Post by: Humptulips on October 26, 2014, 10:27:18 AM
We have received a letter from Assistant Director Nate Pamphlin with answers to most of our questions. I hope this will help trappers in following the laws. If anyone is ticketed for acts contradicting these answers from WDFW WSTA would be more then happy to furnish a copy of the letter.
Here are the question that were answered:
I have added two comments in red,
Baiting:
Is it legal to pre-bait before and during trapping season on public lands?
There is nothing in law or rule that specifically addresses the timing of placing bait for the purpose of furbearer trapping. The practice would in essence be no different than placement of a pile of apples to bait deer. The only risk of citation may fall under littering or illegal dumping statutes. Thus the answer will depend upon the rules and policy of the land management agency administering the property in question. With
respect to WDFW wildlife areas WAC 232-13-100 states:
'It is unlawful for any person to throw, drop, or leave any discarded object, garbage, trash or rubbish, upon any department lands except into a litter or garbage receptacle or container installed for that purpose on such property" Which does open the possibility that a person could be cited for baiting which would be subject to the discretion of law enforcement personnel subject to circumstances at the time. Our advice is to contact public land managers at the local level such as WDFW wildlife area managers or US Forest Service district offices to advise them of your activity to avoid any misunderstandings.
Is it legal to pre-bait before and during trapping season on private lands?
Similar to the response above however, this would be up to the discretion of the private landowner who could allow placement of bait.
Is it legal to use beaver meat as bait and or pre-baiting? (for other furbearers/game animals)
Use of beaver meat has a longstanding history of use as bait for trapping. The current trapping rules WAC 232-12-141 states, (4) It is unlawful to trap for wild animals: (e) Using game birds, game fish or game animals for bait, except nonedible parts of game birds, game fish or game animals may be used as bait.
The issue is whether beaver meat is defined as edible or nonedible in rule or statute which it is not. We are aware that some individuals eat the meat from beaver but it is not a common practice. The definition of "waste" in RCW 77.08.010 does not include the meat of furbearers or other small game mammals implying that one is free to discard it. Based on this exclusion, beaver meat would be an allowable bait. We are considering adding language to the trapping rules that would clarify this.
Is it legal to use clams such as butter clams or horse clams as bait?
Shellfish are not listed as a prohibited bait in the Trapping Rules (WAC 232-12-141).
Shellfish fall into the food fish realm and the definition of personal use in WAC 220-16-300 says "for the use of the person taking". WAC 220-16, 220-20 does not address wastage. WAC 220-56-140 uses "with the intent of wasting or destroying". We allow use of food fish and their edible parts as fish bait; the same would apply as bait for a game animal.
After the breasts of waterfowl are removed is the remainder legal for use a bait?
RCW 77.08.010 (69) states under the definition of "To Waste"... ...edible portions of game birds must include, at a minimum, the breast meat of those birds. The use of the word minimum does leave open to interpretation the edibility of other parts especially thighs or legs which are commonly discarded by many hunters. Other parts would not need to be retained for consumption and could be used for other purposes including trap bait.
What must be removed from upland birds and grouse, doves to legally be used for bait?
As in our response to (4) above, the minimum would be the breast meat.
Are deer heads without the brains removed legal to be used for bait?
WAC 232-12-141 (4) (e) referenced above allows the nonedible parts of game animals to be used as bait. Relatively few individuals utilize the brain of deer or other game animals as food and the most common practice is to discard them. Based on common practice the heads and brains of game animals, including deer, could be used as trap bait. However, the legal means by which the trapper came to possess the deer head (e.g. legally taken and all associated license, transport tag, etc.) could come into question by our
Enforcement staff. WAC 232-12-287 states ' .
.it is unlawful to possess wildlife found dead... " and therefore road kill deer or other game animals would not be legal.
Is bait in a sack considered exposed bait?
The standard that would be applied found in WAC 232-12-141 is whether the bait is visible to flying raptors. While a bag may be adequate to conceal the bait, a trapper would need to recognize that should the bag shift or tear in such a manner that the bait becomes exposed and visible to raptors; they may risk being found in violation.
Trap Check Questions
Are fully submerged traps legal for a 72 hour animal removal?
The standard used in WAC 232-12-141 (c) is whether the trap set kills the animal in which case the 72 hour check time applies. Since the animal would quickly drown In a fully submerged trap, and thus killed, the 72 hour rule would apply. We would recommend caution in some areas where, for example, water levels may be subject to fluctuations or drawdowns which could render a trap that was submerged when set a non-killing trap if the water level were to be lowered. To be 100% certain it would have to be set up in such a way that would prevent an animal that enters it from being able to get air. Technically, if a nose can be shoved through a wire mesh to get above water level, a trapped animal will do so to try and survive. It could then be questioned whether or not the trap set is truly a "kill" set.
Is a trap that is set above water which when sprung goes under water by means of a second trigger and device legal for a 72 hour check time?
We sent the written opinion below to Mr. Matney earlier on such a trap which contained cautions that it is incumbent upon the trapper to assure that the trap performs properly.
We would be willing to review any other specific designs that come forward.
Previous response:
"We reviewed the video and other information you provided about the two types of traps.
Your question was if they met the criteria for a 72 hour trap check time. Under WAC 232-12-141, the 72 hour removal period applies to "kill traps." A drowning set would be considered a kill trap.
Based on the information you provided, our opinion is that these two trap types would be considered kill traps and would qualify for the 72 hour removal period if set properly such that they drown the animal on a reliable basis. One criterion that should be applied is they must be set in or over water that is deep enough for the trap to function as designed. Keeping this in mind we would recommend caution in using these traps in intertidal or other areas prone to water fluctuations or drawdowns."
Is a trap which when caught, the animal enters a one way underwater holding chamber legal for 72 hour a 72 hour trap check time?
A review of a trap meeting this description was included in the previous response above.
The same cautionary note would apply regarding fluctuations in water levels.
When trapping near people and houses for problem animals may the animal be transported to a more appropriate location for dispatch?
An animal if it is released it must be immediately released where it is caught. If an animal is to be dispatched is a trapper required to dispatch the animal where it is caught or is he aloud to transport the animal to another location and dispatch the animal as long as it is done within the 24 hour removal of when caught?
(Some of the other previous correspondence has cited an instance where a trapper was arrested under RCW 16.52.205 for animal cruelty for drowning an animal in a similar situation.)
Combined response to 4A and B:
The statement above concerning released animals is correct. WAC 232-12-131 (3) states: Lawfully trapped wild animals must be lethally dispatched or immediately released. The statement implies that dispatching also be immediate but this is not expressly stated.
RCW 77.15.290 prohibits moving wildlife within the state. The rule and statute preclude moving an animal for purposes of dispatching. However, there is a practical consideration that conflicts with wildlife need to be addressed and sensitivity to the proximity to human population must be considered. Trappers should recognize when these situations might arise and contact the Department's local staff in advance, prior to trapping, to work out a solution.
The position of the American Veterinary Medical Association does not support drowning as a humane practice. Feasible options may include the use of appropriately powered air rifles (subject to local ordinance), or asphyxia which is an accepted practice, using carbon dioxide with proper training and equipment, by the AMVMA. WDFW could authorize moving animals a short distance to a more appropriate location for dispatch.
(5) Is the common rat trap legal to trap weasel and is it a 24 or 72 hour trap check?
1-713 and current law (RCW 77.15 192) specify that the common rat trap is not considered a body $pping trap. Their use for specific animals is not addressed. The common rat trap may be used to trap weasel and would be considered a kill trap eligible for the 72 hour trap check time.
Game Reserves:
Is the game department required to post signs, fence or indicate game reserves in any way other than a legal description in the WACs and duck hunting regulations?
There does not appear to be a posting requirement in statute or rule. (Related question below.)
Is it possible for a private sportsman to assist the game department in posting signs?
Example, The game department has been maintaining signs around the Frenchman hills reserve except for a 1400 foot section one mile directly below or downstream from the public parking and access to the water. Is it possible for sportsman to post this quarter
mile section of the reserve boundary the game department does not wish to maintain signage on. And could sportsman also post a sign in this parking lot indicating a reserve one mile downstream.
WDFW enlists the help of volunteers on a wide range of activities including posting signs. We would encourage you to work directly with the wildlife area manager. The wording in the example given implies that the omission of signs in this location is intentional and we will be forwarding this concern to the region.
Would it be possible to add the reserves (an area hunting is not allowed) to the game departments game management unit maps provided by the game department website?
The reserves would then show up on the GPS chips such as HuntingGPSMaps.com.
Currently, the GPS show the game management units but not the reserves.
Wildlife program staff has been working on a project to create a data layer of game reserve boundaries that, when complete, will be added to our online GoHunt mapping tool.
Private map services, such as the one you reference, may or may not include this layer in their products. Caution should be exercised when using products not endorsed by WDFW. We do provide information to these businesses but cannot control their content or verify that they are using the most up-to-date information.
(4)
Would it be possible to add the game management unit to the legal description of the reserves and published in the duck hunting, hunting and trapping regulations and not just the duck hunting regulations?
We have planned to add the affected county names to the rules based on earlier discussions with WSTA. Because GMU boundaries are subject to change we feel listing counties is a better option.
We plan to add a link to the Game Reserve boundary descriptions to the trapping pamphlet so that users can access them at the same time as the regulations. Providing a link, rather than publishing them in the document, will help assure that up-to-date changes are always available.
Other Questions:
Can skunks be trapped year around without a trapping license or nuisance trapping permit?
Skunks are an unclassified species and thus can be taken at any time. The same is true of other unclassified species such as Eurasian collared doves. However, a hunting license of some type is required to take wildlife under RCW 77.32.010. A trapping license is a form of hunting license.
Is the use of gopher and mole traps illegal without a letter from the director and is it a gross misdemeanor subject to a maximum I year in jail and $50()0 fine?
A special permit is required to use any body gripping trap including common gopher and mole traps under RCW 77.15.194. Violation of this rule is a gross misdemeanor punishable by "imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred sixty-four days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine."
(This answer seems to imply you can get a permit to trap moles and gophers. If you look at the permit application though there are three categories, padded jaw foot traps; conibears set under the water and foot snares. Mole and gopher traps do not fit into any category and a permit should be denied. They have been in the past.)
(RCW 9A.20.021) Are trapper required to have a concealed weapons permit for a pistol used to dispatch their catch?
The concealed pistol license is established in RCW 9.41.050. An applicable exception is found in RCW 9.41.060 which states: "The provisions of RCW 9.41.()50 shall not apply
to: (8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or
fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area.' Trapping by definition is a form of hunting. Exposed carry is a legal option as well. It is important to be aware of any city or county ordinances in addition those expressed in state statutes.
( I'll just add this does not allow you to carry a loaded weapon in a vehicle without a CCW)
Are state registered trap numbers still usable to identify trap ownership and is this being phased out and when will they no longer be usable?
WDFW stopped issuing trap identification numbers several years ago. However, they still can be used. We currently have no plans to disallow use of these numbers. If this
were to change, we would notify trappers in advance to allow them time to re-label traps
with Wild ID numbers which is a currently accepted practice. We would recommend that as new traps are purchased or built that the Wild ID number be used.
Reference to red diamond signs in regulations.
The reference has been removed.
Trapper Report of Catch and Wildlife Control Operator Reports:
We understand the confusion surrounding the two types of reports and we have been working on a new online reporting system and wording that we hope will alleviate some of the confusion. Please convey to your members that separate reports are required for
Fur Trapping and WCO activity. Depending upon the circumstances, some animals taken may need to be listed on both forms. We do acknowledge that there will continue to be a need for paper reports for some time as a phone reporting system for trapping reports is not likely to function well.
Fur dealers license fee:
WSTA has recommended that the fee for the fur dealer license be reduced. WDFW is working on a legislative request that would allow the Fish and Wildlife Commission to adopt lower license fees than set by the legislature. Assuming this is adopted into law,
we would consider recommending that the fee be reduced.
River otter quotas and closures:
Changes that would allow taking of river otter in areas that are currently closed are under consideration as part of the 2015-17 three-year season setting process. We are also reviewing whether the current annual limit on otter in eastern Washington is still useful.
Post by: KFhunter on October 26, 2014, 07:08:19 PM
Post by: big wood on October 27, 2014, 06:27:13 AM