deleted

[Blacktail Sniper]

When you are doing your recovery, will you be alone or will you be taking the hunter with you?  Will the hunter be armed if coming along? 

[bobcat]

I still don't get why someone who is NOT hunting, needs to have a valid license and tag for that particular season. They also cannot require people to wear orange clothing if they are not hunting. And, if you do not have a gun, you simply aren't hunting.

I'm not saying it's not a good idea to wear orange when you're out there during hunting season, but the state cannot require it.

[Machias]

When you are doing your recovery, will you be alone or will you be taking the hunter with you?  Will the hunter be armed if coming along? 

I believe the hunter would be cited for sure.  If your dog is on a leash and you are not armed there is NO way it would stand up in court.  But I agree with Bearpaw, there is no reason to not make it completely clear on how to conduct it and to make it clear to everyone, dog on a leash and no one armed, perfectly legal.  There is no reason you would need a tag, notched or unnotched.  If following a blood trail, unarmed, is actively hunting then lots of folks helping people moose hunt are in violation.  If someone is out calling for moose helping you find a blood trail, etc..  they are not considered hunting, until and unless they have a weapon.

[bare.hunter]

what kinda dogs do you use to track wounded critters.hound cur terriers what.This is a good thread.

[Machias]

Lots of guys use dachshunds, they make great blood trailing dogs.  Full Cry a magazine, which is dedicated to hounds and curs always has a section each month just on the little weiner dogs and their skills at tracking.  But lots of breeds are good blood trailers.  The Wirehaired Pointing Griffons is another good breed.

[bare.hunter]

Lots of guys use dachshunds, they make great blood trailing dogs.  Full Cry a magazine, which is dedicated to hounds and curs always has a section each month just on the little weiner dogs and their skills at tracking.  But lots of breeds are good blood trailers.  The Wirehaired Pointing Griffons is another good breed.

I read fullcry for years.But quit after the ban.I sure miss the sound of good hounds working a track and then the roar of a jumped cat track.I never cared for one second about killing the cat but I sure loved them dogs.

[deleted BGS]

 kinda tired of seeing some snappy posts by one member, good this is cleared and LEGAL.

[Machias]

kinda tired of seeing some snappy posts by one member, good this is cleared and LEGAL.

I don't really think anyone has been snappy, I think they do not want to see anyone get ticketed and really at this point that is still up in the air.

[Bob33]

The Legal Services Office provided a written position statement which agrees with enforcement officers.  The intent of the statutes mentioned above was to define the use of dogs as an aid to actively hunting or seeking to kill game. 

Please scan and post this document that you received from WDFW's legal representative.  Many would like to have in writing that it is legal to use dogs to track lost and wounded game.  Thank you. 

[Machias]

Most of my German friends hunted the various breeds of terriers.  I used to refer to them as the tiny tooth pack dogs.  Nothing is more fun than watching Jack Russells  and Dachshunds launch on the trail of a boar.  Within 5 minutes those little buggers would be hanging off of every available appendage of a big tusker.  They always got to the pigs before the hounds did. 

Awesome description.  Do you have any photos from your hunts in Germany with the dogs?  Would LOVE to see them!!!

[Machias]

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.   

Are you meeting with Ms. Lori Pruess?  If so I don't have high regards for the outcome, she's consistently been wrong on several issues.

I'm sure you already will but please stress these two points: not armed, can't be hunting and dog on a leash cannot be pursuit.    Thanks and I really look forward to the outcome of your meeting.

[Bob33]

Mac B: with all due respect you posted the following earlier:

"I have spoken with WDFW and been provided with written documentation from the wildlife enforcement division clearly stating that the use of dogs for following up wounded/lost game is legal in the state of Washington.  Once I could sit down with the WDFW and explain what I wanted to do it was understood and determined to be absolutely legal.  "

Since then you've indicated that you have received conflicting opinions about the legality of it. You've indicated that you have a meeting scheduled to discuss this with a legal representative from WDFW.

It does not appear to me as if the legality of this has been fully resolved yet with WDFW.

If you have written documentation from someone representing WDFW, it can be obtained by anyone through a Freedom of Information Act request so there's really no valid reason to withhold it.

My suggestion is to either provide the documentation, or withhold stating to others that it is completely legal until you can do so.  I'm sure many on here would appreciate having it confirmed in writing.

Thank you.

[Machias]

Mac B: with all due respect you posted the following earlier:

"I have spoken with WDFW and been provided with written documentation from the wildlife enforcement division clearly stating that the use of dogs for following up wounded/lost game is legal in the state of Washington.  Once I could sit down with the WDFW and explain what I wanted to do it was understood and determined to be absolutely legal.  "

Since then you've indicated that you have received conflicting opinions about the legality of it. You've indicated that you have a meeting scheduled to discuss this with a legal representative from WDFW.

It does not appear to me as if the legality of this has been fully resolved yet with WDFW.

If you have written documentation from someone representing WDFW, it can be obtained by anyone through a Freedom of Information Act request so there's really no valid reason to withhold it.

My suggestion is to either provide the documentation, or withhold stating to others that it is completely legal until you can do so.  I'm sure many on here would appreciate having it confirmed in writing.

Thank you.

Ok now you are being snappy.   

[bearpaw]

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.   

Are you meeting with Ms. Lori Pruess?  If so I don't have high regards for the outcome, she's consistently been wrong on several issues.

I'm sure you already will but please stress these two points: not armed, can't be hunting and dog on a leash cannot be pursuit.    Thanks and I really look forward to the outcome of your meeting.

Depending on the outcome, if it is unfavorable, I think this is something that we should consider addressing with WFW?

[Machias]

Good idea!