Forum Rules: Topics promoting illegal activities are not allowed!

[bearpaw]

This has been the forum policy regarding poaching and wolf topics, the third paragraph was recently added to address how the moderator team will deal with topics related to recent fishing and hunting closures:



Hunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized.

It has been the policy of Hunting-Washington to allow most civil discussions. Moderators will sometimes remove comments they find and judge to violate forum rules especially if comments are unsuitable for family viewing or discussion on this forum. When comments are found that suggest illegal activity they are usually left on the forum so that law enforcement can monitor such activity.

Topics started that appear to be meant primarily to promote illegal activity are not desired, topics that are meant to discuss the issues related to illegal activities may be allowed. Not everyone will understand or agree with what the moderators choose to remove or allow, but the moderator team will do their best to administer this policy in the best interest of this forum and the sport.

Everyone has agreed to the Forum Rules when signing up to use this forum. Please note the following excerpt from the Forum Rules: https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163263.msg2152384.html#msg2152384

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, slanderous, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any State, International, or United States Federal law.

[bearpaw]

Some examples of how moderators may deal with topics:

Example of what moderators might allow: : "I observed someone yesterday who illegally killed two deer."
Example of what moderators might not allow: "I think everyone should kill two deer this year"

Another example of what moderators might allow: "What do you think about people who are fishing even when it's not legal?"
Another example of what moderators might not allow:  "Even though season is closed I'm going fishing, who else is going?"

[Cougartail]

It's your forum and can do as you please but "illegal activities" outside of hunting and fishing for the purpose of a constitutional challenge should be allowed.  Open carry was illegal until challenged in the State Supreme Court. Much of the Governor's "emergency powers" are suspect due to the word "reasonable". Is it reasonable to disarm us now? Limit our movements yet allow certain groups to move freely?
Going fishing/hunting for any other reason than to challenge an order should not be allowed.
Just my thoughts.. But this is your site.

[Bill W]

I agree with the new rules wholeheartedly.

[bearpaw]

It's your forum and can do as you please but "illegal activities" outside of hunting and fishing for the purpose of a constitutional challenge should be allowed.  Open carry was illegal until challenged in the State Supreme Court. Much of the Governor's "emergency powers" are suspect due to the word "reasonable". Is it reasonable to disarm us now? Limit our movements yet allow certain groups to move freely?
Going fishing/hunting for any other reason than to challenge an order should not be allowed.
Just my thoughts.. But this is your site.

I don't disagree with you, I added the second post for guidance on how we may view and act on these types of topics.

[KFhunter]

Talking about illegal activity is one thing, eliciting illegal activity is another thing entirely. 

[wags]

The Charter of the WDFW is to manage wildlife from a biological perspective. I will try to find the exact verbiage and post later. That means what they are doing now is not for biological reasons, but is political, at the behest (threat) of the Governor. I think any activity by the Department outside of their Charter is illegal and we should be able to challenge them on it via this forum. Some people might interpret that kind of dialogue as advocating breaking the law; I would disagree; this is essential conversation in a free Country.

On a different issue, but relating to the Department's charter; How can the department require a license in order to pickup seaweed? Seaweed is not wildlife.
I suppose the Department could also require a license for berry picking or mushroom picking if you follow along that line of logic. This is why we need to be able to challenge unlawful actions by the Department.

[furbearer365]

The Charter of the WDFW is to manage wildlife from a biological perspective. I will try to find the exact verbiage and post later. That means what they are doing now is not for biological reasons, but is political, at the behest (threat) of the Governor. I think any activity by the Department outside of their Charter is illegal and we should be able to challenge them on it via this forum. Some people might interpret that kind of dialogue as advocating breaking the law; I would disagree; this is essential conversation in a free Country.


On a different issue, but relating to the Department's charter; How can the department require a license in order to pickup seaweed? Seaweed is not wildlife.
I suppose the Department could also require a license for berry picking or mushroom picking if you follow along that line of logic. This is why we need to be able to challenge unlawful actions by the Department.

The Charter of the WDFW is to manage wildlife from a biological perspective. I will try to find the exact verbiage and post later. That means what they are doing now is not for biological reasons, but is political, at the behest (threat) of the Governor. I think any activity by the Department outside of their Charter is illegal and we should be able to challenge them on it via this forum. Some people might interpret that kind of dialogue as advocating breaking the law; I would disagree; this is essential conversation in a free Country.

On a different issue, but relating to the Department's charter; How can the department require a license in order to pickup seaweed? Seaweed is not wildlife.
I suppose the Department could also require a license for berry picking or mushroom picking if you follow along that line of logic. This is why we need to be able to challenge unlawful actions by the Department.

 :yeah:x100

[Stein]

Nothing prevents anyone from challenging WDFW, if anyone receives a ticket for harvesting without a license they have the option of going to court.

The forum and moderators have done a very good job in my opinion, there is room for debate and discussion 95% of the time and those that don't want to engage in politics can hide that category and life is good.  I think the clarification on rules is helpful and appropriate.

I hardly spend any time elsewhere, I'm too old for all the name calling and puffing of chests that you typically see.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Having been on this site nearly from the beginning, long before the current forum rules and now; I will say I 1000% support the current forum rules.  They make this site a much better place.

[bigtex]

On a different issue, but relating to the Department's charter; How can the department require a license in order to pickup seaweed? Seaweed is not wildlife.
I suppose the Department could also require a license for berry picking or mushroom picking if you follow along that line of logic. This is why we need to be able to challenge unlawful actions by the Department.

It wasn't WDFW who came up with and required a seaweed license, it was the state legislature. In fact, DNR is the actually "manager" of seaweed in WA, WDFW is simply the enforcement of DNR's seaweed laws.

It all goes back to 1993. In 1993 there was a bill that passed the state legislature dealing with seaweed, at that point there were no seaweed laws in WA. It was this bill which put seaweed management under the purview of DNR. It was this bill which also established the 10 pound limit. No fish/wildlife/shellfish bag limit is established in law, rather they are established in rules. So whereas WDFW can come out tomorrow and saw you could shoot 10 deer in a year, it would actually take the state legislature to increase the seaweed limit. In this same bill it also established that WDFW shall be the enforcement of the new seaweed laws.

Also in 1993 a separate bill dealing with fishing licenses was passed. It was this bill which required a shellfish/seaweed license in order to harvest seaweed.

It is not agencies who expand their scope, it is the state legislature which forces additional mandates (often unfunded) upon them. This is why WDFW has to now manage what is being sold in pet stores, what invasive species are entering the state on boats, etc.

[bornhunter]

Having been on this site nearly from the beginning, long before the current forum rules and now; I will say I 1000% support the current forum rules.  They make this site a much better place.

 

[Platensek-po]

The Charter of the WDFW is to manage wildlife from a biological perspective. I will try to find the exact verbiage and post later. That means what they are doing now is not for biological reasons, but is political, at the behest (threat) of the Governor. I think any activity by the Department outside of their Charter is illegal and we should be able to challenge them on it via this forum. Some people might interpret that kind of dialogue as advocating breaking the law; I would disagree; this is essential conversation in a free Country.

On a different issue, but relating to the Department's charter; How can the department require a license in order to pickup seaweed? Seaweed is not wildlife.
I suppose the Department could also require a license for berry picking or mushroom picking if you follow along that line of logic. This is why we need to be able to challenge unlawful actions by the Department.

You can’t go to public forests and cut down and harvest trees either. It makes sense to me. Then again I’m not going to go out and collect 10lbs of seaweed so... on topic I like the distinctions posted. I agree it’s fine to talk about illegal activity but not incite it. It can definitely be a pretty fine line as Congress is finding out

[Russ McDonald]

This is a post about ruoes of the forum.  If you want to discuss other things about agnecies olease feel free to start a post in Advocacy, agencies.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk

[Dan-o]

Having been on this site nearly from the beginning, long before the current forum rules and now; I will say I 1000% support the current forum rules.  They make this site a much better place.

 

 

[Lady Grouse hunter]

Baiting for trail cam sightings is illegal as well, for harvest, or glory pics in out of season.
Please post pics of a natural "well" used trail instead

[Dan-o]

Baiting for trail cam sightings is illegal as well, for harvest, or glory pics in out of season.
Please post pics of a natural "well" used trail instead

I'm not aware of this.

Can you cite the law?

[hunter399]

Baiting for trail cam sightings is illegal as well, for harvest, or glory pics in out of season.
Please post pics of a natural "well" used trail instead

I'm not aware of this.

Can you cite the law?

I'm kinda curious about this as well.
Is this in Washington,or private land,or what is going on here.
Is this the law,legal,illegal,or just personal feelings.

[emac]

Bear and birds are the only thing illegal to bait so unless you are referring to either of them you are wrong.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[fishngamereaper]

Baiting for trail cam sightings is illegal as well, for harvest, or glory pics in out of season.
Please post pics of a natural "well" used trail instead

If your going to comment in the illegal activities thread at least make an educated comment so people aren't misinformed.

The 10 gallon rule applies for deer and elk. 10 gallons is allowed at any individual site.  Unless its naturally occurring. Also there needs to be intent to hunt. You can bait for trail cams as much as you want if your not hunting the same spot.

[KFhunter]

I think she's confused about the large carnivore rule

[hunter399]

I think she's confused about the large carnivore rule

Confused🤔 😒🤔😒
Anyway ,what is this large carnivore rule .

[Bob33]

This may be what she is referring to.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.790


(1) A person may not negligently feed or attempt to feed large wild carnivores or negligently attract large wild carnivores to land or a building.
(2) If a fish and wildlife officer, ex officio fish and wildlife officer, or animal control authority, as defined in RCW 16.30.010, has probable cause to believe that a person is negligently feeding, attempting to feed, or attracting large wild carnivores to land or a building by placing or locating food, food waste, or other substance in, on, or about any land or building, and the food, food waste, or other substance poses a risk to the safety of any person, livestock, or pet because it is attracting or could attract large wild carnivores to the land or building, that person commits an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.

[Buckhunter24]

I'm a little rusty on my biology but I'm pretty sure elk aren't carnivores 

[hunter399]

This may be what she is referring to.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.790


(1) A person may not negligently feed or attempt to feed large wild carnivores or negligently attract large wild carnivores to land or a building.
(2) If a fish and wildlife officer, ex officio fish and wildlife officer, or animal control authority, as defined in RCW 16.30.010, has probable cause to believe that a person is negligently feeding, attempting to feed, or attracting large wild carnivores to land or a building by placing or locating food, food waste, or other substance in, on, or about any land or building, and the food, food waste, or other substance poses a risk to the safety of any person, livestock, or pet because it is attracting or could attract large wild carnivores to the land or building, that person commits an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.

Interesting......
Although I have never targeted or baited carnivores,what about all these guys that put game cams on there deer carcasses.
I mean your gonna throw bones and such away anyway,I guess you can't put a game cam on it.

[Stein]

Sure you can, leaving a deer carcass out isn't baiting, it's leaving a deer carcass out.

[GWP]

Moderators should have the freedom to moderate as they see fit.
I have had friends that got an ‘unwelcome visit’ after posting about ‘illegal activities’. One of them it got pretty expensive.
Another reason we need rules and laws. Some folks just can’t ‘regulate’ themselves.
Remember, many years ago ‘Vehicle Manuals’ told you how to do fairly major work on it. Now days it warns you ‘not to drink the battery fluid’.
Common sense is not so common any more.

[hunter399]

All I can say is.....
I was fully aware of deer&elk baiting laws.
I was losing sleep over it. One minute I couldn't use the bathroom,then it was like an avalanche in a rock shoot.
A HUGE wieght has been lifted or let lose from me.
I'm sure glad lady grouse let me know the law of the land.
 

Here's a pic of the mule train going to my game camera.
Instead of apples,corn,sweet oat,salt.
They just carry my mountain money.