deleted

[Bob33]

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.

How would tracking a live animal not be considered hunting?

[6x6in6]

Most recent update: 
I have an appointment to sit down with the WDFW legal counsel at the State Office regarding a request that they produce a department opinion regarding the definition of the terms hunt and pursue.   This is an official statement from the WDFW legal counsel and would therefore be binding to all WDFW enforcement personnel.  As requested this action will relieve law enforcement officer from the need to interpret meaning in regulation.  This is not a request made by civilians unless through a court order, but with the assistance of enforcement officers I have managed to get on the schedule of the department’s legal counsel.  If all goes as intended the legal counsel’s further description of the terms hunt and pursue will be defined for enforcement officers.  The formal opinion will hopefully match the informal opinion, which they have already provided.  If the opinion is issued as requested and it reflects the same meaning as the informal opinion already issued it will serve as a “legal” basis to track game as I have described for all individuals.   

So I gather that your appointment with the WDFW 6 months ago produced the legally binding statement for you to proceed with tracking game?

[Blacktail Sniper]

That is what I believe we want, a definitive answer to from them, so there is no mis-understanding, mis-interpretation or otherwise needless trouble.  And until the animal is actually sighted still breathing/moving or the carcus is recovered, it is just a guess as to whether it is a live animal being tracked or not.

Then if they say there is never any situation that the use of a dog would be legal, then maybe the next step is to present it as a change or addition to existing law so that it can be done.  Would not happen overnight and would take time and effort.

But either way, until the Dept, not just an individual officer or two, has stated its stance on the issue, we can all offer up our interpertations, but in the end nothing will be resolved until they do or somebody gets ticketed doing it and the question works its way through the legal system.

[Bob33]

Then if they say there is never any situation that the use of a dog would be legal, then maybe the next step is to present it as a change or addition to existing law so that it can be done.  Would not happen overnight and would take time and effort.

I agree with that perspective.

The way I see it, the RCW is clear: dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk.  We don't like the answer, but that doesn't change anything.

Changing the law is the right approach. Interestingly, the law for retrieval of game animals from private property was changed in June, for the same reason: to prevent game wastage.

I think applying efforts to get the RCW changed is a more productive strategy that beating on the current one.

[6x6in6]

Wouldn't it be better to request that WDFW have the Attorney General's office review the present language and get an interpretation? 
Then, based on that interpretation, determine whether or not applying efforts to revising the RCW is necessary?

Seems to me that if the WDFW can't seem to agree on the interpretation near the ground level of the chain of command then it needs to be run their flagpole.  I would guess that the farther up the pole it gets the less likely someone is going to make a determination for fear of being wrong and ultimately being sent to the AG's office?

[Bob33]

Wouldn't it be better to request that WDFW have the Attorney General's office review the present language and get an interpretation? 
Then, based on that interpretation, determine whether or not applying efforts to revising the RCW is necessary?

Seems to me that if the WDFW can't seem to agree on the interpretation near the ground level of the chain of command then it needs to be run their flagpole.  I would guess that the farther up the pole it gets the less likely someone is going to make a determination for fear of being wrong and ultimately being sent to the AG's office?

I don't see the point. What part is not clear? What needs to be clarified? 

Has someone at WDFW already issued an opinion that it's legal?  If so, I would be very surprised but please post it.

[6x6in6]

Wouldn't it be better to request that WDFW have the Attorney General's office review the present language and get an interpretation? 
Then, based on that interpretation, determine whether or not applying efforts to revising the RCW is necessary?

Seems to me that if the WDFW can't seem to agree on the interpretation near the ground level of the chain of command then it needs to be run their flagpole.  I would guess that the farther up the pole it gets the less likely someone is going to make a determination for fear of being wrong and ultimately being sent to the AG's office?

I don't see the point. What part is not clear? What needs to be clarified? 

Has someone at WDFW already issued an opinion that it's legal?  If so, I would be very surprised but please post it.

Bob, that's your opinion based on your interpretation.
Others seem to think it reads differently. 
As stated earlier in this thread by Macs B, the WDFW is split in their own interpretation also.  This is why he was going to have the pow-wow with the WDFW legal department back in March-ish.  He never did state what the outcome of that was.

[Bob33]

This is why he was going to have the pow-wow with the WDFW legal department back in March-ish.  He never did state what the outcome of that was.

I rest my case.

[Machias]

Wouldn't it be better to request that WDFW have the Attorney General's office review the present language and get an interpretation? 
Then, based on that interpretation, determine whether or not applying efforts to revising the RCW is necessary?

Seems to me that if the WDFW can't seem to agree on the interpretation near the ground level of the chain of command then it needs to be run their flagpole.  I would guess that the farther up the pole it gets the less likely someone is going to make a determination for fear of being wrong and ultimately being sent to the AG's office?

I don't see the point. What part is not clear? What needs to be clarified? 

Has someone at WDFW already issued an opinion that it's legal?  If so, I would be very surprised but please post it.

Because Bob according to their own regs you cannot and are not considered hunting if you are unarmed and you cannot be pursuing game if the dog is leashed, I feel the same as you, it is clear as day that it is legal.  They have spelled it out in the past dogs on a leash are not considered being in pursuit, anyone not armed is not hunting.  It's really not that hard to see it.

[Machias]

The bow season is just geting started and its already looking like I'll get some good work for the boys this year. 

We've had a couple of fair tracks on bow shot game.  Not especially difficult or old trails, more bad bush and bad shot placement.  Still two found deer that would have otherwise fed the coyotes.  One good follow up of over a thousand yards/two+ hours turned out to be a wounded doe.  The trail was broke off once the determination was made that the deer was wounded and not lying up.

I broke with my original post and tried a known dead bear track.  The reaction from the dogs on the trail was pretty much buisness as usual.  Once they "found" the downed black bear things got a little odd.  my dogs have never scented bear before so the reaction was pretty funny, initially pride for a successfull track followed by "what the hell is that thing!". 

Good hunting!

Macs

Looks to me like he had the pow wow and got it resolved.

[Machias]

This is why he was going to have the pow-wow with the WDFW legal department back in March-ish.  He never did state what the outcome of that was.

I rest my case.

See above post, you might have rested your case a tad too soon.

[test]

I have pm'd Outdoor Guardian and asked him to comment on this issue. Hopefully he is able to get us an answer.

[Curly]

The other issue in my mind, is if you are tracking a deer that is already dead, then how can you be hunting?  You can't be "hunting" if the animal has already expired.  Of course you wouldn't really know for sure until you find it, but how can it be considered hunting if you don't have a weapon..........and the dog can't be harassing wildlife if he is on a leash..........

[huntingfool7]

A while back I bought the book- Tracking dogs for finding wounded deer by John Jeanneney.  www.born-to-track.com/
For anyone interested in working dogs it's an interesting read.  Even if its not legal to use a dog to bloodtrail the sections on wound identification are worth the cost of the book.

http://unitedbloodtrackers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=11   LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANCE

United bloodtrackers lists us.
Washington- No tracking allowed as of 2005.






 

[Machias]

I have pm'd Outdoor Guardian and asked him to comment on this issue. Hopefully he is able to get us an answer.

He gave us his reading, his thoughts are it's illegal.