There's no such thing as a stupid question, right? Tagging requirements?

[6.8mmARHunter]

So, assuming I do end up shooting a bear...

I walk up to the thing, it's indeed dead. I have the transport tag in my pocket. What are the attachment requirement? Do I tie the tag around it's rear right picky claw, through it's nostrils, or crumple it up and stick in its ear? I searched through the regs and couldn't find anything. What if I end up bone'ing it out? What if I'm packing the hide and quarters out separately, should the tag stay with the hide or carcass? Should

If there is anything in the regs, could you point me to it? Any guidance would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.


sam

[dreamunelk]

Attach it were ever you want.  When boned attach to largest portion and leave there until processed. 

[JLS]

Tag goes with the biggest portion of meat, or if it's quartered choose one.  Sticking it in the ear sounds like a good way to lose it and have some explaining to do to the game warden.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Take a look on page 79 in the regs, "Tagging and Transporting Game." 

[6.8mmARHunter]

Or (in retrospect), I could have looked at the actual tag and read the instructions printed right on it - to see that I have to cut out the month and day... and attach the tag to the largest part of the carcass as pointed out by Blacktail Sniper's suggestion to look at page 79 of the regs...

I knew I'd seen the Tagging and Transport paragraphs before.

[billythekidrock]

I used to tie them to the jaw or snout and put the tag in the mouth until enforcement told me that was not allowed and that the tag was supposed to be visible.

[Hunter mike]

So if the tag has to be visible, what happens if you have the meat in a game bag (boned out)?

[madmack76]

i have always tied to a horn on deer and elk or tied to a leg on others.

[Bob33]

There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Copied from the regs, pg 79:

1. Tag Your Big Game Immediately:
Immediately after any big game animal
has been killed, the appropriate tag of
the person who has taken the animal
must be:
••Validated: Cut out and completely
remove the month and day of kill.
Month and day must be completely
removed. A slit is not acceptable.
••Securely attached to the carcass in a
visible manner.

I would have thought, tied to the jaw and in mouth, with it taped shut so you didn't loose it would be good, apparently not though.

[Bob33]

There are two pertinent WACs.

WAC 232-12-061 addresses tagging.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-061

WAC 232-12-267 addresses transport.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-267

If anyone can find a requirement in the WACs that the tag must be visible, I will stand corrected.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Now that is interesting, thanks for digging that out.

[Jonathan_S]

There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.

I got torn a new one for having a bear hanging with a tag and the whole thing was in a giant game bag.  He said, "it has to be where I can see it"

[Bob33]

There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.

I got torn a new one for having a bear hanging with a tag and the whole thing was in a giant game bag.  He said, "it has to be where I can see it"

Ask him to quote the WAC. I do not believe there is one.

[Jonathan_S]

There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.

I got torn a new one for having a bear hanging with a tag and the whole thing was in a giant game bag.  He said, "it has to be where I can see it"

Ask him to quote the WAC. I do not believe there is one.

  Bob, I didn't mean that argumentatively I just meant that there is definitely a modicum of confusion or at least difference in opinions with the LEOs out there.

I was only nineteen and didn't have much of a leg to stand on with him.  He also told me that I better have a good story for the doe in camp.  It was an antlerless tag my Dad drew for the same unit he was patrolling that he didn't know about. he had to eat a little bit of crow.

[pd]

There are two pertinent WACs.

WAC 232-12-061 addresses tagging.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-061

WAC 232-12-267 addresses transport.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-267

If anyone can find a requirement in the WACs that the tag must be visible, I will stand corrected.

Three cheers for Bob on this one. 

[CedarPants]

Just out of curiosity - what purpose is served by placing the tag somewhere it's not visible?

Honest question, as it's never crossed my mind to do that

[snowpack]

Just out of curiosity - what purpose is served by placing the tag somewhere it's not visible?

Honest question, as it's never crossed my mind to do that

Doesn't get torn off by brush...then you get accused of hunting without a tag, or have to backtrack looking for the lost tag or if you have a hunting partner use their tag.
For bears I attach to largest portion of meat, but the meat is in the game bag with the tag near the top.  All I have to do is open the bag.  For antlered animals I like the clear bags and wrap up with a ton a tape.  You can still see the tag through the bag but it won't get torn off during the pack out.

[bankwalker]

Just out of curiosity - what purpose is served by placing the tag somewhere it's not visible?

Honest question, as it's never crossed my mind to do that

I would place the tag in the mouth hidden from sight if I was packing quarters out and leaving the head/hide for last trip. In case someone tries to steal my game I could call enforcement and prove that it in fact was my game.

I carry card or 2 with my name address etc for this purpose now though. I have had to walk miles in heavily hunted areas tp get my truck after shooting a deer. And its always a fear of mine someone would see me leave my kill for extended period of time.

[luvmystang67]

Just out of curiosity - what purpose is served by placing the tag somewhere it's not visible?

Honest question, as it's never crossed my mind to do that

I would place the tag in the mouth hidden from sight if I was packing quarters out and leaving the head/hide for last trip. In case someone tries to steal my game I could call enforcement and prove that it in fact was my game.

I carry card or 2 with my name address etc for this purpose now though. I have had to walk miles in heavily hunted areas tp get my truck after shooting a deer. And its always a fear of mine someone would see me leave my kill for extended period of time.

I know its sad, but I second this reason.  Also on something like an elk kill at dusk, if you have to skin it out partially and get the rest in the morning, we always hide the tag on the animal.  During combat hunting, elk modern season, this is a real concern. 

[CedarPants]

Cool, thanks guys.

Didn't mean to get off topic 

[Bob33]

There is no legal requirement for the tag to be visible.

I got torn a new one for having a bear hanging with a tag and the whole thing was in a giant game bag.  He said, "it has to be where I can see it"

Ask him to quote the WAC. I do not believe there is one.

  Bob, I didn't mean that argumentatively I just meant that there is definitely a modicum of confusion or at least difference in opinions with the LEOs out there.

I was only nineteen and didn't have much of a leg to stand on with him.  He also told me that I better have a good story for the doe in camp.  It was an antlerless tag my Dad drew for the same unit he was patrolling that he didn't know about. he had to eat a little bit of crow.

I didn’t take it offensively at all.

With all due respect, there are far too many WACs, RCWs, and policies for even the brightest of the brightest enforcement officer to remember each of them. Furthermore, they change from time to time. Simply put, officers can make mistakes. I like to believe the vast majority are not intentional, but regardless – they make mistakes.

If an officer asked me to make a tag visible, and I had no good reason not to, I would most likely comply. If I had a valid reason I would respectfully question the officer to cite the specific law. If I was cited I would most certainly fight it.

I don’t know where the idea that a tag must be visible came from. Perhaps it was in a WAC that changed at some point in the past. It’s interesting to see that language in the big game pamphlet. As we know, and as is freely acknowledged the pamphlets are a rewritten synopsis of actual laws, and are not necessarily complete and accurate. I can point out several things in the 2013 big game pamphlet that are not correct.

[BsB]

I saw and read the WAC's, so the writing in the regs has no legal authority? Just looks good on paper?

"Securely attached to the carcass in a VISIBLE manner."


I just realized blacktailsniper already stated this. Doh.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[bobcat]

I saw and read the WAC's, so the writing in the regs has no legal authority? Just looks good on paper?

Yes, pretty much. Look on page 11. They have a "disclaimer" there. Titled "WAC Summary Information."

[Bob33]

"I saw and read the WAC's, so the writing in the regs has no legal authority? Just looks good on paper?"

The pamphlet has no legal authority. You will not be cited for a "violation of page 79." There must be a WAC or RCW.

[Blacktail Sniper]

"I saw and read the WAC's, so the writing in the regs has no legal authority? Just looks good on paper?"

The pamphlet has no legal authority. You will not be cited for a "violation of page 79." There must be a WAC or RCW.

True!

[jackmaster]

stuff it in the bears mouth and lashe it closed... all will be fine and dandy

[Mike450r]

If it is not in a WAC or RCW it is a usually a recommendation.  It could have been made case law by a court decision and not be in a WAC or RCW but I doubt it.

[Bob33]

Page 78 of the Big Game pamphlet refers to “Prohibited Hunting Methods.” One of the prohibited hunting methods reads as follows:

6. Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.

That sounds black and white, doesn’t it?

However, when you read the RCW you will find that it is not entirely so.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx? cite=77.15.460

“A person is guilty of unlawful use of a loaded firearm if the person negligently discharges a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway.”

Do you see word negligently in the pamphlet? No.

When someone says it is (always) illegal to discharge a firearm from a public highway, he is incorrect, but reading the pamphlet alone one would reach that conclusion.

[CedarPants]

Do they define a "public highway" anywhere? 

[Blacktail Sniper]

Do they define a "public highway" anywhere?

Looks like number 11 covers it:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.010

[xd2005]

Are logging roads "public highways?"

[SilkOnTheDrySide]

I've generally always hated the transport rule with deer. Cape it out, with cape and tagged antlers, four quartered and skinned sections. Why do I need to leave the penis attached? It seems such a strange requirement..

[6.8mmARHunter]

Page 78 of the Big Game pamphlet refers to “Prohibited Hunting Methods.” One of the prohibited hunting methods reads as follows:

6. Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.

That sounds black and white, doesn’t it?

However, when you read the RCW you will find that it is not entirely so.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx? cite=77.15.460

“A person is guilty of unlawful use of a loaded firearm if the person negligently discharges a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway.”

Do you see word negligently in the pamphlet? No.

When someone says it is (always) illegal to discharge a firearm from a public highway, he is incorrect, but reading the pamphlet alone one would reach that conclusion.

So, hypothetically, you could be driving along, see a bear in a clearcut off the side of the road, stop your vehicle, get out, load your weapon, then while firing from the road, harvest your bear. You could argue that your shot was not negligent. You could argue that the shot was calculated, planned, and executed with the utmost precision an safety in mind. Hence not negligent. So legally, you could shoot and kill your bear from a road. Hypothecally.

[snowpack]

Page 78 of the Big Game pamphlet refers to “Prohibited Hunting Methods.” One of the prohibited hunting methods reads as follows:

6. Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.

That sounds black and white, doesn’t it?

However, when you read the RCW you will find that it is not entirely so.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx? cite=77.15.460

“A person is guilty of unlawful use of a loaded firearm if the person negligently discharges a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway.”

Do you see word negligently in the pamphlet? No.

When someone says it is (always) illegal to discharge a firearm from a public highway, he is incorrect, but reading the pamphlet alone one would reach that conclusion.

So, hypothetically, you could be driving along, see a bear in a clearcut off the side of the road, stop your vehicle, get out, load your weapon, then while firing from the road, harvest your bear. You could argue that your shot was not negligent. You could argue that the shot was calculated, planned, and executed with the utmost precision an safety in mind. Hence not negligent. So legally, you could shoot and kill your bear from a road. Hypothecally.

That's how I'm reading it too.  Like they knew the law, but decided to go a little further when they wrote the regs.  Probably because they didn't want to think about how to define 'negligently'.

[Bob33]

"So, hypothetically, you could be driving along, see a bear in a clearcut off the side of the road, stop your vehicle, get out, load your weapon, then while firing from the road, harvest your bear. You could argue that your shot was not negligent. You could argue that the shot was calculated, planned, and executed with the utmost precision an safety in mind. Hence not negligent. So legally, you could shoot and kill your bear from a road. Hypothecally."

Absolutely. The officer and judge would need to be convinced that not only did you shoot from, across, or along a road, but that it was done negligently.

[pd]

Page 78 of the Big Game pamphlet refers to “Prohibited Hunting Methods.” One of the prohibited hunting methods reads as follows:

6. Discharging a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of any public highway, regardless of surface, is prohibited, except for hunters with disabilities in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.

That sounds black and white, doesn’t it?

However, when you read the RCW you will find that it is not entirely so.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx? cite=77.15.460

“A person is guilty of unlawful use of a loaded firearm if the person negligently discharges a firearm from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway.”

Do you see word negligently in the pamphlet? No.

When someone says it is (always) illegal to discharge a firearm from a public highway, he is incorrect, but reading the pamphlet alone one would reach that conclusion.

OK.  Four cheers for Bob. 

[bankwalker]

These types of discussions make my head hurt.

I'm glad we have members on this board who take the time to help clarify the laws.

[6.8mmARHunter]

"So, hypothetically, you could be driving along, see a bear in a clearcut off the side of the road, stop your vehicle, get out, load your weapon, then while firing from the road, harvest your bear. You could argue that your shot was not negligent. You could argue that the shot was calculated, planned, and executed with the utmost precision an safety in mind. Hence not negligent. So legally, you could shoot and kill your bear from a road. Hypothecally."

Absolutely. The officer and judge would need to be convinced that not only did you shoot from, across, or along a road, but that it was done negligently.

I wouldn't want to be the test case.

[BsB]

OK.  Four BEERS for Bob.

Fixed it for you.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Bob33]

 
(burp)

[Blacktail Sniper]

Are logging roads "public highways?"

If you are talking about Weyco and such type logging roads, I believe that #28 on that page covers those.

[CedarPants]

Do they define a "public highway" anywhere?

Looks like number 11 covers it:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.010

Thanks 

[billythekidrock]

Are logging roads "public highways?"

On state land = yes.
on private timberland = no.

[Rooster1981]

 I have always put the tag in the ear and tapped the ear shut with electrical tape. Many times I have been checked with a  animal tagged in the ear and was told thats the way they like it.