Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: Wazukie on November 02, 2014, 05:07:41 PMQuote from: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 05:00:07 PMQuote from: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 04:45:08 PMIf they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.I'm not willing to take that chance.... Scents currently fall under their definition of bait and that is all we have to go off of.Either way this is being handled unethically by WDFW and fellow hunters who are supporting this anti-hunting agenda. Fellow hunters are literally voting against it because it doesn't meet their idea of the aesthetics for the hunt... it is a matter of the majority saying "the way I like to hunt" is more important than "the way you like to hunt".They try to argue about ethics but they have failed to show an understanding of the definition of ethics. Baiting and other methods of hunting are purely an aesthetics issues not an ethics issue. If anything baiting is more ethical than many other methods of hunting because the targets are almost always standing still, at a known distance within reasonable range and more often than not these hunters are not rushed on the shot and wait for optimal shot angles (vs what I see from many other hunting methods where hunters seem to be more likely to take less than optimal shot angles....no scientific data to back that up.. just a casual observation I have made). On these grounds I would argue that baiting is an extremely ethical practice...more so than many/most other hunting methods.I got to ask, where do we get to vote on this issue?The vote already happened.... and they manipulated the data and diluted the pool by giving several options:NeutralOppose all baitingOppose outfitters batingAllow BaitingIn the past they only gave two options... Baiting or no Baiting.Now that they are providing the results they are sayingNeutral: 20%Allow Baiting: 21%Oppose Baiting: 59%See what they are doing?I believe that a good percentage of those who are neutral would not support restricting hunters rights if push comes to shove but instead their votes are basically irrelevant now......... They then combined the votes against baiting all in one instead of breaking it out... they are being manipulative with the data to push their agenda.When we answered these questions I even said on here at that time that when they reported the data they were going to combine anything that was in support of restrictions on baiting...and I said they added the neutral so they could dilute the pool instead of making people choose one way or another.Either way.. I don't believe the majority should rule on the aesthetics of the hunt.. if we go that route none of us will hunt before too long. For now all you can do is go to the meeting and send them an email at sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov
Quote from: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 05:00:07 PMQuote from: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 04:45:08 PMIf they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.I'm not willing to take that chance.... Scents currently fall under their definition of bait and that is all we have to go off of.Either way this is being handled unethically by WDFW and fellow hunters who are supporting this anti-hunting agenda. Fellow hunters are literally voting against it because it doesn't meet their idea of the aesthetics for the hunt... it is a matter of the majority saying "the way I like to hunt" is more important than "the way you like to hunt".They try to argue about ethics but they have failed to show an understanding of the definition of ethics. Baiting and other methods of hunting are purely an aesthetics issues not an ethics issue. If anything baiting is more ethical than many other methods of hunting because the targets are almost always standing still, at a known distance within reasonable range and more often than not these hunters are not rushed on the shot and wait for optimal shot angles (vs what I see from many other hunting methods where hunters seem to be more likely to take less than optimal shot angles....no scientific data to back that up.. just a casual observation I have made). On these grounds I would argue that baiting is an extremely ethical practice...more so than many/most other hunting methods.I got to ask, where do we get to vote on this issue?
Quote from: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 04:45:08 PMIf they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.I'm not willing to take that chance.... Scents currently fall under their definition of bait and that is all we have to go off of.Either way this is being handled unethically by WDFW and fellow hunters who are supporting this anti-hunting agenda. Fellow hunters are literally voting against it because it doesn't meet their idea of the aesthetics for the hunt... it is a matter of the majority saying "the way I like to hunt" is more important than "the way you like to hunt".They try to argue about ethics but they have failed to show an understanding of the definition of ethics. Baiting and other methods of hunting are purely an aesthetics issues not an ethics issue. If anything baiting is more ethical than many other methods of hunting because the targets are almost always standing still, at a known distance within reasonable range and more often than not these hunters are not rushed on the shot and wait for optimal shot angles (vs what I see from many other hunting methods where hunters seem to be more likely to take less than optimal shot angles....no scientific data to back that up.. just a casual observation I have made). On these grounds I would argue that baiting is an extremely ethical practice...more so than many/most other hunting methods.
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
Well, if they were to ban the use of scents such as deer urine, I guarantee they're going to lose a lot of "customers." And I think they know that, and for that reason they will certainly not ban the use of scents for deer and elk. They will have to come up with a specific definition of the type of bait that isn't allowed. It can't be that difficult to have a definition that doesn't include scents. Like I said I'm sure many other states have done just that. For example, Montana doesn't allow bait for any big game, but deer and elk urine can still be used for deer and elk hunting. I'm not sure why Washington would need to be different.
Quote from: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 05:34:33 PMWell, if they were to ban the use of scents such as deer urine, I guarantee they're going to lose a lot of "customers." And I think they know that, and for that reason they will certainly not ban the use of scents for deer and elk. They will have to come up with a specific definition of the type of bait that isn't allowed. It can't be that difficult to have a definition that doesn't include scents. Like I said I'm sure many other states have done just that. For example, Montana doesn't allow bait for any big game, but deer and elk urine can still be used for deer and elk hunting. I'm not sure why Washington would need to be different.I think they are going to lose customers with the baiting issues too.... I also believe that it will hurt the feed stores and small farmers.... I think these small towns can use all the economic boost they can get but yet again the states actions are going to hurt them... unfortunately I don't even know if they are aware of what's going on.
Now that we have gone down the rabbit hole that this "possible" ban on baiting, which depending on ones interpretation, may also take away the use of scents / fragrant or pheromone type attractants would still support what DFW is proposing? I think not many.Granted the "baiting" definition "may" be refined in the final directive to not have this impact. However, we are all relying on DFW to refine / define what "baiting" is to not have any "unforeseen" or "collateral / broader reaching" impact if this is a direction they choose to go. If above were the case who believes that calling would not / could not be pulled under this umbrella? I believe that calls would / could be lumped into this ban as they are a form of attraction thus "bait".Now there have been a number of individuals on this and the other "baiting threads" that throw out the point "baiting of ungulates" has been banned in XX number of States so more or less "why not" here. My response to this is a cookie cutter solution or position is an intellectually inferior way to resolve some perceived or factual issue and that we the customer deserve factual data which demonstrates the State has used / applied the resources we the customer have provided for a true "science / biologically derived" solution. Who is to say that WA may not want to be the "1st" to set the standard that calls are no longer legal as they violate the ethos of "fair chase" under the "baiting" umbrella? Little far out there? Sure, but welcome to 2014.I just see this initiative getting way out of hand, be far more reaching / restrictive then what DFW is communicating. I also believe that individuals contacting DFW on this should encourage DFW to set a side any previous polling data until more refined survey questions are drafted to reflect an accurate assessment of what the perceived "baiting of ungulates" issue is and what GMUs are believed to be impacted. As I have stated in other threads I have not baited but, like others, see this as an attack on the over arching hunting community and needs to be rejected without full disclosure of facts to the hunting community.I applaud the efforts of all who see this for what it is and refuse to sit by and do nothing.
I just see this initiative getting way out of hand, be far more reaching / restrictive
Quote from: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 01:01:34 PMYeah I've been successful late season without using either one also. I've also been successful using them. It's legal to do so and I want to keep my options open. I sure hope you've NEVER used scents while hunting or that would make you a hypocrite, right?PB doesn't like baiting but I don't think he supports restricting us from baiting.
Yeah I've been successful late season without using either one also. I've also been successful using them. It's legal to do so and I want to keep my options open. I sure hope you've NEVER used scents while hunting or that would make you a hypocrite, right?
Quote from: Stalker on November 02, 2014, 06:12:33 PMI just see this initiative getting way out of hand, be far more reaching / restrictiveThis is not an initiative.
