What is the WSB stance on Baiting for deer & Elk?

[Elkstuffer]

 Since this is a legal method of hunting at this time, I would like to hear if you plan on attending the commissioners meetings and working for the archery hunters of Washington that do choose to use this method as another hunting option.

[Buckrub]

Isn't hunting on a natural feed patch baiting?
I'm done with Washington... Until they value the money I spend here with better management... seeya
Idaho elk... Alaska deer... already booked

[Todd_ID]

This topic is going to be heard at the March Commission meeting as part of the Game management Plan and Regulations/Seasons topic.  3 choices will be given to the Commisisoners to pick one with the new WDFW Game Manager giving no support or detraction to any of the choices: a complete baiting ban, a baiting ban except youth and disabled allowed to use bait with baiting on private land legal with a 10 gal per site limit, or a 10 gal maximum per site limit on any lands. 

We in WSB realize that a change in baiting rules will affect many bowhunters, so we wrote a strong position statement to the Commission against any ban in any form.  (Believe it or not, a well written position statement is more effective than the 3 minutes at a Commission meeting.  But, yes, we plan to be at the meeting, anyway.)  The problem is that a very few think the outfitters and hunters who choose to dump large amounts of bait in one site is causing a bad public perception; those against this are very vocal, so the WDFW thinks it is a problem when reality is likely completely different.  I expect the 10 gal limit to be adopted because of the vocal minority, but I feel strongly that no change should be made without solid evidence necessitating the change. 

[Todd_ID]

Isn't hunting on a natural feed patch baiting?
I'm done with Washington... Until they value the money I spend here with better management... seeya
Idaho elk... Alaska deer... already booked

Food plots and anything natural is not baiting per the WAC. 

The second part of your statement is the very crux of the problem.  There are too many apathetic hunters who choose not to hold the WDFW accountable for managing the game properly.  I choose to proactively participate whenever I can so my grandson will be able to enjoy hunting like I have.  You've made your choice, and I'm making mine; both choices are to be respected.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I don't think we need a new law.  Public land management agencies already have existing laws restricting dumping or building structures on lands under their respective jurisdictions - where there is an issue those rules should be enforced.

On private property, it should be the owner's prerogative to decide whether or not legal baiting occurs on their property.  Baiting is an extremely valuable tool for safely and legally harvesting game in the urban/rural interface where it is most challenging to effect sufficient harvests to address vehicle collisions, nuisance/conflicts, and attraction of predators into areas where the potential for human conflicts increases. 

[Elkstuffer]

Thank you for addressing this Todd and also for everything that you and the WSB are doing, not only for bow hunters but hunters in general. I had a pretty good idea of what your response was going to be but thought it was important to get it out there for all to see. Thanks again!

[ribka]

Thanks for your hard work Todd

This topic is going to be heard at the March Commission meeting as part of the Game management Plan and Regulations/Seasons topic.  3 choices will be given to the Commisisoners to pick one with the new WDFW Game Manager giving no support or detraction to any of the choices: a complete baiting ban, a baiting ban except youth and disabled allowed to use bait with baiting on private land legal with a 10 gal per site limit, or a 10 gal maximum per site limit on any lands. 

We in WSB realize that a change in baiting rules will affect many bowhunters, so we wrote a strong position statement to the Commission against any ban in any form.  (Believe it or not, a well written position statement is more effective than the 3 minutes at a Commission meeting.  But, yes, we plan to be at the meeting, anyway.)  The problem is that a very few think the outfitters and hunters who choose to dump large amounts of bait in one site is causing a bad public perception; those against this are very vocal, so the WDFW thinks it is a problem when reality is likely completely different.  I expect the 10 gal limit to be adopted because of the vocal minority, but I feel strongly that no change should be made without solid evidence necessitating the change.

[4fletch]

Thank you Todd, Shawn and all the others supporting WSB

[popeshawnpaul]

WSB stands for keeping baiting legal if one chooses.  There are some vocal few that believe they should legislate their morals on everyone.  Simply don't bait if you don't believe it's morally right.  Perhaps spend the time fighting anti's and others that threaten hunting instead of going down the road of splitting the hunting community.

[bearpaw]

WSB stands for keeping baiting legal if one chooses.  There are some vocal few that believe they should legislate their morals on everyone.  Simply don't bait if you don't believe it's morally right.  Perhaps spend the time fighting anti's and others that threaten hunting instead of going down the road of splitting the hunting community.

   Extremely well said! 

[bobcat]

Here are the proposals that they just posted today:

[bobcat]

I didn't get everything regarding baiting posted last night, so here's the rest. (I assume the commission will need to pick one of these three options)

[popeshawnpaul]

On the WSB FB page it seems there are a few that want baiting illegal.  I'm surprised really.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Washington-State-Bowhunters/489023957775769?fref=nf

[DOUBLELUNG]

Shawn is any of this applicable? It seems the intent is for there to be a scientific basis for changes.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=34.05.271

[Jingles]

While I support those that will be attending the meeting and I support that no changes be made that would prohibit baiting by any hunter the experiences I have had with the public meetings with WDFW is like Pizzing on a wildfire.
As a small scale miner we had numerous public meetings with WDFW prior to their latest revision of the Gold and Fish Pamphlet and presented all kinds of scientific studies and they ignored it all and so much as told us to go pizz up a rope. Consequentially I don't expect much more from these meetings although I hope for the best......I figure they already have the greenie minds made up and it doesn't matter what is said nothing is going to change it. short complete change of decision making personnel.

[Stein]

So, if I happen to be a wealthy ranch owner and plant crops for deer, that is ok.  If I am a normal guy and buy a box of apples, that isn't.

Maybe the first step is to push to include animals feeding on agricultural plots as baiting.  That way, we will at least all be on the same team.

This is just another chipping away at hunting.  In a generation, it is amazing what can happen.  Dogs, bait, lead bullets, you even have to weigh your arrows.

[Rainier10]

This is the comment I submitted in response to all three baiting restriction options.

"I strongly believe that the rule should remain status quo for the upcoming three year cycle.  I believe that the original online survey was the best judge of what hunters desired.  These were people that are actually concerned about the issue and took the time to respond to the survey.  I was not contacted for the phone survey and none of my family members or hunting partners were, that is a total of over 20 members of our family.  Bottom line the online survey said no change and there is no data to suggest that baiting is having a negative affect on the resource.  If there was something other than a few complaining that they are against it I would be willing to look at other options of controlling the problem.  I just don't see that there is a problem.  I don't believe that we should be making rules to ban a practice that works for some and has no adverse impacts on game populations.  In essence you are taking away opportunity from hunters and the benefit is to quiet a few complaints."

I have been to these meetings before and if enough people write in or show up to the meeting on one side of the issue the commission will listen and strike this from the new rules.  Especially if we argue that the online survey was against any restriction and there is no scientific evidence saying that baiting is adversely affecting the resource or hunter success.

[bobcat]

At least they specifically exempted scents from being considered bait. Many people on this forum thought scents would be considered bait for deer and elk hunting purposes, just like it is for bear.

[Bob33]

My interpretation of the three options is that -078 is the most severe. With the exceptions of ranches, food plots, orchards and so forth which are common to all three no baiting is allowed. Period.

The second option -079 allows baiting in quantities less than 10 gallons.

The third option -088 takes away the 10 gallon limit, but adds exemptions for youths, seniors, and some private lands.

[Todd_ID]

My interpretation of the three options is that -078 is the most severe. With the exceptions of ranches, food plots, orchards and so forth which are common to all three no baiting is allowed. Period.

The second option -079 allows baiting in quantities less than 10 gallons.

The third option -088 takes away the 10 gallon limit, but adds exemptions for youths, seniors, and some private lands.

Yes
-078 bans all baiting
-079 sets a 10 gal limit on all bait sites
-088 bans bait on public land (except for youth, over 65, and disabled) and sets a 10 gal limit on private lands.

[Bob33]

This is just another chipping away at hunting.  In a generation, it is amazing what can happen.  Dogs, bait, lead bullets, you even have to weigh your arrows.

That's true, but in my lifetime I've also gained the use of laser rangefinders, GPS units, Google Earth images, bows that shoot much faster and more accurately than ever before, two-way radios, trail cameras, better bullets, better rifles, better clothing, better publicly available landowner information, websites that post all the honey holes  , and a myriad of other things that have improved my hunt experience and allowed me to hunt better than ever before.

[idahohuntr]

My interpretation of the three options is that -078 is the most severe. With the exceptions of ranches, food plots, orchards and so forth which are common to all three no baiting is allowed. Period.

The second option -079 allows baiting in quantities less than 10 gallons.

The third option -088 takes away the 10 gallon limit, but adds exemptions for youths, seniors, and some private lands.

Yes
-078 bans all baiting
-079 sets a 10 gal limit on all bait sites
-088 bans bait on public land (except for youth, over 65, and disabled) and sets a 10 gal limit on private lands.

Close, but not quite right on 088...it bans baiting except for  youth, 65+, and disabled hunters. It also exempts hunters hunting on private land in modern firearm restricted units/areas or urban growth areas, as defined by municipalities from the ban.  Even in the "exception" cases, the bait volume limit (10 gal) applies.

[Elkstuffer]

The 4th option is to leave the baiting issue "as is".

It's important for everyone that is in favor of this to go onto the WDFW website and voice their opinion. It's easy to do and only takes about 5 min. Longer if you want to weigh in on the other issues at hand.

Like Shawn eluded to, It's ridiculous that other hunters are the driving force to get this "LEGAL" form of hunting changed and taken away!

Thanks again to everyone in the WSB for standing up for our rights!

[elk247]

This is just another chipping away at hunting.  In a generation, it is amazing what can happen.  Dogs, bait, lead bullets, you even have to weigh your arrows.

That's true, but in my lifetime I've also gained the use of laser rangefinders, GPS units, Google Earth images, bows that shoot much faster and more accurately than ever before, two-way radios, trail cameras, better bullets, better rifles, better clothing, better publicly available landowner information, websites that post all the honey holes  , and a myriad of other things that have improved my hunt experience and allowed me to hunt better than ever before.

Horse shoes, 4wd, camoflauge,  I wish I could have been able to hunt pre 70's technology be dammed. Less crowded, less laws, more open access better predator management practices, and a thriving logging industry the hunting must have been outstanding.

[Rainier10]

The 4th option is to leave the baiting issue "as is".

It's important for everyone that is in favor of this to go onto the WDFW website and voice their opinion. It's easy to do and only takes about 5 min. Longer if you want to weigh in on the other issues at hand.

Like Shawn eluded to, It's ridiculous that other hunters are the driving force to get this "LEGAL" form of hunting changed and taken away!

Thanks again to everyone in the WSB for standing up for our rights!

This is spot on.  We don't have to choose one of these options, I have seen the commission in the past with enough written input and verbal input from meeting attendees just strike a proposal completely out of the regulations.

Go to the survey and say no change on all three options, keep baiting legal the way that it is right now.  They can readdress it later if it actually becomes a problem.  These proposals are a knee jerk reaction to a few people that have complained about it.

[popeshawnpaul]

The baiting issue is moving fast and I wanted to let people know the options out there and what WSB is doing about this.  WSB is supporting option B.  Here are the three proposals out there right now:

Version A
NEW SECTION
WAC 232-12-xxx Baiting for the purposes of hunting deer or elk.

(1) For the purposes of this section:

(a) "Bait" is any salt, grain, fruit, hay or other food-based at- tractant that could serve as a lure or attraction for deer or elk.
(b) Scent attractants and scent covers are not considered bait.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful to hunt deer or elk using any type of bait placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attract- ing deer or elk to an area where one or more persons intend to hunt them.

(3) Exceptions: Hunting on or over the following is not consid- ered an unlawful use of bait while hunting deer or elk:
(a) Farms or ranches where active agricultural operations including salt or mineral distribution for livestock, crop fields, orchards, vineyards, hay fields, haystacks, or pastures exist;
(b) Abandoned orchards or vineyards;
(c) Naturally occurring mineral deposits; or
(d) Food plots planted for wildlife and left undisturbed.
 
(4) A violation of this section is punishable as an infraction under RCW 77.15.160
 []
 
Version B

NEW SECTION

WAC 232-12-xxx Bait volume limits for the purpose of hunting deer or elk. (1) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "Bait" is any salt, grain, fruit, hay or other food-based at- tractant that could serve as a lure or attraction for deer or elk.
(b) Scent attractants and scent covers are not considered bait.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful to hunt for deer and elk using any type of bait placed, exposed, de- posited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting deer or elk to an area where one or more persons intend to
hunt them, if the volume of bait exceeds 10 gallons (1.34 cubic feet).

(3) Exceptions: Hunting on or over the following is not consid- ered an unlawful use of bait while hunting deer or elk:
(a) Farms or ranches where active agricultural operations includ- ing salt or mineral distribution for livestock, crop fields, orchards, vineyards, hay fields, haystacks, or pastures exist;
(b) Abandoned orchards or vineyards;
(c) Naturally occurring mineral deposits; or
(d) Food plots planted for wildlife and left undisturbed.

(4) A violation of this section is punishable as an infraction under RCW 77.15.160
 
Version C
NEW SECTION

WAC 232-12-xxx Baiting for the purposes of hunting deer or elk with exceptions.
(1) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "Bait" is any salt, grain, fruit, hay or other food-based at- tractant that could serve as a lure or attraction for deer or elk.
(b) Scent attractants and scent covers are not considered bait.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful to hunt deer or elk using any type of bait placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attract- ing deer or elk to an area where one or more persons intend to hunt them.

(3) Exceptions:
(a) Hunting on or over the following is not considered an unlaw- ful use of bait while hunting deer or elk:
(i) Farms or ranches where active agricultural operations includ- ing salt or mineral distribution for livestock, crop fields, orchards, vineyards, hay fields, haystacks, or pastures exist;
(ii) Abandoned orchards or vineyards;
(iii) Naturally occurring mineral deposits; or
(iv) Food plots planted for wildlife and left undisturbed.
(b) Hunters that meet the requirements of a hunter with a disa- bility and possessing a valid disabled hunter permit as provided in RCW 77.32.237 and 77.32.238; or is sixty-five years old or older; or qualifies as a youth hunter and possesses a youth license; can use bait for the purposes of hunting deer or elk if the volume of bait
present is 10 gallons (1.34 cubic feet) or less.
(c) Hunters may use bait while hunting deer or elk on private lands with the express permission of the landowner if those lands are designated as within an urban growth area or a firearm restriction area by a county or municipal government and the volume of bait present
Is 10 gallons (1.34 cubic feet) or less.

(4) A violation of this section is punishable as an infraction under RCW 77.15.160

[bobcat]

Thanks for the update. I could live with option B.

[grundy53]

I think option B is the lesser of the evils.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Rainier10]

Thanks for the update.  If no change is not an option then option B is what I would chose.  I have sent my opinion of no change is needed and hope that in the end there is no change.

Thanks again for the update.

[Rainier10]

I assume that by distributed that would eliminate the bait in an auto feeder.  if you have a 200 pound capacity auto feeder only the feed actually on the ground would count.  Hopefully the same would hold true for a gravity feeder as well, only the bait actually on the ground would count towards the ten gallons.  Another question I would have is could you bait all year and then remove it 10 days or whatever before the season.  Also I would be interested to know how many bait sites could you have.  Is it one site per lot, per acre or per what?

I still think they should make a rule for a specific area rather than restrict it statewide.  That is why they have GMUs, that way they can micromanage smaller areas.

[lokidog]

B would be acceptable, however, some people use alfalfa (I don't), maybe an exception for a half bale or something like that should be included?

I also agree with Rainier10 that it would be better served by GMU rather than blanket rule.

[idahohuntr]

Uggg...I don't like any of them.  I could live with B.  The problem with C, even though I contend bait is most helpful to youth, senior, disabled hunters, is that by placing bait you essentially make that area off limits for non disabled/youth/senior hunters. 

On the volume - I think they need to set a limit to address the semi load of apples issue...and I hope/suspect the on the ground enforcement will not be to look for guys who maybe have 15 gallons of bait vs. 10...but literally guys dumping semi loads of apples.

[popeshawnpaul]

I find it frustrating that the complaints were about semi trucks of apples and we have to do all of this to restrict one little problem.  Let's address the complaints and don't try and legislate things that aren't a problem.  It's sort of like gun legislation, lots of laws that won't effect or stop the real problem but we pass them to make ourselves feel better?

[Stein]

I support option C, no change.  Deer are fed and baited all over the country and there is no big problem.  If you don't like it, don't do it.

[bobcat]

Option C is not "no change."  Read it again. It says no bait allowed except for youth, 65 or older, and disabled hunters.

Or, on private land with landowner's permission if it's within a firearm restriction area or urban growth boundary.

[SCRUBS]

I find it frustrating that the complaints were about semi trucks of apples and we have to do all of this to restrict one little problem.  Let's address the complaints and don't try and legislate things that aren't a problem.  It's sort of like gun legislation, lots of laws that won't effect or stop the real problem but we pass them to make ourselves feel better?

Makes no sense does it

[MtnMuley]

I find it frustrating that the complaints were about semi trucks of apples and we have to do all of this to restrict one little problem.  Let's address the complaints and don't try and legislate things that aren't a problem.  It's sort of like gun legislation, lots of laws that won't effect or stop the real problem but we pass them to make ourselves feel better?

I agree 100% and feel so do many of the people taking a stand on the issue at hand. Fix the simple problem that actually IS a problem, and leave the rest of it alone. It seems too difficult these days to address a problem solely and make a change. However, it's far easier to make a mess of a situation and start a hunter vs hunter war, which it shouldn't be.

[Rainier10]

I find it frustrating that the complaints were about semi trucks of apples and we have to do all of this to restrict one little problem.  Let's address the complaints and don't try and legislate things that aren't a problem.  It's sort of like gun legislation, lots of laws that won't effect or stop the real problem but we pass them to make ourselves feel better?

Exactly. The big complaint is about outfitters in one or two gmus aged ting migration routes with truckloads of apples. Is it that tough to limit baiting to ten gallons in gmu whatever starting in November?