Baiting on the chopping block

[Bango skank]

Its not semantics, tags and permits are completely different things.  You cant "fill a permit"  You can hunt on a permit, in order to fill a tag.  A permit is not a tag.

[Special T]

Ren is a member of Silver Arrow Bowman and was heavily involved in Whidbey Island Bowmen before it was closed. He is a hunter, Archer, and all around good guy.

ONE problem does NOT need a bunch of BS laws on the books. This whole issue is because a guide had truckloads of culled apples from his leases piled up to attract mule deer.

I personally dislike new laws because they mostly dont solve jack... I dont think they should change the baiting law, and i dislike the "solutions" presented.

The WDFW has not even presented what the "Problem" is so how can we asses a solution? IMO this is just another attempt to hurt hunting opportunity. I have to say that is why Im VERY disappointed in Bearpaw's suggestions since he is always proclaiming how hunters need to stand together to protect each others preferred method of hunting.

[mfswallace]

Its not semantics, tags and permits are completely different things.  You cant "fill a permit"  You can hunt on a permit, in order to fill a tag.  A permit is not a tag.

However u want to waste time not answering my question ok

[Bango skank]

Im answering clearly.  Youre just not understanding.

            Mfswallace----->          <------me


                   

     



                    I can use the little pictures too!   

[bigtex]

Enforcement
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.

There is only one instance in all of WA law that I am aware of where an officer is only permitted to issue a written warning upon the first offense. That violation is negligently feeding wild carnivores, which in many cases means someone leaves garbage out that a bear gets into. In that case on a first offense an officer can issue a written warning, if after two days the offender has not picked up the garbage then a natural resource infraction is issued. WDFW does not set fines the Supreme Court does, in this case the supreme court has said the fine is $150. The reason why this offense has the first time offense = warning stipulation is because the legislature and WDFW believed that most citizens would not know of a law regarding negligently feeding wildlife, so they figured the warning should be enough to give them a "wake up call."

I have a hard time with Bearpaw's enforcement suggestion of a first time offense = warning with a 7 day correction requirement. As hunter's we are supposed to know the regs. An officer can always issue a verbal warning, written warning, etc. Realistically, putting in place a law that says a first time = warning simply means that I can go break baiting laws and if I am caught then oh well, I'll get a piece of paper that means nothing.

In this case I would much rather see the violation be handled just like WDFW proposed this year. In the spring WDFW Commission meeting the commission was faced with three possible baiting regulations. In all cases the penalty would be the same. If you violated the baiting regs and did NOT kill an animal the ticket was a natural resource infraction (ticket). If you violated baiting regs and DID kill an animal then you are charged with the criminal offense of unlawful hunting of big game. This is the trend that WDFW has approached since 2012. Prior to 2012 most fish and wildlife offenses were criminal offenses, due to a change in court regs WDFW is now going towards making offenses where no fish/wildlife were actually taken into an infraction so that the more serious offenses (where fish/wildlife are taken) can be prosecuted. Infractions don't take up prosecutors time, criminal offenses do.

[Bango skank]

Enforcement
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.

If you violated the baiting regs and did NOT kill an animal the ticket was a natural resource infraction (ticket). If you violated baiting regs and DID kill an animal then you are charged with the criminal offense of unlawful hunting of big game.

So how would this play out.  I see baiting as feeding wildlife for the purpose of hunting.  If youre not hunting them then its just feeding right?  What about me feeding deer in december - feb to grt them to drop antlers on my property? 

[Todd_ID]

Ren is a member of Silver Arrow Bowman and was heavily involved in Whidbey Island Bowmen before it was closed. He is a hunter, Archer, and all around good guy.

ONE problem does NOT need a bunch of BS laws on the books. This whole issue is because a guide had truckloads of culled apples from his leases piled up to attract mule deer.

I personally dislike new laws because they mostly dont solve jack... I dont think they should change the baiting law, and i dislike the "solutions" presented.

The WDFW has not even presented what the "Problem" is so how can we asses a solution? IMO this is just another attempt to hurt hunting opportunity. I have to say that is why Im VERY disappointed in Bearpaw's suggestions since he is always proclaiming how hunters need to stand together to protect each others preferred method of hunting.

I agree that Ren is a good guy, that Bearpaw has earned his respect, and that new restrictions are not good. However, this issue was pushed on us, so we'd better respond with a solution that works for hunters.

You're correct about the issue being pushed by hunters not liking the baiting practices of a couple outfitters (one for Mule deer, another for elk). The WDFW did present the issue to the public at the Moses Lake Commission meeting. Without the testimony of just a few, we'd have lost baiting completely in a few short minutes. Bearpaw's suggestion did not come from a non-thought-out-position. It was drafted as an example that could be used which would place restrictions on the right places but leave the little guy alone to hunt how he always has.

[mfswallace]

Im answering clearly.  Youre just not understanding.

            Mfswallace----->          <------me





                    I can use the little pictures too!   

I will rephrase your honor;

If wdfw bio's decide a certain amount of game can be taken and wdfw allow a person to apply to take said amounts(take your money!) and draw for different permits why shouldn't you then be allowed to fill those permits?  If certain groups(not bashing its legal) can kill anything and everything why can't others kill what the state deems appropriate when they pay to play??

[bobcat]

The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.

[Special T]

Ren is a member of Silver Arrow Bowman and was heavily involved in Whidbey Island Bowmen before it was closed. He is a hunter, Archer, and all around good guy.

ONE problem does NOT need a bunch of BS laws on the books. This whole issue is because a guide had truckloads of culled apples from his leases piled up to attract mule deer.

I personally dislike new laws because they mostly dont solve jack... I dont think they should change the baiting law, and i dislike the "solutions" presented.

The WDFW has not even presented what the "Problem" is so how can we asses a solution? IMO this is just another attempt to hurt hunting opportunity. I have to say that is why Im VERY disappointed in Bearpaw's suggestions since he is always proclaiming how hunters need to stand together to protect each others preferred method of hunting.

I agree that Ren is a good guy, that Bearpaw has earned his respect, and that new restrictions are not good. However, this issue was pushed on us, so we'd better respond with a solution that works for hunters.

You're correct about the issue being pushed by hunters not liking the baiting practices of a couple outfitters (one for Mule deer, another for elk). The WDFW did present the issue to the public at the Moses Lake Commission meeting. Without the testimony of just a few, we'd have lost baiting completely in a few short minutes. Bearpaw's suggestion did not come from a non-thought-out-position. It was drafted as an example that could be used which would place restrictions on the right places but leave the little guy alone to hunt how he always has.

The best solution that works for hunters is by putting the MIN additional regulations in place. How about limiting the bait to one cubic yard?  Its easy to determine, its more than most people would use but still covers a large square, or round bail.  More permits and other regulatory BS does not make it any better for hunters, just Anti's... Which is what those yahoos want. Perhaps these 2 "Guides"  just need a good old fashioned verbal dressing down since not only are they going to screw it up for themselves but everyone else.

[mfswallace]

The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.

Why

Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair!    or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
 

Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?

[huntnphool]

The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.

Why

Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair!    or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
 

Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?

 Indians have a right to hunt, you are privaledged to hunt, that's the law, get over it.

[mfswallace]

The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.

Why

Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair!    or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
 

Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?

 Indians have a right to hunt, you are privaledged to hunt, that's the law, get over it.

I'm saddened u think that, I guess that's why we won't, unlike other states,  have a condition in our state constitution to make this a right for all    Must be a Indians lives matter type of thing instead of an all lives matter

I agree, its legal for natives(those that meet the blood quantum laws, however low/corrupt-again like all human endeavors man can manipulate and cheat the system) to hunt anything and everything. I know I've made that clear.

 But why should someone who Pays into a point system the state agency responsible for setting game harvest limits says are ok to harvest be denied? With this state agency point system that is aimed at providing the best/fairest way for those that Pay into it, to dole out the right to harvest said game be robbed of there money if the agency has no intention of letting that individual fill the permit.

[Bango skank]

A permit is not a tag.  You dont fill a permit. It just gives you additional options of how you can fill your tag.  If you draw quality elk and antlerless elk, thats two extra ways you are "permitted" to fill your one tag.  Get it?  Nowhere does it say its for an additional elk.  I dont know whats so hard to understand about that.  You drew two options, not any additional animals.  And this has nothing to do with natives, christ.  Youre like walter in the big lebowski bringing ip viet nam where there is no connection whatsoever.  Anyway, this thread was about baiting, not the draw system.

[huntnphool]

The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.

Why

Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair!    or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
 

Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?

 Indians have a right to hunt, you are privaledged to hunt, that's the law, get over it.

I'm saddened u think that, I guess that's why we won't, unlike other states,  have a condition in our state constitution to make this a right for all    Must be a Indians lives matter type of thing instead of an all lives matter

I agree, its legal for natives(those that meet the blood quantum laws, however low/corrupt-again like all human endeavors man can manipulate and cheat the system) to hunt anything and everything. I know I've made that clear.

 But why should someone who Pays into a point system the state agency responsible for setting game harvest limits says are ok to harvest be denied? With this state agency point system that is aimed at providing the best/fairest way for those that Pay into it, to dole out the right to harvest said game be robbed of there money if the agency has no intention of letting that individual fill the permit.

 Don't mistake my understanding of the law as agreement of the law. I believe it's been quite evident over the years that I have been as critical as anyone on this forum to the Indians hunting practices.

 That being said, you are intelligent enough to understand that until the law is changed, you can only harvest one of each species, regardless what the draw system dolls out.