I-1401 Wildlife Trafficking Initiative Passing in ALL Counties

[bigtex]

Chelan & Stevens have yet to report but as of right now the statewide vote count is 184,859 voting yes and 55,553 voting no.

http://projects.seattletimes.com/2015/election-results/#Statewide

[hollymaster]

Guess some people can't read.

[Bob33]

Paul Allen should worry more about his O line than gun owners and hunters.

[bigtex]

Stevens County is now reporting, passing in that county as well.

[2labs]

Guess some people can't read.

When I was researching before voting(crazy I know, right) this is what popped up.progressive voters guide. It tells these free thinkers just how to vote! Easy.

[kellama2001]

So dis-heartening to continually be reminded just how many uninformed voters there are in this state 

[JimmyHoffa]

I had read earlier that for my county only about 20% of ballots had been received by today, not sure how many more would trickle in over the course of the day. 

[j_h_nimrod]

What a joke, Paul Allen strikes again.

[dreamingbig]

I did my part and voted no but I fully expected this to pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bean Counter]

How many  hunters in Washington, again?

[PolarBear]

The wording and advertising were deviously deceptive.  It is right out of the "progressive" play book, smoke and mirrors.  There are already laws governing the trafficking of endangered animals and their parts.  This makes it easy for any species to be classified, hunter's rights stripped and land locked up.  This will be a huge kick in the junk for hunters, just wait and see.

[Bean Counter]

Guess some people can't won't read.

[MtnMuley]

Obviously I voted no, but saw no chance of this not passing. I'm very surprised that the guys who fully support baiting of deer and elk weren't very vocal about this. About a month ago when I took some time to read the initiative, I noticed some wording that appeared to me to make it illegal to bait deer or elk if this passed..... Hopefully I read into it wrong, as that'd really be a slap to get baiting banned by slipping it in this initiative.

[no1waterdog]

I voted as did my whole family ,we all voted NO! I would like to know if I can still bring home my  Leopard that I hunted this year?Over 40 days hunting for the Mr Spots and now I may not be able to import it! John

[Netminder01]

How many  hunters in Washington, again?

Lack of organization and importantly, funding. Paul Allen easily raises $2M FOR this initiative while those of us that oppose it cross our fingers and hope it won't pass. C'mon people - especially in this state? Psssh.

[JimmyHoffa]

I was surprised that it passed all counties.  Kind of figured a few eastside counties would reject it, and westside would pass.  I don't even want to know what Allen will have on next years ballot. 

[pianoman9701]

I'm not at all surprised. I saw nothing about this on the news at all, no commercials at all. At first glance, the initiative seeks to protect endangered species from extinction. Who wouldn't want that? The organizations like SCI who campaigned against this on hunting channels were wasting their money preaching to the choir. They should've been on KOMO and King5 with that money educating people who didn't know what this was going to be about.

[CAMPMEAT]

We had commercials on TV over here. I voted NO....

[pianoman9701]

I voted NO, too. I'm probably one of the few around here who did.

[Bob33]

How many  hunters in Washington, again?

200,000 plus or minus. 3% to 4%.

[pianoman9701]

I bet a good portion of the hunters voted for it too. A lot of people didn't know about it.

[PolarBear]

The devil is in the details. These knee jerk voters just saw the warm and fuzzy parts and that was enough for them.   

[Bean Counter]

Well that's 200,000 (plus say 100,000 spouses )that should have no. I'd like to think that I could have convinced a few of my neighbors and friends to vote No as well.

[bigjohn98591]

I voted NO on this so did my wife and daughter. When My wife asked how to vote on it I told her to vote no, of course she questioned it. After I explained why she was totally in support of voting no.

[pianoman9701]

The devil is in the details. These knee jerk voters just saw the warm and fuzzy parts and that was enough for them.   

Yeah, imagine reading the voter's pamphlet! 

[Hi-Liter]

Paul Allen ever heard of the Lacey Act?

[Bob33]

There were at least three posts started about 1401 on Hunt WA.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,184847.0.html
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,178998.0.html
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,184105.0.html

I sure hope that no one on Hunt WA wasn't aware of this. If you weren't, you need to somehow get yourself tuned in better.

It is a calculated, steady, never ending attack on our rights as gun owners and sportsmen.

[bigtex]

It'll be interesting to see the level of enforcement that WDFW provides in enforcing this law.....

[bigtex]

Paul Allen ever heard of the Lacey Act?

Well WDFW actually wanted the legislature to create a state version of the Lacey Act in 2014 and the legislature did so.

In reality, this initiative is a version of other bills/initiatives that are taking place in a lot of states. It just had some big $ behind it here.

[bobcat]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

[bigtex]

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It only involves elephant, rhinoceros, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, pangolin, marine turtle, shark, or ray either: (a) Listed in appendix I or appendix II of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna; or (b) listed as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable on the international union for conservation of nature and natural resources red list of threatened species. Either in whole or their parts.

[bobcat]

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It only involves elephant, rhinoceros, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, pangolin, marine turtle, shark, or ray either: (a) Listed in appendix I or appendix II of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna; or (b) listed as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable on the international union for conservation of nature and natural resources red list of threatened species. Either in whole or their parts.

Okay, thanks. Just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

[Bob33]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It shouldn't have any effect on hunting in Washington. It does criminalize sale of virtually any product containing ivory like jewelry, regardless of when it was purchased. It is primarily an attack of trophy hunting in places like Africa. The long term effect of efforts to ban or restrict legal hunting in places like Africa is that animal populations will suffer, along with a decline in local economies that depend on hunting related income.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-18/zimbabwe-elephant-population-dwindles-amid-threat-from-poachers
"In July, wildlife officials in Zimbabwe requested the U.S. reverse a ban on ivory imports it implemented a year ago citing concerns about the sustainability of the country’s elephant population. Zimbabwe’s elephant-hunting industry generates $14 million a year and helps control the population of 97,500 species that trample over trees and farmers’ fields, according to the country’s Parks and Wildlife Management Authority".

[pianoman9701]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It affects hunters in WA. If you or anyone you know (like Bob33), ever hunt in Africa and pay to take trophies like elephant or Southern  Black Rhino, you'll now no longer be able to import them into the state. It should concern you that we're passing referendums on prohibiting not only legal hunting trophies, but laws which will actually endanger populations if not enough money goes into their conservation efforts. After the Cecil the Lion debacle, US residents were banned by our government from hunting elephants in Zimbabwe. Since the money stopped flowing, 64 elephants have been poached for their ivory. The country's wildlife manager blames the poaching on the ignorance of the American government to the good done by the money from American trophy hunters. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean we shouldn't protect someone else's right to do it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3293101/Dozens-elephants-killed-Zimbabwe-national-park-poisoned-rangers-protest-pay.html

[bigtex]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It shouldn't have any effect on hunting in Washington. It does criminalize sale of virtually any product containing ivory like jewelry, regardless of when it was purchased. It is primarily an attack of trophy hunting in places like Africa. The long term effect of efforts to ban or restrict legal hunting in places like Africa is that animal populations will suffer, along with a decline in local economies that depend on hunting related income.

There are some exemptions such as the product is part of an antique, the item is gifted to someone via a will, or the parts are less than 15% of a musical instrument.

The interesting part is in the penalty section. Illegal acts involving product worth under $250 would face a gross misdemeanor charge, over $250 is a Class C Felony. However, there is a provision that says if you have a previous fish and wildlife conviction at the gross misdemeanor or felony level within the previous 5 years then they would face the felony charge.

[bigtex]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It affects hunters in WA. If you or anyone you know (like Bob33), ever hunt in Africa and pay to take trophies like elephant or Southern  Black Rhino, you'll now no longer be able to import them into the state.

Not true.

The law has no effect on importation, only sale of products. John Doe can shoot a lion in Africa and bring it home to Ellensburg, but once he is in WA he cannot sell or trade any of the lion product.

(1) Except as authorized in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, it is unlawful for a person to sell, offer to sell,  purchase, trade, barter for, or distribute any covered animal species part or product.

[pianoman9701]

I took that as meaning if I bought a hunt and killed an elephant, I wouldn't be able to bring home the ivory. It seems to define importing the ivory as distribution.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Wife and I both voted no on this for the main reason that I've seen the Federal Endangered Species act be totally misused when it comes to sea mammals.  The studies and surveys that are used to determine if a species is endangered are way out of date. Case in point the sea lion problem in the Columbia River.

[bigtex]

I took that as meaning if I bought a hunt and killed an elephant, I wouldn't be able to bring home the ivory. It seems to define importing the ivory as distribution.

Nowhere in the initiative (now the law) is the word import....

The initiative defines distribute/distribution:
"Distribute" or "distribution" means either a change in possession for consideration or a change in legal ownership.

[Netminder01]

tag.

[JimmyHoffa]

BigTex, would it apply to an outfitter doing business in WA?  Can he still sell hunts in Africa for those species with a business based in WA?  Taxidermists?

[Bean Counter]

Paul Allen ever heard of the Lacey Act?

By this logic alone I'd be inclined to vote for it. I'd rather see the federal Lacey Act repealed and states do their own law enforcement. 

[bigtex]

BigTex, would it apply to an outfitter doing business in WA?  Can he still sell hunts in Africa for those species with a business based in WA?  Taxidermists?

Those are likely going to have to be decided by either case law or the opinion of the Attorney General's office, and I could probably see them going either way.

I think an outfitter would probably be ok because he is not exactly selling an animal but rather the hunt, and the animal is outside the state. So if John Doe books a hunt through a WA outfitter, goes to Africa comes back and the animal is never traded/sold/bartered/etc in WA then he should be fine.

Taxidermist could be interesting because obviously the animal will be in WA, it will change hands, and money will be involved. However, the question would be is can someone buy an animal that is already theirs, but has just been stuffed? Even if it is ruled taxidermists can no longer mount these animals then all you would have to do is go to Oregon or Idaho and have it mounted there, as long as there are no prohibitions in those states.

[Gamblin Guy]

Well let Cenci investigate the first case, the US Attorney has basically said he wont touch any case from WDFW anyway....

[bigtex]

Well let Cenci investigate the first case, the US Attorney has basically said he wont touch any case from WDFW anyway....

These cases will be prosecuted in state courts, not federal......

[Gamblin Guy]

Guess I should have read it more closely, I knew Paul Allen was behind it and everyone in my house voted no. 

There's probably a state prosecutor or two around that doesn't want much to do with him either.....