What is considered bait?

[SGTDuffman]

Top of page 86.

[Machias]

There is NO distance when it comes to shooting a bear with bait.  If you place a bait and it affects the travel of the bear and attracts it to your bait, it is illegal to take that bear.  I got this straight from a warden a while back.  My scenario was a friend of mine had a deer bait set up, that was quickly taken over by the bears.  He removed all the bait and it appeared the bears had cleaned up the rest, but were still coming by to check it out.  I asked how far away could I set up and not get in a jam.  One of the bears was a HUGE bear.  Didn't matter how far and it didn't matter the bait had been removed or eaten.  He said if the Wardens were watching the site and I ended up shooting a bear that was attracted to the area, I could be cited.

[hunter399]

Top of page 86.

Top of page 86 .
Tells Alot about deer and elk baiting.
I still have a few questions.

1) Hunting or harvesting a bear over a deer/elk bait site is illegal .
So how far do you have to be from a known bait site?
2)It says above exceptions ,cover scents and scents that can't be consumed are not bait.
Does this apply to just deer/elk baiting?
Can you dump a gallon of just anis oil,or vanilla oil or something like that for bear and not be considered bait.

3)Laws for baiting deer/elk and bear are way different.
Little more specific on that in the regs would be nice.
I'm pretty sure a few bear every year are taken over deer/elk bait sites with no one being the wise.
I guess what I'm saying is ,
A reminder in the deer/elk baiting section saying that these only apply to deer/elk baiting ,Baiting or hunting bears over deer/elk baits is illegal ,that all bear baiting laws still apply at deer/elk baiting sites.And reference to the bear baiting rcw.
Might be a good idea.

[SGTDuffman]

Page 68 then. It lists the RCW, which is this. No baiting for bear at all.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245

RCW 77.15.245

Unlawful practices—Black bear baiting—Exceptions—Illegal hunting—Use of dogs—Exceptions—Penalties.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 77.12.240, 77.36.030, or any other provisions of law, it is unlawful to take, hunt, or attract black bear with the aid of bait.
(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the killing of black bear with the aid of bait by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety.
(b) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the establishment and operation of feeding stations for black bear in order to prevent damage to commercial timberland.
(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the director from issuing a permit or memorandum of understanding to a public agency, university, or scientific or educational institution for the use of bait to attract black bear for scientific purposes.
(d) As used in this subsection, "bait" means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
(2) Notwithstanding RCW 77.12.240, 77.36.030, or any other provisions of law, it is unlawful to hunt or pursue black bear, cougar, or bobcat with the aid of a dog or dogs.
(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the hunting of black bear, cougar, or bobcat with the aid of a dog or dogs by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety. A dog or dogs may be used by the owner or tenant of real property consistent with a permit issued and conditioned by the director.
(b) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the director from issuing a permit or memorandum of understanding to a public agency, university, or scientific or educational institution for the use of a dog or dogs for the pursuit, capture and relocation, of black bear, cougar, or bobcat for scientific purposes.
(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the director from issuing a permit or memorandum of understanding to a public agency, university, or scientific or educational institution for the use of a dog or dogs for the killing of black bear, cougar, or bobcat, for the protection of a state and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species.
(d) Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit nonlethal pursuit training of dogs by persons selected through the process established in RCW 77.12.077 for future use for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, the commission may authorize the use of dogs only in selected areas within a game management unit to address a public safety need presented by one or more cougar. This authority may only be exercised after the commission has determined that no other practical alternative to the use of dogs exists, and after the commission has adopted rules describing the conditions in which dogs may be used. Conditions that may warrant the use of dogs within a game management unit include, but are not limited to, confirmed cougar/human safety incidents, confirmed cougar/livestock and cougar/pet depredations, and the number of cougar capture attempts and relocations.
(4) A person who violates subsection (1) or (2) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. In addition to appropriate criminal penalties, the department shall revoke the hunting license of a person who violates subsection (1) or (2) of this section and order the suspension of wildlife hunting privileges for a period of five years following the revocation. Following a subsequent violation of subsection (1) or (2) of this section by the same person, a hunting license shall not be issued to the person at any time.
[ 2019 c 226 § 2; 2005 c 107 § 1; 2001 c 253 § 31. Prior: 2000 c 248 § 1; 2000 c 107 § 260; 1997 c 1 § 1 (Initiative Measure No. 655, approved November 5, 1996). Formerly RCW 77.16.360.]

[Bogie85]

There is NO distance when it comes to shooting a bear with bait.  If you place a bait and it affects the travel of the bear and attracts it to your bait, it is illegal to take that bear.  I got this straight from a warden a while back.  My scenario was a friend of mine had a deer bait set up, that was quickly taken over by the bears.  He removed all the bait and it appeared the bears had cleaned up the rest, but were still coming by to check it out.  I asked how far away could I set up and not get in a jam.  One of the bears was a HUGE bear.  Didn't matter how far and it didn't matter the bait had been removed or eaten.  He said if the Wardens were watching the site and I ended up shooting a bear that was attracted to the area, I could be cited.

Thank you for sharing this information, I did reach out to Wdfw. The weird thing is, The bear came in bit my camera and left. Never touched the salt licks or other bait. I have loads of pictures of elk and deer eating the bait. But the trails nearby is heavily used by all the wildlife. There are so many rules as a new hunter that are about as clear as mud. I have never had this problem with fishing yet, but hunting it sure seems like they just don’t want you to hunt at all.

[hunter399]

Looks like my answer is up in the RCW for bear baiting.
If you fart really hard and let a stinker out,and it attracts a bear your baiting.

[Skyvalhunter]

No thats a warning shot

[huntnnw]

id be willing to bet a very high percentage of bears killed in WA are going to or from deer and elk baits and hunters have no clue. There are so many deer and elk baits in places its crazy

[Alan K]

The real answer is it'd be up to an officers discretion. Probably wouldn't get prosecuted in this day and age anyhow, but if it did I would think it would be fairly easy to get off on. Seems anything that doesn't have a well defined rule that can be referenced is let go.  The 200 yard thing is the only actual distance related to baiting that is in the rules as far as I know. 

Sorry, but he's not talking about participating in a BLM or ANTIFA riot. Wildlife crimes are being prosecuted. If you subscribe to Facebook, you should follow the WDFW LE page.

Do you realize how many fish and game officers have given in up in recent years because of the lack of prosecution on open and shut cases?

No, how many?

I know of two personally just in the Puget Sound area, and the sentiment is widespread. Some are deciding to drag it out if they are close to retirement. The stories are stomach turning what doesn't even get prosecuted.  It is destroys morale when these guys put together seemingly bulletproof cases only to have them dropped. Even when open and shut.  Does WDFW's Facebook page talk about all of these? Share what percentage of their cases actually get heard? I don't have Facebook, but I would guess not...

SGTDuffman's WAC posting there shows exactly what we all know, and the intention of I-655. Getting a judge, or rather prosecutors to take up cases like this is a whole different story. A lot of them want to protect their record to later move into private practice. As subjective as the language is, and hearing about the cases that don't even get the time of day, it would be unlikely they'd want to press it. WDFW needs to define things clearer (or press the powers that be to) or they will continue to get dropped.  The justice system looks for any little reason to drop cases anymore (yes, fish and wildlife cases included), and ambiguity or subjectiveness in the laws are one of their favorite things to point at.

[pianoman9701]

The real answer is it'd be up to an officers discretion. Probably wouldn't get prosecuted in this day and age anyhow, but if it did I would think it would be fairly easy to get off on. Seems anything that doesn't have a well defined rule that can be referenced is let go.  The 200 yard thing is the only actual distance related to baiting that is in the rules as far as I know. 

Sorry, but he's not talking about participating in a BLM or ANTIFA riot. Wildlife crimes are being prosecuted. If you subscribe to Facebook, you should follow the WDFW LE page.

Do you realize how many fish and game officers have given in up in recent years because of the lack of prosecution on open and shut cases?

No, how many?

I know of two personally just in the Puget Sound area, and the sentiment is widespread. Some are deciding to drag it out if they are close to retirement. The stories are stomach turning what doesn't even get prosecuted.  It is destroys morale when these guys put together seemingly bulletproof cases only to have them dropped. Even when open and shut.  Does WDFW's Facebook page talk about all of these? Share what percentage of their cases actually get heard? I don't have Facebook, but I would guess not...

SGTDuffman's WAC posting there shows exactly what we all know, and the intention of I-655. Getting a judge, or rather prosecutors to take up cases like this is a whole different story. A lot of them want to protect their record to later move into private practice. As subjective as the language is, and hearing about the cases that don't even get the time of day, it would be unlikely they'd want to press it. WDFW needs to define things clearer (or press the powers that be to) or they will continue to get dropped.  The justice system looks for any little reason to drop cases anymore (yes, fish and wildlife cases included), and ambiguity or subjectiveness in the laws are one of their favorite things to point at.

Interesting. I know Todd V. was quite bothered by the system in place. Thanks for your response.

[Bogie85]

Looks like my answer is up in the RCW for bear baiting.
If you fart really hard and let a stinker out,and it attracts a bear your baiting.

If it lingered that much, wouldn’t that be a shart? Better bring an extra pair of underpants.     Yeah it seems pretty strict, and silly tbh being that there are a lot more bear then people even think in these woods the trail cams tell the true story they are just good at hiding.

[Bogie85]

So I got an answer back from Wdfw, if you have bait up even if they haven’t been eating the bait it’s considered baiting. I asked what if I know the game trail goes back a few miles and I went back and sat on that? They said we’d recommend you pull all bait now until bear season and then if it comes back you can shoot it. But if bait was ever up they think the only reason it would come near is because the bait used to be there. Even though I literally have 300 pictures from this last pull and the bear was never in the bait area just the trail. But the deer and elk were all over it.

So basically, if you were walking to towards your bait and it was 2 miles back but that bear was facing the direction of your bait, it could potentially be perceived as baiting. Would they do anything with something so egregious? Not likely, but it’s good to know.

[Stein]

That's probably one of the reasons stuff doesn't get prosecuted, the law is so poorly written as to be difficult to enforce.  I wonder how many people just bait their buddy's area and then they can easily just say they had no idea it was there.

There really needs to be a distance in the WDFW rules, we all know baiting bears means pretty much shooting them when they are at or 10' away from the barrel of donuts and they could easily issue department rules to make it easy on the legal hunter and warden.  But, they don't which isn't much of a surprise I guess.

[Bogie85]

That's probably one of the reasons stuff doesn't get prosecuted, the law is so poorly written as to be difficult to enforce.  I wonder how many people just bait their buddy's area and then they can easily just say they had no idea it was there.

There really needs to be a distance in the WDFW rules, we all know baiting bears means pretty much shooting them when they are at or 10' away from the barrel of donuts and they could easily issue department rules to make it easy on the legal hunter and warden.  But, they don't which isn't much of a surprise I guess.

I agree, too much of a grey area. Shooting something on or over bait, I totally get that. But if it's on the way, and you bump it and get a shot it seems unreasonable to not allow it.

[Stein]

It was a voter initiative, not WDFW or the legislature, so there seems to be no reason WDFW can't issue a department rule.  The only thing I can think of is they don't want to get sued again by the Center for Biological Diversity.