deleted

[Bob33]

" Ok now you are being snappy."  

Sorry did not mean to be.   Just trying to make sure we're all on the same page with respect to the legality of this.

[Machias]

" Ok now you are being snappy."  

Sorry did not mean to be.   Just trying to make sure we're all on the same page with respect to the legality of this.

I'm just messing with you!!

[Blacktail Sniper]

Has there been any new info found out about this??

[Lee Root]

I just rapidly scanned this thread.  There are many states that allow for the recovery of game with the use of a dog.  There are even books written to support the endeavor. I and about 20 or more people in this state own Drahthaars,  which can be trained and tested to follow a blood trail.  There are also DK owners in the state who train and test on blood trails.

Bottom line is that the regulations, as the original poster has mentioned and some others have commented on, and as I have read  them, are not definitive enough to risk tracking a lost animal because of the threat of getting a ticket  for doing what is the one thing that each hunter should be responsible for  doing...recovering lost game. 

I have friends who have had their Drahthaars recover elk that were shot  18 hours before their dogs found them in both Idaho and Montana. 

I would venture to add that if you have hunted in this state, you have found deer and elk that have not been recovered by hunters.  Stuff happens, but if a dog can aide  even one hunter to a lost animal it is a big positive. 

Most states that allow this have regulations, ie. the dog must be on a tracking lead.  Some, I believe require that an agent be notified that tracking and recovery is  taking place.  Regulations should be definitive so as to avoid problems in public perception of tracking, and to avoid abuses by the ranks of hunters who, unfortunately push the envelope on our sport.   

If this state ever adopted this ability to use a tracking dog to recover game it would be nothing more than a positive.  I think that a demonstration of the tracking ability of a dog on a blood trail would open a lot of eyes at a game commission meeting.

[Snapshot]

 

[Blacktail Sniper]

So has WDFW taken a position about this and given the offical green light?  It would sure be handy and benefit every one if they did.

[Curly]

So has WDFW taken a position about this and given the offical green light?  It would sure be handy and benefit every one if they did.

 

[bearpaw]

So has WDFW taken a position about this and given the offical green light?  It would sure be handy and benefit every one if they did.

 

   x 2

We need Outdoor Guardian to respond about this!

[Fl0und3rz]

The "need" for a tag is in my opinion nothing more than a statement on the tracker's part that he is playing by the rules and not prohibited in any way from hunting or tracking.

I disagree with this.  As posted by others up thread, from my perspective, either you are hunting (notwithstanding your personal letter of understanding) and are required to have all valid licenses and tags, or you are not, in which case nothing is required.  I can understand the desire to play by most rules that you can, but the result is inconsistent and murky (can't have both archery and MF deer). The best result is the route you are going, which is to get clear guidance issued from WDFW as regulations or opinion that such tracking of down animals is not hunting or pursuing.

It is a good suggestion to take the work of the States before us to implement decent downed animal tracking regs.

I'd like to see this valid tool become legal and supported by unambiguous regs to prevent wasted game.

Things I'd like to see in any ultimate regs:
1. Tracking license purchased - waivable with purchase of big game license.
2. Follow same orange requirements as in effect for hunting season.
3. Able to carry for self-defense.
4. Notification of beginning track to WDFW enforcement; with report required within certain time. Text, email, or phone.
5. Dog leashed or otherwise restrained from freely pursuing or harassing live game.
6. Tracker retreats on discovering live game.
7. Hunter of the downed game can resume fair chase after tracker has retreated.
8. Clear guidance when this tracking becomes hunting, or illegal hunting of live game with dogs.

[Bob33]

The RCW states that dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk. What part of that needs to be clarified?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240

[Fl0und3rz]

The RCW states that dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk. What part of that needs to be clarified?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240

Covered up thread.

[huntingfool7]

In some of the states that allow this, the dog handler is the only one that is allowed to be armed.  Whether the tag holder is allowed to be armed or not.  The handler should be allowed to give any required coup de grace. 

It should be understood, that persons rendering these type of volunteer services are putting themselves and their dog at some risk of injury or death from the deer/elk/bear that is being followed up.

As for running game with dogs.  It would be simple to require that WDFW is notified that there is a tracking call.

I don't like the idea of licensing trackers.  It should be a program ran by volunteers for volunteers.  As a group, you can have certification standards that don't require the state to be involved with their love of paper mountains. 

[Curly]

The RCW states that dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk. What part of that needs to be clarified?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful use of dogs if the person:

     (a) Negligently fails to prevent a dog under the person's control from pursuing, harassing, attacking, or killing deer, elk, moose, caribou, mountain sheep, or animals classified as endangered under this title; or

     (b) Uses the dog to hunt deer or elk.

     (2) For purposes of this section, a dog is "under a person's control" if the dog is owned or possessed by, or in the custody of, a person.

     (3) Unlawful use of dogs is a misdemeanor.

What if a person is out for a walk with his dog on a leash.  And just happens to find a deer/elk that had been shot by someone.  Then they find that someone that happens to have a tag and informs them of what they found.     Would they be hunting?  or simply out for a walk with their dog that happens to have a good nose for blood trails? 

[Bob33]

Like many aspects of law enforcement, that would have to be a judgment call. If someone is truly out walking a dog and stumples across a dead animal, I don't see how he could possibly be cited for hunting.

Take the other extreme: he's out "walking his dog", following an obvious blood trail, just happens to have a handgun with him, and is talking to his buddies on the walkie talkie about "getting closer to that damn deer".

[Blacktail Sniper]

The RCW states that dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk. What part of that needs to be clarified?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240

I think pretty much everyone agrees, that "Hunting" with dogs, for example, pulling into the woods, turning a dog out to locate, corner or push an otherwise healthy, uninjured animal into a position to be shot is illegal.  I don't believe any one with argue with that.

My question, along with what I believe to be others on here is the the Dept's opinion on using one for follow-up after a bad shot to assist in locating the down or injured animal and preventing waste of that animal if were to go undiscovered or found too late.

Alot of what if's and such have been talked about on here, with several different opinions as to the actual guidelines that could, should or might be acceptable.  I am just wondering what, if anything Macs B may have found out from the Dept since he posted this in the begining.  Or if he hasn't, has anyone else has approached the Dept or even Outdoor Guardian with this topic?

As it stands, it may not be okay to do according to one officer today and another officer may have no problem with it (Individual officer descreation) tomorrow.  I think back to the question and resulting CHARLIE FRANK over night hunting of coyotes.

If the dept does in fact view it as illegal, regardless of the situtation, there is nothing saying that with effort, facts, and proper presentation, nothing says that the law can't be changed.  Sounds like there are some great examples of how other states laws are written, take and use them as a model and present it. 

Otherwise we can talk about on here till cows fly and nothing is going to change.