poacher busted Oly Penninsula?

[Lucky1]

[/quote]

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.
[/quote]
I agree with you that the initiative process is not a good way to make laws.
Pure democracy allows for tyranny by the majority over the minority. I think most states do not have the initiative process. I have not agreed with most of the initiatives that have been passed since I moved here in 2000. The one I did agree with was declared unconstitutional by a liberal judge. That was the requirment that there be a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes. They will probably strike down the latest variation we voted in too.

[Dan-o]

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.

How do you decide which laws you'll follow and which ones you think are stupid and don't need to be followed?

I'm sure that there is some anti-gun nut out there who thinks that it should be legal to steal your guns and chop them up because being allowed to own guns is one of the stupid laws so he shouldn't have to follow it.

I also hate stupid laws, but if everyone picks and chooses which laws they will obey, we are screwed.

The standard for ethically violating a law is MUCH higher than that law being stupid.     

[Bob33]

If every citizen decided only to obey the laws he thought were legal, fair, or just we would have complete anarchy.

[JimmyHoffa]

If every citizen decided only to obey the laws he thought were legal, fair, or just we would have complete anarchy.

Kind of the case now in a sort....speed limits, no talking/texting on a cell phone, hunter orange, DUIs, marijuana, cutting the tags off mattresses, etc....

[Sitka_Blacktail]

If every citizen decided only to obey the laws he thought were legal, fair, or just we would have complete anarchy.

You see that every day on the highway.

[Bango skank]

If every citizen decided only to obey the laws he thought were legal, fair, or just we would have complete anarchy.

You see that every day on the highway.

All vehicles keep right except to pass.  Why is that so hard to understand?  If i am held up by some idiot with a trailer doing 65 in the passing lane of i90 one more time, youll all be hearing about me on the news.   

[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.

How do you decide which laws you'll follow and which ones you think are stupid and don't need to be followed?

I'm sure that there is some anti-gun nut out there who thinks that it should be legal to steal your guns and chop them up because being allowed to own guns is one of the stupid laws so he shouldn't have to follow it.

I also hate stupid laws, but if everyone picks and chooses which laws they will obey, we are screwed.

The standard for ethically violating a law is MUCH higher than that law being stupid.   

Ironically this country was founded on law breaking thugs.....just ask England how they felt about challenging the rule of law.

What I am saying is that a attorney if you walked into his office would tell you (I assume, and think I am right) that to persue a state law like this one would cost a TON of money, and the chances the attorney would even try is LOW.

If you feel strongly about a subject or law that does seem just, then to break that law putting yourself into a legal situation, may infact, be a gamble some will take to challenge the law as there is little you can do otherwise.

I am not saying people should ignore any law they don't like, but there are some laws that are worth the risk, and challenge to some people......If you asked our forefathers, bet they would agree from their actions back then......or do you see it different?

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I also highly doubt the "offender" was intentionally challenging the law.
More than likely whoever it was merely attempting to harvest a bear over bait and got caught.
And yes, I am a law abiding individual, whether I agree with the law, or not.
 
I was against the law, and voted against it.
But once it became a law, I chose to abide by it.
I disagree with a lot of the regulations.
But cannot decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore.

If you feel like challenging the law, make your comments http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/ and go through legal channels.
Or pm me your gps coordinates to your bait pile so I can make sure you get all the attention you deserve. 

[bowbuild]

I also highly doubt the "offender" was intentionally challenging the law.
More than likely whoever it was merely attempting to harvest a bear over bait and got caught.
And yes, I am a law abiding individual, whether I agree with the law, or not.
 
I was against the law, and voted against it.
But once it became a law, I chose to abide by it.
I disagree with a lot of the regulations.
But cannot decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore.

If you feel like challenging the law, make your comments http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/ and go through legal channels.
Or pm me your gps coordinates to your bait pile so I can make sure you get all the attention you deserve. 

This law was a emotional law enacted by emotional non-hunting citizens that know little of wildlife management....if it was enacted out of scientific sound management, I would dislike it, but support it.......but that is not the case.

Well if you ever attended any of those feel good gatherings, you would find this subject like many others would go nowhere, been there, done that, on this very subject.......I don't bait anymore, but I am awaiting to see where this leads, and stand by what I said.

[bigtex]

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....

The old "we don't make the laws, we just enforce them" statement.

This is why I disagree with people who say "well my local LEO says I can do XYZ" well that may be great, but the LEO who catches you may not be the same who told you its okay to do XYZ. Some LEOs may look the other way at some violations, but the one right down the street may not 

[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?

[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.

[bigun]

They were well aware of the fact they were breaking the law, like the law or not.
As stated in my initial post, this is the type of guy that hunts for the ability to post a pic, not so much for the hunt.
Not to really get things riled up, but he's the guy that will shoot a nice tom out of the roost because he gets tired of waiting for it to fly down and for fear there's a 50/50 chance it'll walk the other direction.  Sure, legal as legal can be, but "hunting"? 

[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.

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. 

[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....