SB 5632 Hunting and Fishing Licenses

[bigtex]

SB 5632 was introduced today by Senators Hatfield and Chase at the request of WDFW. The bill will make the following changes to hunting and fishing licenses:

-Will allow those who have a hunter companion card to actually kill game on behalf of the disabled hunter. Current law basically says the disabled hunter must shoot the animal and the companion can deliver a kill shot
-Institute a $20 fee for Master Hunter deer and elk tags
-Institute a $20 fee for elk and deer damage tags
-Removes the discount small game license fee for those purchasing big game and small game licenses at the same time. Currently if you buy the licenses at the same time the small game fee is $20. Under this bill the fee will be $35 for all purchases, this is the current fee if you didn't purchase it with a big game license.
-Authorizes WDFW to charge a fee for the hunt by reservation system
-Combo fishing license will increase by $1
-Saltwater, freshwater, shellfish and seaweed licenses will increase by $2
-Temporary fishing licenses will increase by $2
-Institutes a commercial fishing crewmember license as is proposed in other bills


http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5632.pdf

[trophyhunt]

I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?

[robodad]

I don't mind paying more every year as long as there is more opportunity, if I have to pay more for less opportunity I get a little perturbed !! 

[bigtex]

I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?

No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.

[trophyhunt]

As far as the small fee increases, that doesn't bother me too much.  It eventually has to happen, I do wonder how long it's been though?  I don't think they should increase fee's too frequently, but if has been a few years, I get it. 

[trophyhunt]

I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?

No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.

That is very interesting, was not aware of that. Thanks

[bobcat]

I also thought companion hunters were already allowed to shoot the disabled person's animal. We've done it twice. 

The small game license- I was already considering not buying it, since I buy it every year and end up having no need for it. I only need it in case I see a bobcat.

This year I may do some waterfowl hunting, but I can now wait until I know I'll be doing that before I purchase the license. (Since there's no benefit to buying it early)

[trophyhunt]

I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?

No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.

Just read this in the 2014 hunting pamphlet; The hunter companion card allows for a person to assist or ACT on behalf of the disabled hunter. The hunter companion must be in the physical presence of the disabled hunter, not to exceed a 1/4 mile separation. While stalking or shooting an animal, the hunter and companion must have a form of reliable and direct communication.                  The way I read this, it is legal to kill and animal for the disabled hunter?  Am I reading it wrong?

[Bob33]

I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?

No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.

That is very interesting, was not aware of that. Thanks

I don't agree.

(a) The designated hunter companion must accompany the hunter with a disability when stalking or shooting game on behalf of the hunter with a disability.

[bigtex]

I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?

No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.

Just read this in the 2014 hunting pamphlet; The hunter companion card allows for a person to assist or ACT on behalf of the disabled hunter. The hunter companion must be in the physical presence of the disabled hunter, not to exceed a 1/4 mile separation. While stalking or shooting an animal, the hunter and companion must have a form of reliable and direct communication.                  The way I read this, it is legal to kill and animal for the disabled hunter?  Am I reading it wrong?

Per RCW 77.32.238 the law is:  A person with a disability holding a disabled hunter permit may be accompanied by one licensed hunter who may assist the person with a disability by killing game wounded by the person with a disability, and by tagging and retrieving game killed by the person with a disability or the designated licensed hunter companion. A nondisabled hunter shall not possess a loaded gun in, or shoot from, a motor vehicle.

The bill would change "wounded by" to on "behalf of"

[bigtex]

The problem is the WAC and RCW don't currently match up. The RCW currently says companions can only kill wounded game, the WAC says otherwise.

Problem is some officers base their judgment off the WAC, other use the RCW.

The WDFW Sergeant in my area uses the RCW. He may not cite an offender because of it, but it is a troublesome area.

[trophyhunt]

The problem is the WAC and RCW don't currently match up. The RCW currently says companions can only kill wounded game, the WAC says otherwise.

Problem is some officers base their judgment off the WAC, other use the RCW.

The WDFW Sergeant in my area uses the RCW. He may not cite an offender because of it, but it is a troublesome area.

I'd say it's confusing for sure, the regs that must of us hunters abide by say it's legal.  I hope this passes so to clear it up at least. 

[bigtex]

The problem is the WAC and RCW don't currently match up. The RCW currently says companions can only kill wounded game, the WAC says otherwise.

Problem is some officers base their judgment off the WAC, other use the RCW.

The WDFW Sergeant in my area uses the RCW. He may not cite an offender because of it, but it is a troublesome area.

I'd say it's confusing for sure, the regs that must of us hunters abide by say it's legal.  I hope this passes so to clear it up at least.

The RCW is the "law" while a WAC is a "regulation." In legal/law studies you are told the law is the more important of the two. It's very similar to the feds who have the US Code (similar to RCW) and the Code of Federal Regulations (similar to WAC.)

So in this sense you have the law saying you can't do something while a regulation says you can. Okay which is right?

[Ridgeratt]

I also thought companion hunters were already allowed to shoot the disabled person's animal. We've done it twice. 

The small game license- I was already considering not buying it, since I buy it every year and end up having no need for it. I only need it in case I see a bobcat.

This year I may do some waterfowl hunting, but I can now wait until I know I'll be doing that before I purchase the license. (Since there's no benefit to buying it early)

Well it appears you will need the small game to hunt turkeys in this state.

Those under a buck birds are looking better at the store everyday.

[Bob33]

The problem is the WAC and RCW don't currently match up. The RCW currently says companions can only kill wounded game, the WAC says otherwise.

Problem is some officers base their judgment off the WAC, other use the RCW.

The WDFW Sergeant in my area uses the RCW. He may not cite an offender because of it, but it is a troublesome area.

I'd say it's confusing for sure, the regs that must of us hunters abide by say it's legal.  I hope this passes so to clear it up at least.

The RCW is the "law" while a WAC is a "regulation." In legal/law studies you are told the law is the more important of the two. It's very similar to the feds who have the US Code (similar to RCW) and the Code of Federal Regulations (similar to WAC.)

So in this sense you have the law saying you can't do something while a regulation says you can. Okay which is right?

My guess is that the number of companion hunters convicted for killing an otherwise legal animal for a disabled hunter is zero.

[washelkhunter]

Great another screw job by the wdfw. I appreciate the discount on the purchase of the small game with the big. The money grubbers want to put it to us again.     Unless I pull the ms elk this year i'll probably spend my money to hunt elsewhere.

[huntnphool]

This bill does nothing more than generate revenue, it is its only purpose.

[bigtex]

This bill does nothing more than generate revenue, it is its only purpose.

It's not a secret. The actual title of the bill is "increasing revenue to the state wildlife account."

WDFW is getting less tax (general fund) money each budget year. Like it or not, it's becoming more of a user funded agency.

[bobcat]

The intention of the bill is definitely to bring in more revenue, but it seems reasonable to me. At least they didn't increase special permit applications. I would've been done with this state if they did that. The small game license, I can buy it or not. Just like I may not even buy an elk license this year, depending on how I like the new seasons that they come up with for this year.

[BULLBLASTER]

  this os getting rediculous! In 2008 it cost me roughly 140 for my tags and all permit apps. Then in 2009 they made a bajillion categories and now for "quality" deer and elk it costs as much asidahos nonres apps. As it is now i have almost 120 into just apps each year... not including my license and tags! Then a discover pass that goes mostly to state parks where i cant even hunt!!!  thinking i may cash in a few points and be done in wa... i wont buy another small game license for sure. Maybe just otc deer in wa... 

NO NO NO!

[Blackjaw]

I don't mind paying more every year as long as there is more opportunity, if I have to pay more for less opportunity I get a little perturbed !! 

Exactly!!!

[washelkhunter]

Pay pay pay then pay some more suckers. It would be awesome if just even half the resident hunters just sat it out for one year, that would wake em up.

[bearpaw]

I'm ok with small reasonable increases in hunt fees every few years, it takes money for WDFW to operate and there is a certain amount of inflation they must offset. Most of these increases are reasonable. I also like the language for helping disabled hunters have higher odds of taking an animal home.

I am opposed to eliminating the small game discount because a lot of people will quit buying the small game. I would be more agreeable if they increased the fee but still had some sort of discount. The goal should be to keep as many people buying all types of hunting licenses as possible, I know some hunters may not agree with that, but hunter numbers have declined over the years, we need to retain and recruit as many hunters as possible for all types of hunting.

[Skyvalhunter]

If they need more let them tap into the general fund more.

[bearpaw]

I would be happy to pay even more if hunters had a bigger say in wildlife management and they were working to increase herds. 

[Karl Blanchard]

Until we have a Department of fish and GAME,  I will never support increases! We pay more and more and more and we get less and less and less for it!  When hunters start getting put first and stop getting squeezed to foot the bill for everyone, then I can support stuff like this.

[MtnMuley]

I would be happy to pay even more if hunters had a bigger say in wildlife management and they were working to increase herds. 

  x 100

Since that's not the case, stupid SB once again.

[Dhoey07]

It's too bad that they packaged a good thing, bullet point # 1, with a bunch of money grab items, all the other points.

[BULLBLASTER]

It's too bad that they packaged a good thing, bullet point # 1, with a bunch of money grab items, all the other points.

[Karl Blanchard]

It's too bad that they packaged a good thing, bullet point # 1, with a bunch of money grab items, all the other points.

they lump it all together like that so people will go for it even though they don't like the increases.

[bigtex]

If they need more let them tap into the general fund more.

Not going to happen in our lifetime, especially with the McCleary decision which says the state needs to pump billions more into K-12 education.

[Man Tracker]

This issues again points out a problem with the original merger of Fisheries and Wildlife.  The "old: Dept., of Fisheries was funded primarily by the state general fund (taxes), plus federal money from several sources.  The old Game/Wildlife Dept. was funded primarily thru license fees and Pittman/Robertson monies.  Upon merger, the new agency expanded many programs without a funding source, i.e. Habitat Program.  As the state has struggled with budgets, (spending more than they take in) the amount of general fund revenue has decreased.  Soft money and the Wildlife Fund unfortunately have to fund more and more of DFW's programs.  To ask the Legislature to increase general fund money to any/all resource agencies is (unfortunately) a pipe dream.  Even though the state will bring in 3 billion more in revenue over the next biennium than the last, you have seen the tax increases the Governor has asked for...So the unfortunate answer to funding issues is to either: curtail/eliminate programs, or raise fees.  And any bettors on eliminating programs???

[csaaphill]

Leave the small game discount alone, and stop money grubbing!

[lokidog]

I would be happy to pay even more if hunters had a bigger say in wildlife management and they were working to increase herds. 

  x 100

Since that's not the case, stupid SB once again.

 

[Special T]

Taking the small game discount out will have the unintended consequence of screwing up WDFW cash flow.

There are many who purchase the combo earlier in the year than they normally would due to special permitt tags OR buy just because. I think you will see a drop in small game sales as a result.

I would love to do some research on how bear cougar tags sales declined when they took away the  Deer or Elk + Bear&Cougar tags. I know that i only bought the deer small game  combo because  I no longer travel or take time off for elk hunting. (no elk hunting near me) I know that if this passes Im likley to buy the deer tag last min. I only ended up deer hunting 1 mornign this year, and likley wouldnt have even bothered if i had not already bought the small game/deer combo. Likely i will just bird hunt, and only get a deer tag if i can fit it into my everfilling weekend schedual. I bet if you could get ahold of the raw data, including the end of year seasons that you would find the WDFW recives a LOT of $ on tags/activites that sportmen only do occasionally. I know my hunting has become more focused because of increasing costs, and less personal time. I would bet that many hunters have quit hunting much the same way.

The trends are in the raw numbers that the WDFW has available but they sure dont make much use of it from a Marketing perspective.... Just another way I think the department fails. 

[JimmyHoffa]

yep.  I get the discount combo because I need the big game and get it before the permit apps are due.  Now I'll only get the big game, and then decide later if I want small game...and will probably get distracted and forget to get small game or just not get it at all.

[WDFW Hates ME!!!]

Almost done in this state. I have a few more points to burn. I catch a 1-2 hundred salmon/steelhead a year. I don't need to hunt in WA. It is cheaper for me to hunt in Idaho as a non res than a res in WA.

[oneshot12]

Almost done in this state. seem its all about money  money  and more money .Think they should be thinking more about  game animals and habitat a whole lot more   

[Gringo31]

Its not a revenue problem....

It's a spending problem.  Increasing revenue won't fix a problem spender.

NO!

[actionshooter]

Almost done in this state.  I don't need to hunt in WA. It is cheaper for me to hunt in Idaho as a non res than a res in WA.

 That's how I feel.

[timberfaller]

bigtex said; "The problem is the WAC and RCW don't currently match up. The RCW currently says companions can only kill wounded game, the WAC says otherwise."

Our Hunter ED IST last year was on just this!!  There are more(WAC vs RCW non-matching) then one realizes and it makes mass confusion for LEO's to sort out.   That is why it's important NOT to be arrogant, you know what, around a Warden.

Like any/all money grabbers in Olympia, they all "sugar coat" ideas, looking for the LIV'S who will not question their efforts so they can get their desires, aka: more money.

AND YES its past time to split the department back to what it was before the Fish people got their eyes on the Pittman/Robertson monies!!    Oh that's right, it was done to SAVE money, silly me