Baiting on the chopping block

[Duckslayer89]

What's the difference between hunting over an apple orchard and throwing apples out? We shouldn't be banning baiting for deer and elk we should be bringing back baiting for bears. Think how many sows people take that might have Cubs. Baiting gives us time to take mature males. This has been brought up repeatedly though wasting my breath.

[JDHasty]

What's the difference between hunting over an apple orchard and throwing apples out? We shouldn't be banning baiting for deer and elk we should be bringing back baiting for bears. Think how many sows people take that might have Cubs. Baiting gives us time to take mature males. This has been brought up repeatedly though wasting my breath.

I hunted behind hounds and baited bear when I was "a kid" and when the "ban" came along I had bigger fish to fry.  If there are fingers to point, point them at people like me.  I dunno what else to say except that what comes around goes around when it comes to legislation that is pointed at the people who enjoy the opportunity you enjoy today.  It takes a combined effort to combat Seattleites taking every opportunity to decide that our kids are their kids to shape as they see fit.  In that, and in other ways, blame me.   

[JDHasty]

The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.

Mick Cope is not Dave Ware.  Thank God.  I think Mick has me on his "block this call" list, but all kidding aside, he is "human" and will actually engage you if you reach out to him and impresses me as being interested in expending whatever political capital he has built up representing our concerns upstream.  I get a good feel is what I am saying and think that reasoned and respectful contact with him is not an effort in futility

[Bango skank]

Any updates? Was anyone able to attend the meeting?

I had good intentions, but somehow ended up hiking in the mountains instead.   

[Wacenturion]

Quick questioin which I believe I know the answer, but is the practice of using feeders or placing feeds,  etc., considered to be not baiting when done outside of hunting seasons?

[winshooter88]

The proposed changes only cover hunting with the use of bait, so using bait for cameras wold not be illegal unless it was there during hunting season and you were hunting over or near it.

[Rainier10]

The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.

So from what I am reading above, out of the 25-30 people who testified, only a few said no change and the majority said to ban it completely?  Just trying to get a feel for what your opinion of the percentages was.  You description goes from few to some and then many.  It sounds like you are saying the majority when you say many and I just wanted to confirm that is what you meant or at least what your opinion of the meeting was.

[grundy53]

The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.

So from what I am reading above, out of the 25-30 people who testified, only a few said no change and the majority said to ban it completely?  Just trying to get a feel for what your opinion of the percentages was.  You description goes from few to some and then many.  It sounds like you are saying the majority when you say many and I just wanted to confirm that is what you meant or at least what your opinion of the meeting was.

A small majority would mean over half. So at least 13-16 wanted no change.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Rainier10]

The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.

So from what I am reading above, out of the 25-30 people who testified, only a few said no change and the majority said to ban it completely?  Just trying to get a feel for what your opinion of the percentages was.  You description goes from few to some and then many.  It sounds like you are saying the majority when you say many and I just wanted to confirm that is what you meant or at least what your opinion of the meeting was.

A small majority would mean over half. So at least 13-16 wanted no change.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Doh?!  I missed the small "majority", reading on my phone I thought it said small "amount".
 
Hopefully the majority, however small it was, will prevail.  Getting it back once it is gone will be a real struggle.

I have options as a landowner, I already have improved the habitat on my land and can plant food plots and provide a water source to draw the deer to a certain path.  I just feel for the people that don't have that option.

I understand they are trying to get a few people to quit dumping truckloads of apples but if they have the means and time to dump truck loads of apples on private property they will for sure have the time to plant food plots or even apple trees to achieve the same thing.  If it really is a guide service dumping these apples it is because there is money to made and they will just figure out a way to include the food plot or apple tree cost into the hunt price.  This rule isn't going to stop them it is just going to make them get more creative.

[Rainier10]

Just saw on the other thread that 4fletch posted that 25 people were for no change and 5 were against it.  I like those numbers a whole lot more.  This one is going to be interesting.

[grundy53]

The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.

So from what I am reading above, out of the 25-30 people who testified, only a few said no change and the majority said to ban it completely?  Just trying to get a feel for what your opinion of the percentages was.  You description goes from few to some and then many.  It sounds like you are saying the majority when you say many and I just wanted to confirm that is what you meant or at least what your opinion of the meeting was.

A small majority would mean over half. So at least 13-16 wanted no change.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Doh?!  I missed the small "majority", reading on my phone I thought it said small "amount".
 
Hopefully the majority, however small it was, will prevail.  Getting it back once it is gone will be a real struggle.

I have options as a landowner, I already have improved the habitat on my land and can plant food plots and provide a water source to draw the deer to a certain path.  I just feel for the people that don't have that option.

I understand they are trying to get a few people to quit dumping truckloads of apples but if they have the means and time to dump truck loads of apples on private property they will for sure have the time to plant food plots or even apple trees to achieve the same thing.  If it really is a guide service dumping these apples it is because there is money to made and they will just figure out a way to include the food plot or apple tree cost into the hunt price.  This rule isn't going to stop them it is just going to make them get more creative.

Agreed.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[bobcat]

Apples are cheap in Okanogan county, and very likely they get them for free. To take a truckload of free apples and dump them, on public or private land, is not even close to what it would take to put in a food plot. Especially with as dry as it is over there, some sort of irrigation system would be necessary. They're using the apples because it's cheap and easy. So I do think a total ban on baiting would have a big impact on the outfitters who are using this method. The limit on the amount of bait that can be used would affect the outfitters as well, but I'm not sure by how much. It seems it would be much more difficult to enforce than a total ban, but it does seem like a reasonable solution to the problem.

[Wacenturion]

Apples are cheap in Okanogan county, and very likely they get them for free. To take a truckload of free apples and dump them, on public or private land, is not even close to what it would take to put in a food plot. Especially with as dry as it is over there, some sort of irrigation system would be necessary. They're using the apples because it's cheap and easy. So I do think a total ban on baiting would have a big impact on the outfitters who are using this method. The limit on the amount of bait that can be used would affect the outfitters as well, but I'm not sure by how much. It seems it would be much more difficult to enforce than a total ban, but it does seem like a reasonable solution to the problem.

Why would it be much more difficult?  Apparently folks that have a problem with the excessive baiting have made it known.  Why would it be any less difficult to expose.  In fact, restrictions in excessive amounts for those guides might be just as easy as they would be watched closer.

With that being said, I'm opposed to restrictions on baiting, with the possible exception of amounts if indeed reasonable.

[bobcat]

Apples are cheap in Okanogan county, and very likely they get them for free. To take a truckload of free apples and dump them, on public or private land, is not even close to what it would take to put in a food plot. Especially with as dry as it is over there, some sort of irrigation system would be necessary. They're using the apples because it's cheap and easy. So I do think a total ban on baiting would have a big impact on the outfitters who are using this method. The limit on the amount of bait that can be used would affect the outfitters as well, but I'm not sure by how much. It seems it would be much more difficult to enforce than a total ban, but it does seem like a reasonable solution to the problem.

Why would it be much more difficult?  Apparently folks that have a problem with the excessive baiting have made it known.  Why would it be any less difficult to expose.  In fact, restrictions in excessive amounts for those guides might be just as easy as they would be watched closer.

With that being said, I'm opposed to restrictions on baiting, with the possible exception of amounts if indeed reasonable.

Why would a 10 gallon limit be more difficult to enforce than a total ban on baiting? Because, if there's any bait out there, it's an obvious violation. With the 10 gallon limit, someone who sees a pile of apples isn't necessarily going to call it in, but with a total ban on baiting it seems it would be much more likely for someone to report the violation. With the 10 gallon limit, who would really know if they're looking at 10 gallons on the ground, or 15 gallons? Someone would need to come out and determine the amount of bait on the ground. Isn't that more difficult than only having to determine if there's bait or no bait?

[BULLBLASTER]

Imo the 10 gallon limit would be unenforceable except for gross violations. I'll use the example of a compressed alfalfa bail. It will almost fit into a 5 gallon bucket when all compressed and banded. But as soon as you cut the bands that thing gets big and can spread out over a 6-7 foot area and seem a foot deep. I doubt it would fit back into 10 gallons at that point.

It's a shame that a very small percentage of individuals can cause such a knee jerk reaction with consequences across the state.