OPPOSE ANY RESTRICTION ON BAITING - EMAIL TO WDFW

[Bob33]

WDFW has a responsibility to manage wildlife, and its constituency includes hunters and non hunters.

There is some indication that the majority of comments they received favored baiting restrictions. That is on hunters who did not speak up, not WDFW.

To suggest that regulations are based only  on "sound science" is a bit off the mark. There are plenty of regulations that are based on other factors such as safety (hunter orange, hunting at night, loaded firearm in vehicle, etc.), and restriction of harvest (use of night vision, hunting with artificial light, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc.) are two examples that science played little or no part in.

I don't believe that WDFW ignores comments from people that supports baiting.

Rather than only posting in Hunt WA about this and complaining about anyone who doesn't agree with you, you need to contact the Commission with logical arguments that support baiting.

[Wazukie]

 

Well said

[DBHAWTHORNE]

WDFW has a responsibility to manage wildlife, and its constituency includes hunters and non hunters.

There is some indication that the majority of comments they received favored baiting restrictions. That is on hunters who did not speak up, not WDFW.

To suggest that regulations are based only  on "sound science" is a bit off the mark. There are plenty of regulations that are based on other factors such as safety (hunter orange, hunting at night, loaded firearm in vehicle, etc.), and restriction of harvest (use of night vision, hunting with artificial light, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc.) are two examples that science played little or no part in.

I don't believe that WDFW ignores comments from people that supports baiting.

Rather than only posting in Hunt WA about this and complaining about anyone who doesn't agree with you, you need to contact the Commission with logical arguments that support baiting.

Bob I might agree with you if the didn't openly manipulate the data... they didn't even give us the full break out on all the questions and instead lumped anyone that opposed any type of restriction on baiting into one category.(which I said they would do as soon as the questions came out.. it was obvious right up front they were asking the questions the way they did so they could manipulate the data and pull any support they could away from those who support baiting)... They also diluted the data on both sides by giving the neutral option (which I honestly believe goes more in favor of those who bait if that option is excluded because most neutral hunters would not vote to restrict a method if push comes to shove)

 I have never been that guy that has a complete distaste for WDFW but now that I see their manipulation with this data I truly despise them... and now understand why many others do too.

While there are certainly people who support baiting that didn't speak up I would say that it wouldn't make a difference... this is an example of the majority pushing out the minority simply because it's not what they prefer... it is exactly how the anti-hunters have won in the past and it is exactly how you will see our hunting rights attacked in the future.

I agree that we all need to contact the commission.

[oldleclercrd]

WDFW has a responsibility to manage wildlife, and its constituency includes hunters and non hunters.

There is some indication that the majority of comments they received favored baiting restrictions. That is on hunters who did not speak up, not WDFW.

To suggest that regulations are based only  on "sound science" is a bit off the mark. There are plenty of regulations that are based on other factors such as safety (hunter orange, hunting at night, loaded firearm in vehicle, etc.), and restriction of harvest (use of night vision, hunting with artificial light, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc.) are two examples that science played little or no part in.

I don't believe that WDFW ignores comments from people that supports baiting.

Rather than only posting in Hunt WA about this and complaining about anyone who doesn't agree with you, you need to contact the Commission with logical arguments that support baiting.

If you think this is the only place talking about this topic then you don't go on FB. We are saying that we've sent emails/letters and encourage you to also do so. Just because more people have wrote in against baiting doesn't mean they have any science to back it up. If they want to manage the wildlife properly, they're barking up the wrong tree. 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

...another thing.... the value of coming on here and discussing this topic is that it will serve to unite at least those who do support and ensure they contact WDFW and it may serve to convince those who are neutral that they should assist their fellow hunters in supporting these rights.

As far as people who are against... I don't think any amount of debate will make a difference for them. They are siding with the anti's to attack our right so they have already made their minds up.

The no-scopes on muzzleloaders is only a restriction during that particular season but there is a season that you can choose to use scopes on muzzleloaders if you so choose.

All the rest of the things you bring up are safety issues... and I would argue that there is plenty of science and measurable data to support an increased risk to human life by having tons of hunters firing at night all over the state, or not wearing orange..... On a limited scale like a few coyote hunters you probably don't have much risk but if they were to allow it during deer season there would be frequently be accidents... you can't see what's beyond your target very well at night.. hence the safety issue.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

good grief.. I am too worked up and typing way too fast.. I am having to go back and edit too much stuff in my post! 

[Steve Jo]

You will not sway your opposition by harsh and confrontational language. 

Im not trying to sway their opinion, Im identifying them as who they are.
It stopped being a difference of opinion when my hunting rights were on the chopping block under their support.
It's the people who are the fence, it's their eyes I am trying to open.  Im not interested in popularity. You dont need to like me to do what is right here.

Referring to someone who does not agree 100% with you as and enemy will only hurt your cause.
Polarbear, as I said above, this is not a difference of opinion.  I am not asking anyone to agree with me 100%, Im asking you to support hunting because it is being threatened. 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Wake up, this is simple.  Support hunting.

[Turner89]

I have not baited personally, but you never know........I may want to in the future. I defiantly have no problem with it, and don't want anymore hunting rights taken away from us. I don't care what they are.   Thanks for posting, letter has been sent

[Steve Jo]

You may or may not  be aware that the use of attractants is under threat for deer and elk in Washington State.  The debate is centered around food as an attractant.

This is from the WDFW's website http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/98/Can+I+apply+deer%7B47%7Delk+urine%2C+beaver+musk%2C+skunk+urine%2C+fish+oil%2C+or+any+other+type+of+wildlife%7B47%7Dfish+scent+on+my+clothing+while+bear+hunting%3F


9.  Can I apply deer/elk urine, beaver musk, skunk urine, fish oil, or any other type of wildlife/fish scent on my clothing while bear hunting?
No. All such attractants are considered baiting and can’t be used while bear hunting.
“Bait” means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
It is illegal to hunt black bear with the use of bait in Washington.

Regardless of your views on food as an attractant, I think you can see what is at risk here.  Please write the WDFW and make your voice heard.
sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov

[Steve Jo]

You may or may not  be aware that the use of attractants is under threat for deer and elk in Washington State.  The debate is centered around food as an attractant.

This is from the WDFW's website http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/98/Can+I+apply+deer%7B47%7Delk+urine%2C+beaver+musk%2C+skunk+urine%2C+fish+oil%2C+or+any+other+type+of+wildlife%7B47%7Dfish+scent+on+my+clothing+while+bear+hunting%3F


9.  Can I apply deer/elk urine, beaver musk, skunk urine, fish oil, or any other type of wildlife/fish scent on my clothing while bear hunting?
No. All such attractants are considered baiting and can’t be used while bear hunting.
“Bait” means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
It is illegal to hunt black bear with the use of bait in Washington.

Regardless of your views on food as an attractant, I think you can see what is at risk here.  Please write the WDFW and make your voice heard.
sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I have not baited personally, but you never know........I may want to in the future. I defiantly have no problem with it, and don't want anymore hunting rights taken away from us. I don't care what they are.   Thanks for posting, letter has been sent

Thanks  for supporting our liberty Turner 89

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I sent my email in.

Thanks for supporting liberty.

[PolarBear]

You will not sway your opposition by harsh and confrontational language. 

Im not trying to sway their opinion, Im identifying them as who they are.
It stopped being a difference of opinion when my hunting rights were on the chopping block under their support.
It's the people who are the fence, it's their eyes I am trying to open.  Im not interested in popularity. You dont need to like me to do what is right here.

Referring to someone who does not agree 100% with you as and enemy will only hurt your cause.
Polarbear, as I said above, this is not a difference of opinion.  I am not asking anyone to agree with me 100%, Im asking you to support hunting because it is being threatened. 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Wake up, this is simple.  Support hunting.

By using insulting and confrontational language you are essentially pushing many those sitting on the fence over to the opposite side or creating apathy.  Even a statement as benign as demanding that someone "wake up, this is simple" is insulting.  A little tact goes a long way.  As I said before, I support legal methods of hunting wether I agree with them or not but calling someone out is not the way to gain active support.  I am done with this subject.  I have cows to bait, I mean feed.   

[E-man32]

Letter has been sent Thanks guys

[Steve Jo]

my position is not a tactful one and I wont back down from it.  You may not agree with me or how loud I am shouting this, but there are a lot of people under the illusion that this is a debate.  They are asleep.  This is an attack and we need their help. 

Apathy is unlikely.  If they go to the anti hunter side of the line then at least I will know who they are.

What is more likely, and my inbox of support shows this, there are far more that have thanked me than those who have told me to stop.

Your support for hunting is appreciate and Ill have your back in the same way if you ever need it.