Baiting on the chopping block

[winshooter88]

According to the WDFW management they cannot ignore social pressure.

[Bango skank]

Then theyre spineless.  If social pressure trumps sound scientific management in their eyes, they are failures at their jobs.  As somebody else said, they require years of expensive studies to give us something, but dont require any science to take stuff away, they just cater to self reightous cry babies because they have no back bone

[buckfvr]

Sorry buckfvr, but I am on the GMAC and hunters are part of the driving force behind this.

Well then you certainly have a different take on it then the two guys I know on the GMAC.....The GMAC is set to convey hunters messages to the commission, and up the chain it goes.  However, a close look reveals this as nothing more than protocall, and wdfw could care less what hunters think, and they arent fond of the gmac either.....if you truly think you have their ear, you are just kidding yourself........in one and out the other.

[Black tail killer]

Keep baiting as it is it , it ain't harming anyone. We have enough restrictions already. Next thing they'll take our guns and won't let us hunt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buckfvr]

Yes, hunters are the driving force. Anti-hunters probably think baiting is already illegal.

Still disillusioned..........................irreparably  Im afraid.................

[2labs]

Keep baiting as it is it , it ain't harming anyone. We have enough restrictions already. Next thing they'll take our guns and won't let us hunt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This.    Keep loosing the little stuff. You don't get it back! Ever.

[Bob33]

I wonder if any of these hunters behind taking away deer baiting think that it was okay to take away bear baiting because some folks didnt think it was ethical and fair chase?  If youve ever bitched about losing bear baiting, but support the loss of deer baiting, you are a hypocrite

It appears that you don't favor any regulations that address fair chase?

[Elkaholic daWg]

I wonder if any of these hunters behind taking away deer baiting think that it was okay to take away bear baiting because some folks didnt think it was ethical and fair chase?  If youve ever bitched about losing bear baiting, but support the loss of deer baiting, you are a hypocrite

It appears that you don't favor any regulations that address fair chase?

HUH?  MANY things are rarely as they appear to the untrained eye .....I don't see that there, and mines not trained well

[winshooter88]

Buckfvr, The GMAC was setup to advise the director of the WDFW and report to him, not the game commission, and they serve at the director's pleasure not the commission.

[huntnphool]

Buckfvr, The GMAC was setup to advise the director of the WDFW and report to him, not the game commission, and they serve at the director's pleasure not the commission.

 Opinion? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,186125.msg2460088.html#msg2460088

[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.

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.

I have no problem with compassion, and over a year ago I posted a stat that showed that wardens in California are more likely to issue a citation for a fish/wildlife offense then in WA and that WDFW Officers issue warnings over 50% of the time. The longstanding "norm" in LE is that 50% of your contacts should end in a warning and the other 50% in a ticket/arrest.

The problem with writing in law that a 1st time offense is a warning is you are basically telling hunters that it's ok to bait deer/elk even though it's illegal, because if you do get caught you won't get a ticket. Hunters/fishers talk and after awhile it will become widely known what the "penalty" is for baiting deer/elk. We saw this about 10 years ago in Spokane County where the county prosecutor's office would dismiss fish and wildlife charges if the defendant pled not guilty. Well after awhile you had people constantly being cited by WDFW, go into court and pled not guilty and the most it cost them was the gas they drove to court.

Realistically, if the adopted penalty that WDFW proposed earlier this year went into place those who were issued the infraction would basically get the equivalent of a parking ticket. Under state law any new fish and wildlife offense that is created after July 2005 and is classified as an infraction doesn't count towards hunting/fishing license suspension. Since it is an infraction it doesn't appear on a criminal record. So realistically, an individual could be cited for baiting deer/elk without taking an animal everyday and not lose their license, not have it appear on a criminal record, not face a mandatory court date, etc. Doesn't sound like a "hard" penalty to me.....

[jasnt]

Let em prove  I was baiting. I was just feeding my free range chickens.

[jasnt]

Baiting:

1.  Bring back the ability to bait bear.
2.  Deer and Elk Baiting:  Leave it alone, we don't need more rules / laws.  How does it affect anything???  We are still only allowd to harvest one animal per year.  What is next.....you are not allowed to hunt orchards because the deer are coming to bait, corn fields, alfalfa, wheat, etc. etc. etc.  What is next you can't wear camoflauge because it give the hunter another advantage??  Where does all this insanity end?? 

Preference points:  Not sure what you mean by this?  If you mean the draw system, I would like to see where a person can only draw one "draw" per animal per year.  Keep all the Catagories but if a person draws "quality" they cannot draw "buck" "doe" "second deer", etc.  Start the draw with the quality and go down from there.  This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal.   

100% agrea with jrebel

[dreamunelk]

Bigtex,  Good post   You forgot to mention how many time officers issue warning when they could have issued multiple tickets or issued just one ticket when they could have issued more. 

[bearpaw]

#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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something you need to understand is that Idaho has a large non-resident sales, non-residents are paying $873.25 to hunt deer and elk in Idaho, that helps keep the cost of resident licenses lower. One way or another every state has to make money to operate!