhat.  It was some of the guys that ran or worked at puget sound sports in Olympia I do believe.

They got their case thrown out.   The state didn't take it on because if they lose on appeal it becomes case law and baiting would once again be allowed.

The stance at that time was to pretty much allow it in Jefferson county since they knew what the outcome would be in Jefferson County court.

[bobcat]

"It's a fair hunt principle; baiting isn't fair play," said Craig Bartlett, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife public information officer.

I don't like that this WDFW employee stating his opinion as if it's a fact.   

[Knocker of rocks]

It appears as the Wa Supreme Court upheld the law on 9-29-2004 in case number 757798.

Do you really think that the law would continue to appear in the regs and to be enforced for ten years if it was found unconstitutional 

http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.casesummary&crt_itl_nu=A08&casenumber=757798&searchtype=aName&token=782EA4B8FD2C2BFDFF20E58EC8F9EC9C&dt=4B1A67DC2CCEE8C800F8CC051CDF283A&courtClassCode=A&casekey=12668724&courtname=Supreme Court

[bobcat]

Knocker of Rocks, so does that mean the three people ended up being convicted of baiting bears?

[Knocker of rocks]

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.  I just put in Thomas Durham's name and court cases in Grays Harbor Co and Supreme Court showed up, and it says the Supreme Court "terminated review" which seems to indicate that the law was constitutional.

Grays Harbor Court system is a little less accessable by the internet by members of the general public than say King County.

[oldschooltrucks]

I don't understand how we can use deer scents to hunt deer but can't do the same with bear.  I bought a bear attractor scent and then was told I can't use it bc it's considered baiting. 

[bobcat]

Well, because the voters of this state didn't vote to make baiting deer illegal. But I'm sure they would if given the chance.

[oldschooltrucks]

Well, because the voters of this state didn't vote to make baiting deer illegal. But I'm sure they would if given the chance.

They probably would given the chance.  Being from the Midwest, I don't agree with a lot of this states attempt to rob us hunters in hunting fees and hunting violations in the 150 page regs book. 

[steeleywhopper]

Lets be careful what we talk about here. The do-gooders screwed us on the bear hunting and this deer talk might just be another avenue for them to put the wood to us again. If you don't like bait then don't do it.

[deaner]

Well, because the voters of this state didn't vote to make baiting deer illegal. But I'm sure they would if given the chance.

i have word from a reputable source that banning baiting for deer / elk is in the works and should come into place in next couple years.  seems that part of the reason is that there are outfitters who will literally dump truckloads of apples to bait deer into their leases, and the animals move off public land nearby the bait site and just hang out on the lease land.

[DoubleJ]

So, a deer hunter plants an apple tree and dumps a bunch of apples under it and claims they fell off the tree and are natural.

Or they have a current food plot with clover and sugar beets.  The hunter stops tending to the plots since baiting is illegal.  Is that still baiting since it was put there years prior to attract deer or is it considered part of the natural environment?

What about hunting in an alfalfa field?

Seems hard to prosecute effectively.