HOUND HUNTING IN 426 DIABLO UNIT

[Boss .300 winmag]

BIGTEX CAN HUNTERS RUN DOGS IN THIS UNIT FOR RACOON HUNTING?

ANYBODY CAN CHIME IN ON THIS, I JUST KNOW BIGTEX HAS THIS KNOWLEDGE, OR WILL LOOK IT UP.

ITS A TRICK QUESTION FOLKS, BECAREFUL BEFORE YOU ANSWER IT.   

[bigtex]

 

It is indeed a trick question!! You wont find this in the WDFW regs!!

Most of GMU 426 is the Ross Lake National Recreation Area which is managed by the National Park Service as part of the North Cascades National Park. Under federal law (36 CFR 2.15(a)) it is illegal to have a dog off leash in a NPS unit. However, 36 CFR 2.15(b) says a park may be used in support of hunting if allowed by the park superintendent.

Under the Superintendt's Compendium for the complex the use of dogs for hunting purposes is outlined and it is NOT authorized. In fact the justification is this: "Hunting with dogs is normally done during hours of darkness, which necessitates the use of an artificial light" The NPS can authorize the use of a light/spotlight to view wildlife, however nearly every park bans such use. So the NPS at North Cascades says since you typically hunt with dogs at night but then you'll need a light (which is illegal) thus the use of dogs to hunt is illegal.

Page 13: https://www.nps.gov/noca/learn/management/upload/2016-Compendium-Final-combined-1-2.pdf

This has always been an issue of mine with WDFW. People read the hunting regs but they fail to mention some of the federal restrictions at National Wildlife Refuges and the NPS lands open to hunting. So you think your legal only to violate your breaking federal law. One of my famous examples is coyotes. It is illegal to hunt coyotes in WA on National Wildlife Refuges with the exception of the Pend Orielle NWR.

Of course any non-NPS lands in GMU 426 this restriction does not apply!

[Boss .300 winmag]

 Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

[bigtex]

Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

I agree. Most states do. It actually causes a difficulty to enforce as well. Since these regs aren't written into the state code (WAC) they aren't illegal under state law so WDFW for example cant write a ticket for it. If they encounter the violation they then have to call a federal LEO to write a federal ticket.

I should also mention this restriction also applies to the portion of GMU 244 that is in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area since it is also managed as part of the North Cascades National Park Complex.

[Boss .300 winmag]

Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

I agree. Most states do. It actually causes a difficulty to enforce as well. Since these regs aren't written into the state code (WAC) they aren't illegal under state law so WDFW for example cant write a ticket for it. If they encounter the violation they then have to call a federal LEO to write a federal ticket.

I should also mention this restriction also applies to the portion of GMU 244 that is in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area since it is also managed as part of the North Cascades National Park Complex.

Your almost guaranteed to get written up by Park Rangers in 426 Diablo in IMHFO than WDFW.

What's the best way to get the WDFW regs changed to address this oversite? 

[bigtex]

Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

I agree. Most states do. It actually causes a difficulty to enforce as well. Since these regs aren't written into the state code (WAC) they aren't illegal under state law so WDFW for example cant write a ticket for it. If they encounter the violation they then have to call a federal LEO to write a federal ticket.

I should also mention this restriction also applies to the portion of GMU 244 that is in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area since it is also managed as part of the North Cascades National Park Complex.

Your almost guaranteed to get written up by Park Rangers in 426 Diablo in IMHFO than WDFW.

What's the best way to get the WDFW regs changed to address this oversite? 

It'll have to go thru the formal rule setting progress that happens every year. So it'll have to be supported by WDFW staff, voted on by the Commission, etc. That is for it to actually be adopted into the state code.

WDFW could just put in a statement similar to the one in the waterfowl regs that says there are some restrictions to hunting on federal lands so make sure you check the regs, etc. This won't make it a violation of state law, it's basically more of a heads up. But I don't like that because it still doesn't say what the regs are.

If it were up to me I'd like WDFW to actually incorporate it into the code so it's easy to read and people don't have to be calling around all the time. 

[Boss .300 winmag]

Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

I agree. Most states do. It actually causes a difficulty to enforce as well. Since these regs aren't written into the state code (WAC) they aren't illegal under state law so WDFW for example cant write a ticket for it. If they encounter the violation they then have to call a federal LEO to write a federal ticket.

I should also mention this restriction also applies to the portion of GMU 244 that is in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area since it is also managed as part of the North Cascades National Park Complex.

Your almost guaranteed to get written up by Park Rangers in 426 Diablo in IMHFO than WDFW.

What's the best way to get the WDFW regs changed to address this oversite? 

It'll have to go thru the formal rule setting progress that happens every year. So it'll have to be supported by WDFW staff, voted on by the Commission, etc. That is for it to actually be adopted into the state code.

WDFW could just put in a statement similar to the one in the waterfowl regs that says there are some restrictions to hunting on federal lands so make sure you check the regs, etc. This won't make it a violation of state law, it's basically more of a heads up. But I don't like that because it still doesn't say what the regs are.

If it were up to me I'd like WDFW to actually incorporate it into the code so it's easy to read and people don't have to be calling around all the time. 

I do totally agree. 

[Special T]

Guess the wdfw doesn't care if we are ticketed trying to follow the rules!

[WAcoyotehunter]

thanks for posting.  I don't hunt over there, but never would have thought to check those regs

[bigtex]

thanks for posting.  I don't hunt over there, but never would have thought to check those regs

When hunting on a National Recreation Area or National Wildlife Refuge always make sure to check the local regs for that specific unit. NWRs have regs such as no possession of alcohol while hunting, no use of lead for anything other than big game (typically), and in WA most small game species are closed to hunting on NWRs.

[bearpaw]

It is indeed a trick question!! You wont find this in the WDFW regs!!

Most of GMU 426 is the Ross Lake National Recreation Area which is managed by the National Park Service as part of the North Cascades National Park. Under federal law (36 CFR 2.15(a)) it is illegal to have a dog off leash in a NPS unit. However, 36 CFR 2.15(b) says a park may be used in support of hunting if allowed by the park superintendent.

Under the Superintendt's Compendium for the complex the use of dogs for hunting purposes is outlined and it is NOT authorized. In fact the justification is this: "Hunting with dogs is normally done during hours of darkness, which necessitates the use of an artificial light" The NPS can authorize the use of a light/spotlight to view wildlife, however nearly every park bans such use. So the NPS at North Cascades says since you typically hunt with dogs at night but then you'll need a light (which is illegal) thus the use of dogs to hunt is illegal.

Page 13: https://www.nps.gov/noca/learn/management/upload/2016-Compendium-Final-combined-1-2.pdf

This has always been an issue of mine with WDFW. People read the hunting regs but they fail to mention some of the federal restrictions at National Wildlife Refuges and the NPS lands open to hunting. So you think your legal only to violate your breaking federal law. One of my famous examples is coyotes. It is illegal to hunt coyotes in WA on National Wildlife Refuges with the exception of the Pend Orielle NWR.

Of course any non-NPS lands in GMU 426 this restriction does not apply!

Good post bigtex, I totally agree that WDFW should try to include notes about these federal restrictions on wildlife refuges or other federal lands. Another rule that should be mentioned, hunting on mountain roadways is not allowed. It's legal to shoot grouse and other wildlife along mountain roads all over the state, but on a wildlife refuge you will get a ticket. (I've been told that LPO uses a stuffed grouse as a decoy along the roads in the LPO and they write tickets when they catch you.)

[Bob33]

Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

WDFW has no control over what other agency rules are, and they can change at any time without WDFW being notified. For WDFW to put every rule for every municipality and agency in their regulations (which are only an incomplete summary of the WACs and RCWs anyway) is not reasonable.

[bearpaw]

Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

WDFW has no control over what other agency rules are, and they can change at any time without WDFW being notified. For WDFW to put every rule for every municipality and agency in their regulations (which are only an incomplete summary of the WACs and RCWs anyway) is not reasonable.

If they don't already have it included (I can't remember seeing anything but maybe there is something I've missed) perhaps it would be good to mention in the WA Regs that hunting regulations may vary on certain federal lands and hunters should review specific rules for the lands they plan to hunt.

[Bob33]

Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

WDFW has no control over what other agency rules are, and they can change at any time without WDFW being notified. For WDFW to put every rule for every municipality and agency in their regulations (which are only an incomplete summary of the WACs and RCWs anyway) is not reasonable.

If they don't already have it included (I can't remember seeing anything but maybe there is something I've missed) perhaps it would be good to mention in the WA Regs that hunting regulations may vary on certain federal lands and hunters should review specific rules for the lands they plan to hunt.

That would be a good idea; perhaps even include links. But requiring them to put the specific regulations in for other agencies could create a lot of problems.

Imagine if it went the other way: NPS allows the use of dogs, and WDFW puts that in their regulations. NPS changes their rules in the middle of hunting season to make them illegal. The WDFW regulations state that dogs are legal. A hunter uses dogs and get cited. Now what?

[bearpaw]

Thanks Bigtex, I think WDFW should have to state in the hunting regs that this is the case for this unit and others affected by federal regs most folks don't know exist. 

WDFW has no control over what other agency rules are, and they can change at any time without WDFW being notified. For WDFW to put every rule for every municipality and agency in their regulations (which are only an incomplete summary of the WACs and RCWs anyway) is not reasonable.

If they don't already have it included (I can't remember seeing anything but maybe there is something I've missed) perhaps it would be good to mention in the WA Regs that hunting regulations may vary on certain federal lands and hunters should review specific rules for the lands they plan to hunt.

That would be a good idea; perhaps even include links. But requiring them to put the specific regulations in for other agencies could create a lot of problems.

Imagine if it went the other way: NPS allows the use of dogs, and WDFW puts that in their regulations. NPS changes their rules in the middle of hunting season to make them illegal. The WDFW regulations state that dogs are legal. A hunter uses dogs and get cited. Now what?

I agree that publishing individual rules isn't realistic, maybe someone could mention they might include info on agencies to contact or something like that.