Comment on 2016-17 Hunting Reg Proposal

[Bango skank]

Hopefully limiting baiting falls flat on its face.

Dont kid yourself.  Its gone.  Better work on your rattling.

The fact that theyre including minerals is ridiculous.  Like a salt lick has major drawing power in the fall.  What a joke.

The other screwed up thing is that people with private property will continue baiting, cause how would they get caught without somebody trespassing?  I guarantee my dbag neighbor will continue baiting, and what can i do about it?  Nothing without breaking the law myself, which im not willing to do.  Its a joke.

[Ridgeratt]

I would think that it would mean the amount of bait that's actually on the ground.

Wouldn't it be the total amount. Since a lot of feeders keep the bait in a feed tube. With very little ever getting on the lawn.

[Lucky1]

The anti baiting proposals are just political and emotion based. They will not help the WDFW with game management. Baiting is a effective game managent and hunting tool.

[Bullkllr]

Looks like there's one allowing salvage of roadkilled deer/elk. Bought time, imo.

[Rainier10]

Working my way through each section today to give my input.

[Elkaholic daWg]

The anti baiting proposals are just political and emotion based. They will not help the WDFW with game management. Baiting is a effective game managent and hunting tool.

But unfortunately folks don't have to give a wild ID number to ruin our hunting.......and they do use emotion more than anything else, since  logic and facts confuse them

[jbeaumont21]

Sure wish they would add more units back to the late ML season, specifically in SW Washington. 

[Hunting7mm]

We all need to comment.  WDFW will continue to take a little more each year if we don't stop them.  I put apples out in front of my cameras and some mineral licks as well to try and keep game in my area.  I've never killed anything over the apples but it keeps game coming around.

[Hunting7mm]

I commented to WDFW and pulled the below statement off their web site.  I don't remember getting a phone call to be part of this survey.  Did anyone else get the survey call?



Reasons supporting proposal:
In the last three years the Department has been approached by hunters and landowners that do not approve of the practice of baiting for the purposes of hunting deer or elk. Additional input was received as part of the 3-year hunting season package, public process in 2015. The non-random input the Department received via the website during the 3-year package process indicated that 23% of hunters wanted a ban on baiting with an exception for food plots and agricultural operations. Fourteen percent (14%) of hunters wanted to disallow the use of bait by hunting guides and restrict the manner and volume of baiting by hunters not using guides. A 63% majority of the hunters commenting wanted no change to the rules pertaining to baiting deer and elk. In a random telephone survey of deer hunters conducted as part of the 2015-17 3-year package, 59% either opposed or strongly opposed baiting for deer. Deer hunters that supported or strongly supported baiting for deer made up 21% of the respondents. Eleven percent (11%) of those surveyed were neutral and 9% didn’t know. In the same random telephone survey, 68% of elk hunters either opposed or strongly opposed baiting for elk. Elk hunters that supported or strongly supported using bait to hunt elk were 14%. Eleven percent (11%) of those surveyed were neutral and 8% didn’t know. Although some potential exists, the Department has no data at this time to suggest that the practice of baiting for deer and elk hunting has a negative population or natural resource effect. The Fish and Wildlife Commission discussed this issue in March and April 2015 and decided to not make changes to the existing rule (baiting for deer and elk hunting is allowed). Since then, the Department has facilitated further discussion with a group of hunters interested in the issue. That group met several times over the past year. Through that process, and input received from the Game Management Advisory Council in 2015, it is clear that there is no consensus on this issue other than scents and natural agricultural practices should not be considered baiting. Members expressed several points of view ranging from banning all baiting for deer and elk hunting to retaining the ability to bait using any quantity. The committee discussed alternatives to the “all or none” scenario, which resulted in several options that will be presented to the Commission for discussion and possible decision. The Commission will consider options that range from banning all baiting to retaining all baiting, including two specific options that consider a volume limit on the amount of bait allowed.

[jasnt]

Commented

[zike]

The other screwed up thing is that people with private property will continue baiting, cause how would they get caught without somebody trespassing?  I guarantee my dbag neighbor will continue baiting, and what can i do about it?  Nothing without breaking the law myself, which im not willing to do.  Its a joke.

Drone?

[Bango skank]

The other screwed up thing is that people with private property will continue baiting, cause how would they get caught without somebody trespassing?  I guarantee my dbag neighbor will continue baiting, and what can i do about it?  Nothing without breaking the law myself, which im not willing to do.  Its a joke.

Drone?

I actually have considered that.  He seems to think its okay to trespass and poach on my property, so i dont think id feel too guilty about flying over his with a drone

[teanawayslayer]

I wonder how many bull elk are taken out of Teanaway by tribal members each year? Could that be why they are reducing the number of permits?

there are more Bulls than cows! What aggravates me is the fact they are giving all the bull tags to the rifle hunters and taking away from the archery and muzzy hunters. Really limits the bull category in ew. As a muzzy hunter I pay just as much as the rifle hunter for special permits. Why is our opportunity being taken away? Seems to me it would be fair to take those 12 tags and give 6 to rifle 3 muzzy, and 3 archery.

[cboom]

I wonder how many bull elk are taken out of Teanaway by tribal members each year? Could that be why they are reducing the number of permits?

there are more Bulls than cows! What aggravates me is the fact they are giving all the bull tags to the rifle hunters and taking away from the archery and muzzy hunters. Really limits the bull category in ew. As a muzzy hunter I pay just as much as the rifle hunter for special permits. Why is our opportunity being taken away? Seems to me it would be fair to take those 12 tags and give 6 to rifle 3 muzzy, and 3 archery.

I think the most fair thing to do would be issue tags based on the percentage of aplicants. If 70% of applications are for rifle tags, 20% are for muzzy, and 10% are for archery i feel 70% of the tags should be riffle, 20 muzzy, and 10 archery. I have no idea what the actuall percentages are, I made up the 70,20,10 just for the example.

[bobcat]

I wonder how many bull elk are taken out of Teanaway by tribal members each year? Could that be why they are reducing the number of permits?

there are more Bulls than cows! What aggravates me is the fact they are giving all the bull tags to the rifle hunters and taking away from the archery and muzzy hunters. Really limits the bull category in ew. As a muzzy hunter I pay just as much as the rifle hunter for special permits. Why is our opportunity being taken away? Seems to me it would be fair to take those 12 tags and give 6 to rifle 3 muzzy, and 3 archery.

Did you see the proposed additional muzzleloader permit in the quality category? As well as 1 archery permit. Looks they reduced the 3 modern firearm permits to 1 and gave 1 to archery and 1 to muzzleloader.