I hate to open this can again but.....

[vandeman17]

My thoughts follow.

First, there is no confirmation that baiting will be banned or restricted. Until a formal proposal is presented and enacted, it’s speculation at this time.

The argument “hunters are our own worst enemy” seems to be the position held by both sides in this argument. Those opposed to baiting imply that allowing it to remain legal hurts the image of hunting, while those who support it believe that all legal hunting methods should be supported by all hunters.

My unfounded suspicion is that that arguments put forth to WDFW by those opposed to baiting were (a) greater in number, and (b) better constructed than those in favor of allowing it to remain legal. Lots of members on here posted about why baiting should remain legal, but very few probably took the time to compose well-written letters to WDFW in favor of keeping it legal.

My gripe is why we have to keep fighting to keep everything legal? When was the last time something was taken away and given back? No matter how hard you fight, all they want to do is continue to take take take but never restore or add options. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that they have made legal recently is lighted nocks. Wooptie doo.

[Bob33]

My gripe is why we have to keep fighting to keep everything legal?

I think you know the answer to that? Hunters are less than five percent of our population, and a divided group at that. The antis are often better organized and willing to fight for their cause.

[vandeman17]

My gripe is why we have to keep fighting to keep everything legal?

I think you know the answer to that? Hunters are less than five percent of our population, and a divided group at that. The antis are often better organized and willing to fight for their cause.

I am just not convinced that the anti's would be behind this because I don't think the majority know about it. I think it is coming from inside the hunting community, of which it is those that don't agree with it or don't think it is ethical. I could be completely wrong but that is just my thought at this time. I guess only time will tell

[buckfvr]

Unofficial word is its a fore gone conclusion, and has been.......only thing undecided is the scope of the ban...........last I heard.

AND.....if thats not the case, Ill be pleasantly surprised.  Shocked, actually.

[curlewkiller]

I am no I594, but where do you read this ins the proposal?

No surprise. So no baiting deer and due to I-594, no hunting allowed by people under 18. 

Yep, just about time to quit hunting this state altogether.

[PolarBear]

My sister in law is one of those granola munching hippies who does a ton of cross country hiking. She supports hunting but has conplained to me on numerous times about coming across baiting sites and the mess that some of them leave. Also, certain types of hay can introduce non native or invasive weeds pr plant seeds. I know that when I was doing a lot of back country hunting we could only pack in certified weed free hay for our horses.

[vandeman17]

My sister in law is one of those granola munching hippies who does a ton of cross country hiking. She supports hunting but has conplained to me on numerous times about coming across baiting sites and the mess that some of them leave. Also, certain types of hay can introduce non native or invasive weeds pr plant seeds. I know that when I was doing a lot of back country hunting we could only pack in certified weed free hay for our horses.

I could support having restrictions on type of bait used depending on locations and all that. Again, if the limitations and restrictions enacted were strictly to aid in herd health and environmental concerns then let's set defined regulations and stand by them

[buckfvr]

My sister in law is one of those granola munching hippies who does a ton of cross country hiking. She supports hunting but has conplained to me on numerous times about coming across baiting sites and the mess that some of them leave. Also, certain types of hay can introduce non native or invasive weeds pr plant seeds. I know that when I was doing a lot of back country hunting we could only pack in certified weed free hay for our horses.

I could support having restrictions on type of bait used depending on locations and all that. Again, if the limitations and restrictions enacted were strictly to aid in herd health and environmental concerns then let's set defined regulations and stand by them

With out an independent scientific study, you'd be at their mercy..........besides, it has nothing to do with herd health and enviro issues................neither did banning  bear baiting.

My money says wdfw has already had a meeting to discuss how much citation revenue they can generate from a baiting ban..................

[pianoman9701]

I am no I594, but where do you read this ins the proposal?

No surprise. So no baiting deer and due to I-594, no hunting allowed by people under 18. 

Yep, just about time to quit hunting this state altogether.

The wording seems to contradict itself. In section iv it says "...under the direct supervision and control of an adult.". But then in section V, it says ...if they hold the correct licenses, etc. It also says they can only possess the firearm in the place where the hunting is legal, so I wouldn't be able to give it to them at home or somewhere else to practice with it unless at an established range.

Under the exceptions:

"...(iv) to a person who
is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all
training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,
provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is
permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or"

[Bob33]

v and vi are separated by "or", not "and". Meeting either condition should suffice.

[JimmyHoffa]

I am no I594, but where do you read this ins the proposal?

No surprise. So no baiting deer and due to I-594, no hunting allowed by people under 18. 

Yep, just about time to quit hunting this state altogether.

The wording seems to contradict itself. In section iv it says "...under the direct supervision and control of an adult.". But then in section V, it says ...if they hold the correct licenses, etc. It also says they can only possess the firearm in the place where the hunting is legal, so I wouldn't be able to give it to them at home or somewhere else to practice with it unless at an established range.

Under the exceptions:

"...(iv) to a person who
is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all
training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,
provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is
permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or"

Devil in the details....and the court interpretation.  Like Boldt.... (just example--not thread jack  )
I guess while it is being figured out and if you want to play the safe side, you could get a kid an inline muzzy w/209 and a scope for the modern season.

[pianoman9701]

v and vi are separated by "or", not "and". Meeting either condition should suffice.

Yes, that's how I read it. It took me twenty times or so to get there, though.

[curlewkiller]

So my son who is 15 could hunt by himself on our property with our family's 30-30?  I am sorry I am not a lawyer....

edit: I have license and hunter's safety card and my son does as well....My 30-30 will not be licensed.

v and vi are separated by "or", not "and". Meeting either condition should suffice.

[Bob33]

So my son who is 15 could hunt by himself on our property with our family's 30-30?  I am sorry I am not a lawyer....

v and vi are separated by "or", not "and". Meeting either condition should suffice.

I believe so.

[bobcat]

The way I read it is a person under 18 has to be under the direct control and supervision of an adult. So, for example, I couldn't put my older daughter in a ground blind and sit in another ground blind 200 yards away with my younger daughter.