Baiting on the chopping block

[Brad Harshman]

OP - please take the time to review this heavily debated topic.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163783.250.html
There are a lot of emotions involved here.  But like others have said before, decisions should be made on scientific evidence, not political agendas. 
With that said, the egregious amounts of apples being dumped on public and private lands (at times semi trailers atop semi trailers) by a few guide services, primarily in the okanagon, are the major issue here.  Anecdotal evidence suggests it's altering mule deer migration routes, but scientificaly, and more importantly, it's known that apples are unhealthy for the deer in the fall/winter.
Not all bait is bad though, salt blocks containing trace minerals such as selenium, help mule deer reproduction systems. 
I think there's room here to add restrictions to baiting without infringing on the vast majority of people who choose to responsibly bait. As well as, enforcing it.

There is no way to please everyone.
Good luck.
Brad

[mfswallace]

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.

The china man is not the issue here, shut *censored* up Donny  That's in jest

I'm not like Walter, you must not have read the first post all the way through
 
 from the OP this thread is about baiting AND "Changes to the preference point system. Many ideas regarding this, love to hear what you think we could do to improve it."

I think improvements would be to let those who draw multiple permits fill them as they had as "fair" a shot to draw and payed to play like 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?

 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.

 

[winshooter88]

So mfswallace, how much should you have to pay for the transport tag to go along with the extra permits you draw, the same as the first tag, or since it is extra opportunity should it be like a second deer or elk tag and cost much more. To take an animal you have to have a tag as well as the permit you draw so how much is an extra deer or elk worth to you? WDFW is not likely to make the extra tags to go along with the permits cheap, so what do you think is reasonable?

[bearpaw]

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.

I wished we didn't have to restrict baiting. But as the OP pointed out, the commission is asking for recommendations, so it appears they are going to take action. I think many of us understand how this process works and how important it is to help solve the problem with restrictions that least impact the average hunter. If you don't help offer sensible restrictions we may be faced with restrictions that none of us like.

[bearpaw]

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.

I strongly support our wardens but I have a hard time with the hard line stance often taken. I think there is room for more compassion and understanding in law enforcement. Too often I think tickets are written for the purpose of sticking it to the hunter as hard as they can. I strongly commend those wardens who exhibit compassion and do not follow that path.

[Mxracer532]

#1 $5 permit, WE PAY ENOUGH ALREADY!

There's precedent in other states. Idaho for example has a bear bait permit which is $12.75 and is available only at Idaho Fish & Game offices.WDFW has adopted several license/permit ideas from other states. Many states before WA had a two pole fishing license endorsement before WDFW finally approved it. California has a "ocean enhancement validation" if you fish south of Santa Barbara County, they just discontinued the "Colorado River Validation," these were in place before WA's "Columbia River Endorsement"

Yes, now look at how much tags and licenses are for an Idaho resident compared to ours! We just keep adding more and more cost to everything. Its getting out of hand. Pretty soon they will want a permit to take a crap in the woods!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mxracer532]

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.

  Very well put!

[Mxracer532]

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?

Lets also think about the feed being beneficial to the animals. We arent just BAITING, we are also giving them valuable minerals that help them. (atleast thats what they claim? )

[mfswallace]

So mfswallace, how much should you have to pay for the transport tag to go along with the extra permits you draw, the same as the first tag, or since it is extra opportunity should it be like a second deer or elk tag and cost much more. To take an animal you have to have a tag as well as the permit you draw so how much is an extra deer or elk worth to you? WDFW is not likely to make the extra tags to go along with the permits cheap, so what do you think is reasonable?

It actually isn't more-- Deer License $44.90- 2nd Deer Tag (only available by Special Permit) $43.40
Elk License $50.40 - 2nd Elk Tag (only available by Special Permit) $22.50

The additional "tag" could cost as much as the primary or a 10% increase on the price from the primary would be reasonable imo... Again they are willing to take our money why shouldn't we expect to get the opportunity to fill the permits we draw as it has already been approved by the bio's that those animals can be taken?

[winshooter88]

mfswallace, what you don't realize is that the bios recommendations take into account that not all of the permit holders will take an animal, if they set harvest levels with the idea that all the permits will result in a dead animal then permit levels would be set much lower, resulting in less opportunity for everyone. They know that it is unlikely that all the permit holders will take an animal. Also as has been stated unless you draw a second tag permit, you can only legally take one deer or elk per year.

As for the price, I forgot that they lowered the price last year.

[Special T]

Since we can only assume that the issue is truck loads of apples, & we "need" to direct this why are more rules needed besides a clarification on an ammount?

When a gov agency pushes for a change but "allows"  groups to direct the solution it does 2 things. It provides the agency to pass rules that are mostly un necessary and more complicated. It gives cover to the agency because the solution came from the "affected parties".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[buckfvr]

By agreeing to go along with baiting restrictions, you are essentially setting one foot over the line.......it will be only a short time before wdfw grabs you by the arm and pulls you all the way over the line.  There is no argument to end baiting except that it is agenda driven as a consideration for non/anti hunting constituency of the governor and his wdfw hierarchy .  They no doubt feel if they can stop baiting and save just one life by doing it, well then, its a victory/success story for them.

If they again go with cwd concerns then obviously we must get rid of water tanks and feed bins.  We must prohibit cattle ranchers from allowing deer and elk to feed with their stock, and or yard up in areas near their operations...........yes, this is all ridiculous as is the whole idea of it being related to cwd concerns, and yes, last go round it was one of their pointed concerns. 

WDFW wants baiting gone, they did last year and were very disappointed with the out come and my money says they will get their way this year period.  They have too many people who make the formal recommendations in their corner.   Too many political IOU's floating about.  I fear the out come is predetermined as it so often seems to be.   If you want to spend some effort that may pay off down the road sooner than later, come up with ideas on restricting the governor and changing management policies of wdfw from hierarchy management to regional management by regionally elected local managers........WDFW is the problem, not baiting.

[SCRUBS]

By agreeing to go along with baiting restrictions, you are essentially setting one foot over the line.......it will be only a short time before wdfw grabs you by the arm and pulls you all the way over the line.  There is no argument to end baiting except that it is agenda driven as a consideration for non/anti hunting constituency of the governor and his wdfw hierarchy .  They no doubt feel if they can stop baiting and save just one life by doing it, well then, its a victory/success story for them.

If they again go with cwd concerns then obviously we must get rid of water tanks and feed bins.  We must prohibit cattle ranchers from allowing deer and elk to feed with their stock, and or yard up in areas near their operations...........yes, this is all ridiculous as is the whole idea of it being related to cwd concerns, and yes, last go round it was one of their pointed concerns. 

WDFW wants baiting gone, they did last year and were very disappointed with the out come and my money says they will get their way this year period.  They have too many people who make the formal recommendations in their corner.   Too many political IOU's floating about.  I fear the out come is predetermined as it so often seems to be.   If you want to spend some effort that may pay off down the road sooner than later, come up with ideas on restricting the governor and changing management policies of wdfw from hierarchy management to regional management by regionally elected local managers........WDFW is the problem, not baiting.

 

[Special T]

By agreeing to go along with baiting restrictions, you are essentially setting one foot over the line.......it will be only a short time before wdfw grabs you by the arm and pulls you all the way over the line.  There is no argument to end baiting except that it is agenda driven as a consideration for non/anti hunting constituency of the governor and his wdfw hierarchy .  They no doubt feel if they can stop baiting and save just one life by doing it, well then, its a victory/success story for them.

If they again go with cwd concerns then obviously we must get rid of water tanks and feed bins.  We must prohibit cattle ranchers from allowing deer and elk to feed with their stock, and or yard up in areas near their operations...........yes, this is all ridiculous as is the whole idea of it being related to cwd concerns, and yes, last go round it was one of their pointed concerns. 

WDFW wants baiting gone, they did last year and were very disappointed with the out come and my money says they will get their way this year period.  They have too many people who make the formal recommendations in their corner.   Too many political IOU's floating about.  I fear the out come is predetermined as it so often seems to be.   If you want to spend some effort that may pay off down the road sooner than later, come up with ideas on restricting the governor and changing management policies of wdfw from hierarchy management to regional management by regionally elected local managers........WDFW is the problem, not baiting.

 

Thank you for doing a much better job than me at explaining what i was trying to.