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.