WDFW: Proposed 2014 Big Game Hunting Changes

[bearpaw]

WDFW: Proposed 2014 Big Game Hunting Changes

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2014/wsr_14-03-135.pdf

[bracer40]

For those with shortened attention spans, here's the simple email notice for the same info.

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

Feb. 27, 2014
Contacts:  Commission Office, (360) 902-2267

Commission to take public comments
on hunting proposals at Moses Lake meeting

OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will accept comments on proposed changes to state hunting rules for deer, elk, moose and other game species during a public meeting March 7-8 in Moses Lake.

The commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will convene at 8 a.m. Friday and 8:30 a.m. Saturday at the Moses Lake Civic Center, 401 S. Balsam St. in Moses Lake.

An agenda for the meeting is available on the commission's website at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/ .

On March 7, the commission will be briefed and take public comment on proposed changes to hunting rules for 2014. Those changes, available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html , include:

Reducing fees for multi-season deer permit holders; master hunters with special permits for deer or elk damage tags; special permit holders who purchase a second deer tag; and hunters who are issued damage prevention or kill permits for second deer tags.
Decreasing elk hunting permits by more than 400 in the Mount St. Helens area now that the elk population is more in balance with area habitat.
Boosting the number of antlerless elk hunting permits by 620 for the Colockum area, where the population exceeds management goals.
Streamlining the process for issuing hunters with disabilities special use permits, which enable them to use modified hunting equipment.
The commission is scheduled to consider adoption of all the proposals at its April 11-12 meeting in Olympia.

In other business, wildlife managers will update the commission March 8 on the steps the department took in 2013 to implement the state wolf conservation and management plan.

[bearpaw]

One thing that immediately caught my attention is the increase of Colockum antlerless tags. Are there too many elk in the Colockum?

Boosting the number of antlerless elk hunting permits by 620 for the Colockum area, where the population exceeds management goals.

[buglebuster]

Decreasing fees, I like that idea!

[bobcat]

One thing that immediately caught my attention is the increase of Colockum antlerless tags. Are there too many elk in the Colockum?

Probably not enough bulls so they need to kill a bunch of cows to get the bull to cow ratio back up.   

[LndShrk]

One thing that immediately caught my attention is the increase of Colockum antlerless tags. Are there too many elk in the Colockum?

Boosting the number of antlerless elk hunting permits by 620 for the Colockum area, where the population exceeds management goals.

Yes, and there is not enough meat in my freezer.   

They will most likely say it is an increase in opportunity for hunters.

[rackattack]

They must think the Yakima herd is way to big looking at the antlerless number increases.

[bearpaw]

There are some good changes for hunters with disabilities and it looks like increased goat permits and increased Master Hunter permits.

[ELKBURGER]

One thing that immediately caught my attention is the increase of Colockum antlerless tags. Are there too many elk in the Colockum?

Probably not enough bulls so they need to kill a bunch of cows to get the bull to cow ratio back up.   

At least they didn't propose transplanting a confirmed wolf pack into the Colockum......Oh crap, was that out loud?

[PAW66]

They have deleted:
WAC 232-12-828
(5)  It is unlawful for a hunter with a disability to shot from a motor vehicle, etc.

and (6) a follow ability to have a loaded firearm in in compliance with subsection (5)

This could impact some disabled hunters ability to participate in the harvest (shooting)  of animals.

[bearpaw]

They have deleted:
WAC 232-12-828
(5)  It is unlawful for a hunter with a disability to shot from a motor vehicle, etc.

and (6) a follow ability to have a loaded firearm in in compliance with subsection (5)

This could impact some disabled hunters ability to participate in the harvest (shooting)  of animals.

I certainly wouldn't want that to happen. They may have reworded it in a different area, you might check with Olympia to verify the end result of the language.

[bigtex]

They have deleted:
WAC 232-12-828
(5)  It is unlawful for a hunter with a disability to shot from a motor vehicle, etc.

and (6) a follow ability to have a loaded firearm in in compliance with subsection (5)

This could impact some disabled hunters ability to participate in the harvest (shooting)  of animals.

I certainly wouldn't want that to happen. They may have reworded it in a different area, you might check with Olympia to verify the end result of the language.

Bearpaw is correct. This topic is covered on page 1

Purpose of the proposal and its anticipated effects, including any changes in existing rules:

Several rules (232-12-047, 232-12-051, & 232-12-054) are recommended to be amended to delete exceptions for hunters with disabilities from equipment regulations. Exceptions instead will be combined in a new rule (232-12-819) and by amendment to an existing rule (232-12-828). We are recommending that the Department be allowed to issue special use permits to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with a disability. The Department also recommends a change to the definition of a hunter with a disability.

Reasons supporting proposal:
In the past, any time the Department wanted to change the types of equipment necessary for a disabled hunter to participate in an agency hunting program, we needed to have a rule changed to accommodate the request. These changes will allow the Department to issue special use permits as needed to make those accommodations.

In addition, this change will address a petition to the Commission to amend rules to allow scopes on crossbows used by hunters with disabilities and a complaint filed with the Department of Interior. The essence of the complaint was similar to the petition. Nearly all crossbows available on the market today include scopes and modifying them required relatively expensive conversion kits which invalidated the warrantee. Therefore the claim was that the Department was discriminating by creating an economic hardship in not allowing hunters with disabilities to use a crossbow equipped with a scope.

[bearpaw]

A disabled friend had input on the crossbow/scope issue, glad to see WDFW resolving this issue.

[kirkl]

They must think the Yakima herd is way to big looking at the antlerless number increases.

That's cause there was hardly any cows shot last year. I figured permits would go up this year after last years hunt.
I see there also bumping the September rifle hunts to 3 tags instead of 1.

[bigtex]

My concern (if you can call it that) has to do with the change to what a disabled person is, in regards to vision:

(2) "Blind" or "visually impaired" means:
(a) Blindness is a central visual acuity that does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye with corrective lenses, or the widest diameter of the visual field does not exceed twenty degrees; or
(b) Low vision is a severe loss of visual acuity ranging from 20/70 to 20/200 while retaining some visual function; or
(c) Visual impairments may include, but are not limited to: Albinism, aniridia, aphakia, cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration, or other similar diagnosed disease or disorder.

Subsection (a) is current law, (b) is new. I know a TON of people who would meet the "low vision" standard. I mean most people with contacts/glasses have vision between 20/70 and 20/200, so suddenly just about every person with contacts/glasses is now eligible to be defined as disabled?

[Bob33]

Subsection (a) is current law, (b) is new. I know a TON of people who would meet the "low vision" standard. I mean most people with contacts/glasses have vision between 20/70 and 20/200, so suddenly just about every person with contacts/glasses is now eligible to be defined as disabled?

That means they can sell more "Hunters with Disabilities" special permit applications. That can't possibly have been a part of their thinking, could it?

[bigtex]

Subsection (a) is current law, (b) is new. I know a TON of people who would meet the "low vision" standard. I mean most people with contacts/glasses have vision between 20/70 and 20/200, so suddenly just about every person with contacts/glasses is now eligible to be defined as disabled?

That means they can sell more "Hunters with Disabilities" special permit applications. That can't possibly have been a part of their thinking, could it?

Talk about a revenue loss. Basically every person with glasses/contacts could buy the big game combo for $46, more then 50% off. The combo fish license for disabled is $10 compared to the "regular" combo at $54....

[Bob33]

It makes no sense.

[bearpaw]

Someone needs to ask the commission about that vision issue!

[Elkaholic daWg]

Subsection (a) is current law, (b) is new. I know a TON of people who would meet the "low vision" standard. I mean most people with contacts/glasses have vision between 20/70 and 20/200, so suddenly just about every person with contacts/glasses is now eligible to be defined as disabled?

That means they can sell more "Hunters with Disabilities" special permit applications. That can't possibly have been a part of their thinking, could it?

 Never has been a special permit issue to be declared as disabled. Changing ?

[Bob33]

Subsection (a) is current law, (b) is new. I know a TON of people who would meet the "low vision" standard. I mean most people with contacts/glasses have vision between 20/70 and 20/200, so suddenly just about every person with contacts/glasses is now eligible to be defined as disabled?

That means they can sell more "Hunters with Disabilities" special permit applications. That can't possibly have been a part of their thinking, could it?

 Never has been a special permit issue to be declared as disabled. Changing ?

There are permits available only to hunters with disabilities.

[idahohuntr]

If your vision is corrected (e.g., glasses) such that it is better than 20/70 then you are not going to be eligible for disability permits because your corrected vision exceeds the standard.  If you are truly disabled such that your vision is 20/70 or worse (inclusive of correction) then you would be eligible.  The wording could be more clear.

They should add a section: d) Anybody who shows up to a wdfw office to get a disabled permit who has corrected vision or no real disability shall have their hunting privileges revoked for life...you would have to be a specail kind of scum bag to try and game disability laws. 

[bigtex]

If your vision is corrected (e.g., glasses) such that it is better than 20/70 then you are not going to be eligible for disability permits because your corrected vision exceeds the standard.  If you are truly disabled such that your vision is 20/70 or worse (inclusive of correction) then you would be eligible.  The wording could be more clear.

It doesn't say that in the proposed rule. The proposed rule states if you are between 20/70 and 20/200 you are disabled. It doesn't mention corrected or uncorrected.

If the rule is meant to include only corrected vision then it needs to state that. But as the rule is written, if you are between 20/70 and 20/200 you would meet the requirement of being disabled. WDFW has to go by what the law says and not what the law is meant to say.

[MarkyMark]

So to get this straight, if approved you can have terrible vision and be allowed to shoot from your vehicle. Give Mr. Magoo a gun and send him into the woods. Yikes!

[idahohuntr]

If your vision is corrected (e.g., glasses) such that it is better than 20/70 then you are not going to be eligible for disability permits because your corrected vision exceeds the standard.  If you are truly disabled such that your vision is 20/70 or worse (inclusive of correction) then you would be eligible.  The wording could be more clear.

It doesn't say that in the proposed rule. The proposed rule states if you are between 20/70 and 20/200 you are disabled. It doesn't mention corrected or uncorrected.

If the rule is meant to include only corrected vision then it needs to state that. But as the rule is written, if you are between 20/70 and 20/200 you would meet the requirement of being disabled. WDFW has to go by what the law says and not what the law is meant to say.

Yes, but if your vision is corrected what exactly is your disability?  Not saying they couldn't add corrective lenses to sub-section b, but I believe you no longer even fit the legal definition of disabled if your vision is corrected such that you do not have a visual impairment.  I could easily see the state defending that law (and its true intent) without any changes...however, your change would be helpful so no scumbags have any wiggle room.

[bigtex]

If your vision is corrected (e.g., glasses) such that it is better than 20/70 then you are not going to be eligible for disability permits because your corrected vision exceeds the standard.  If you are truly disabled such that your vision is 20/70 or worse (inclusive of correction) then you would be eligible.  The wording could be more clear.

It doesn't say that in the proposed rule. The proposed rule states if you are between 20/70 and 20/200 you are disabled. It doesn't mention corrected or uncorrected.

If the rule is meant to include only corrected vision then it needs to state that. But as the rule is written, if you are between 20/70 and 20/200 you would meet the requirement of being disabled. WDFW has to go by what the law says and not what the law is meant to say.

Yes, but if your vision is corrected what exactly is your disability?  Not saying they couldn't add corrective lenses to sub-section b, but I believe you no longer even fit the legal definition of disabled if your vision is corrected such that you do not have a visual impairment.  I could easily see the state defending that law (and its true intent) without any changes...however, your change would be helpful so no scumbags have any wiggle room.

It doesn't matter what the legal definition is of disabled in other laws. In order to be "disabled" for hunting and fishing you must meet the requirements under the WDFW approved WAC. The vision change I posted would be approved under the WAC. So you could be disabled for hunting and fishing purposes, but not disabled for other non-F&W things.

[WDFW Hates ME!!!]

And I believe you must be a vet rated as 30% service connected to be eligible for the reduced fishing and hunting licences.

[dreamingbig]

These proposals have been out for over a month.  Y'all missed the write in period.  Same story, money talks.  Increasing Yakima cow permits is absurd.  Little naches going from 250 to 500... Save some for the wolves???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rover758]

((Tip of the hat to bearpaw with my one good arm and sorry for jumping in late, but)) I do appreciate what the WDFW did for disabled hunters (to some degree) but someone needs to go in to their ADA department and clear house.  They returned my crossbow permit application because there was "insufficient" information.  Okay ... I am reasonable and I do understand there are those out there that don't "genuinely" need assistance and the process must have checks and balances.  But, my doctor put down what my surgery was and then read the words that said, something to the effect of, under his license to practice medicine he was verifying I met the conditions of the disability and he signed it.  The ADA department sent it back saying they wanted the complete nature of the injury, complete details of the surgery, and complete prognosis and measurement against industry standards.  They want a lot of personal information and I no protection of the privacy of my medical condition.  I saw my doctor this past Friday and gave him back the paperwork along with what the ADA department sent me.  Needless to say he was livid.  His first question to me was if the ADA department had a doctor on staff he could call.  Hey!  ADA department ... the good doc had to cut the deltoid off and repair tendons and cuff under it and then reattach it and if I ever pull more than 10 pounds again it'll probably blow out my shoulder and then my right arm will wither and die and be a useless stump.  Is that enough for you?  So ... WDFW please don't advertise all the good you're doing disabled hunters when this disabled hunter (yes ... I already have my "disabled hunter" orange card) feels like you've termed my and my respected surgeon liars.