poacher busted Oly Penninsula?

[Curly]

There is precident for them to get away with baiting. Here is an old article:

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm


Near Quinault last fall, officers raided a camp of about a dozen hunters, charging ten of them with bear baiting: Thomas Durham, James Durham, Christina Stannard, John West, Douglas Klamm, John Speleers, Burgess Drake, Craig Stevenson, Cory Johnson and Dale Steinhauer.

The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional.

"What's wrong with it is, it refers to both baiting bears, hunting bears with bait, and also tracking cougars with dogs or hunting cougars with dogs," said defense attorney Linda Callahan. "And that in itself is two subjects, so it violates the rule."

"Well, certainly in Jefferson County, I don't think the prosecutor will file any more cases," said defense attorney John Stanislay. "What it means outside of Jefferson County at this point I'm not sure."

KING 5 asked: "But if you were a defense attorney in a neighboring county with one of these cases, wouldn't you make this argument now?"

"I definitely would make the argument, but I would not advise my client to go hunting with bait," said Stanislay.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.

"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."

[BOWHUNTER45]

Right on ...  Get everyone to participate and make a stand ..Seems no one really acts on the changes they make and its about time we do !

Another thing is this state creates poachers ...I know some of you will disagree but when you are taking away freedom and mismanaging game , it is going to create more outlaws ..Many are fed up with how things are going ...including myself .. IF these idiots only knew how many bear they would save when baiting they may wake up ...Lots of little bears get shot over mis judging the size . When they are 20 yrds from u on a bait you can decide if its big enough or not !  That's how stupid they are !

[Sitka_Blacktail]

It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged.  As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote.  Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.

I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn  or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??

Because this is America.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

If they can vote to outlaw hunting with bait, they can vote to outlaw hunting with bows, or with guns, or altogether.

We live in a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. In theory, that protects an individual or a minority from the majority. In practice though it is up to the courts to make that interpretation.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

"There is precident for them to get away with baiting. Here is an old article:

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm

The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional."

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.

"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."

The statement by Bjork is very disappointing. That would indicate that Fish and Wildlife agrees with the law and supports it even though if affects management of bears. If they were against the law in the first place, they would be happy for a court to overturn it in a test case.

To me, this means that Fish and Wildlife is more interested in writing tickets and getting convictions than having reasonable laws concerning hunting. Does Bjork and Fish and Wildlife support initiatives to create other laws concerning hunting? Say, outlawing hunting with bows?

[bobcat]

With that statement it sure does make the WDFW appear to be anti-hunting, period. I agree Sitka , why would they say that? Apparently just to make themselves look good to the majority of people who are non-hunters and think baiting bears is unethical.

[Man Tracker]

Bjork is long gone, someone should ask the current chief how he feels about the decision.  A District Court decision is only binding in that court, not even necessarily in that county.   It does not set a precedence as a Superior Court decision would.  The legislature can overturn or change this law at any time, I agree that they should.  Until then, officers shouldn't cherry pick the laws they choose to enforce.  Like it or not, they have sworn to uphold all the laws...

That being said, leadership could certainly provide clear direction to field officers.... 

[jasnt]

With that statement it sure does make the WDFW appear to be anti-hunting, period. I agree Sitka , why would they say that? Apparently just to make themselves look good to the majority of people who are non-hunters and think baiting bears is unethical.

   

[bowbuild]

There is precident for them to get away with baiting. Here is an old article:

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm


Near Quinault last fall, officers raided a camp of about a dozen hunters, charging ten of them with bear baiting: Thomas Durham, James Durham, Christina Stannard, John West, Douglas Klamm, John Speleers, Burgess Drake, Craig Stevenson, Cory Johnson and Dale Steinhauer.

The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional.

"What's wrong with it is, it refers to both baiting bears, hunting bears with bait, and also tracking cougars with dogs or hunting cougars with dogs," said defense attorney Linda Callahan. "And that in itself is two subjects, so it violates the rule."

"Well, certainly in Jefferson County, I don't think the prosecutor will file any more cases," said defense attorney John Stanislay. "What it means outside of Jefferson County at this point I'm not sure."

KING 5 asked: "But if you were a defense attorney in a neighboring county with one of these cases, wouldn't you make this argument now?"

"I definitely would make the argument, but I would not advise my client to go hunting with bait," said Stanislay.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.

"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."
[/quote



They are bummed about the ruling? WTF?

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

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.

[grundy53]

It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged.  As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote.  Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.

I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn  or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??

Because this is America.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

If they can vote to outlaw hunting with bait, they can vote to outlaw hunting with bows, or with guns, or altogether.

We live in a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. In theory, that protects an individual or a minority from the majority. In practice though it is up to the courts to make that interpretation.

I agree. I hate the fact that we manage by initiative in this state. That being said this is America, and every citizen has the RIGHT to vote. So, as much as I hate the tree huggers ruining hunting I will stand up for their right to vote.

[grundy53]

With that statement it sure does make the WDFW appear to be anti-hunting, period. I agree Sitka , why would they say that? Apparently just to make themselves look good to the majority of people who are non-hunters and think baiting bears is unethical.

  Just proves who really runs our game department...

[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.

The law is more than flawed,.......I personally feel laws can (at times) only be challenged AFTER you break them, that is the nature of the beast on several subjects, not just this. I applaud the guy if his intent was to challenge the law....his butt, his money, his record.....call him a poacher all you want...I would gladly shake his hand.

[CAMPMEAT]

Out side influences should not be allowed ( Non-residents ) to run false ads on TV, etc, or in any other form, against anything they have no skin in, period.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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."

[Humptulips]

It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged.  As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote.  Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.

I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn  or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??

Because this is America.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

If they can vote to outlaw hunting with bait, they can vote to outlaw hunting with bows, or with guns, or altogether.

We live in a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. In theory, that protects an individual or a minority from the majority. In practice though it is up to the courts to make that interpretation.

I wish I could agree that we live in a Constitutional Republic. I do not. the Initiative process short circuits that concept.
I wish we did not have the Initiative process. It is clear the General Public does not take the time to study before they vote on these laws.
I think the framers of the WA State Constitution screwed up big time when they wrote that in. I also believe the way we select State Senators is flawed. It ends up giving too much power or I should say all the power to large population centers.
Supreme Court decisions on the two subject rule are schizophrenic. I think this judges ruling would be overturned for sure if appealed.