WDFW: Proposed 2014 Big Game Hunting Changes

[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.