OPPOSE ANY RESTRICTION ON BAITING - EMAIL TO WDFW

[Curly]

So it is basically like the initiatives in 1996 that asked the general public about trapping, hunting with hounds and baiting bears. Wildlife management should not be left up to the clueless voters of this state. .......wdfw should realize this and maybe do.

[Rainier10]

So it is basically like the initiatives in 1996 that asked the general public about trapping, hunting with hounds and baiting bears. Wildlife management should not be left up to the clueless voters of this state. .......wdfw should realize this and maybe do.

Exactly, what gets me is they did the online survey and that was pretty clear that people wanted no change in baiting rules.  Why the phone survey and why is there only one person on Hunt-Wa that was contacted?  Really seems fishy.

[BABackcountryBwhntr]

has anyone made phone calls to ask questions and call them out on this stuff? if not I would love to.. any idea on who i should call?

[Curly]

You might try:  Nate Pamplin    Nathan.Pamplin@dfw.wa.gov    360-902-2693

 

[Bob33]

Caller 1: “Hi Dave. We need to get some data on hunters’ perceptions of baiting for deer and elk in Washington. Can you help?”

Caller 2: “Let me see what I can do. I’ve got a focus group that’s helped us out before with these types of issues. I used them when we implemented the change to special permits back in 2010. It allowed us to say we had ‘broad public support’ for it. What a hoot.”

Caller 1: “Thanks Dave. That would be great.  How quickly can you get the results? We have a commission meeting coming up.”

Caller 2: “I’ll get on it. I almost forgot to ask: what do you want the results to be?”

[Jonathan_S]

Caller 1: “Hi Dave. We need to get some data on hunters’ perceptions of baiting for deer and elk in Washington. Can you help?”

Caller 2: “Let me see what I can do. I’ve got a focus group that’s helped us out before with these types of issues. I used them when we implemented the change to special permits back in 2010. It allowed us to say we had ‘broad public support’ for it. What a hoot.”

Caller 1: “Thanks Dave. That would be great.  How quickly can you get the results? We have a commission meeting coming up.”

Caller 2: “I’ll get on it. I almost forgot to ask: what do you want the results to be?”

 

 

 

[BABackcountryBwhntr]

You might try:  Nate Pamplin    Nathan.Pamplin@dfw.wa.gov    360-902-2693

 

Just left him a message

[mfswallace]

You might try:  Nate Pamplin    Nathan.Pamp lin@dfw.wa.gov    360-902-2693

 

Just left him a message

Let us know

[Little Dave]

Demographics in this survey don't make sense.  I suspect fraud.

King County has about 30% the population of the state.  That doesn't mean that it has 30% of the hunters, but it should have at least 10%.  The survey demographics don't show anything like that.  Then there are 7 surveys taken by people that live in California, 5 from Oregon... but just 6 taken by deer hunters that live in any of the NE counties (Okanogan, Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille)... and 4 from the SE counties (Adams, Franklin, Whitman, Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla).

I suspect the fraud may have been accomplished this way:  A master list of phone numbers was prepared for the survey taking company, the survey company made random selections from the prepared list.  However the prepared list was not a representative sample.  This way the survey taking company can legitimately claim that they called random phone numbers.

If the survey was conducted in a scientific manner with a representative sampling, we should expect a similar result.  I doubt a properly conducted survey would produce a result like this.

[Special T]

I don't think you need to imply or accuse fraud to show that this survey is being used in a way that is inconstant with its design.

If you want to know what the general public thinks its likely OK. WHEN they infer that it represent hunters and then uses it to make policy recommendations THEN there is a HUGE  problem. This is done willfully or because of ignorance. In each case it does not reflect on the department in a positive way.

[Curly]

I can only imagine the amount of money the state wastes on the surveys.  I contend that they shouldn't even bother doing these surveys. 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Demographics in this survey don't make sense.  I suspect fraud.

King County has about 30% the population of the state.  That doesn't mean that it has 30% of the hunters, but it should have at least 10%.  The survey demographics don't show anything like that.  Then there are 7 surveys taken by people that live in California, 5 from Oregon... but just 6 taken by deer hunters that live in any of the NE counties (Okanogan, Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille)... and 4 from the SE counties (Adams, Franklin, Whitman, Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla).

I suspect the fraud may have been accomplished this way:  A master list of phone numbers was prepared for the survey taking company, the survey company made random selections from the prepared list.  However the prepared list was not a representative sample.  This way the survey taking company can legitimately claim that they called random phone numbers.

If the survey was conducted in a scientific manner with a representative sampling, we should expect a similar result.  I doubt a properly conducted survey would produce a result like this.

Even it it's not "fraud"...there is no doubt that it is "flawed"...  there is no doubt about that and if baiting is restricted in any way based off this type of data we need to bring a law suit on the state.

They are literally saying this is simply a "social issue". However... here is the deal.. This "social issue"... isn't "harming" others...  Therefore they are literally attempting to take away a recreational opportunity enjoyed by many for no reason at all except for the fact that a certain percentage of people ( in many cases fellow hunters) don't like this method enjoyed by others.... very flawed.... very, very flawed.... especially when this is going to harm local businesses and rural economies... Business owners and city/county leaders need to be informed how this is going to impact them... If this goes through I alone will not be 8K-10K per year minimum (food, hotels, bait, sporting goods etc) that I alone will not be spending in towns like Kettle Falls, Colville, Chewelah, and Ione...  I'm probably on the high end of spending but I would venture to say that a lot of guys are spending $2-3K plus. Replenishing bait sites requires me to spend a lot more time in those areas than I would otherwise which means more dollars spent. When I run mock scrapes licking branches (which is what I will be doing if this goes through) requires me to visit them far, far less....which means a lot less money spent (and honestly I may just stick closer to home and hunt near agriculture because baiting in the mountains is the unique experience I travel there for)

They have admitted this is based on no scientific data that they have collected. Hunters have plenty of data in the form of trail cam photos of the same deer year after year (5,6,7 years) to show these deer are thriving just fine with the minimal amount of baiting (in the whole scheme of things) that takes place in and around hunting season.)... If they ever do collect "data".. I guarantee it won't be based off of the baiting that is done during hunting but rather late winter "mercy" feedings, etc... or just the basic concept that the close proximity of animals from feeding/baiting could "potentially" spread disease (without any strong data that this is actually happening in WA and/or creating a valid threat to the herd) If they did a legitimate study what they will find in almost all instances is that the animals coming to the bait sites are part of the local herd (aside from the rut)....and since they are the local herd they are actually constantly coming into contact with each other (touching noses, licking, etc.... deer are social animals)... .If they do a study based off of  baiting that is done for the purposes of hunting in WA they will find there is no reason to ban baiting based off of any legitimate threat to our deer herd.... Whatever data they do collect will be with their agenda in mind so it is already likely to be skewed. 

If I believed for one second that this was harming our herd I wouldn't have a single issue with giving this up. The fact is I have years of photographic and observational experience with these whitetail (in particular), elk and mule deer to know that baiting for the purpose of hunting is not harming the herd.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Apologize on the rambling... I had hernia surgery today and still a little groggy for the anesthesia and narcs.

[Special T]

 

[BABackcountryBwhntr]

I have the email with all the survey info, if you guys want it give me your email, I will forward it.