Baiting on the chopping block

[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.

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.....

I see your point about the infraction, that sounds fair enough, I will modify my post.

[bearpaw]

Baiting
First, I oppose restrictions!

Second, everyone needs to understand that if rules are created they must be reasonable and simple for hunters to understand and follow, and must be easy for WDFW officers to enforce.

Third, most restrictions are only needed on lands open to public use. I could live with the following simple rules that seem easy to enforce:

Baiting Restrictions
 - A $5 bait permit must be secured and visible at each bait (permit shows Wild ID number for LE purposes)
 - Bait may not be placed within 50 feet of surface water
 - Bait may not be placed within 1/4 mile of a designated public campground
 - A hunter must have at least 500 feet distance between their baits
 - Bait must be free of litter
 - No more than 100 pounds of hay may be placed at one time
 - No more than 20 cubic feet of hay may accumulate at a bait
 - The total volume of other types of bait available to be eaten shall not exceed 10 gallons at any bait site (barrels with timed feeders ok)
 - Bait and any materials used while baiting may not be placed more than 30 days prior to the opening date of the season you are licensed to hunt
 - Bait and any materials placed when baiting must be removed within 10 days after the close of the season you were licensed to hunt

Additional requirements for baiting on lands open to public use:
 - Bait shall not be placed within 300 feet of any public accessible roadway or designated trail
 - Bait cannot be visible from less than 1/4 mile of any public accessible roadway (hunters are advised to keep bait out of sight from public roadways)

I'm not representing anyone other than myself with these possible rules, but if we must have rules I think these are reasonable and would be easy to follow and enforce! 

I am convinced the commission is going to address baiting whether we like it or not. Some of you seem to think if you blindly oppose baiting the issue will go away, I would like to think the same but know better. Rather than get rules forced upon us that are ill conceived, I thought I would offer up a few simple rules to keep baiting as acceptable as possible to the majority of hunters and that would help keep baiting out of the public eye. If these rules don't work for someone please explain why so I might offer better options?

Many of you spend $5 a day at the coffee shop. Bait permits and rules seems to work in Idaho for bear baiting permits and you put your permit at your bait site. The strongest argument in favor of some regulations on baiting is that Idaho still has bear baiting and we don't! Some states that allow deer baiting have restrictions and that seems to work for them, I think that by supporting some common sense workable rules we can continue deer and elk baiting in Washington. I am convinced it will not work to just be blindly opposed any rules and stuff our heads in the sand! 

[idahohuntr]

Baiting
First, I oppose restrictions!

Second, everyone needs to understand that if rules are created they must be reasonable and simple for hunters to understand and follow, and must be easy for WDFW officers to enforce.

Third, most restrictions are only needed on lands open to public use. I could live with the following simple rules that seem easy to enforce:

Baiting Restrictions
 - A $5 bait permit must be secured and visible at each bait (permit shows Wild ID number for LE purposes)
 - Bait may not be placed within 50 feet of surface water
 - Bait may not be placed within 1/4 mile of a designated public campground
 - A hunter must have at least 500 feet distance between their baits
 - Bait must be free of litter
 - No more than 100 pounds of hay may be placed at one time
 - No more than 20 cubic feet of hay may accumulate at a bait
 - The total volume of other types of bait available to be eaten shall not exceed 10 gallons at any bait site (barrels with timed feeders ok)
 - Bait and any materials used while baiting may not be placed more than 30 days prior to the opening date of the season you are licensed to hunt
 - Bait and any materials placed when baiting must be removed within 10 days after the close of the season you were licensed to hunt

Additional requirements for baiting on lands open to public use:
 - Bait shall not be placed within 300 feet of any public accessible roadway or designated trail
 - Bait cannot be visible from less than 1/4 mile of any public accessible roadway (hunters are advised to keep bait out of sight from public roadways)

I'm not representing anyone other than myself with these possible rules, but if we must have rules I think these are reasonable and would be easy to follow and enforce! 

I am convinced the commission is going to address baiting whether we like it or not. Some of you seem to think if you blindly oppose baiting the issue will go away, I would like to think the same but know better. Rather than get rules forced upon us that are ill conceived, I thought I would offer up a few simple rules to keep baiting as acceptable as possible to the majority of hunters and that would help keep baiting out of the public eye. If these rules don't work for someone please explain why so I might offer better options?

Many of you spend $5 a day at the coffee shop. Bait permits and rules seems to work in Idaho for bear baiting permits and you put your permit at your bait site. The strongest argument in favor of some regulations on baiting is that Idaho still has bear baiting and we don't! Some states that allow deer baiting have restrictions and that seems to work for them, I think that by supporting some common sense workable rules we can continue deer and elk baiting in Washington. I am convinced it will not work to just be blindly opposed any rules and stuff our heads in the sand! 

Many good points.  I support bearpaws recommended rules.  They seek to regulate baiting in a responsible way that will have little or no impact to 99.99% of guys who bait. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Bango skank]

I think its going to get flat out banned.  The one thing that pisses me off about that is i know plenty of guys will continue to do it on private land where they cant get caught, and theyll be drawing deer from neighboring property, screwing other landowners and guys who hunt adjacent public land

[Bango skank]

I hope that salt / minerals will remain legal.  There is a big difference between a mineral site, and a pile of alfalfa and apples on the ground.  Ill be pretty butthurt if i cant put salt licks in front of my cameras anymore

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.

[bigtex]

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.

Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.

How in the world did you get that out of my statement?

CA wardens cite more often then WDFW.

The norm in LE is that out of violators contacted 50% should get a warning and 50% a ticket.

Nowhere did i say every hunter is breaking the law....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.

How in the world did you get that out of my statement?

CA wardens cite more often then WDFW.

The norm in LE is that out of violators contacted 50% should get a warning and 50% a ticket.

Nowhere did i say every hunter is breaking the law....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

You didn't say that 50% of violators should get a warning and 50% should get a ticket.  You said 50% of your contacts should get a ticket and 50% should get a warning. Big difference between contacts and violators.

[bigtex]

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.

Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.

How in the world did you get that out of my statement?

CA wardens cite more often then WDFW.

The norm in LE is that out of violators contacted 50% should get a warning and 50% a ticket.

Nowhere did i say every hunter is breaking the law....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

You didn't say that 50% of violators should get a warning and 50% should get a ticket.  You said 50% of your contacts should get a ticket and 50% should get a warning. Big difference between contacts and violators.

I think most would assume that i was referring to violator contacts....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Wacenturion]

I favor the K.I.S.S. principal.....Keep It Simple Stupid!

The more we as hunters throw out suggestions for regulations, the more the bureaucracy will oblige regulating us.  WDFW has a history of non management.  By that I mean management by perceived public opinion rather than scientific reality.  Don't really have a dog in this fight, but do have a new piece of property that I did feed some during the summer for cam picture purposes.

As I'm planning on farming some of the property as well as putting in food plots and various trees....i.e apple, etc., I really don't have a stong opinion one way or the other.  However it should be based on creditable information rather than emotion. 

Has there been any major problems?  One can still only harvest one deer per year.  Fair chase....what's fair chase?  I would suggest that using a rifle might be considered not to be fair chase.  Everything else including scents covers, tree stands, food plots, on and on might be as well.

The GMAC is in my opinion a tool that allowed WDFW to justify a sportsman buy in.  At least the years I was still there it was.  Nothing negative to those who volunteer for the job mind you.  It's the system.

One last comment....you want to have  a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only.  Not four choices.  That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process.  By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.

How in the world did you get that out of my statement?

CA wardens cite more often then WDFW.

The norm in LE is that out of violators contacted 50% should get a warning and 50% a ticket.

Nowhere did i say every hunter is breaking the law....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

You didn't say that 50% of violators should get a warning and 50% should get a ticket.  You said 50% of your contacts should get a ticket and 50% should get a warning. Big difference between contacts and violators.

I think most would assume that i was referring to violator contacts....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. It would explain why the game warden skidded sideways in the road after I had pulled into the ditch to let him by (Not knowing it was a warden) and jumped out with his hand on his gun and proceeded to sneak around my truck peering into the back while his partner tried to keep me distracted and played good cop, bad cop with me. My 70 some year old dad, and nine year old son, and I were just driving into the North River unit and hadn't even started hunting yet when this happened. Very aggressive actions for a license check. Was my son's first contact with an LEO. What do you think he thought about that? The one guy never took his hand off his gun until they got back into their car to leave.

[jasnt]

Baiting
First, I oppose restrictions!

Second, everyone needs to understand that if rules are created they must be reasonable and simple for hunters to understand and follow, and must be easy for WDFW officers to enforce.

Third, most restrictions are only needed on lands open to public use. I could live with the following simple rules that seem easy to enforce:

Baiting Restrictions
 - A $5 bait permit must be secured and visible at each bait (permit shows Wild ID number for LE purposes)
 - Bait may not be placed within 50 feet of surface water
 - Bait may not be placed within 1/4 mile of a designated public campground
 - A hunter must have at least 500 feet distance between their baits
 - Bait must be free of litter
 - No more than 100 pounds of hay may be placed at one time
 - No more than 20 cubic feet of hay may accumulate at a bait
 - The total volume of other types of bait available to be eaten shall not exceed 10 gallons at any bait site (barrels with timed feeders ok)
 - Bait and any materials used while baiting may not be placed more than 30 days prior to the opening date of the season you are licensed to hunt
 - Bait and any materials placed when baiting must be removed within 10 days after the close of the season you were licensed to hunt

Additional requirements for baiting on lands open to public use:
 - Bait shall not be placed within 300 feet of any public accessible roadway or designated trail
 - Bait cannot be visible from less than 1/4 mile of any public accessible roadway (hunters are advised to keep bait out of sight from public roadways)

I'm not representing anyone other than myself with these possible rules, but if we must have rules I think these are reasonable and would be easy to follow and enforce! 

I am convinced the commission is going to address baiting whether we like it or not. Some of you seem to think if you blindly oppose baiting the issue will go away, I would like to think the same but know better. Rather than get rules forced upon us that are ill conceived, I thought I would offer up a few simple rules to keep baiting as acceptable as possible to the majority of hunters and that would help keep baiting out of the public eye. If these rules don't work for someone please explain why so I might offer better options?

Many of you spend $5 a day at the coffee shop. Bait permits and rules seems to work in Idaho for bear baiting permits and you put your permit at your bait site. The strongest argument in favor of some regulations on baiting is that Idaho still has bear baiting and we don't! Some states that allow deer baiting have restrictions and that seems to work for them, I think that by supporting some common sense workable rules we can continue deer and elk baiting in Washington. I am convinced it will not work to just be blindly opposed any rules and stuff our heads in the sand! 

Many good points.  I support bearpaws recommended rules.  They seek to regulate baiting in a responsible way that will have little or no impact to 99.99% of guys who bait. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

i would support that as well. It sucks we have to give up these tiny little things tho 

Next it will be something else and then a little more. Just seems like we loose a little more of or sport every year.  Kinda like compromising our way to nothing at all before we know it.   I would rather fight to keep what we have. It's a non stop battle just to keep our heritage alive. 

[huntnphool]

I favor the K.I.S.S. principal.....Keep It Simple Stupid!

The more we as hunters throw out suggestions for regulations, the more the bureaucracy will oblige regulating us.  WDFW has a history of non management.  By that I mean management by perceived public opinion rather than scientific reality.  Don't really have a dog in this fight, but do have a new piece of property that I did feed some during the summer for cam picture purposes.

As I'm planning on farming some of the property as well as putting in food plots and various trees....i.e apple, etc., I really don't have a stong opinion one way or the other.  However it should be based on creditable information rather than emotion. 

Has there been any major problems?  One can still only harvest one deer per year.  Fair chase....what's fair chase?  I would suggest that using a rifle might be considered not to be fair chase.  Everything else including scents covers, tree stands, food plots, on and on might be as well.

The GMAC is in my opinion a tool that allowed WDFW to justify a sportsman buy in.  At least the years I was still there it was.  Nothing negative to those who volunteer for the job mind you.  It's the system.

One last comment....you want to have  a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only.  Not four choices.  That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process.  By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.

+1

[Curly]

I'm not a big fan of laying out all these ideas of restrictions on baiting.

If giving in a little is what the concensus is, then it seems like the it could make sense to limit the amount of bait dumped.  Since it sounds like the problem is truckloads of apples, why not just make it illegal for someone to dump truckloads of bait?  Set a limit of 10 gallons or something like that.

(I think I'm still a little upset with the GMAC recommending the current draw system we are stuck with and all the categories).   Hopefully the GMAC isn't going to be suggesting a bunch of baiting restrictions).

[Bob33]

One last comment....you want to have  a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only.  Not four choices.  That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process.  By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.

I'm not following that logic. Are you referring to four different categories (quality, buck, antlerless, etc.), or four hunt choices within one category?

If everyone has four hunt choices within a category, or everyone has only one choice why would that matter? Why would someone spend more to apply for four choices when everyone else also has four? How does that reduce draw odds? One choice, or four choices with four times the number of names in the hat?

Perhaps I misunderstood.