Is bear baiting the worst kept secret?

[headshot5]

I've seen some bare baiting on rivers. A few of them were pretty ugly. They should have kept it secret

Haha!   

[pianoman9701]

Bear baiting is poaching last time I checked.

Not true.  Killing a bear over bait is poaching...  Just baiting, while illegal is not poaching.   

OK. You're correct.

[Dbax129]

Just another thought...
County judge rules bear-baiting initiative unconstitutional
June 9, 2004

By LINDA BYRON / KING 5 News


SEATTLE, WA– Eight years ago, voters passed an initiative making it illegal to hunt bears using bait or dogs. Now that law may be in jeopardy.

A district court judge in Jefferson County says it's unconstitutional.

Does this mean it is once again legal to hunt bear using bait and hound?

The Department of Fish and Wildlife says no. This ruling comes from a district court with limited jurisdiction, but they do admit it will make prosecuting these cases much harder.


Game wardens say poaching is rampant in Washington's forests and some hunters boldly set out bait to lure in bears, then shooting them at close range.

"We find bear bait sites constantly," said Capt. Jay Webster, U.S. Forest Service. "It's a big problem… even though it's illegal. It's very effective."

Voters outlawed bear bait 8 years ago, also making it illegal to hunt bear and cougar with dogs.

Near Quinault last fall, officers raided a camp of about a dozen hunters, charging ten of them with bear baiting: Thomas Durham, James Durham, Christina Stannard, John West, Douglas Klamm, John Speleers, Burgess Drake, Craig Stevenson, Cory Johnson and Dale Steinhauer.

The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional.

"What's wrong with it is, it refers to both baiting bears, hunting bears with bait, and also tracking cougars with dogs or hunting cougars with dogs," said defense attorney Linda Callahan. "And that in itself is two subjects, so it violates the rule."

"Well, certainly in Jefferson County, I don't think the prosecutor will file any more cases," said defense attorney John Stanislay. "What it means outside of Jefferson County at this point I'm not sure."

KING 5 asked: "But if you were a defense attorney in a neighboring county with one of these cases, wouldn't you make this argument now?"

"I definitely would make the argument, but I would not advise my client to go hunting with bait," said Stanislay.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.

"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."

But the prosecutor in Jefferson County who handled the case said he will not prosecute bear baiting cases if they are brought in because he believes the court ruling is clear and he does not intend to appeal.

Supporters of the initiative are calling the judge's ruling outrageous saying that 63 percent of the voters wanted to ban bear bait hunting as well as hunting with hounds, and they are hoping the state will appeal eventually.

The Attorney General's Office is still deciding whether to appeal the ruling. Bear hunting season opens August 1.

[headshot5]

Just another thought...
County judge rules bear-baiting initiative unconstitutional
June 9, 2004

Yeah I-655 could be ruled unconstitutional as it violates  (Washington Constitution, Article II, Section 19).  The problem is the ruling has to be appealed/fought up to the State Supreme Court level in order to get it struck down.   Article II  section 19 reads "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."   

Other previous intiatives have been ruled unconstitutional using this argument.  So in effect, I-655 does violate the Washington Constitution as it addresses both baiting and running animals with hounds.  However, until it is challenged (I-655) it will be upheld. 

[Biggerhammer]

 

[KFhunter]

Would be nice if the whole thing was struck down, but I think we'd loose it again due to the lack of cohesion and funding to fight it.

[bigtex]

Bear baiting is poaching last time I checked.

Not true.  Killing a bear over bait is poaching...  Just baiting, while illegal is not poaching.   

That is per your definition. There is no actual legal definition of what "poaching" is in WA. It's all up to the individual. I know some who say simply violating a fish and wildlife offense makes you a poacher. So someone using a barbed hook in a barbless area is a poacher to some, even if they haven't caught anything.

[bobcat]

Poaching is killing animals out of season. In my book.

You shoot a deer one minute before legal hunting hours, that's a hunting violation. You didn't just poach a deer.

Same with baiting bears. Shoot a bear with the aid of some apples, during bear season, with a bear tag, you're not a poacher. It's like what someone else posted, it's about like exceeding the speed limit. Not by just 5 mph, but more like 10 over.

[bigtex]

Poaching is killing animals out of season. In my book.

You shoot a deer one minute before legal hunting hours, that's a hunting violation. You didn't just poach a deer.

Same with baiting bears. Shoot a bear with the aid of some apples, during bear season, with a bear tag, you're not a poacher. It's like what someone else posted, it's about like exceeding the speed limit. Not by just 5 mph, but more like 10 over.

And that's your interpretation.

WDFW's interpretation (note I said interpretation, because like I said, there is no legal definition in WA) is: "Poaching is the illegal taking or possession of game animals and fish, non-game, and protected, threatened, or endangered fish and wildlife species. Hunting deer/elk with the aid of a spotlight, closed season, closed area, possessing over the legal limits of fish or wildlife, killing of protected and endangered fish or wildlife, or destruction of critical habitat owned or controlled by WDFW are just a few examples."

So Bobcat for your examples which you say aren't poaching in your book, would be poaching in WDFW's book. And that's the problem right there, I could ask 10 people what poaching is to them, and I could get 10 different answers.

[bobcat]

Yes, I realize my definition will be different than the state's, and everybody else for that matter.

[BOWHUNTER45]

Poaching is killing animals out of season. In my book.

You shoot a deer one minute before legal hunting hours, that's a hunting violation. You didn't just poach a deer.

Same with baiting bears. Shoot a bear with the aid of some apples, during bear season, with a bear tag, you're not a poacher. It's like what someone else posted, it's about like exceeding the speed limit. Not by just 5 mph, but more like 10 over.

All I can say is I like your way of thinking  My definition of a poacher is one that hunts at night with the aid of light or hunts out of season and continues to take numerous animals ...that's a real poacher 

[dscubame]

Sounds like a good way to get 10 points, if a guy is so inclined.

[chester]

You don't get points for bear


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blacktail Sniper]

You don't get points for bear


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incorrect, points received can only be used for deer or elk permits, but can obtained for several violations, not just violations involving deer or elk.

[Mudman]

I wonder- if you hunt a apple tree is it illegal?  If ya hunt a berry patch or alfalfa field is it illegal?  Now what if you pick berries or apples and put them on a nearby gametrail is that illegal?  If you sit on a gutpile is that illegal? What if the wolves killed it and now you watch it is that illegal?  Where is the line?