Crossbow question, calling Bob33

[Machias]

So, I qualify for use of a crossbow.  I already have my paperwork filled out by the Dr.  This will be my last year of bow hinting before I submit my papers next year to get my crossbow endorsement.  I just cannot pull the bow back anymore.

My question has to do with being disabled and having a designated harvester.  I am categorized as disabled and am authorized a designated harvester.  Once I submit my crossbow papers, can I have a designated harvester use my crossbow to harvest an animal?

Dbl J,
Bob seems like a very intelligent person but I have to ask: Why would you ask such an important question of a joe blow hunter on a forum? The WDFW could easily answer your questions concerning the above and you could take the answers as gospel. Just curious. We've all got opinions and many of them are good but I leave nothing to chance when it comes to laws.

I really have to chuckle at that one.  There's been at least three occasion over the past few years where I have been given conflicting and inaccurate information straight from the WDFW.

[fair-chase]

I really have to chuckle at that one.  There's been at least three occasion over the past few years where I have been given conflicting and inaccurate information straight from the WDFW.

Agreed. I think Bob has a better track record when it comes to answering questions regarding regulations than the call screeners at WDFW.

[DoubleJ]

I really have to chuckle at that one.  There's been at least three occasion over the past few years where I have been given conflicting and inaccurate information straight from the WDFW.

Agreed. I think Bob has a better track record when it comes to answering questions regarding regulations than the call screeners at WDFW.

This *censored* right here

[sakoshooter]

I really have to chuckle at that one.  There's been at least three occasion over the past few years where I have been given conflicting and inaccurate information straight from the WDFW.

Agreed. I think Bob has a better track record when it comes to answering questions regarding regulations than the call screeners at WDFW.

No one said to ask a 'call screener'. A tid bit of common sense here guys. You CAN ask for someone in the related dept when the phone is answered. You guys crack me up.

[Machias]

I really have to chuckle at that one.  There's been at least three occasion over the past few years where I have been given conflicting and inaccurate information straight from the WDFW.

Agreed. I think Bob has a better track record when it comes to answering questions regarding regulations than the call screeners at WDFW.

No one said to ask a 'call screener'. A tid bit of common sense here guys. You CAN ask for someone in the related dept when the phone is answered. You guys crack me up.

I was not referring to a call screener.  A few years ago I responded to a report of elk poaching on Fairchild AFB, I was a criminal investigator at the time.  Two wardens showed up.  It was Aug.  The guy had killed a cow elk.  These two guys were set confiscate the elk and write the guy up.  They could not find any open season for the elk.  That is until I pointed out to them they were looking in the year prior's hunting regs.  I have called and spoke with the Enforcement Section and gotten conflicting answers.  We've had LEO on this site give wrong answers to law related questions even though they were instructors.  All I'm saying is the folks who work at WDFW are in fact people, who can and do make mistakes.  There are two or three guys here who consistently give acurate answers, Bob and Bigtex are two of those I trust.  Do I still do my own research, yes, but those two guys have a much better track record than the folks I have dealt with in the WDFW, and no I'm not talking about call screeners.  Heck the Enforcement Division did not even know it was legal for folks engaged in lawful outdoor activity to carry concealed without a CPL.  Don't put TOO much trust in the folks in position of authority in this state.

[bigtex]

I really have to chuckle at that one.  There's been at least three occasion over the past few years where I have been given conflicting and inaccurate information straight from the WDFW.

Agreed. I think Bob has a better track record when it comes to answering questions regarding regulations than the call screeners at WDFW.

No one said to ask a 'call screener'. A tid bit of common sense here guys. You CAN ask for someone in the related dept when the phone is answered. You guys crack me up.

There are two or three guys here who consistently give acurate answers, Bob and Bigtex are two of those I trust.  Do I still do my own research, yes, but those two guys have a much better track record than the folks I have dealt with in the WDFW, and no I'm not talking about call screeners.  Heck the Enforcement Division did not even know it was legal for folks engaged in lawful outdoor activity to carry concealed without a CPL.  Don't put TOO much trust in the folks in position of authority in this state.

I'm not trying to defend WDFW but I will say this. WDFW has some of the largest and complicated rules/regulations (RCW 77, WAC 220, 232) of any agency in this state and for one individual to literally know all WDFW laws but as well as other laws such as CPL laws is essentially impossible. For example within WDFW regulations you have tribal, nontribal, commercial, and non-commercial regulations. No other state agency has such variety in regulations. And remember that WDFW is no longer just hunting and fishing but also hydraulics violations, they manage deleterious and invasive species, as well as dangerous wildlife issues and numerous other issues.

In comparison if you call the gambling commission they really only have two rule paths, tribal and non tribal. The same goes for the liquor control board. DNR's laws are essentially the same statewide for use on their lands..... 

[Machias]

Agreed Bigtex!

[sakoshooter]

Machias, Fair-Chase referred to 'call screeners.

[Machias]

You guys crack me up.

I know, but this is why I commented.   

[fair-chase]

You guys crack me up.

I find it quite humorous as well. Don't try and read into it too much. I was just trying to pay Bob a compliment for his thourough responses. Of course we shouldn't trust the "call screeners". I thought I made that clear so apparently we agree on that. If no one got that the first time around let me say it again DO NOT TRUST A CALL SCREENER. 

Also you shouldn't rely on the word of  the directors, leo's, biologists, interns, the commission, bums, hookers, midgets, and women. Unless they can show you in writing where it's legal to persue the action you are inquiring about.