Last day to comment on 2012-2014 proposed changes, I wrote for Night Hunting

[luvmystang67]

This is the last day to send in your comments on the proposed changes.  I specifically want to urge you to write in about the new proposed restrictions to night hunting (no weapons larger than .22 rimfire or #6 sized shot).

It is the last day to comment, please take some time to write in. 


Here's the email address: wildthing@dfw.wa.gov

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/

[luvmystang67]

Also, I didn't proof read it because I'm busy, but I tried to address some of the issues they may have had to cause the changes to night hunting.  Feel free to use any part of this, but it is what I sent:

Hunting at night, specifically coyotes, is something that my hunting partners and I particularly enjoy during the game animal off seasons.  I have a .223 rifle set up for this hunt, which I have spent a significant amount on.  I have a light on it that allows me to shoot out to 200 yards.  We have had very good luck helping thin out the coyote population.  We always make sure to check out locations during the day time to ensure we are being safe.  Also, since we are respectful people and good neighbors, no matter where we are doing the night hunting, we make sure we have either cleared it with houses that are in the area (so they are aware and don't get worried) or make sure to do it away for homes.  We are very responsible and respectful and it is something that we enjoy very much.  It also presents one of the best opportunities to get at what is otherwise an elusive predator.

If you limit night hunting to .22 rimfire rifles and No. 6 or smaller shot I will likely no longer be participating.  Neither of these carry to a range effective for the areas that we hunt, not to mention I do not believe them to be a humane way to harvest coyotes.  You will be ending something that I thoroughly enjoy and I am uncertain the reason.  I have some speculations, so allow me to address arguments to some of my speculations.

1) If noise is the concern, I can see a .22 being quieter but a 12 gauge with #6 or smaller shot is no more quiet than say a 12 gauge with buckshot, so why the restriction with the sound.  I'd bet my .223 is quieter than any 12 gauge round.  Furthermore, if sound is a concern, you might consider mandatory suppressors for night hunting with rifles over a certain caliber.

2) If curbing illegal take of other animals is the concern I question specifically the #6 shot requirement.  It is just as illegal to shoot a big game animal with #2 shot as it is with #6 shot, so where does this restriction come from?  Furthermore, if you are concerned about illegal rifle take of big game at night, why the .22 rimfire restriction?  A .223 is just as illegal during established seasons, yet both a .22 LR and a .223 are capable of taking a deer if the range is close.  If your concern was to be able to identify potential poachers, I see no reason not to allow centerfire rifles under .24 caliber and shotguns using shot that is not otherwise allowed for the harvest of big game.  These sized rounds are illegal for big game anyway and people using them should not be assumed to be pursuing big game, as doing so would already be illegal.

3) If safety is the issue, I fail to see how #6 shot is really much safer than #2 shot.  Furthermore, the listed range of a .22LR is 2 miles if used irresponsibly, which is much further than you can see in the dark.  If used responsibly the restricted shot/rounds are just as safe as their larger relatives, conversely, they are just as unsafe if used irresponsibly.

If you want to end night hunting, then I'd prefer that you just end it, in lieu of effectively making us hunt animals with slingshots and lanterns eventually.  Please don't establish new regulations without reason or without at least considering the points I brought up above.  I'd be glad to offer further insight if desired.

[bobcat]

We've already been informed by a WDFW employee that the proposed night hunting rules will not be adopted. But still, doesn't hurt anything to send in your thoughts on it.

[bobcat]

I agree with most everything in your letter but I do want to point out that the proposed limitation would have allowed 22 caliber centerfire cartridges. It was not restricting us to only 22 rimfires, at least that's not the way I read it. So your 223 would still have been legal, along with the 222, 22/250, 220 Swift, etc. The limitation to #6 shot and smaller is what really blew me away. I still can't figure out why they would go with #6 shot as the biggest that could be used.

But like I said, you don't need to worry about any changes, at least for this year.

[luvmystang67]

If .22 centerfire would've been allowed, I would've inquired into the land of .23 caliber centerfire.  Not that they are necessarily prominent, but that would still disallow big game legal weapons and eliminate a gray area.  Just nit picking on wording is all.  Who did you get the information from?  Or was that in another post?

[bobcat]

Here is a link to the thread:  http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=92395.0


And here is the actual post that answered all the questions about the proposed rules: 

The rule proposal concerning night hunting is broader than just restricting caliber. Before answering your questions, please be aware that as of today, this rule proposal is being pulled from the Wildlife Program's three year regulation package. I would expect to see some variation of this in the future, after we have had a chance to vet it better with hunters. So, along that vein, I might as well describe the thinking behind the proposal now and get some early feedback.  There have been a number of incidents associated with hunting at night that have raised concern over public safety, officer safety and the ability to enforce the prohibition on spot lighting big game. Rounds shot into the sides of homes, hunters or companions shot or injured, and a loop hole allowing would-be big game poachers an excuse are the issues driving this. When an officer has to consider approach because he doesn’t want to offend a legitimate hunter, it can get hairy out there. This rule proposal was an effort to try to address all of those things. 
 
BACKGROUND: Prior to the codification of former fish and wildlife codes (Title 75&77), the prohibition against spotlighting big game was much stronger. The former law maintained that if a person was in possession of a firearm, in an area where big game was found, and artificial light was used, the combination of those elements constituted “prima facia” evidence of spotlighting. While the prima facia language is now absent from RCW 77.15.450, officers essentially use the same standard today to articulate an investigatory stop, if not probable cause. Right now, hunting small game species such as raccoon, coyote and bobcat with the aid of spotlight is not prohibited, except during times areas are open for center fire big game seasons. This convolutes things for us when we approach spotlighting during those other months (e.g. “am I going to tick off a legit hunter, or is this a bad guy?").
 
While the enforceability challenge is usually overcome by evaluating a number of factors, to include whether the habitat being hunted and methods being employed are consistent with hunting small game species, it gives the poachers an argument. I was on patrol two years ago when we set up the decoy. A known poacher shot the decoy from a seated position in the vehicle, with the bullet traveling across the chest of his partner, and out of the open passenger side window. When we pulled him over and took him out of the vehicle, he was arguing that he shot at a coyote. Yeah – that’s the extreme, but the “I’m coyote hunting excuse” is used by most of the bad guys, even when you have them dead to rights.
 
Hunting big game with the aid of artificial light is almost always done by cruising rural road systems at a slow rate while casting a high powered light along adjacent logging clear cuts or fields, as well as the roads themselves. Calibers used in big game spotlighting cases range from small calibers to reduce noise (and ultimately detection), to high powered rifles, with high powered rifles being the typical choice of poachers. Extensive field officer experience has shown that those hunting big game in this manner are often in the possession of a pre-loaded rifle in the vehicle, or load it from within the vehicle once the game is spotted. A number of unintentional discharges have occurred during spotlighting events, endangering the occupants. Animals are usually shot from, or in, the roadway. There is also greater potential for incidents of reckless endangerment or property damage when high-powered rifles are discharged at night. WDFW and local law enforcement agencies receive complaints every year of homes and buildings being struck by wayward bullets as people shoot illegally at animals located in fields and orchards. These structures, like people, are not visible beyond the range of the spotlight, but are within the range of the rifle round. But this all can be mitigated when someone hunts away from the vehicle, finds a backstop, and identifies shooting lanes. Calling in animals provides an opportunity to consider safety zones.
 
The general public safety issues associated with spotlighting big-game (or any night hunting) are one concern, but I have eluded to another – the danger to the officer, especially when there are exceptions like hunting small game at night. In our experience, those illegally spotlighting big game are often either intoxicated or on drugs. Suspects avoid being contacted by responding officers, leading to vehicle pursuits. Our history has at least one example of where a Fish and Wildlife Officer was forced to exchange gun-fire with a spotlighting suspect, resulting in the suspect's death. Pennsylvania lost an officer last year on a spot lighting case. In order to minimize the danger to the officer by these armed violators, decrease escalation like a pursuit, and increase successful arrest, contacts are generally done with duty firearms at the low ready and from an area of tactical advantage and cover. The suspect is first taken into custody, all firearms and passengers are secured, and then the investigative interview begins. When a bank is robbed, law enforcement does not respond as if a teller inadvertently bumped the alarm……… because they know that worrying about exceptions up front when guns are involved can result in tragedy.  On the other hand, none of us want to have a legitimate small game hunter contacted in high-risk mode.
 
 
The best way for me to proceed might be to take it section by section:
 
WAC 232-12-063  Hunting at night‑-Regulations‑-Penalties.  (1) It is unlawful to hunt small game animals or unclassified wildlife at night, unless all of the following requirements are met:
     (a) Artificial lights used in the hunting activity are not attached to or projected from any motor vehicle.
     (b) Shooting occurs at least fifty feet from a motor vehicle.
 
We are trying to separate the two activities – illegally spotlighting big game which usually occurs from a vehicle, and legitimate small game hunters that can pursue that activity with calls, back stops, and away from the vehicle. These two provisions are the backbone of the proposal and  intended to increase officer safety, and enforceability associated with spotlighting big-game.  

     (c) Firearms are restricted to .22 caliber rifles and handguns, and shotguns are restricted to no. 6 shot or smaller.  Hunting with bow and arrow is allowed.
 
For what it was worth, this was an ill-conceived idea, with good intentions. We looked at a number of other state’s night hunting rules, and many constrained the caliber. The original thought was to limit projectiles  that travel great distances for public safety sake, and provide some deterrence for those really out looking for deer and elk at night with larger calibers. Of course,  many elk and deer have been poached with .22 caliber rifles. So the deterrence factor probably isn’t  there - it can be argued that .22 caliber rounds travel  just as far as some larger calibers, and many popular predator calibers would be excluded by this provision. The idea no longer seems like a good one and you won’t see caliber restrictions in any future proposals from the WDFW Law Enforcement Bureau.  

     (d) During the months of September, October, or November hunting does not occur in areas closed to hunting for deer or elk with centerfire rifles.
 
Whoops, we meant to say “open," not closed. This provision was intended to follow current regulation in that you can’t hunt coyotes, bobcat or raccoons in areas that have center fire rifle deer and elk season underway. I wasn’t going to go into the reason behind this, because it’s old law carried forward.
 
     (e) Hunting activity is further than five hundred yards from any structure or temporary habitation located on public land.
 
After consideration, this would be a difficult distance to determine for officer and hunter both. Plus, some situations warrant safe shooting within this distance. We figured that reckless endangerment laws were sufficient in addressing the public safety piece. You probably won’t see this one in a future proposal.  

     (f) The hunting activity occurs within published open seasons.
 
I don’t need to explain this one.

     (2) Private landowners or their designees that possess a valid depredation permit issued by the department are exempt from the above requirements while hunting on the permit designated property.  Nothing in this section removes the right of property owners, their immediate family members, their documented employees, or tenants of real property, pursuant to RCW 77.36.030, to trap or kill wildlife that is threatening human health and safety or causing property damage on that property, without the licenses required under RCW 77.32.010 or authorization from the director under RCW 77.12.240.
 
Landowners, tenants, family members and employees were exempted – designees would need to get a free permit.
 
     (3) A violation of this section involving killing, hunting, taking, holding, possessing, or maliciously injuring or harming unclassified wildlife is an infraction punishable under RCW 77.15.160.  A violation of this section involving killing, hunting, taking, holding, possessing, or maliciously injuring or harming big game animals, small game animals, protected wildlife, or endangered wildlife is a crime punishable under RCW 77.15.410, 77.15.430, 77.15.130, or 77.15.120, depending on the animal or wildlife killed, hunted, taken, held, possessed, or maliciously injured or harmed.
 
These are standard penalties already in statute being cited above.  

Hope this helps with your understanding………… OG

[luvmystang67]

It is as if he read my post before he replied.  Perfect, answers to all of my questions.  I'm glad to see they are looking at this from all angles and approaching it logically.

[Kain]

creating laws to prevent people from breaking other laws is idiotic and only effects law abiding hunters.  LEO having to approach legit hunters is not fixed by the proposed rules to restrict caliber or shot size or distance from a vehicle.  If a guy wanted to hunt from a platform attached to the bed of his truck he is most likely not a poacher because of his high visibility.  They really need to stop treating every hunter as a criminal.  You are not a poacher until you actually shoot at an animal that is not legal to hunt. 

[carpsniperg2]

I wrote 5 or 6 letters to them. This is the response I got this morning from them.



Dear Mr. Wilkins,

 

Thank you for contacting the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the proposed changes for the 3-year season setting package.

 

Department staff members are now collecting public input for the 2012-2014 regulations development.  We have passed your suggestion on to the appropriate manager for consideration.  For details on hunting regulations and the season-setting process, visit the Department’s web page on the Internet at:   http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write the Department to provide your suggestions.

 

Sincerely,

 

Wildlife Program Customer Service

(360) 902-2515

 

[Special T]

What i would like to know is what kind of ill informed person at the WDFW came up with this BS rule? Do they only hire bunny huggers now? You would think that having a hunting or Fishing Lic would be a requirement for working there!  How much more disconnected can you get!