OPPOSE ANY RESTRICTION ON BAITING - EMAIL TO WDFW

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I used your letter, KF. Thanks.

Where is your letter KF?

[pianoman9701]

I used your letter, KF. Thanks.

Where is your letter KF?

I'm an idiot. It was your letter, DB. 

[Curly]

Geez.  I went back thru the whole thread looking for KF's letter.     

[stickbuck]

I certainly oppose any restriction that would make baiting illegal. Excuse me if it may have already been addressed as I have skipped a few pages of this thread. In regards to baiting bears for example, the use of scents as an attractant is illegal. If baiting all big game would be prohibited, are the hunters who are on the fence opposed to using deer or elk estrus during the rut since this would technically fall into the category of baiting by the letter of the law? The implications are far greater and it is a very slippery slope that will greatly affect not just us as hunters but also the hunting industry. Again, I apologize if the use of scents was already covered.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I used your letter, KF. Thanks.

Where is your letter KF?

I'm an idiot. It was your letter, DB. 

  I was wondering.. I have been trying to read as many letters as possible so I can determine if there is another argument I need to add. I would like to refine the arguments I already have. That is just what I cranked out last night and this morning. I borrowed some from the original letter in this post. After the fact I remembered they often mention "public perception" so I wrote up a piece on that too. I wish I would have sent it in with my original submission.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I certainly oppose any restriction that would make baiting illegal. Excuse me if it may have already been addressed as I have skipped a few pages of this thread. In regards to baiting bears for example, the use of scents as an attractant is illegal. If baiting all big game would be prohibited, are the hunters who are on the fence opposed to using deer or elk estrus during the rut since this would technically fall into the category of baiting by the letter of the law? The implications are far greater and it is a very slippery slope that will greatly affect not just us as hunters but also the hunting industry. Again, I apologize if the use of scents was already covered.

That is definitely something we have covered. As it stands right now scents are included in the WDFW definition of bait just like you mentioned.

[KFhunter]

I'm writing one now but I keep running off on a rant

[Britt-dog]

DB, Do you mind if I plagiarize your letter? Mine would require to much editing of inappropriate language.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

 

DB, Do you mind if I plagiarize your letter? Mine would require to much editing of inappropriate language.

Please use it... Cut and paste that other comment about public perception into there too... It's below the main letter

[Britt-dog]

DB, Do you mind if I plagiarize your letter? Mine would require to much editing of inappropriate language.

Please use it... Cut and paste that other comment about public perception into there too... It's below the main letter

Already did that. I'm forwarding it to several friends. Thanks.

[idahohuntr]

I have not read through all of the pages of this thread but from the previous thread in August I wanted to re- post what I believe are key points folks should consider communicating to WDFW commissioners and staff regarding baiting:

1. It provides a good opportunity for youth, disabled, senior, and new hunters in a more controlled environment (e.g., shot opportunities/lanes are clear; a hunting mentor can easily aid these youth/senior/disabled hunters etc.).
2. Banning baiting will have a disproportionate effect on these youth,disabled,senior, and new hunters.
3. Baiting does not impair the senses or ability of game to escape or elude hunters.  Success rates and harvest are not dramatically effected by baiting in most instances.
4. There are no current biological concerns with baiting deer/elk...e.g., managers are not concerned with baiting effects to ungulate populations.
5. Baiting is a safe and effective way to allow hunting on smaller parcels of private land and/or near urban areas where other methods of hunting would be ineffective or unsafe. 

This is another point I made back in August:

It behooves those of us who want to maintain baiting to not go out of our way to alienate those hunters who have a different view on the ethics of baiting...because imo they are probably a majority or close to it

The confrontational stuff has to stop IMO.  I think a fair number of hunters have legitimate concerns that could and should be addressed...to suggest those folks are anti-hunters will only fire up the opposition.  We are not in a position to be making enemies. 

I really believe, as others have stated, that we could come up with some reasonable regulations for baiting in Washington.  I have asked WDFW to consider allowing GMAC to draft regulations to address some of the concerns...not sure if they will consider it.  As has been stated...a scalpel is needed here...not an axe.  Perhaps with some regulation to address the more serious complaints we can go from 59% opposition to 15-20% opposition.   

[MtnMuley]

To be clear: If you are seeking to restrict existing hunter rights for reasons other than sound game management principles, then you are an Anti-Hunter.

I would say I agree with that. The term Anti-Hunter is a pretty powerful word though,  and I think there could a better choice of word.

explain?? what other choice? you are the problem if you voice your opinion against this to WDFW..or atleast to me you are and many others.

Here's your explanation: Somebody that is anti hunter is obviously anti hunting. Those that chose to writing a letter wanting a ban were obviously other hunters that don't believe in baiting. How they came up with their thoughts,  I have no clue. Perhaps they were jealous. Perhaps they felt it unethical. Perhaps they noticed a decline in their chances to harvest a deer. Perhaps they saw or heard stories of bins of apples where they hunt trucked in. Who knows and the major point is they are AGAINST baiting. By referring to them as an anti hunter will only fuel their fire more and further separate us hunters as a whole. By educating them on the whole term of "baiting" and its many positive sides might allow them to see that it's different than they thought. Maybe it wouldn't change some of their minds either. I do know this, I don't hunt over bait and never plan on it, but if everyone else chose to do so, I could care less. If I personally see that it has affected certain herds at vulnerable times with greed rather that care and respect for the animal, I will voice my opinion fully. I care much more about the chance to go enjoy a hunt than filling a tag. If you think I'm jealous of others successes baiting, you're dead wrong. I've put more salts and various feed on my back  over the years than anybody I personally know, just to get pics of all the wildlife. I really enjoy it and all the exercise being in mountains. I surely don't want that right taken away.

My point is, calling someone an "anti-hunter" surely isn't going to help keep baiting as a positive way of hunting. It'll create even further separation amongst us. Educating them on a misperception they might have is a much better solution in my eyes.

[Britt-dog]

DB, Do you mind if I plagiarize your letter? Mine would require to much editing of inappropriate language.

Please use it... Cut and paste that other comment about public perception into there too... It's below the main letter

Updated letter

I support the optional use of baiting for deer and elk. Objective 6 in the draft 2015-2021 Game Management Plan is to facilitate debate on this (and electronic equipment, which I’m not commenting on at this point). To be clear, I oppose any proposed ban on baiting for deer and elk.

From your website:
“The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational… hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.” It is this mandate that sets the overall policy and direction for managing hunted wildlife."

If this is part of the department's mandate why are you facilitating debate on something that could lower opportunity for hunters (particularly juvenile, disabled and senior citizens)?

Ethics:
To be clear....This is not an ethical issue. Aside from hunter safety and the issue of killing animals cleanly, quickly, and humanely, there are very few ethical issues involved in how the practice of hunting is conducted. This is an attempt to regulate the "aesthetics" of the hunt based on the personal values of a majority at the expense of a minority. I don't see anywhere in WDFW's mandate where it says you should manage the aesthetics of a hunt based on majority rule at the potential expense of recreational opportunity for hunters.

The reality of baiting and "ethics" is that it's one of the most ethical forms of hunting because it allows the hunter time to take a shot at a known distance which will increase the likelihood of a quick and humane kill.

Public Perception: The Public Perception on this issue is largely influenced by lack of education and misinformation spread by those opposed. The public perception is certainly damaged when WDFW promotes public debate on these methods which results in massive amounts of personal bias and misinformation that ultimately sways the opinion of those not close to this issue. Most of the public wouldn't argue against something that increases the odds of a quick humane kill but that is not the message being sent. The non-hunting public (on average) is not opposed to eating domestic animals who stand zero chance of escape.  This makes hunting by any means/method a far more humane and ethical practice than what they are using to procure their meat. While the public may be opposed to baiting due to misinformation most of them are not concerning themselves with the aesthetics of the hunt. The reality is this "public perception" concern is almost completely fabricated by the non-baiting hunters who are assuming their own personal values are more important and relevant to the public than their fellow hunters who use bait. I have educated many non-hunters on the reasons I bait and more often than not they support it once I give them my reasoning. In most cases they have never heard this reasoning before. They certainly haven't heard anything but negative from WDFW and your strategy to reduce our opportunity by restricting this method.

Unique Opportunity in WA:
Baiting is not allowed in many states and rarely in the western United States. We should preserve this method of hunting because it provides a very unique opportunity for hunters to practice something that has been utilized since humans first started hunting. It is actually a selling point and something that WDFW should be proud to protect. Hunting whitetail in the big woods/mountains of the NW using bait is an experience you can't get anywhere else (other than perhaps the extreme NE corner of Oregon). I would argue that it is one of the things that makes hunting in this state great.

Economic Factors:
The banning of baiting would have a negative economic impact on the small towns, feed stores, and farmers.  We should not consider restricting something that will be economically damaging to the livelihood of people in these small communities when it is not necessary.

Disease:
Some may argue that baiting spreads disease yet we have no proof that baiting is spreading disease in Washington to the detriment of the herd health. I have a nearly a decades worth/50K plus photos of trail cam data to support the fact that the majority of animals survive from one season to the next (assuming no bad winter) with no apparent negative impact to health.

Starvation:
Another common argument is that the deer will starve to death with full stomachs. Yet again, aside from all the trail cam data I have to prove otherwise...... when this does happen (which is rare) it is primarily well after the hunting season during the months of January-March and it is when well meaning people are feeding deer during extremely bad conditions.

WDFW Feeding of Wildlife:
In addition to the above arguments it is not lost upon me that WDFW feeds wildlife during the winter (and has for decades) with little to no impact from disease or starvation. That fact alone would make any of the above unsupported "scientific" arguments against baiting hypocritical at best and completely invalid at worst.

The Data:
I am also extremely disappointed that WDFW did not break out all the data on baiting. In your reporting you combined the data that supported any kind of restriction on baiting. One of the choices was to only restrict outfitters but you combined it with the data that supported the ban on baiting. I can't imagine this manipulation of the data was by accident. This is a serious breech of trust. That being said, it's honestly irrelevant what the results are based on my previous comments above.

Harvest:
WDFW has not provided data suggesting baiting is leading to over harvesting or large scale damage to wildlife. Yet again, we have used this method for decades and the hunting has been great every year with deer numbers generally only dropping off after bad winters.

Objective 5:
Ironically, Objective 5 regarding recruitment and retention of hunters urges policies that encourage hunters to participate more frequently and consistently, and to bring those who’ve quit hunting back to the field. In a time of fee access programs by private timber companies on forest lands for which a tax break is given, and dwindling public land access, it seems the better strategy for Objective 5 is to avoid unfounded cuts in opportunity based on personal opinions of the few or the loud. Banning bait for deer and elk is just that: an unfounded cut that will result in fewer hunters in this state.

Baiting Defined:
You should probably also make it clear what you are referring to when you say "bait". The public needs to know if you are referring to scents also which fits into your current definition of baiting. I don't think the majority of deer hunters would support restricting the use of scents.

Please!!! Stop searching for reasons to interfere with hunter opportunity and spoil what provides many of us very rewarding memories in the WA outdoors.

Respectfully,

Daniel B. Hawthorne

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I have not read through all of the pages of this thread but from the previous thread in August I wanted to re- post what I believe are key points folks should consider communicating to WDFW commissioners and staff regarding baiting:

1. It provides a good opportunity for youth, disabled, senior, and new hunters in a more controlled environment (e.g., shot opportunities/lanes are clear; a hunting mentor can easily aid these youth/senior/disabled hunters etc.).
2. Banning baiting will have a disproportionate effect on these youth,disabled,senior, and new hunters.
3. Baiting does not impair the senses or ability of game to escape or elude hunters.  Success rates and harvest are not dramatically effected by baiting in most instances.
4. There are no current biological concerns with baiting deer/elk...e.g., managers are not concerned with baiting effects to ungulate populations.
5. Baiting is a safe and effective way to allow hunting on smaller parcels of private land and/or near urban areas where other methods of hunting would be ineffective or unsafe. 

This is another point I made back in August:

It behooves those of us who want to maintain baiting to not go out of our way to alienate those hunters who have a different view on the ethics of baiting...because imo they are probably a majority or close to it

The confrontational stuff has to stop IMO.  I think a fair number of hunters have legitimate concerns that could and should be addressed...to suggest those folks are anti-hunters will only fire up the opposition.  We are not in a position to be making enemies. 

I really believe, as others have stated, that we could come up with some reasonable regulations for baiting in Washington.  I have asked WDFW to consider allowing GMAC to draft regulations to address some of the concerns...not sure if they will consider it.  As has been stated...a scalpel is needed here...not an axe.  Perhaps with some regulation to address the more serious complaints we can go from 59% opposition to 15-20% opposition.   

The 59% statistic was manipulated to include people who did not want a full ban on baiting.

[idahohuntr]

I have not read through all of the pages of this thread but from the previous thread in August I wanted to re- post what I believe are key points folks should consider communicating to WDFW commissioners and staff regarding baiting:

1. It provides a good opportunity for youth, disabled, senior, and new hunters in a more controlled environment (e.g., shot opportunities/lanes are clear; a hunting mentor can easily aid these youth/senior/disabled hunters etc.).
2. Banning baiting will have a disproportionate effect on these youth,disabled,senior, and new hunters.
3. Baiting does not impair the senses or ability of game to escape or elude hunters.  Success rates and harvest are not dramatically effected by baiting in most instances.
4. There are no current biological concerns with baiting deer/elk...e.g., managers are not concerned with baiting effects to ungulate populations.
5. Baiting is a safe and effective way to allow hunting on smaller parcels of private land and/or near urban areas where other methods of hunting would be ineffective or unsafe. 

This is another point I made back in August:

It behooves those of us who want to maintain baiting to not go out of our way to alienate those hunters who have a different view on the ethics of baiting...because imo they are probably a majority or close to it

The confrontational stuff has to stop IMO.  I think a fair number of hunters have legitimate concerns that could and should be addressed...to suggest those folks are anti-hunters will only fire up the opposition.  We are not in a position to be making enemies. 

I really believe, as others have stated, that we could come up with some reasonable regulations for baiting in Washington.  I have asked WDFW to consider allowing GMAC to draft regulations to address some of the concerns...not sure if they will consider it.  As has been stated...a scalpel is needed here...not an axe.  Perhaps with some regulation to address the more serious complaints we can go from 59% opposition to 15-20% opposition.   

The 59% statistic was manipulated to include people who did not want a full ban on baiting.

Do you have the breakdown of what each response (%) was for all the choices?  Certainly only the "absolutely ban all baiting" should be reported as the hunters opposed to baiting.  Including folks who want to only restrict outfitters etc. is absurd.  Also, when they say 59% of hunters...what they really mean is 59% of people who respond to a poll on the internet...not very meaningful even if they weren't lumping all the partial restriction answers together!!! 

Anyways...good work...we need to keep folks hounding the commission so they don't do something stupid and based on misinformation.