poacher busted Oly Penninsula?

[6.8mmARHunter]

What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
 
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
 
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.

Can someone give STIKNSTRINGBOW a ladder?

I am surprised at the reaction that I need a ladder, or have some undesirable trait...
But then, I have been called a number of things over the years.
Yes, I am an ethical hunter, who follows the rules.
I try to set a good example.
I believe that hunting is about respect.
Respect the game animals.
Respect the landowners.
Respect other hunters.
Respect non-hunters.
Respect for the laws.

If you find these character traits somehow undesirable, and find offense in my having them then you only have yourself to blame when you lose opportunity.
I am the one looking in my own mirror, if you have to violate game laws to harvest an animal, then you are a poacher.
I don't respect poachers.
And I will climb down off my high horse to turn in a poacher.
If you have a problem with that, I question the content of your character.
I am confident and proud of mine.
My father was a Seattle Police Officer for 40 years, I was raised with respect for the law.
I have 3 Children that I am teaching about the woods, we don't trespass, we don't litter, and we don't violate game regulations.
Matter of fact, I even taught my daughter that we don't shoot roosted toms during turkey season, and we don't ground sluice birds, even though it is legal.
There is a right way, and a wrong way.
So, yes I might need a ladder, because not only is my horse tall, it is also white. 

 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Have you never done 56 mph in a 55 mph (breaking a law).

I just thought you came across very judgmental.

Peace out.

[Jonathan_S]

 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Have you never done 56 mph in a 55 mph (breaking a law).

I just thought you came across very judgmental.

Peace out.

I don't care how high his horse is, 56 MPH is unrealistic.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Have you never done 56 mph in a 55 mph (breaking a law).
I just thought you came across very judgmental.
Peace out.

Sure I have UNINTENTIONALLY violated speeding restrictions, have even been cited.
I explained my case, and paid my fines.
I merely am judgmental of others that commit infractions intentionally.
Baiting for bears is illegal in this state, unless you are a native.
I disagree with any blatant disregard for the law to serve a selfish purpose.

Being judgmental of INTENTIONAL violators is my right as a registered voter, and if I was on the jury they would lose hunting privileges.
Those laws are not called "suggestions"...

Poaching is poaching.
Compare it to shooting illegal animals, out of season, or over your limit.
not traffic infractions.

[pianoman9701]

What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
 
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
 
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.

I don't support breaking the law. But some times the law is wrong and this one is. The Department was supposedly against this initiative, but now they are disappointed that a court ruled it unconstitutional? They should be jumping for joy and they should be challenging it themselves and getting a ruling for the whole state. The door was opened for that. So they should be pursuing legal remedy.

And STIKNSTRINGBOW, if you're such a law abiding guy, then you should be against this law as it was voted in illegally. That is what the judge is saying. An initiative may only deal with one subject. This one dealt with more than one subject.  Just like initiative 695, the $30 license tabs for autos was overturned.  https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Voter_Approval_for_Tax_Increases,_Initiative_695_%281999%29   

"On March 14, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court declared that Initiative 695 was invalid on single subject grounds, in the case, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington."

First, I agree the law sucks. I think the people of WA were duped by big money anti-hunting coalitions. But having said that, which other game laws should we ignore? Which other laws should the WDFW LE choose not to enforce, as is their mandate by the State? The only reason that the judge in Jefferson County ruled the law unconstitutional was that it was actually four laws within one law, breaking the rule. If you feel strongly enough, do it the right way and put together a coalition and take the issue to the WA State Supreme Court. Have the law overturned. However, to say that a law, one not infringing on your Constitutional rights, isn't right and therefor, you're not going to follow it, is BS. I'm not going to turn someone in for bear baiting but I'm also not going to take part in it until it's legal to do. I'm not going to hide a dusky if I shoot one. And, I won't be shooting big game in the head with a .22-250, even though it's stupid that I can't. Ethical hunters follow the letter of the law and act as an example to the entire population that what we do and how we do it is right and good for wildlife.

Let's back the boat up a bit....first I am not saying anyone, or everyone should go out a break ANY laws.......But sometimes certain people (not saying this fellow) will break the law to challenge it......Did we not just have a rifle rally at the capitol not so long ago, showing dismay for crap laws? Tell me the difference....

There's an enormous difference and I tried to highlight that in my comment. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right. I don't care if some politician or liberal doesn't think I should have guns. I will anyway. However, hunting isn't a right; it's a privilege until we have the state constitution changed to make it a right. If a politician or anti-hunter looks to the public to take away my hunting privileges, they can succeed. I believe we need to be the shining example of lawful and ethical hunters to convince our population otherwise the next time one of these wacky initiatives comes up.

[tgomez]

If you have to bait to get a bear, you need to work on your hunting skills. The bottom line is it's against the law. There suppose to be a challenge to get, that's why it's called "the great bear hunt." Their is simply no excuse for breaking the law as it is our responsibility to know and abide by these laws. You bait, you should get ticketed. If you don't like the hunting laws then don't hunt in Washington. Ive hunted bear for years now and only gotten two.

[pianoman9701]

  ...or work to change the law or have it stricken.

[bowbuild]

What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
 
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
 
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.

I don't support breaking the law. But some times the law is wrong and this one is. The Department was supposedly against this initiative, but now they are disappointed that a court ruled it unconstitutional? They should be jumping for joy and they should be challenging it themselves and getting a ruling for the whole state. The door was opened for that. So they should be pursuing legal remedy.

And STIKNSTRINGBOW, if you're such a law abiding guy, then you should be against this law as it was voted in illegally. That is what the judge is saying. An initiative may only deal with one subject. This one dealt with more than one subject.  Just like initiative 695, the $30 license tabs for autos was overturned.  https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Voter_Approval_for_Tax_Increases,_Initiative_695_%281999%29   

"On March 14, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court declared that Initiative 695 was invalid on single subject grounds, in the case, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington."

First, I agree the law sucks. I think the people of WA were duped by big money anti-hunting coalitions. But having said that, which other game laws should we ignore? Which other laws should the WDFW LE choose not to enforce, as is their mandate by the State? The only reason that the judge in Jefferson County ruled the law unconstitutional was that it was actually four laws within one law, breaking the rule. If you feel strongly enough, do it the right way and put together a coalition and take the issue to the WA State Supreme Court. Have the law overturned. However, to say that a law, one not infringing on your Constitutional rights, isn't right and therefor, you're not going to follow it, is BS. I'm not going to turn someone in for bear baiting but I'm also not going to take part in it until it's legal to do. I'm not going to hide a dusky if I shoot one. And, I won't be shooting big game in the head with a .22-250, even though it's stupid that I can't. Ethical hunters follow the letter of the law and act as an example to the entire population that what we do and how we do it is right and good for wildlife.

Let's back the boat up a bit....first I am not saying anyone, or everyone should go out a break ANY laws.......But sometimes certain people (not saying this fellow) will break the law to challenge it......Did we not just have a rifle rally at the capitol not so long ago, showing dismay for crap laws? Tell me the difference....

There's an enormous difference and I tried to highlight that in my comment. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right. I don't care if some politician or liberal doesn't think I should have guns. I will anyway. However, hunting isn't a right; it's a privilege until we have the state constitution changed to make it a right. If a politician or anti-hunter looks to the public to take away my hunting privileges, they can succeed. I believe we need to be the shining example of lawful and ethical hunters to convince our population otherwise the next time one of these wacky initiatives comes up.

 You sir, are picking and choosing now. Your Constitutional rights have been eroding for yrs, as you know. Hiding behind the Constitution as a EXCUSE to not follow state law, is no different........otherwise you are challenging the law (my very point) you think you have more standing because of your Constitutional argument.......I guarantee if they decided to prosecute, it would cost ANYONE a lot of money regardless of your constitutional rights.

 "IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent) , especially if you can prove the law was unconstitutional at the very state level from which it is enacted, I give that person a big thumbs up, not because they are breaking the law, but  because they hold a strong belief that the only direct way to challenge, is to put it in front of a judge. Regardless of reasoning for this case, the challenge through defense counsel was positive for those who disagree with the law.

By the way if it is so easy to challenge these laws through legal means.......why has the law not been challenged on the merits of the judges decision?? Seems pretty cut and dry to me?

[pianoman9701]

""IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent)..."

All due respects, bowbuild, that wasn't their intent. Their intent was to bait bears and hopefully not get caught. Otherwise, they'd have called the WDFW themselves. This was not some protest until they got busted and found a good lawyer. I gotta call BS on that. Sorry.

[predatorpro]

To be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...

[pianoman9701]

A corrupt WDFW official? No, it was a ballot initiative. I've said before that I'm not going to turn in a baiter. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the law for myself

[Bob33]

To be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...

Washington state voters made it illegal, not WDFW.

[bowbuild]

""IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent)..."

All due respects, bowbuild, that wasn't their intent. Their intent was to bait bears and hopefully not get caught. Otherwise, they'd have called the WDFW themselves. This was not some protest until they got busted and found a good lawyer. I gotta call BS on that. Sorry.

So, if the intent was publicly stated you would be fine with it? Just curious?

[pianoman9701]

""IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent)..."

All due respects, bowbuild, that wasn't their intent. Their intent was to bait bears and hopefully not get caught. Otherwise, they'd have called the WDFW themselves. This was not some protest until they got busted and found a good lawyer. I gotta call BS on that. Sorry.

So, if the intent was publicly stated you would be fine with it? Just curious?

I don't know what "publicly stated" means. 

[bowbuild]

""IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent)..."

All due respects, bowbuild, that wasn't their intent. Their intent was to bait bears and hopefully not get caught. Otherwise, they'd have called the WDFW themselves. This was not some protest until they got busted and found a good lawyer. I gotta call BS on that. Sorry.

So, if the intent was publicly stated you would be fine with it? Just curious?

I don't know what "publicly stated" means. 

If they would have turned themselves in?

[pianoman9701]

As far as these guys specifically are concerned, I would have a lot more respect for them had they signed affidavits as to their intent and sent a message to the WDFW as to the location of their bait and when they'd be there over it. That would have at least shown this was a moral fight instead of something that happened as a result of them getting caught.

I'm going to attempt to make my position on bear baiting clear then I'm getting out because I don't wish to create more animosity. This is about bear baiting and breaking the law that prohibits it. I opposed the initiative to end baiting and hounding. I would support any effort to overturn the law, either on constitutional grounds or by initiative (or any other way to legally get around it). But, I won't break the law, because it makes hunters look like we think we're above the law and will cause us to lose support from non-hunters, support which has allowed us to continue to hunt. If you don't understand my point, you probably never will. But, being that we're less than 4% of the state's population, my opinion is that our profile to the rest of the population is extremely important. Flaunting lawlessness will hurt our privileges even more going forward.  Done! Have a nice day.