Response and reply to my WDFW letter (new email)

[Kain]

Whatever, I have hunted archery for years and never need a handgun for protection. I don't want the extra weight and will not carry one even if they do change the laws. It is an Archery Hunt, not a modern handgun for anything hunt.

And there is no comparison to seatbelts in this arguments. If you are worried about being attacked by something, by all means wear your seatbelt. 

Hmm we are back to this again.  We are not asking to HUNT with our handguns.  We are asking that we be allowed to carry them if we want.  We are asking that the same laws that apply to the rest of the outdoor users also apply to us. You dont have to carry and I have never either because it wasnt legal. 

Are you against us being allowed to carry at all?  If so why?

[Kain]

Here is the reply I and some others that are working on this recieved this week. I belive that this will get turned around, soon.

Thank you for contacting WDFW regarding archery hunting and carrying a handgun.  Your e-mail has been referred to me for a response.

WDFW is currently reviewing these rules and awaiting legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General.  The review is not yet complete at this time.  Please feel free to contact me directly in the weeks ahead so that I may update you on any progress.

Mik Mikitik
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Program
Hunter Education Division

I hope you are about this being turned around.  Good job on getting involved.

[CP]

I got a similar reply back when I asked about the ML wording:

Thank you for your recent email regarding our muzzleloading regulations.
Your e-mail has been referred to me for a response.

There have been several similar questions regarding our new regulations concerning archery and muzzleloading.  Our agency is currently reviewing the new regulations and I expect a decision within the next month.
Since there are no archery or muzzleloading seasons currently underway, the timing will have no adverse impact on archers or muzzleloaders.

The original intent, as you noted, was to limit possession of a pistol to only those archers and muzzleloaders who possess a CPL.

Mik Mikitik
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Program
Hunter Education Division

[KillBilly]

Whatever, I have hunted archery for years and never need a handgun for protection. I don't want the extra weight and will not carry one even if they do change the laws. It is an Archery Hunt, not a modern handgun for anything hunt.

And there is no comparison to seatbelts in this arguments. If you are worried about being attacked by something, by all means wear your seatbelt. 

Hmm we are back to this again.  We are not asking to HUNT with our handguns.  We are asking that we be allowed to carry them if we want.  We are asking that the same laws that apply to the rest of the outdoor users also apply to us. You dont have to carry and I have never either because it wasnt legal. 

Are you against us being allowed to carry at all?  If so why?

Since you ask... in my opinion, if you want to carry a modern weapon then chose a modern weapon hunt. If you choose a primitive weapon hunt then you carry primitive weapons only.. it's as simple as that and that's the way it's been for years.

And that is my opinion...

[Machias]

   Why bother.

[curtmdavis]

 Killbilly,
The last thing I want to do here is start or continue a pissing match on this subject, and I respect your opinion. If I choose to hunt with a bow or muzzle loader, or a camera, the choice I make to protect myself, has nothing to do with my hunt or my chosen equipment. If I wanted to hunt with a handgun, I would buy a modern tag and load up some wristbreakers and be at it.
 Sir, all I am asking is that the game department get in line with the RCW that allows me my right to carry a side arm. Believe you me, I am not going to ruin the hunt of a lifetime by attempting to take down a bull elk with my .45ACP. If it were my intentions to use my handgun to bag an animal while hunting during an archery season, I wouldn't be asking the game department to change their ways. Probably wouldn't even bother buying a tag.

 For the record, I have been in a situation where a handgun has saved my life, and that of my at the time infant son. That was almost 20 years ago, but things aren't looking much happier today.

Thank you gentlemen.

[Kain]

Since you ask... in my opinion, if you want to carry a modern weapon then chose a modern weapon hunt. If you choose a primitive weapon hunt then you carry primitive weapons only.. it's as simple as that and that's the way it's been for years.

And that is my opinion...

Thanks KillBilly.  I can respect your opinion even if I dont agree with it.  I can see your side of it but I just dont think that me or any other archery hunter, carrying a handgun while out hunting, will have any negative effect on you enjoying your archery season.  No more than any other person in the woods at the time is allowed to do.  If your reason for not liking it is because of the potential for abuse I can understand that also.  I just dont feel like I should be punished because there are poachers out there.  We are all loosing our hunting opportunities and rights because of them.  You seem like a good guy from all the other posts I have seen from you and I am sure we can agree on most things.  Just not this.

[Machias]

What kind of bow and arrows do you use?  Because if they are anything other then a longbow and cedar shafts with flint tips you can drop the primitive blanket as well.  Do you carry modern day firestarters?  Modern day knife?  You use a 520 Rhino right, should you be allowed to carry that in a primitive hunt?  Actually there is NO difference between you carrying a state of the art GPS and me carrying a sidearm.  They are BOTH survival tools nothing more and nothing less.  And no one is asking, or has ever asked to be able to HUNT with a sidearm during archery season.  Honestly Killbilly on this issue your like a kid in a corner with his fingers in his ear screaming blah blah blah.

[curtmdavis]

 I don't think that the folks here are disagreeing like kids in the corner. The reason this was ever put into the regs, from my understanding, is that the folks in our community were concerned about the misuse of side arms for dispatching game. I understand this and respect the thought. However, if this is a problem within our community than we need to police it within our community, and not by tying the hands of law abiding citizens.
 (These are all the old arguments against gun control so I will stop with them.)

We do need to be united, as if we argue amongst ourselves for rights that are not going to in adversely affect our hunting, we are never going to be able to stand against the tyrannies of the subjects that will.

This isn't about opinions about what you would do, or have ever needed. Its about the law, and our Rights. The game department is breaking the law, by denying us our right.

 There is no need to call some one an idiot for disagreeing, just as there is no need for telling me I am a wimp for feeling the need to carry my pistol.

 Its a choice, that I have made, to shoulder the burden for my own protection, and not to depend on someone else.
 We in the hunting community have all made decisions like this.
 We choose not to let some else do our killing for us. ( We hunt and do it ourselves. )
 We carry daypacks ( so search and rescue doesn't have to come haul us out )
 We choose to harvest our own meat. ( Financially irresponsible as it may be )
 Some of us choose to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

  Be good.

[Machias]

That is NOT the reason it was put in the regs, if you go back this has been hashed over MANY times in the past.  The WDFW tried to say it was the archery community's leadership that wanted it, this was found out to be completely false.  This was reputed by folks who were in the negotiations with the WDFW.  It was the WDFW Enforcement section that pushed for this.  The kid in the corner line was because this has been hashed over SEVERAL times on this board in the past.

[Skyvalhunter]

Of coarse this will not be the end of it!!

[jackelope]

there's obviously 2 arguments here...

1-bowhunters, like anybody else in the woods at the same time should be able to carry sidearms because everyone else can...because thats the law in WA. it is our right to carry, hunting or not and thats the way it should be.

2-bowhunters shouldn't carry a sidearm because they are bowhunting. if they choose to bowhunt, no sidearm is/was part of the regulations of the bowhunting regs...no guns with you on a bowhunt. choosing to bowhunt subjects you to that modification of the law because you are bowhunting.

i personally don't hold a stake in this argument...don't even currently own a pistol...but i can see both sides of the argument.

p.s. i wish my name was mik mikitik. it makes me laugh.

[Kain]

Great way to break it down jackelope.  My argument would be that one is law protected by a constitution the other, if legal, is a slippery slope.  Giving a government agency the ability to force you to give up certain rights for the ability to do something is dangerous.  Imagine if this a was the DOL telling you..."if you choose to get a drivers license you have to give up the right to have hunting stickers on your vehicle.  Or any other bumper sticker that might offend someone."  People would be outraged.  Of course they would argue that someone might put something pornographics or racist on their car so they will just make it so no one can do it.

[bearpaw]

It seems pretty simple to me.

1.  We have a lawful right to carry.
2.  We also have laws preventing the pistol to be used in any way for the archery or muzzleloader hunt.
3.  We have law enforcement and a poachers hotline to take care of those who break the law.

When laws are managed to make enforcement easier, rights are lost.

[curtmdavis]

It seems pretty simple to me.

1.  We have a lawful right to carry.
2.  We also have laws preventing the pistol to be used in any way for the archery or muzzleloader hunt.
3.  We have law enforcement and a poachers hotline to take care of those who break the law.

When laws are managed to make enforcement easier, rights are lost.

man, that's beautiful