OPPOSE ANY RESTRICTION ON BAITING - EMAIL TO WDFW

[BABackcountryBwhntr]

Dont get me wrong I am 100% ok with the 10 gallon option.

I think 5 gallons would be more defensible form a science end but, I think I can defend ten gallons.

i dump 3-5 garbage cans full of apples every 4-8 days where we hunt.. the deer eat them in that amount of time... what damage is being done? if i could only use 10 gallons I would have to literally bait daily. maybe you guys can pay my diesel bill if that happens? there should be no restriction... just because some outfitters use a ton of bait.. thats a small part of a very big pie.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Pay attention to the last sentence.  We are setting ourselves up far a fall if we don't use reason.  Ton's of apples and feeders will end baiting for us. 

http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/The_Nutritional__Ecological__and_Ethical_Arguments_Against_Baiting_and_Feeding_White-tailed_Deer_Brown.pdf

An interesting article.
http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/recreation/bait-hunts-cause-host-of-problems-for-wildlife-habitat-and/article_0ba87436-2524-11e3-aa82-001a4bcf887a.html

This is a highly controversial subject.  If hunters don't step up to identify ways to make baiting more palatable to the middle of the road public.  The middle of the road public may vote in a direction that will further destroy our heritage.

Regarding the Missoulian article..... Does this happen... Yes... undeniable.....but it is rare... it certainly isn't like lambs at a slaughter and leading to a large increase in the number of deer/elk killed... I would say no... and they don't have the data to prove that it does... the bottom line is that these predators will be making kills one way or another so they can sustain themselves so the impact on the population is not likely to be that great.

Regarding the Wildlife article.... They can cherry pick the data with the best of them.

1. The die off from supplemental feeding is not happening in the Nov/Dec time frame and it's not from bait that people hunt over... it is literally deer dying because people are feeding them in the dead of winter thinking they are helping the deer out.

2. The study regarding the forage is bunk because it was in a fenced area... A bait pile placed in and around hunting season (the majority of them are)... does not draw and hold deer from miles around... nor do most deer hit it as a primary food source.... I have plenty of evidence and data from personal observations to prove this as fact. The deer that primarily hit the bait piles are ones that live in that area.... Now food plots (which the department want to still allow)... can draw and hold deer from miles around and for long periods of time.... Bottom line... the deer eating the surrounding forage are the ones that already live in the area and eat the forage. The largest majority of bait piles are not maintained long enough to draw and hold deer from miles around (not to mention when there are many bait piles spread out it keeps the deer spread out in their normal areas)... now if you had the only bait pile for miles around and kept it maintained year round then perhaps this argument would have more validity.

3. I will agree that salt lick lead to a little bit of environmental impact... dirt gets turned up and holes are dug... there is some vegetation die off... but the real impact is minimal... Per the Missoulian article I am sure there are some large salt licks out there... But I have covered a ton of miles in the woods and the biggest one I have ever seen was maybe 6x6...and that was just one.... and while I do see them... it's not like I am tripping over them everywhere I go....and I have walked many miles in the Colville National Forest (I hate to say it because ranchers are usually our friends but the Cattle is what seems to harm the natural habitat the most)

4. The hunter to shooter continuum is laughable at best because it's completely subjective. I will take five of the most serious baiters I know and put them up against any other hunters knowledge of deer biology and behavior. On my continuum a "shooter" is someone who kills a deer that they never knew existed (which I think is nothing to be ashamed of) the maximum "hunter" on my continum is someone who kills individual animals they are very familiar with (i.e. they have history with, they understand a lot about the biology, behaviors and patterns of this animal). Of course baiting isn't required to achieve this but I can guarantee that a higher percentage of people who bait fall into that category.

That being said.. I don't think I am right... and I don't think they are wrong on the continuum .... I think it's a matter of preference which is why hunters should stop trying to take away what other hunters enjoy.

5. Regarding the "non-hunting" public" choosing for us... Perhaps... But I can guarantee if they see any weakness in our resolve on any issue they are going to take it away... So the reality is that it's our fellow hunters who attack other hunters right who will be to blame for our losses.. Yes... those opposed to baiting, and other issues.

Below is a direct quote from Gordon Whittington, Editor-in-Chief of North American Whitetail Magazine regarding this baiting issues. I don't know anyone more knowledgeable on whitetails.... and he is good friends with "Dr. Deer"... (Dr. James Kroll) so I am sure they have had many conversations on topics like this:

"Regardless of species or location, I feel hunting regulations should mainly be based on building/maintaining a population in balance with its habitat. Within that very loose framework, set regs to allow for maximum recreational opportunity. In short, if a population is healthy, allow a wide range of management and hunting tools that don't jeopardize the species (or human safety, obviously). I've seen nothing that suggests baiting whitetails is a threat to either."

I have said this before and I will say it again:

The WDFW's "random" sampling on the baiting issue is garbage. They have already admitted they do not have scientific data to support a ban and that instead this is a "social issue"...their words.. .not mine......
 Let me demonstrate the flaw in their "population" (Deer Hunters) for the phone survey they are putting so much weight on and the flaw in their logic............ Imagine this...... If they randomly polled "deer hunters" and the majority said we should ban bowhunting (because the majority of hunters in WA only hunt with a rifle) then WDFW is saying this is a social issue that should be addressed by the commission and considered for banning.... That is literally the same logic they are using to address this baiting issue.

If WDFW does decide to do a study on baiting I bet they won't focus it on the average bait habits used by the largest majority of hunters..... if they did... I guarantee the impacts will be minimal to non-existent. There is a large percentage of deer in our national forest that are dying of natural causes...despite all the baiting.... I know this for a fact.

[Special T]

 BABackcountryBwhntr
That is exactly what i posted. I am really upset that they are not requiring Wild ID# like they have in the past. Ive made a fair number of surveys and i can tell you that the main reason why they dont require it is because they dont view SPORTSMEN and thier main focus. Thier numbers are pure BS and people should see right through it.

IF they really felt the need to "know" how the general population feels they should have wild ID# optional so that they can seperate out those who have a vested financial interst from those who dont. Either they have some one incompetent putting this stuff together or it is willful manipulation... I saw that happen on projects i worked on for the University. Makes me sick...

[bobcat]

They said that they surveyed "deer hunters" and "elk hunters" by phone. So wouldn't all of those people have WILD ID numbers? I guess I just don't understand where this theory is coming from.

[Jonathan_S]

They said that they surveyed "deer hunters" and "elk hunters" by phone. So wouldn't all of those people have WILD ID numbers? I guess I just don't understand where this theory is coming from.

Maybe he means people who submit comments online 

Other than that, I wouldn't know

[Special T]

In the past they have required Wild ID numbers for thier online commneting and it limited your ability to make comments on changes if you had a hunting Lic or not.

My comments reflect what i know about survey construction and interpreation of the results. Since the Department required them in the past, why are they not doing so now?

I might add that I wrote several people at the WDFW and complemented them on the Wild ID requirement and know several other who did as well.

If you have ever done a survey you will note that the "demographics" portion of the survey(normally beginning or end) can be extensive. The reason for this is trying to determing what factors influence purchase choice given the influences. The Department has acess to really powerful information to determine how WildID holder react to certain changes in seasons, baglimits, price etc. Mostly because they hold all the information. In aggreagate they can find out how many changed weapon types, seasons, tags bought etc. Since much of the information is mandatory the ammount of great information they could gleen should be endless.

Im not saying that I could gleen all this information but i do understand that they are NOT asking the right questions Ignorace & Purposefully doing so are the only choices. Neither are good.

[Special T]

They said that they surveyed "deer hunters" and "elk hunters" by phone. So wouldn't all of those people have WILD ID numbers? I guess I just don't understand where this theory is coming from.

when you get into statistics What the definition of an "elk/deer hunter" is important, and HOW they determine that person is one is EXTREAMLY important. My wild ID number doesn't have my phone number attached to it... So how did they come up with the numbers?

These questions can seem petty and insignificant but they can have a HUGE impact on the numbers... Considering the numbers they gave us from this "Survey" I would imagine that  one or several of these details are skewing the results... Likely by design...

[bobcat]

When I log in to purchase a hunting license, using my WILD ID, my phone number is listed in my profile. Yours is not?

[Rainier10]

I know that meetings I have been at for public comment when it was an open floor at the end of the meeting and you could talk to the WDFW reps one on one a guy brought a petition to Dave Ware.  Dave took it and said that he would look into it but wanted to verify first that the signatures were from people who lived in the impacted area and that there were actual hunters with wild ID numbers listed on the petition.  If it was just signed by out of area individuals and people without wild ID numbers he said it wouldn't carry as much weight.  At least in that one instance I know that they said it was important and I believe it is also.

The phone survey still seems odd to me that it was the polar opposite of what the online results were.  Makes me think something was fishy in who was called or what questions were asked.

[drk9988]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/audio/20140926_05.mp3

6:00 and 11:44 talks a little about the surveys..     28:30 starts talk about these numbers from phone survey on baiting 30:29 on baiting and how baiting is defined.

[Special T]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/audio/20140926_05.mp3

6:00 and 11:44 talks a little about the surveys..     28:30 starts talk about these numbers from phone survey on baiting 30:29 on baiting and how baiting is defined.

Thank you for doing that footwork.  This is why Hunt Wa is such a great tool.

The definition of hunters is SELF defined and opens up a lot of possibilities as to who is considered a hunter. I mus also add that this survey was posed to the general public for opinion. It is stated right at 6:05 that is a general public opinion survey...

As bobcat said i went back and looked and he is correct that my phone number is in their database. So the question is WHY would the WDFW NOT use the numbers at their disposal and instead use a general opinion survey and pass it off as "The hunters have spoken!" The fact is that at the end of every season the WDFW has a captive audience that is REQUIRED to fill out paperwork to avoid Administrative fine for not giving them the information.

The Public opinion survey may be important for some questions, however stating that hunters speak with any authority through it is dishonest. It does however give everyone a really good view of how the general public views Sportsmen.

So the PURPOSE of the survey is NOT to survey hunters, but it is a PUBLIC OPINION survey about hunters.  This difference is very important because the Intent of the survey  and how its being used in the current manner are NOT Accurate. So i didnt listen to all 50 min but i did listen to a good chunk say 20 min or so. The "Findings" from this survey of the goes into great depth about how satisfied hunters are on every imaginable aspect of hunting in Washington state. How valuable/accurate can this information  be? At 11:10 the interviewee points out how unreliable the definition of a hunter is his actual work is "Caution"... This is a HUGE red flag for EVERYTHING that is said about what hunters think and nearly everything that follows in the interview.

Let that sink in..

[Bob33]

To say the survey is a valid representation of Washington hunters is disingenuous. Shame on WDFW.

[bobcat]

So, basically, what we've learned is that the terms "deer hunters" and "elk hunters" used in this statement is 100% inaccurate?

[Bob33]

So, basically, what we've learned is that the terms "deer hunters" and "elk hunters" used in this statement is 100% inaccurate?

I don't think there's any way to assess it without knowing more about how they selected their sample. I haven't read of anyone on Hunt WA that was contacted. If the sample was random, there should have been multiple members contacted.

[Special T]

According to the marketing firm that this for the WDFW an Elk or Deer hunter is self proclaimed. This does NOT mean they hunted in THIS state. They MAY not have even been carrying a weapon or holding a tag they could have just been walking in the woods with their husband, father or other... The DEFINITION of a hunter is determined by the person answering the question AND the phone numbers called were NOT specifically off the WDFW Wild ID list but the general public!

Basically there is NO way to verify that those who "say" they hunted actually hunted. Not once, every year, NEVER or just walked in the woods or sat in the duck blind.

If you need clarification please LISTEN to the audio it is very revealing if you pay attention. The devil is always in the details... ESPECIALLY in survey/statistical work.