Bill in Olympia to affect shed hunting with dogs?

[jackelope]

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/bill-crack-shed-antler-hunting-tactic/

[MtnMuley]

A better and more simple solution would be to ticket the dbags that turn the dogs loose to run the elk. 

[Woodchuck]

The way I read it, they are doing that with heavier fines, taking hunting privileges, and seizing the antlers. 

[Jingles]

as a land owner just shoot the Damned dogs

[mkcj]

I don't see anything wrong with this, if you shoot an animal on private property you no longer get to keep the animal and get fined...correct?

[Brad Harshman]

I've only read this article, not the HB.  But if this is accurate summary of the HB, then I support this as well.  At no time should we be chasing deer or elk with dogs.  It also sounds like trespassing penalties need to be higher/harsher especially for those who intentionally do it.

[Ridge Roamer]

I have seen dogs chasing elk in shed season a couple of times on public land. Some dog owners think there dog is well trained until there dog catches the fresh scent of elk, then there off to the races chasing them down & the owners can not control them.

[MtnMuley]

Trespassing penalties were stiffened up a bunch a couple years ago. That was good enough for me. Just one more HB that's a waste of time. 

[CAMPMEAT]

as a land owner just shoot the Damned dogs

My thoughts too.....

[fireweed]

Isn't letting dogs chase elk already illegal?  And trespassing is already illegal? and harassing wildlife?

[haugenna]

as a land owner just shoot the Damned dogs

My thoughts too.....

Here we go again, I can see where this is going.....   "My dog is more valuable than human life and if you shoot my dog, I will shoot you."

Oh, I like the law as the article presents it if that is truly the nature of the bill. 

[CAMPMEAT]

as a land owner just shoot the Damned dogs

My thoughts too.....

Here we go again, I can see where this is going.....   "My dog is more valuable than human life and if you shoot my dog, I will shoot you."

Oh, I like the law as the article presents it if that is truly the nature of the bill.

I bet the guy is a none hunter, rides a bicycle not in the green lanes in Seattle and drives a Prius....

[fair-chase]

The article is a bit misleading. It focuses on wildlife harassment and chasing them with dogs; while the bill only deals with trespassing on private lands.  Maybe I'm missing something here???

HB-1627

Rep. Schmik, the bills sponsor is from my district. I think I will try and contact him tomorrow and see what (if any) relevance this will have to the increased level of harassment we've been seeing in regards to shed hunting.

[Brad Harshman]

Thanks for posting the HB.  It's short and sweet, it's merely including the illegality of collecting wildlife parts to the already standing law.  It's saying while your trespassing and hunting animals or collecting thier parts (sheds) you'll lose the animals/parts if caught.  It's not earth shattering it's merely amending a standing law to protect property owners from jack wagon trespassers.  And now the state can confiscate the sheds.  But what I don't like is that the landowner should have a 'right' to the sheds.  instead, acording to article the state will auction it off or donate them to a civic group.  But the owner of the land where the sheds came from doesn't get a say in the matter. 

[bearpaw]

Thanks for posting the HB.  It's short and sweet, it's merely including the illegality of collecting wildlife parts to the already standing law.  It's saying while your trespassing and hunting animals or collecting thier parts (sheds) you'll lose the animals/parts if caught.  It's not earth shattering it's merely amending a standing law to protect property owners from jack wagon trespassers.  And now the state can confiscate the sheds.  But what I don't like is that the landowner should have a 'right' to the sheds.  instead, acording to article the state will auction it off or donate them to a civic group.  But the owner of the land where the sheds came from doesn't get a say in the matter.

   I agree, the landowner should have first right to the retrieved antlers and then if not desired the WDFW should take them.

Looks like a good addition to the existing law that will hopefully resolve another trespassing issue.

[jackelope]

I changed the title of the thread. Didn't feel like it accurately reflected the gist of the article. That's what I get for rushing…

[nalley112]

as a land owner just shoot the Damned dogs

you must not own a hunting dog or just a dog in that matter.. most dogs become a part in the family..if you were to shoot at my dog i would shoot back.
its not the dogs fault for running the deer and elk around. its the owners fault for letting them do it and not having them on a leash.

[lokidog]

as a land owner just shoot the Damned dogs

you must not own a hunting dog or just a dog in that matter.. most dogs become a part in the family..if you were to shoot at my dog i would shoot back.
its not the dogs fault for running the deer and elk around. its the owners fault for letting them do it and not having them on a leash.

Yeah, but we, unfortunately, can't shoot loser dog owners....  I didn't read the bill, but what abot if we are out walking our dogs, in control, and find a shed?  Now I'm a wildlife law breaker?  BS!!

[haugenna]

Didn't even make it past the first page lol

[runamuk]

Isn't letting dogs chase elk already illegal?  And trespassing is already illegal? and harassing wildlife?

yes but since when does enforcing an existing law buy votes    it's way funner to make more laws that are even more convoluted and less likely to be enforced than the previous one and if we are super lucky it will contradict some other law thus eventually ending up in some courtroom to be debated and really only providing job security for people paid with taxes, oh that they will need to raise again because they cant afford to enforce them due to budget...wash.... rinse.... repeat

[lokidog]

Isn't letting dogs chase elk already illegal?  And trespassing is already illegal? and harassing wildlife?

yes but since when does enforcing an existing law buy votes    it's way funner to make more laws that are even more convoluted and less likely to be enforced than the previous one and if we are super lucky it will contradict some other law thus eventually ending up in some courtroom to be debated and really only providing job security for people paid with taxes, oh that they will need to raise again because they cant afford to enforce them due to budget...wash.... rinse.... repeat

 

[nalley112]

maybe they should make a season on when you can start using a dog?? but then again who is going to be out and enforce it?
 or like Lokidog said what if your out for a little hike with your dogs and there lies one right in front of you and its not open? who is going to pass it up just cause they have a dog

[Jingles]

as a land owner just shoot the Damned dogs

you must not own a hunting dog or just a dog in that matter.. most dogs become a part in the family..if you were to shoot at my dog i would shoot back.
its not the dogs fault for running the deer and elk around. its the owners fault for letting them do it and not having them on a leash.

Yes I have had hunting dogs and I currently have a dog and I did not let them chase deer it is the owners fault they chase deer/ elk  if the owner doesn't take the time or have the intelligence to train his dogs. And it your dogs are chasing deer on my private property as was described your dogs are gonna get shot at and if you shoot at me get ready for a gunfight

[nalley112]

still not the dogs fault.. shoot at the owner and i would hope he would then figure it out..doesnt matter if its private or not..

[bigtex]

I am sorry this is a HORRIBLE article.

The bill has NOTHING to do with using dogs to find sheds. All the bill does is make it a fish and wildlife offense to be on someone's land without their permission and look for sheds.

[lokidog]

Guess that got twisted in translation.  That bill is still stupid though since there are already trespass laws, so it boils down to the same thing, NO NEW LAWS THAT HAVE NO REAL PURPOSE!!!!

[PolarBear]

as a land owner just shoot the Damned dogs

[Chesapeake]

It seems to me it would be more prevalent to have shed hunters purposefully sending their dogs onto private lands to fetch sheds, than to have them sending their dogs to run the animals. The article doesn't seem to mention this at all. But the bill uses the word "retrieve" a lot. Maybe they are expecting that wording to cover sending your dog to do the "trespassing" and "retrieving" of wildlife parts. I'm sure there is some legal reason they didn't mention "Dog" in there.



 

[Huntmossberg8]

RCW that covers any act of using dogs to harass big game, not to even mention the trespass issue (Criminal Trespass 2nd). If dogs are being trained/used to locate already shed antlers, I fully support that.

RCW 77.15.240
Unlawful use of dogs — Penalty — Authority to take or destroy a dog — Certain hazing activities permitted.
   

(1)(a) A person is guilty of unlawful use of dogs if the person:

     (i) Negligently fails to prevent a dog under the person's control from pursuing, harassing, attacking, or killing deer, elk, moose, caribou, mountain sheep, or animals classified as endangered under this title; or

     (ii) Uses the dog to hunt deer or elk.

     (b) For the purposes of this subsection, a dog is "under a person's control" if the dog is owned or possessed by, or in the custody of, a person.

     (2) Unlawful use of dogs is a misdemeanor.

     (3)(a) Based on a reasonable belief that a dog is pursuing, harassing, attacking, or killing a deer, elk, moose, caribou, mountain sheep, or animals classified as protected or endangered under this title, fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may:

     (i) Lawfully take a dog into custody; or

     (ii) If necessary to avoid repeated harassment, injury, or death of wildlife under this section, destroy the dog.

     (b) Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers who destroy a dog pursuant to this section are immune from civil or criminal liability arising from their actions.

     (4)(a) This section does not apply to a person using a dog to conduct a department-approved and controlled hazing activity, as long as the person prevents or minimizes physical contact between the dog and the wildlife, and the hazing is being done only for the purposes of wildlife control and the prevention of damage to commercial crops.

     (b) For the purposes of this subsection, "hazing" means the act of chasing or herding wildlife in an effort to move them from one location to another.

[Maverick]

You shouldn't. Lose your hunting rights for two years for shed hunting. It doesn't require a hunting license. My issue with this is because not all shed hunters hunt. In fact I know quite a few that don't hunt at all but love to hike for shed antlers.