OPPOSE ANY RESTRICTION ON BAITING - EMAIL TO WDFW

[DBHAWTHORNE]

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

daniel93077@yahoo.com

Thank you.

[BABackcountryBwhntr]

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

daniel93077@yahoo.com

Thank you.

Sent

[DBHAWTHORNE]

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

daniel93077@yahoo.com

Thank you.

Thank you

Sent

[Little Dave]

Another peculiar thing about this survey is how many of the hundreds of questions had relatively normal results, except for the two questions about baiting.  These two questions (one for deer, one for elk) had bar graph results showing "somewhat opposed" standing out as awkward as an embarrassed boy in a swim lesson class.

A number of the other questions seemed to coach one group of hunters against others.  Like, "How many days should the archery season be reduced?"  Or like, "How many days should the modern firearm season be reduced?"  Shall other user groups pay a new access fee for this or that?  Etc.

The demographic component of the survey is an important double-check for accuracy.  To repeat the result, which is a principal theme in the scientific method, the next survey taker would need to poll a similar demographic where King County has fewer responses than Clark County and hardly any responses from rural Eastern Washington.  Or the converse, hunting licenses should be allocated in this manner to reflect the prescribed demographic.

It is as clear as day that this is a fraud.  If the deception works, the technique will be used again.  It needs to be called out.

In commenting on the survey it is important to agree that the survey was conducted and analyzed by the survey taker in a scientific manner, with the exception that there was no reasonable explanation for the strange demographic result.  With a demographic result that does not resemble the population, the survey results should not be used as a foundation for rule-making exercises.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Another peculiar thing about this survey is how many of the hundreds of questions had relatively normal results, except for the two questions about baiting.  These two questions (one for deer, one for elk) had bar graph results showing "somewhat opposed" standing out as awkward as an embarrassed boy in a swim lesson class.

A number of the other questions seemed to coach one group of hunters against others.  Like, "How many days should the archery season be reduced?"  Or like, "How many days should the modern firearm season be reduced?"  Shall other user groups pay a new access fee for this or that?  Etc.

The demographic component of the survey is an important double-check for accuracy.  To repeat the result, which is a principal theme in the scientific method, the next survey taker would need to poll a similar demographic where King County has fewer responses than Clark County and hardly any responses from rural Eastern Washington.  Or the converse, hunting licenses should be allocated in this manner to reflect the prescribed demographic.

It is as clear as day that this is a fraud.  If the deception works, the technique will be used again.  It needs to be called out.

In commenting on the survey it is important to agree that the survey was conducted and analyzed by the survey taker in a scientific manner, with the exception that there was no reasonable explanation for the strange demographic result.  With a demographic result that does not resemble the population, the survey results should not be used as a foundation for rule-making exercises.

The offered that "somewhat opposed" option so they could draw people away from being a supporter and then they could combine the data of strongly and somewhat opposed and say (xx percent of hunters oppose baiting in some way)...It's the oldest trick in the book..... They knew that a lot of people who don't bait but would not support a ban but those people people probably do support some kind of regulation on baiting therefore they would be the "somewhat opposed"..... it basically weakened the numbers for those that want no restrictions.


And you are exactly right... the more I read the questionnaire the more I realized that WDFW frame the questions in a manner to pit hunters against each other... they put the questions in a way that shows their overall agenda is to lower hunter opportunity....sure..they dangle a few carrots for us in other areas... but those carrots will eventually go away too.

..and as you pointed out...there are all kinds of flaws with their survey...which would certainly be brought up in a law suit.

[Special T]

Remember that this survey was done by a hired marketing firm. I have a buddy that worked for a local firm that did a LOT of surveying to help school districts pass levies.

One of my Professors that owned a marketing firm, before he decided to try something different and teach, said that most of the time surveys are not a truly trying to discover op-pinons but to provide support for an existing view point. I personally have a couple of experiences where that was the case with a government institution. This Marketing firm had to be accommodating some BS from the department.

[Little Dave]

From what I see, the firm that took the survey did their work right, with the possible exception of glossing over the demographics result in their summary of the results.  They left that little blood stain at the crime scene for us to discover.

I'd like to see a court order to prevent this survey from being used for consideration, and public records inquiry to see communications related to preparation of the list of phone numbers to call.

[Special T]

What im trying to get at is this. WDFW goes to Marketing company and says "We want to do a public opinion survey on hunting related issues." At some point the WDFW says hey we can use this for planning purposes to make certain changes. They tell the marketing firm to organize the "hunter" related findings. The marketing firm replies that we should really do a specific survey if you really want to find out what hunters want... WDFW says no we cant afford that use the data you have...

This is the BEST scenario that could take place. The department would know that the data is not completely accurate in regards to hunters.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I hope everyone has their comments in! If not please do so soon!

[Odell]

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.

I would love to hear the definition of 'social issue' and the justification for regulation accordingly.

Anything can be framed this way and then regulated. They could eliminate entire fisheries, or hunting and fishing altogether if the only justification is that it becomes a 'social issue.'

[DBHAWTHORNE]

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.

I would love to hear the definition of 'social issue' and the justification for regulation accordingly.

Anything can be framed this way and then regulated. They could eliminate entire fisheries, or hunting and fishing altogether if the only justification is that it becomes a 'social issue.'

Exactly... that is why it is so ridiculous that they bring it up every few years to be considered for banning... It's obviously more of a personal agenda for some well connected people more than anything else.

[huntnphool]

Are there any guarantees that all the people contacted for the survey were actually Washington residents?

[Special T]

I would bet they are WA residents... area codes are still "Mostly" reliable for that purpose.... but it they wanted to find out what hunters wanted they have all our phone numbers!

[BULLBLASTER]

Are there any guarantees that all the people contacted for the survey were actually Washington residents?

i would rather they survey nonresidents that buy licenses to hunt in wa than resident nonhunters when setting our hunting laws. I know that this may be a small percentage but i dont think they should be disqualified just because they live elsewhere.
I read through and comment on idahos proposals each year because i hunt there amd they affect me.
Not at all saying we should only survey nrs or survey all nrs but just that they shouldnt be dqed from it if they do hunt here.

[Special T]

The "Eastons" have largely passed over WA when reporting hunting for elk for out of state hunters. Too expensive and too poor of managment.