Post by: Steve Jo on November 01, 2014, 03:01:05 PM
to be clear; This is hunter against ANTI-hunter. there is no grey area here.
PLEASE READ: Baiting
There's still time to submit public comments on the proposed game regulations, including possible restrictions on baiting for deer and elk; the dealine is 11/17/2014.
I've forwarded the statement below and told the commission it captures my beliefs and sentiments fully. I encourage you to read it and either forward as I did or use it to help craft your own statement. It was written and submitted to WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife by my long-time friend and hunting partner, Donn Moyer.
Donn is a state-certified Hunter Education instructor and has volunteered for around a quarter of a century, having been involved in teaching an estimated 7,000+ hunters. On his teaching team, his lesson plan focuses on sportsmanship and ethics. He makes a compelling argument for retaining a broad range of optional tactics for ethical hunting of big game.
Thanks
________
sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov
RE: Comment: proposed 2014-2021 Game Management
To the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission:
I am forwarding the below statement as it captures my sentiments and beliefs fully. I support the optional use of baiting for deer and elk and strongly oppose any proposed ban or alteration to the current baiting regulations as they pertain to deer and elk.
Very Respectfully
(INSERT YOUR NAME HERE)
To the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission:
I support the optional use of baiting for deer and elk. Objective 6 in the draft 2015-2021 Game Management Plan is to facilitate debate on this (and electronic equipment, which I’m not commenting on at this point). To be clear, I oppose any proposed ban on baiting for deer and elk. While this technique may not be for everybody, it’s the only option for others. I’ve seen no evidence of a biological or wildlife management need to ban this practice. Decisions such as these should not be made solely on the basis of the loudest voices or most voices expressing personal preferences or political ideologies. Wildlife management should be based on the best available science. That’s the mandate of the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Your draft game management plan explicitly states this, and also addresses authorizing multiple options and choices for hunters. Other than opinion, no evidence has been submitted that baiting deer and elk is unfair or unethical, or even that it’s more productive and successful. Certainly, there’s no scientific evidence. If there’s concern about public perception, it should be addressed with education rather than restriction.
Anyone who thinks a food pile violates the fair chase ethic because it’s too easy has apparently never tried the technique; it requires hard work, research, and skill. This is a time-honored technique that has its roots in American history, and is heritage in some hunting camps.
Ironically, Objective 5 regarding recruitment and retention of hunters urges policies that encourage hunters to participate more frequently and consistently, and to bring those who’ve quit hunting back to the field. In a time of fee access programs by private timber companies on forest lands for which a tax break is given, and dwindling public land access, it seems the better strategy for Objective 5 is to avoid unfounded cuts in opportunity based on personal opinions of the few or the loud. Banning bait for deer and elk is just that: an unfounded cut that will result in fewer hunters in this state.
There have been anecdotal comments about a commercial operation that hits the mule deer herd hard in two locations during a late archery season; if that’s the case and if that practice is harming the herd health and density, then manage the misuse of the resource by the people involved rather than making a blanket change, or make that a draw hunt. The commission must set seasons, approve tools and tactics, and determine harvest and recruitment goals on the basis of the need of the specific game populations in a given habitat or range — the science of wildlife management using biological information to guide those decisions. That’s your charge.
Respectfully,
Donn T. Moyer
------
Please show your support by emailing and letting us know below. As a hunter I really appreciate your support
Joe Rarey
Post by: runamuk on November 01, 2014, 03:17:36 PM
While the topic already has a few threads going and it is a serious issue this is not really the way to make friends and influence people
sincerely an anti hunter according to you :tup: I will speak for myself thanks though.
Post by: Steve Jo on November 01, 2014, 03:28:32 PM
I'm not here to mince words. To be clear. You are hurting hunting, now go away, this is a save-able issue and I am trying to wake up the sleeping masses.
That this issue has devolved, internally from a few self righteous, arrogant individuals who call themselves hunters is repulsive to me.
Post by: Lucky1 on November 01, 2014, 03:46:06 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 01, 2014, 03:48:49 PM
This is a debate free topic. If you are in favor of restrictions on ANY legal method of hunting based on something other than sound management practices, then you are by definition an 'anti-hunter' and not worth speaking with. To the moderators of this site: Please keep this open and make it a sticky, to censure this is to deny voice in a fight to save hunting. Again, anti-hunterIr sounds as though you're the one who wants to deny voices.
to be clear; This is hunter against ANTI-hunter. there is no grey area here.
You're welcome to express your opinion. Others that do not agree with you are welcome to express their opinion.
Keep it civil.
Post by: runamuk on November 01, 2014, 03:55:09 PM
you support a restriction on a legal method of hunting, then good on you for recognizing yourself as an anti hunterDo NOT tell me to go away on an open hunting forum where debate is not only allowed it is encouraged.
I'm not here to mince words. To be clear. You are hurting hunting, now go away, this is a save-able issue and I am trying to wake up the sleeping masses.
That this issue has devolved, internally from a few self righteous, arrogant individuals who call themselves hunters is repulsive to me.
You do NOT know where I stand because you are so busy being a preachy _________ you are not willing to listen to people who actually support your effort. Instead you declare exactly how things will go like a giant dicktater instead of inviting people to join you and offering a means of doing that.
You will NOT speak for me even if I agree with your position.
I have already written in opposition of any further restrictions without all your huff an puff but thanks for making more enemies and further eroding the hunting world. Have a great day
have a great day
Post by: Steve Jo on November 01, 2014, 04:01:12 PM
To be clear, anyone who is for the reduction of hunting by means other than sound management is against hunting. This is not intended for debate, I want to rally support. I will keep as civil as I can with anyone arrogant enough to think that their perspective is superior to my own and use that narrow perspective to try to take something from me. It's abhorrent. To that end, I'm not interested in an anti hunter's emotional opinion on the subject and would ask you to delete their comments.
Please make this a sticky and I really appreciate your support.
Joe Rarey
Post by: Bob33 on November 01, 2014, 04:06:43 PM
To that end, I'm not interested in an anti hunter's emotional opinion on the subject and would ask you to delete their comments.Civil comments, for or against baiting will not be deleted.
Post by: Steve Jo on November 01, 2014, 04:08:52 PM
It gets my hackles up like no other to have the few leverage their narrow perspective in an effort to take something from me and those I call friend. I want people to get off their *censored* and take 10 minutes to support hunting. There simply is no debate here.
Sorry for being a *censored*, but sometimes that is what it takes.
(this is a family site, please no profanity or intended profanity)
Post by: Steve Jo on November 01, 2014, 04:11:39 PM
To that end, I'm not interested in an anti hunter's emotional opinion on the subject and would ask you to delete their comments.Civil comments, for or against baiting will not be deleted.
Post by: Bob33 on November 01, 2014, 04:18:34 PM
It's your forum to moderate Bob, and I appreciate your time here, but if someone joined this forum and civilly posted about being a vegan and how we are all a bunch of animal murderers, would you allow their membership? Not a personal question, I'm just curious what Hunting-Washington's position is on anti hunting comments?It's not my forum. I'm a moderator. I won't answer a hypothetical question about a vegan other than to say we evaluate topics and posts on a case by case basis.To that end, I'm not interested in an anti hunter's emotional opinion on the subject and would ask you to delete their comments.Civil comments, for or against baiting will not be deleted.
I'd suggest toning down the rhetoric if you wish to get support behind your position.
Post by: Hilltop123 on November 01, 2014, 04:20:27 PM
Post by: Wazukie on November 01, 2014, 04:27:59 PM
Post by: Steve Jo on November 01, 2014, 04:28:23 PM
Post by: Steve Jo on November 01, 2014, 04:29:49 PM
Well, I recon baiting is legal this year, but then again, I remember when we had a game management department. Just so ya know Jo, I am neither for nor against baiting.
Do you support hunting?
I think you do, and you are exactly who I am trying to speak with. your vote matters. It directly impacts game management. Tell them you oppose any restriction on this. Please
Thanks
Joe
Post by: Wazukie on November 01, 2014, 04:32:10 PM
To hunt cats!
Post by: Steve Jo on November 01, 2014, 04:40:33 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 01, 2014, 05:19:48 PM
you support a restriction on a legal method of hunting, then good on you for recognizing yourself as an anti hunter
I'm not here to mince words. To be clear. You are hurting hunting, now go away, this is a save-able issue and I am trying to wake up the sleeping masses.
That this issue has devolved, internally from a few self righteous, arrogant individuals who call themselves hunters is repulsive to me.
I dig the energy bro. However, I think you might want to channel a more positive energy if you're trying to enlist help.
I sent a - much shorter and amicable but equally heartfelt - email to the director last week. Despite the temptation to rant, you have to keep it relatable just like in face-to-face dealings if you want to convince anyone.
If you call people anti-hunters when they are FAR from it, you are just alienating yourself further. Just so you know, I share the same view on baiting with you. It's not my thing but I don't want to limit anyone further.
Post by: billythekidrock on November 01, 2014, 05:25:30 PM
It's your forum to moderate Bob, and I appreciate your time here, but if someone joined this forum and civilly posted about being a vegan and how we are all a bunch of animal murderers, would you allow their membership? Not a personal question, I'm just curious what Hunting-Washington's position is on anti hunting comments?
This is a privately owned site, so for an official position you will need to contact Dale/Bearpaw. With hunting seasons in full swing it might be best to contact him by pm.
As one of the earlier members, and a long time mod/admin, I can say that we have always allowed anti-hunters and non-hunters to become members. As long as they are respectful and keep debates civil we have no problem with them being members. Most can't control themselves and go off the deep end so we have to remove them, no different than any other member. Others just fade away. To be honest, the worst cases of drama we deal with are from hunters.
In my opinion, anti-hunting comments are appreciated as it keeps us reminded of who, what and why we need to be united as hunters.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 01, 2014, 05:28:02 PM
Well, I recon baiting is legal this year, but then again, I remember when we had a game management department. Just so ya know Jo, I am neither for nor against baiting.
With all due respect Sir, and for you it is quite a bit...to take no stance is to side with the aggressor. In this case it is the WDFW attempting to remove baiting from the list of options.
Post by: police women of America on November 01, 2014, 06:22:49 PM
Post by: jackelope on November 01, 2014, 06:29:27 PM
Post by: Wazukie on November 01, 2014, 06:31:03 PM
Now don't miss-understand me. I am all for rights, and if I had a vote on the issue, I would vote to leave the rule as it is. But, I do not have a vote on this issue, but I do have an opinion on the issue.Well, I recon baiting is legal this year, but then again, I remember when we had a game management department. Just so ya know Jo, I am neither for nor against baiting.
With all due respect Sir, and for you it is quite a bit...to take no stance is to side with the aggressor. In this case it is the WDFW attempting to remove baiting from the list of options.
I still take the same stance, I am neither for nor against baiting for deer and elk. If it is your thing, do it, if it is not your thing, don't do it and as it stands right now, it is your choice to do so of you so chose.
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 01, 2014, 06:32:46 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 01, 2014, 06:57:46 PM
The bottom line. This isn't about baiting. This is about hunter rights. I get that some of you might not like this particular method because it doesn't fulfill your ideas on the aesthetics of the hunt but for some people it does. Imagine your favorite method of hunting being restricted. Would you be upset? How upset would you be if a majority that didn't use your method of hunting jumped on board and supported the anti-hunting position? Make no mistake about it... this is an apples and apples comparison.
For those of you riding the fence...wishing to remain neutral on the baiting issue... I understand... but I do ask that you don't remain neutral on upholding a fellow hunters rights... that lethargy and laissez-faire neutrality will one day lead to you losing the things you cherish....and if not in your time certainly in your children's time.
As far as baiting goes...it provides a unique and rewarding experience for many.... I ask that you don't take that away from your fellow hunter and instead speak out immediately against this attack on our liberty.
Post by: billythekidrock on November 01, 2014, 07:27:28 PM
There is no doubt.. hunters who vote in favor of banning baiting (or any hunter right) are taking an anti-hunter position. They are sleeping with the enemy. It would be the same as if all the rifle hunters supported the anti-hunting position of getting rid of bowhunting because they believe too many deer are wounded in that manner.
The bottom line. This isn't about baiting. This is about hunter rights. I get that some of you might not like this particular method because it doesn't fulfill your ideas on the aesthetics of the hunt but for some people it does. Imagine your favorite method of hunting being restricted. Would you be upset? How upset would you be if a majority that didn't use your method of hunting jumped on board and supported the anti-hunting position? Make no mistake about it... this is an apples and apples comparison.
For those of you riding the fence...wishing to remain neutral on the baiting issue... I understand... but I do ask that you don't remain neutral on upholding a fellow hunters rights... that lethargy and laissez-faire neutrality will one day lead to you losing the things you cherish....and if not in your time certainly in your children's time.
As far as baiting goes it provides a unique and rewarding experience for many.... I ask that you don't take that away from your fellow hunter and instead speak out immediately against this attack on our liberty.
I completely agree. We need to be supportive and open minded to how others enjoy the outdoors.
Think about this way, I am not a duck hunter but if they were going to outlaw manufactured duck calls I would stand by your side and help you keep calls legal.
I am not into the 500-1,000 yard "hunters" and I think it is even less sporting than baiting, but I would not support a ban on long range "hunting".
Post by: billythekidrock on November 01, 2014, 08:06:24 PM
This was the first year that my wife took her rifle and drove to the woods by herself and walked to the blind overlooking a clear cut. Never in 20+ years has she done that. She sat 21 times and for a total of 70+ hours this rifle season, mostly after work. Every couple of nights the does would come in and she would be excited to watch them but also hope that a buck would join them. It kept her engaged and enthusiastic about coming home from work and immediately heading to the blind. Finally on the 28th a small 2x3 came out during shooting hours and she was able to take him, but he never came to the apples that day. Even though he knew they were there, he actually walked past them while he was 30 beyond them.
The point is, my wife was able to have a focal point to help keep her from getting bored while sitting in the woods. Checking the camera every other day was exciting for her and kept her interested in hunting the area despite the brush pickers, illegal quad riders and nearly 2 dozen other hunters that were regularly hunting the area (including sitting right in front of her blind). But she was able to get out and hunt.
We also set up a blind, cam and apples in a cut for my brothers girlfriend. She just passed hunters education this year and had never been hunting or done much shooting before. One morning she had a spike and small two point eating during shooting hours, but with a little fog, bad eyes and a small fir tree in the way, she passed on the shot at 30 yards. It is never a slam dunk. She also put in a few hours a night for several nights a week and several hours in the mornings on the weekends. After two weeks she was able to harvest her very first deer.
Baiting did not pull the bucks out during daylight hours.
Baiting for my camera and for hunting gave me enough hope and information on the local deer to pass on legal deer and my tag went unnotched. If we could not bait I would have shot the first adult deer (most likely a doe) that I had a shot at).
Baiting kept my wife interested in hunting at a time when we are considering not hunting any more.
Baiting helped hook a new hunter who will be supporting hunting rights and purchasing a license and tag next year.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 01, 2014, 08:15:04 PM
Great story and exactly why we need to protect our rights.
Post by: billythekidrock on November 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
BTKR,
Great story and exactly why we need to protect our rights.
Not to mention the retention of older or disabled hunters.
Post by: Bob33 on November 01, 2014, 08:25:28 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 01, 2014, 08:25:49 PM
BTKR,
Great story and exactly why we need to protect our rights.
Not to mention the retention of older or disabled hunters.
I agree...especially in a state where much of the terrain on public land is rugged.
Post by: 300rum on November 01, 2014, 08:32:30 PM
Baiting and hunting are two different things entirely, one doesn't necessarily have to do with the other.
In fact, I am pretty sure that if you bait you are probably anti-hunting, you are probably more pro-shooting, which is fine but that's not what I call "hunting".
The proliferation of game camera's is a big reason that this is coming up, that's just my opinion.
If you want to shoot a deer in a pile of corn you laid out, so be it, the Government shouldn't have anything to do with it, that is the problem.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 01, 2014, 08:43:52 PM
I don't know if I oppose any/all restrictions on baiting? I went by a house tonight and there were at least 20 deer and a flock of turkey eating in a guys backyard just as they are every night. I'm not sure that's right, that just doesn't seem normal to me.
Baiting and hunting are two different things entirely, one doesn't necessarily have to do with the other.
In fact, I am pretty sure that if you bait you are probably anti-hunting, you are probably more pro-shooting, which is fine but that's not what I call "hunting".
The proliferation of game camera's is a big reason that this is coming up, that's just my opinion.
If you want to shoot a deer in a pile of corn you laid out, so be it, the Government shouldn't have anything to do with it, that is the problem.
Similar logic: "I have walked by meadows and cuts and seen whole herds of elk out in the open. I think if you use a 300RUM you are more pro-shooting rather than hunting... after all... all that is required is walking around and glassing cuts with high powered optics and then shooting them."... That's fine but it's not what I call hunting.
Post by: Ridgeratt on November 01, 2014, 08:44:29 PM
BTKR,
Great story and exactly why we need to protect our rights.
Not to mention the retention of older or disabled hunters.
I agree...especially in a state where much of the terrain on public land is rugged.
So then since Rifle season has come to and end in 101. DB I can imagine your hauling bait "Big Time" then you wouldn't be opposed to giving a few of the Older / Disabled Hunters a few locations of your bait cribs then? It appears you are looking out for them and I'm sure they would enjoy the pointer's.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 01, 2014, 08:47:04 PM
BTKR,
Great story and exactly why we need to protect our rights.
Not to mention the retention of older or disabled hunters.
I agree...especially in a state where much of the terrain on public land is rugged.
So then since Rifle season has come to and end in 101. DB I can imagine your hauling bait "Big Time" then you wouldn't be opposed to giving a few of the Older / Disabled Hunters a few locations of you bait cribs then? It appears you are looking out for them and I'm sure they would enjoy the pointer's.
I wish I was.... I live in Germany right now and I am currently in Alabama... but make no mistake.. I will be there and I will be busting my tail in the short period of time I have to find a buck that I want to hunt.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 01, 2014, 08:53:57 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 01, 2014, 09:27:31 PM
e-mail sent to oppose any restriction on baiting
Thanks Skyval
Post by: Steve Jo on November 02, 2014, 07:48:22 AM
I've had a few PM's asking me to tone down my rhetoric, specifically the use of the term 'Anti-Hunter' in relation to this topic.
To be clear: If you are seeking to restrict existing hunter rights for reasons other than sound game management principles, then you are an Anti-Hunter.
If you think that is a pejorative statement and don't like how it makes you feel then I strongly suggest you rethink your position. This is no longer a discussion regarding opposing positions within a hunter group. You are now trying to restrict my hunting rights and those of my friends. You are the enemy.
Please wake up to this and send an email in support of hunters rights
Thanks
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 02, 2014, 08:21:20 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on November 02, 2014, 08:29:38 AM
To be clear: If you are seeking to restrict existing hunter rights for reasons other than sound game management principles, then you are an Anti-Hunter.
I would say I agree with that. The term Anti-Hunter is a pretty powerful word though, and I think there could a better choice of word.
Post by: police women of America on November 02, 2014, 08:39:15 AM
Post by: hooker on November 02, 2014, 08:42:53 AM
Fight, fight,fight, to hang onto everything you can! Unless your blind and have to much of a righteous ego....
Go Raiders!
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 08:48:56 AM
Post by: motg9_6 on November 02, 2014, 09:04:29 AM
Post by: KFhunter on November 02, 2014, 09:07:31 AM
This is debate 101. If you're using harsh rhetoric all you're doing is solidifying those who already think as you do. You're giving out red meat and alienating anyone with a slightly different perspective. These people can be brought to your side with some education, some can't.
for my :twocents:
It sounds like there is one outfitter responsible for bringing this baiting issue to a head by literally dumping dump truck loads of apples and other bait in the woods, making large numbers of animals congregate in one area. This is detrimental to a herd because it groups up the animals making predators also group up = easy pickings. Mule deer need to be dispersed to survive predators and keep a strong genetic pool. Unfortunately WDFW is thinking of using a sledge hammer instead of a scalpel, banning the use of bait statewide instead of addressing this very regional and localized problem. The average bait pile in the woods usually consists of a sack of corn or two, a salt lick sometimes flavored sometimes not and perhaps a small 1/4 bushel of apples. This is harmless as the bait is gone in a matter of days/week leaving the salt lick. These bait piles are as dispersed as the deer herds and temporary. The outfitter is making giant bait piles and worse long lasting bait stations year after year, he's creating a false habitat and grouping large numbers of animals. This needs to be addressed.
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 09:07:45 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 09:14:09 AM
You will not sway your opposition by harsh and confrontational language. Only educated and well thought out responses are going to help gain understanding of the issue at hand.
This is debate 101. If you're using harsh rhetoric all you're doing is solidifying those who already think as you do. You're giving out red meat and alienating anyone with a slightly different perspective. These people can be brought to your side with some education, some can't.
for my :twocents:
It sounds like there is one outfitter responsible for bringing this baiting issue to a head by literally dumping dump truck loads of apples and other bait in the woods, making large numbers of animals congregate in one area. This is detrimental to a herd because it groups up the animals making predators also group up = easy pickings. Mule deer need to be dispersed to survive predators and keep a strong genetic pool. Unfortunately WDFW is thinking of using a sledge hammer instead of a scalpel, banning the use of bait statewide instead of addressing this very regional and localized problem. The average bait pile in the woods usually consists of a sack of corn or two, a salt lick sometimes flavored sometimes not and perhaps a small 1/4 bushel of apples. This is harmless as the bait is gone in a matter of days/week leaving the salt lick. These bait piles are as dispersed as the deer herds and temporary. The outfitter is making giant bait piles and worse long lasting bait stations year after year, he's creating a false habitat and grouping large numbers of animals. This needs to be addressed.
Who is this outfitter I keep hearing about and what unit/area are we talking about?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 09:16:58 AM
We as hunters enjoy the same things. The outdoors, the animals, the meat in the freezer, ect. We enjoy these RIGHTS. To keep these rights, we as a small group need to stick together. Maybe some describe those unwilling to stand up for the hunting community's rights "anti-hunters" or maybe they're "not team players". I see it as "anti-team" personally. Call it what you want. This is what it comes down to. This is an issue attacking the hunting communities rights, just in the baiting department this time. Next year the issue may be against the rifle hunters. We're asking for your help now, and in return we're gonna stand by you next time to help protect your issue.... LIKE TEAM MEMBERS DO.
I don't think they are anti-hunters... I just say they are supporting an anti-hunter position.... because they are...it's a fact.
Post by: KFhunter on November 02, 2014, 09:18:57 AM
You will not sway your opposition by harsh and confrontational language. Only educated and well thought out responses are going to help gain understanding of the issue at hand.
This is debate 101. If you're using harsh rhetoric all you're doing is solidifying those who already think as you do. You're giving out red meat and alienating anyone with a slightly different perspective. These people can be brought to your side with some education, some can't.
for my :twocents:
It sounds like there is one outfitter responsible for bringing this baiting issue to a head by literally dumping dump truck loads of apples and other bait in the woods, making large numbers of animals congregate in one area. This is detrimental to a herd because it groups up the animals making predators also group up = easy pickings. Mule deer need to be dispersed to survive predators and keep a strong genetic pool. Unfortunately WDFW is thinking of using a sledge hammer instead of a scalpel, banning the use of bait statewide instead of addressing this very regional and localized problem. The average bait pile in the woods usually consists of a sack of corn or two, a salt lick sometimes flavored sometimes not and perhaps a small 1/4 bushel of apples. This is harmless as the bait is gone in a matter of days/week leaving the salt lick. These bait piles are as dispersed as the deer herds and temporary. The outfitter is making giant bait piles and worse long lasting bait stations year after year, he's creating a false habitat and grouping large numbers of animals. This needs to be addressed.
Who is this outfitter I keep hearing about and what unit/area are we talking about?
I don't have any personal knowledge, but it's insinuated all over in this thread:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163612.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163612.0.html)
Post by: PolarBear on November 02, 2014, 09:21:18 AM
You will not sway your opposition by harsh and confrontational language. Only educated and well thought out responses are going to help gain understanding of the issue at hand.His first paragraph, due to his lack of tact and insulting delivery, automatically made me discount anything he had to say even though I, for the most part, agree with him. Referring to someone who does not agree 100% with you as and enemy will only hurt your cause. All it does is piss off those who could be an ally and leave them with a feeling of apathy. Call me an "anti-hunter" simply because I don't 100% agree with your practice and the day that there is a vote on it I will be out hunting instead of at the polls. :twocents: By the way, before we started having kids and life got crazy I spent 18 years as a competitive shooter and well over 260 days per year in the woods or on the water hunting, scouting, fishing, camping and shooting. To refer to me or anyone who lives for the outdoors as an "anti-hunter" simply because they do not agree with a particular practice is purely asinine IMO.
This is debate 101. If you're using harsh rhetoric all you're doing is solidifying those who already think as you do. You're giving out red meat and alienating anyone with a slightly different perspective.
for my :twocents:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 09:22:23 AM
From WDFW:
“Bait” means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears (deer/elk) to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
Post by: KFhunter on November 02, 2014, 09:26:25 AM
We as hunters enjoy the same things. The outdoors, the animals, the meat in the freezer, ect. We enjoy these RIGHTS. To keep these rights, we as a small group need to stick together. Maybe some describe those unwilling to stand up for the hunting community's rights "anti-hunters" or maybe they're "not team players". I see it as "anti-team" personally. Call it what you want. This is what it comes down to. This is an issue attacking the hunting communities rights, just in the baiting department this time. Next year the issue may be against the rifle hunters. We're asking for your help now, and in return we're gonna stand by you next time to help protect your issue.... LIKE TEAM MEMBERS DO.
I don't think they are anti-hunters... I just say they are supporting an anti-hunter position.... because they are...it's a fact.
They aren't rights, hunting is a privilege in WA and that needs to be changed. Hunting nationwide needs to be a RIGHT.
We also need to stop chipping away at all the various forms of hunting, trapping and other various form of outdoor recreation. It's getting pathetic. They can't enforce the laws (WDFW) we have yet strive to make more. We have Russians gilnetting the mouths of streams and they very rarely get caught. We have areas of poacher communities where you will not find a deer within 10 miles of those communities. We have black market elk buyers, bear gall buyers...the list goes on and on and on.....
Yet WDFW continues to further restrict the legal ethical hunter while doing very little to the most egregious poachers. It's backwards logic; WDFW should be facilitating legal ethical hunting while going after those egregious poachers.
Post by: buckfvr on November 02, 2014, 09:28:17 AM
I also sent the message, and sent my own message months ago when it first started. I do not believe it will do any good, as this, along with many of wdfw's decisions of recent times are fore gone conclusions before they even start a comment period.
We are the few, they are the many. The new wdfw seems only to be a liason of the non/anti hunting community, with a goal of getting us to take a bitter pill. That and a revenue gathering ( at our expense ) monster, out of control. :twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on November 02, 2014, 09:30:36 AM
We as hunters enjoy the same things. The outdoors, the animals, the meat in the freezer, ect. We enjoy these RIGHTS. To keep these rights, we as a small group need to stick together. Maybe some describe those unwilling to stand up for the hunting community's rights "anti-hunters" or maybe they're "not team players". I see it as "anti-team" personally. Call it what you want. This is what it comes down to. This is an issue attacking the hunting communities rights, just in the baiting department this time. Next year the issue may be against the rifle hunters. We're asking for your help now, and in return we're gonna stand by you next time to help protect your issue.... LIKE TEAM MEMBERS DO.
I don't think they are anti-hunters... I just say they are supporting an anti-hunter position.... because they are...it's a fact.
They aren't rights, hunting is a privilege in WA and that needs to be changed. Hunting nationwide needs to be a RIGHT.
We also need to stop chipping away at all the various forms of hunting, trapping and other various form of outdoor recreation. It's getting pathetic. They can't enforce the laws (WDFW) we have yet strive to make more. We have Russians gilnetting the mouths of streams and they very rarely get caught. We have areas of poacher communities where you will not find a deer within 10 miles of those communities. We have black market elk buyers, bear gall buyers...the list goes on and on and on.....
Yet WDFW continues to further restrict the legal ethical hunter while doing very little to the most egregious poachers. It's backwards logic; WDFW should be facilitating legal ethical hunting while going after those egregious poachers.
Very well said, KF
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 09:33:18 AM
I guess my point is, despite the method to bring in the animals, who is harder on the deer herd? The outfitter that, yes takes tons of animals but manages their land to do so, OR the farmer (not saying all are this way) that just shoots every available animal and hopes there's more next year. Baiting is far from the issue here. It's just simply a way to harvest the animals.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 09:33:47 AM
We as hunters enjoy the same things. The outdoors, the animals, the meat in the freezer, ect. We enjoy these RIGHTS. To keep these rights, we as a small group need to stick together. Maybe some describe those unwilling to stand up for the hunting community's rights "anti-hunters" or maybe they're "not team players". I see it as "anti-team" personally. Call it what you want. This is what it comes down to. This is an issue attacking the hunting communities rights, just in the baiting department this time. Next year the issue may be against the rifle hunters. We're asking for your help now, and in return we're gonna stand by you next time to help protect your issue.... LIKE TEAM MEMBERS DO.
I don't think they are anti-hunters... I just say they are supporting an anti-hunter position.... because they are...it's a fact.
They aren't rights, hunting is a privilege in WA and that needs to be changed. Hunting nationwide needs to be a RIGHT.
We also need to stop chipping away at all the various forms of hunting, trapping and other various form of outdoor recreation. It's getting pathetic. They can't enforce the laws (WDFW) we have yet strive to make more. We have Russians gilnetting the mouths of streams and they very rarely get caught. We have areas of poacher communities where you will not find a deer within 10 miles of those communities. We have black market elk buyers, bear gall buyers...the list goes on and on and on.....
Yet WDFW continues to further restrict the legal ethical hunter while doing very little to the most egregious poachers. It's backwards logic; WDFW should be facilitating legal ethical hunting while going after those egregious poachers.
I agree but I will say....Hunting for my own food is a right... It may not be written into the state constitution that way but let them try to stop it completely.. They would quickly find out that they do not have the power to do anything about it and it would be very harmful to the wildlife... those rights can certainly be taken away if you abuse them and harm others or do massive harm to the ecosystem... just as my rights and freedom can be taken away if I abuse it and break the laws in other ways.
Post by: KFhunter on November 02, 2014, 09:37:16 AM
Quote
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that 1.7 percent of American adults identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent identify as bisexual.
Because we are the few and they are the many doesn't mean with a little more cohesion in the hunting community we can't accomplish more and save what little opportunity we have. Instead we all bicker and in-fight and worse vote away one another's privileges because they aren't what 'we' think of as fair chase hunt.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 09:40:26 AM
We need to take a lesson from the LGBT community. LGBT make up less than 4% of the overall population but due to their cohesion have secured tremendous ground in legal protections and public acceptance.QuoteThe Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that 1.7 percent of American adults identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent identify as bisexual.
Because we are the few and they are the many doesn't mean with a little more cohesion in the hunting community we can't accomplish more and save what little opportunity we have. Instead we all bicker and in-fight and worse vote away one another's privileges because they aren't what 'we' think of as fair chase hunt.
Yes... we need a well thought out strategic message on this issue and we need to unite.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 02, 2014, 09:47:40 AM
We need to take a lesson from the LGBT community. LGBT make up less than 4% of the overall population but due to their cohesion have secured tremendous ground in legal protections and public acceptance.QuoteThe Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that 1.7 percent of American adults identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent identify as bisexual.
Because we are the few and they are the many doesn't mean with a little more cohesion in the hunting community we can't accomplish more and save what little opportunity we have. Instead we all bicker and in-fight and worse vote away one another's privileges because they aren't what 'we' think of as fair chase hunt.
True that but they also have the media which is something we as hunters are far from having.
Not to nitpick Sir.
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 09:50:16 AM
We as hunters enjoy the same things. The outdoors, the animals, the meat in the freezer, ect. We enjoy these RIGHTS. To keep these rights, we as a small group need to stick together. Maybe some describe those unwilling to stand up for the hunting community's rights "anti-hunters" or maybe they're "not team players". I see it as "anti-team" personally. Call it what you want. This is what it comes down to. This is an issue attacking the hunting communities rights, just in the baiting department this time. Next year the issue may be against the rifle hunters. We're asking for your help now, and in return we're gonna stand by you next time to help protect your issue.... LIKE TEAM MEMBERS DO.
I don't think they are anti-hunters... I just say they are supporting an anti-hunter position.... because they are...it's a fact.
I understand where your coming from DB. I was trying to break it down in other words so the other hunters don't think we're attacking them. Like I've said before, if you don't support our opportunities as a whole, you are part of the problem.
Post by: Bob33 on November 02, 2014, 09:50:52 AM
There is some indication that the majority of comments they received favored baiting restrictions. That is on hunters who did not speak up, not WDFW.
To suggest that regulations are based only on "sound science" is a bit off the mark. There are plenty of regulations that are based on other factors such as safety (hunter orange, hunting at night, loaded firearm in vehicle, etc.), and restriction of harvest (use of night vision, hunting with artificial light, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc.) are two examples that science played little or no part in.
I don't believe that WDFW ignores comments from people that supports baiting.
Rather than only posting in Hunt WA about this and complaining about anyone who doesn't agree with you, you need to contact the Commission with logical arguments that support baiting. :twocents:
Post by: Wazukie on November 02, 2014, 09:57:37 AM
Well said
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 10:01:13 AM
WDFW has a responsibility to manage wildlife, and its constituency includes hunters and non hunters.
There is some indication that the majority of comments they received favored baiting restrictions. That is on hunters who did not speak up, not WDFW.
To suggest that regulations are based only on "sound science" is a bit off the mark. There are plenty of regulations that are based on other factors such as safety (hunter orange, hunting at night, loaded firearm in vehicle, etc.), and restriction of harvest (use of night vision, hunting with artificial light, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc.) are two examples that science played little or no part in.
I don't believe that WDFW ignores comments from people that supports baiting.
Rather than only posting in Hunt WA about this and complaining about anyone who doesn't agree with you, you need to contact the Commission with logical arguments that support baiting. :twocents:
Bob I might agree with you if the didn't openly manipulate the data... they didn't even give us the full break out on all the questions and instead lumped anyone that opposed any type of restriction on baiting into one category.(which I said they would do as soon as the questions came out.. it was obvious right up front they were asking the questions the way they did so they could manipulate the data and pull any support they could away from those who support baiting)... They also diluted the data on both sides by giving the neutral option (which I honestly believe goes more in favor of those who bait if that option is excluded because most neutral hunters would not vote to restrict a method if push comes to shove)
I have never been that guy that has a complete distaste for WDFW but now that I see their manipulation with this data I truly despise them... and now understand why many others do too.
While there are certainly people who support baiting that didn't speak up I would say that it wouldn't make a difference... this is an example of the majority pushing out the minority simply because it's not what they prefer... it is exactly how the anti-hunters have won in the past and it is exactly how you will see our hunting rights attacked in the future.
I agree that we all need to contact the commission.
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 10:06:23 AM
WDFW has a responsibility to manage wildlife, and its constituency includes hunters and non hunters.
There is some indication that the majority of comments they received favored baiting restrictions. That is on hunters who did not speak up, not WDFW.
To suggest that regulations are based only on "sound science" is a bit off the mark. There are plenty of regulations that are based on other factors such as safety (hunter orange, hunting at night, loaded firearm in vehicle, etc.), and restriction of harvest (use of night vision, hunting with artificial light, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc.) are two examples that science played little or no part in.
I don't believe that WDFW ignores comments from people that supports baiting.
Rather than only posting in Hunt WA about this and complaining about anyone who doesn't agree with you, you need to contact the Commission with logical arguments that support baiting. :twocents:
If you think this is the only place talking about this topic then you don't go on FB. We are saying that we've sent emails/letters and encourage you to also do so. Just because more people have wrote in against baiting doesn't mean they have any science to back it up. If they want to manage the wildlife properly, they're barking up the wrong tree.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 10:09:16 AM
As far as people who are against... I don't think any amount of debate will make a difference for them. They are siding with the anti's to attack our right so they have already made their minds up.
The no-scopes on muzzleloaders is only a restriction during that particular season but there is a season that you can choose to use scopes on muzzleloaders if you so choose.
All the rest of the things you bring up are safety issues... and I would argue that there is plenty of science and measurable data to support an increased risk to human life by having tons of hunters firing at night all over the state, or not wearing orange..... On a limited scale like a few coyote hunters you probably don't have much risk but if they were to allow it during deer season there would be frequently be accidents... you can't see what's beyond your target very well at night.. hence the safety issue.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 10:12:58 AM
Post by: Steve Jo on November 02, 2014, 10:17:22 AM
You will not sway your opposition by harsh and confrontational language.
Im not trying to sway their opinion, Im identifying them as who they are.
It stopped being a difference of opinion when my hunting rights were on the chopping block under their support.
It's the people who are the fence, it's their eyes I am trying to open. Im not interested in popularity. You dont need to like me to do what is right here.
Referring to someone who does not agree 100% with you as and enemy will only hurt your cause.
Polarbear, as I said above, this is not a difference of opinion. I am not asking anyone to agree with me 100%, Im asking you to support hunting because it is being threatened.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Wake up, this is simple. Support hunting.
Post by: Turner89 on November 02, 2014, 10:42:50 AM
Post by: Steve Jo on November 02, 2014, 10:44:31 AM
This is from the WDFW's website http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/98/Can+I+apply+deer%7B47%7Delk+urine%2C+beaver+musk%2C+skunk+urine%2C+fish+oil%2C+or+any+other+type+of+wildlife%7B47%7Dfish+scent+on+my+clothing+while+bear+hunting%3F
(http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/98/Can+I+apply+deer%7B47%7Delk+urine%2C+beaver+musk%2C+skunk+urine%2C+fish+oil%2C+or+any+other+type+of+wildlife%7B47%7Dfish+scent+on+my+clothing+while+bear+hunting%3F)
9. Can I apply deer/elk urine, beaver musk, skunk urine, fish oil, or any other type of wildlife/fish scent on my clothing while bear hunting?
No. All such attractants are considered baiting and can’t be used while bear hunting.
“Bait” means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
It is illegal to hunt black bear with the use of bait in Washington.
Regardless of your views on food as an attractant, I think you can see what is at risk here. Please write the WDFW and make your voice heard.
sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: Steve Jo on November 02, 2014, 10:45:17 AM
This is from the WDFW's website http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/98/Can+I+apply+deer%7B47%7Delk+urine%2C+beaver+musk%2C+skunk+urine%2C+fish+oil%2C+or+any+other+type+of+wildlife%7B47%7Dfish+scent+on+my+clothing+while+bear+hunting%3F
(http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/98/Can+I+apply+deer%7B47%7Delk+urine%2C+beaver+musk%2C+skunk+urine%2C+fish+oil%2C+or+any+other+type+of+wildlife%7B47%7Dfish+scent+on+my+clothing+while+bear+hunting%3F)
9. Can I apply deer/elk urine, beaver musk, skunk urine, fish oil, or any other type of wildlife/fish scent on my clothing while bear hunting?
No. All such attractants are considered baiting and can’t be used while bear hunting.
“Bait” means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
It is illegal to hunt black bear with the use of bait in Washington.
Regardless of your views on food as an attractant, I think you can see what is at risk here. Please write the WDFW and make your voice heard.
sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 10:47:13 AM
I have not baited personally, but you never know........I may want to in the future. I defiantly have no problem with it, and don't want anymore hunting rights taken away from us. I don't care what they are. Thanks for posting, letter has been sent :tup:
Thanks for supporting our liberty Turner 89
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 10:47:56 AM
I sent my email in.
Thanks for supporting liberty.
Post by: PolarBear on November 02, 2014, 10:52:54 AM
You will not sway your opposition by harsh and confrontational language.
Im not trying to sway their opinion, Im identifying them as who they are.
It stopped being a difference of opinion when my hunting rights were on the chopping block under their support.
It's the people who are the fence, it's their eyes I am trying to open. Im not interested in popularity. You dont need to like me to do what is right here.
Referring to someone who does not agree 100% with you as and enemy will only hurt your cause.
Polarbear, as I said above, this is not a difference of opinion. I am not asking anyone to agree with me 100%, Im asking you to support hunting because it is being threatened.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Wake up, this is simple. Support hunting.
By using insulting and confrontational language you are essentially pushing many those sitting on the fence over to the opposite side or creating apathy. Even a statement as benign as demanding that someone "wake up, this is simple" is insulting. A little tact goes a long way. As I said before, I support legal methods of hunting wether I agree with them or not but calling someone out is not the way to gain active support. I am done with this subject. I have cows to bait, I mean feed. :chuckle:
Post by: E-man32 on November 02, 2014, 10:55:06 AM
Post by: Steve Jo on November 02, 2014, 11:00:08 AM
Apathy is unlikely. If they go to the anti hunter side of the line then at least I will know who they are.
What is more likely, and my inbox of support shows this, there are far more that have thanked me than those who have told me to stop.
Your support for hunting is appreciate and Ill have your back in the same way if you ever need it.
Post by: JakeLand on November 02, 2014, 11:00:36 AM
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 11:07:25 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 02, 2014, 11:09:44 AM
Thanks everyone for standing up. Just to point out again (I won't go into great detail) "Baiting" is also the use of scents to attract... doe in estrous, scrape scent, elk fire, ect. It's illegal to use scents when hunting bear, don't think they won't go all out on deer/elk.
It's unfortunate that most people don't realize that.
Might as well not have a late whitetail archery season if you're going to outlaw baiting and scents.
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 11:10:57 AM
Post by: 300rum on November 02, 2014, 11:20:51 AM
my position is not a tactful one and I wont back down from it. You may not agree with me or how loud I am shouting this, but there are a lot of people under the illusion that this is a debate. They are asleep. This is an attack and we need their help.
Apathy is unlikely. If they go to the anti hunter side of the line then at least I will know who they are.
What is more likely, and my inbox of support shows this, there are far more that have thanked me than those who have told me to stop.
Your support for hunting is appreciate and Ill have your back in the same way if you ever need it.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 11:23:32 AM
I just sent in the letter also :tup:
Thanks Jake.
Post by: 300rum on November 02, 2014, 11:24:42 AM
I think if you use a 300RUM you are more pro-shooting rather than hunting... after all... all that is required is walking around and glassing cuts with high powered optics and then shooting them."... That's fine but it's not what I call hunting.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 11:26:21 AM
I never thought of it that way! I have never taken an animal with a 300rum, actually. I bought one when it first came out, bought one of the first ones for an Alaska trip. I bow hunt this state! :chuckle:I think if you use a 300RUM you are more pro-shooting rather than hunting... after all... all that is required is walking around and glassing cuts with high powered optics and then shooting them."... That's fine but it's not what I call hunting.
:chuckle:
Post by: 300rum on November 02, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 11:31:36 AM
If I could change one thing in this state, it would be that all "biologist's" must be hunters and have a hunting license. One of the biggest problems is that they don't, most used to back in the day but they don't anymore. One wildlife area that I know of (Federal) in a very popular area had zero biologist's that ever had a hunting license in their life, that is telling.
I agree.
Post by: GBoyd on November 02, 2014, 11:47:00 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 02, 2014, 11:52:48 AM
Post by: PolarBear on November 02, 2014, 12:49:21 PM
Might as well not have a late whitetail archery season if you're going to outlaw baiting and scents.
Many of us have done very well for many years hunting late whitetail archery using neither bait or scents. :twocents:
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 02:16:07 PM
Yeah I've been successful late season without using either one also. I've also been successful using them. It's legal to do so and I want to keep my options open. I sure hope you've NEVER used scents while hunting or that would make you a hypocrite, right?
PB doesn't like baiting but I don't think he supports restricting us from baiting.
Post by: GBoyd on November 02, 2014, 02:33:47 PM
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 02:35:41 PM
Yeah I've been successful late season without using either one also. I've also been successful using them. It's legal to do so and I want to keep my options open. I sure hope you've NEVER used scents while hunting or that would make you a hypocrite, right?
PB doesn't like baiting but I don't think he supports restricting us from baiting.
That's good to hear if it's true.
Post by: rim_runner on November 02, 2014, 02:45:01 PM
Post by: Wazukie on November 02, 2014, 02:47:57 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on November 02, 2014, 02:56:47 PM
And now we need a second thread on this started by the same person even? Can't we keep in one thread :dunno:
Merged.
Post by: BAR C3 on November 02, 2014, 03:16:03 PM
If that's the case, they will go after calls as well based on the definition I saw. Anything baiting an animal in. If that is the case, hunting as we know it is done in this state!
Is their something specific on game site what they are specifically going after because I can't find it.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 02, 2014, 03:24:44 PM
Might as well not have a late whitetail archery season if you're going to outlaw baiting and scents.
Many of us have done very well for many years hunting late whitetail archery using neither bait or scents. :twocents:
I wasn't inferring that it can't be done. Similarly, if calls were illegal for hunting bulls in September, it would be doable but it would make it very hard for most people.
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 04:45:08 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on November 02, 2014, 04:49:41 PM
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
I bet it would include scents.
I have a feeling that this is also designed to help with enforcement of illegal bear baits.
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 04:55:21 PM
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
I bet it would include scents.
I have a feeling that this is also designed to help with enforcement of illegal bear baits.
Really? Why would they include scents? Many other states have banned baiting for deer and elk but I don't think any of them have also banned the use of scent.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 02, 2014, 04:59:46 PM
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
I bet it would include scents.
I have a feeling that this is also designed to help with enforcement of illegal bear baits.
Really? Why would they include scents? Many other states have banned baiting for deer and elk but I don't think any of them have also banned the use of scent.
I wouldn't put it past them. Particularly since - and it's been mentioned - that the law makers aren't ground level sportsmen who would spot the differences. "Oh well we can just copy and past the verbiage from the bear page..."
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 05:00:07 PM
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
I'm not willing to take that chance.... Scents currently fall under their definition of bait and that is all we have to go off of.
Either way this is being handled unethically by WDFW and fellow hunters who are supporting this anti-hunting agenda. Fellow hunters are literally voting against it because it doesn't meet their idea of the aesthetics for the hunt... it is a matter of the majority saying "the way I like to hunt" is more important than "the way you like to hunt".
They try to argue about ethics but they have failed to show an understanding of the definition of ethics. Baiting and other methods of hunting are purely an aesthetics issues not an ethics issue. If anything baiting is more ethical than many other methods of hunting because the targets are almost always standing still, at a known distance within reasonable range and more often than not these hunters are not rushed on the shot and wait for optimal shot angles (vs what I see from many other hunting methods where hunters seem to be more likely to take less than optimal shot angles....no scientific data to back that up.. just a casual observation I have made). On these grounds I would argue that baiting is an extremely ethical practice...more so than many/most other hunting methods.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 02, 2014, 05:01:31 PM
Curious too how some people support bear baiting but not deer baiting.
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 05:02:33 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on November 02, 2014, 05:04:21 PM
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
I bet it would include scents.
I have a feeling that this is also designed to help with enforcement of illegal bear baits.
Really? Why would they include scents? Many other states have banned baiting for deer and elk but I don't think any of them have also banned the use of scent.
Sorry, hit Modify instead of Quote.
From an enforcement standpoint it would be easier to ban all baiting at the same level. Apples, COB and sweet scents are being used for bear under the guise of deer hunting. Using the same definitions for all big game eliminates this and I seriously doubt that they will have two definitions of baiting.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 05:05:23 PM
Post by: Wazukie on November 02, 2014, 05:07:41 PM
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
I'm not willing to take that chance.... Scents currently fall under their definition of bait and that is all we have to go off of.
Either way this is being handled unethically by WDFW and fellow hunters who are supporting this anti-hunting agenda. Fellow hunters are literally voting against it because it doesn't meet their idea of the aesthetics for the hunt... it is a matter of the majority saying "the way I like to hunt" is more important than "the way you like to hunt".
They try to argue about ethics but they have failed to show an understanding of the definition of ethics. Baiting and other methods of hunting are purely an aesthetics issues not an ethics issue. If anything baiting is more ethical than many other methods of hunting because the targets are almost always standing still, at a known distance within reasonable range and more often than not these hunters are not rushed on the shot and wait for optimal shot angles (vs what I see from many other hunting methods where hunters seem to be more likely to take less than optimal shot angles....no scientific data to back that up.. just a casual observation I have made). On these grounds I would argue that baiting is an extremely ethical practice...more so than many/most other hunting methods.
I got to ask, where do we get to vote on this issue?
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 05:08:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 05:10:44 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on November 02, 2014, 05:12:01 PM
Why do all other states that don't allow baiting, allow the use of scents? I can't imagine why Washington would need to be the only state to ban both.
Do you really think WDFW will have two definitions of baiting?
Post by: KFhunter on November 02, 2014, 05:12:49 PM
Less game cameras out there too taking pictures of wolves.
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 05:13:08 PM
Why do all other states that don't allow baiting, allow the use of scents? I can't imagine why Washington would need to be the only state to ban both.
It's been pointed out by billy. People might put out a scent intended for deer, but attract bears. Outlawing everything across the board would make it easier for the officers to enforce it. Why risk it?
Post by: KFhunter on November 02, 2014, 05:14:34 PM
Why do all other states that don't allow baiting, allow the use of scents? I can't imagine why Washington would need to be the only state to ban both.
It's been pointed out by billy. People might put out a scent intended for deer, but attract bears. Outlawing everything across the board would make it easier for the officers to enforce it. Why risk it?
pigeon hole hunters into a nice neat little package that's easy to enforce huh
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 05:15:01 PM
Why do all other states that don't allow baiting, allow the use of scents? I can't imagine why Washington would need to be the only state to ban both.
Do you really think WDFW will have two definitions of baiting?
Yes I do. I surely don't think they would ban doe in heat scent. Has that ever been banned in any other state? If not, why would we be the first? Are deer in this state more susceptible to it? Are excessive deer being killed due to the use of doe in heat scent?
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 02, 2014, 05:21:06 PM
Why do all other states that don't allow baiting, allow the use of scents? I can't imagine why Washington would need to be the only state to ban both.
Do you really think WDFW will have two definitions of baiting?
Yes I do. I surely don't think they would ban doe in heat scent. Has that ever been banned in any other state? If not, why would we be the first? Are deer in this state more susceptible to it? Are excessive deer being killed due to the use of doe in heat scent?
Are excessive deer being killed due to baiting? Nope (yeah I get it, there is one area) I'm talking about the state.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 05:21:26 PM
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
I'm not willing to take that chance.... Scents currently fall under their definition of bait and that is all we have to go off of.
Either way this is being handled unethically by WDFW and fellow hunters who are supporting this anti-hunting agenda. Fellow hunters are literally voting against it because it doesn't meet their idea of the aesthetics for the hunt... it is a matter of the majority saying "the way I like to hunt" is more important than "the way you like to hunt".
They try to argue about ethics but they have failed to show an understanding of the definition of ethics. Baiting and other methods of hunting are purely an aesthetics issues not an ethics issue. If anything baiting is more ethical than many other methods of hunting because the targets are almost always standing still, at a known distance within reasonable range and more often than not these hunters are not rushed on the shot and wait for optimal shot angles (vs what I see from many other hunting methods where hunters seem to be more likely to take less than optimal shot angles....no scientific data to back that up.. just a casual observation I have made). On these grounds I would argue that baiting is an extremely ethical practice...more so than many/most other hunting methods.
I got to ask, where do we get to vote on this issue?
The vote already happened.... and they manipulated the data and diluted the pool by giving several options:
Neutral
Oppose all baiting
Oppose outfitters bating
Allow Baiting
In the past they only gave two options... Baiting or no Baiting.
Now that they are providing the results they are saying
Neutral: 20%
Allow Baiting: 21%
Oppose Baiting: 59%
See what they are doing?
I believe that a good percentage of those who are neutral would not support restricting hunters rights if push comes to shove but instead their votes are basically irrelevant now......... They then combined the votes against baiting all in one instead of breaking it out... they are being manipulative with the data to push their agenda.
When we answered these questions I even said on here at that time that when they reported the data they were going to combine anything that was in support of restrictions on baiting...and I said they added the neutral so they could dilute the pool instead of making people choose one way or another.
Either way.. I don't believe the majority should rule on the aesthetics of the hunt.. if we go that route none of us will hunt before too long.
For now all you can do is go to the meeting and send them an email at sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: billythekidrock on November 02, 2014, 05:24:13 PM
Why do all other states that don't allow baiting, allow the use of scents? I can't imagine why Washington would need to be the only state to ban both.
Do you really think WDFW will have two definitions of baiting?
Yes I do. I surely don't think they would ban doe in heat scent. Has that ever been banned in any other state? If not, why would we be the first? Are deer in this state more susceptible to it? Are excessive deer being killed due to the use of doe in heat scent?
I don't think excessive deer are being killed with bait. And if they were it could be remedied by instituting or limiting permits.
I don't think WDFW will have two separate definitions of baiting since it will cause confusion or be used as an excuse.
Post by: BAR C3 on November 02, 2014, 05:25:00 PM
Now using calls, would be one they could enforce. Don't see it happening though because you can still call bear, cougar and etc..
If the Bloomberg/Gates/Allen initiative passes Tuesday, get ready for this state to be the battleground for every anti gun and anti hunting initiatives you could imagine. :yike: :mgun:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 05:25:18 PM
Why do all other states that don't allow baiting, allow the use of scents? I can't imagine why Washington would need to be the only state to ban both.
Do you really think WDFW will have two definitions of baiting?
Yes I do. I surely don't think they would ban doe in heat scent. Has that ever been banned in any other state? If not, why would we be the first? Are deer in this state more susceptible to it? Are excessive deer being killed due to the use of doe in heat scent?
Yes other states have banned scents for deer.
Yes deer are attracted to scents.
No excessive deer are being killed due to scents nor are excessive deer being killed due to baiting by fellow hunters.
Post by: Wazukie on November 02, 2014, 05:25:43 PM
Post by: BAR C3 on November 02, 2014, 05:27:13 PM
Post by: KFhunter on November 02, 2014, 05:28:12 PM
Application of scent (doe in heat) brought the buck in during shooting hours.
If it weren't for the doe in heat scent that buck would have lived another day, he would have stuck to his nocturnal pattern.
Post by: billythekidrock on November 02, 2014, 05:30:07 PM
If they do make baiting deer and elk illegal, I doubt they will include scent. Just because that's how the law banning bear baiting was written doesn't mean it would be be the same for deer and elk.
I'm not willing to take that chance.... Scents currently fall under their definition of bait and that is all we have to go off of.
Either way this is being handled unethically by WDFW and fellow hunters who are supporting this anti-hunting agenda. Fellow hunters are literally voting against it because it doesn't meet their idea of the aesthetics for the hunt... it is a matter of the majority saying "the way I like to hunt" is more important than "the way you like to hunt".
They try to argue about ethics but they have failed to show an understanding of the definition of ethics. Baiting and other methods of hunting are purely an aesthetics issues not an ethics issue. If anything baiting is more ethical than many other methods of hunting because the targets are almost always standing still, at a known distance within reasonable range and more often than not these hunters are not rushed on the shot and wait for optimal shot angles (vs what I see from many other hunting methods where hunters seem to be more likely to take less than optimal shot angles....no scientific data to back that up.. just a casual observation I have made). On these grounds I would argue that baiting is an extremely ethical practice...more so than many/most other hunting methods.
I got to ask, where do we get to vote on this issue?
The vote already happened.... and they manipulated the data and diluted the pool by giving several options:
Neutral
Oppose all baiting
Oppose outfitters bating
Allow Baiting
In the past they only gave two options... Baiting or no Baiting.
Now that they are providing the results they are saying
Neutral: 20%
Allow Baiting: 21%
Oppose Baiting: 59%
See what they are doing?
I believe that a good percentage of those who are neutral would not support restricting hunters rights if push comes to shove but instead their votes are basically irrelevant now......... They then combined the votes against baiting all in one instead of breaking it out... they are being manipulative with the data to push their agenda.
When we answered these questions I even said on here at that time that when they reported the data they were going to combine anything that was in support of restrictions on baiting...and I said they added the neutral so they could dilute the pool instead of making people choose one way or another.
Either way.. I don't believe the majority should rule on the aesthetics of the hunt.. if we go that route none of us will hunt before too long.
For now all you can do is go to the meeting and send them an email at sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov
Again, creating a survey to illicit the response that they want.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 02, 2014, 05:33:09 PM
The same can be done with anything. It's classic manipulation and it makes people think they are a minority so they shut up and accept.
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 05:34:33 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on November 02, 2014, 05:40:08 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 05:40:44 PM
Well, if they were to ban the use of scents such as deer urine, I guarantee they're going to lose a lot of "customers." And I think they know that, and for that reason they will certainly not ban the use of scents for deer and elk. They will have to come up with a specific definition of the type of bait that isn't allowed. It can't be that difficult to have a definition that doesn't include scents. Like I said I'm sure many other states have done just that. For example, Montana doesn't allow bait for any big game, but deer and elk urine can still be used for deer and elk hunting. I'm not sure why Washington would need to be different.
I think they are going to lose customers with the baiting issues too.... I also believe that it will hurt the feed stores and small farmers.... I think these small towns can use all the economic boost they can get but yet again the states actions are going to hurt them... unfortunately I don't even know if they are aware of what's going on.
Post by: KFhunter on November 02, 2014, 06:12:07 PM
Well, if they were to ban the use of scents such as deer urine, I guarantee they're going to lose a lot of "customers." And I think they know that, and for that reason they will certainly not ban the use of scents for deer and elk. They will have to come up with a specific definition of the type of bait that isn't allowed. It can't be that difficult to have a definition that doesn't include scents. Like I said I'm sure many other states have done just that. For example, Montana doesn't allow bait for any big game, but deer and elk urine can still be used for deer and elk hunting. I'm not sure why Washington would need to be different.
I think they are going to lose customers with the baiting issues too.... I also believe that it will hurt the feed stores and small farmers.... I think these small towns can use all the economic boost they can get but yet again the states actions are going to hurt them... unfortunately I don't even know if they are aware of what's going on.
Lot of folk still baiting bears
Post by: Stalker on November 02, 2014, 06:12:33 PM
Granted the "baiting" definition "may" be refined in the final directive to not have this impact. However, we are all relying on DFW to refine / define what "baiting" is to not have any "unforeseen" or "collateral / broader reaching" impact if this is a direction they choose to go.
If above were the case who believes that calling would not / could not be pulled under this umbrella?
I believe that calls would / could be lumped into this ban as they are a form of attraction thus "bait".
Now there have been a number of individuals on this and the other "baiting threads" that throw out the point "baiting of ungulates" has been banned in XX number of States so more or less "why not" here. My response to this is a cookie cutter solution or position is an intellectually inferior way to resolve some perceived or factual issue and that we the customer deserve factual data which demonstrates the State has used / applied the resources we the customer have provided for a true "science / biologically derived" solution.
Who is to say that WA may not want to be the "1st" to set the standard that calls are no longer legal as they violate the ethos of "fair chase" under the "baiting" umbrella? Little far out there? Sure, but welcome to 2014.
I just see this initiative getting way out of hand, be far more reaching / restrictive then what DFW is communicating. I also believe that individuals contacting DFW on this should encourage DFW to set a side any previous polling data until more refined survey questions are drafted to reflect an accurate assessment of what the perceived "baiting of ungulates" issue is and what GMUs are believed to be impacted.
As I have stated in other threads I have not baited but, like others, see this as an attack on the over arching hunting community and needs to be rejected without full disclosure of facts to the hunting community.
I applaud the efforts of all who see this for what it is and refuse to sit by and do nothing. :twocents:
Post by: Lucky1 on November 02, 2014, 06:17:24 PM
Now that we have gone down the rabbit hole that this "possible" ban on baiting, which depending on ones interpretation, may also take away the use of scents / fragrant or pheromone type attractants would still support what DFW is proposing? I think not many.:tup:
Granted the "baiting" definition "may" be refined in the final directive to not have this impact. However, we are all relying on DFW to refine / define what "baiting" is to not have any "unforeseen" or "collateral / broader reaching" impact if this is a direction they choose to go.
If above were the case who believes that calling would not / could not be pulled under this umbrella?
I believe that calls would / could be lumped into this ban as they are a form of attraction thus "bait".
Now there have been a number of individuals on this and the other "baiting threads" that throw out the point "baiting of ungulates" has been banned in XX number of States so more or less "why not" here. My response to this is a cookie cutter solution or position is an intellectually inferior way to resolve some perceived or factual issue and that we the customer deserve factual data which demonstrates the State has used / applied the resources we the customer have provided for a true "science / biologically derived" solution.
Who is to say that WA may not want to be the "1st" to set the standard that calls are no longer legal as they violate the ethos of "fair chase" under the "baiting" umbrella? Little far out there? Sure, but welcome to 2014.
I just see this initiative getting way out of hand, be far more reaching / restrictive then what DFW is communicating. I also believe that individuals contacting DFW on this should encourage DFW to set a side any previous polling data until more refined survey questions are drafted to reflect an accurate assessment of what the perceived "baiting of ungulates" issue is and what GMUs are believed to be impacted.
As I have stated in other threads I have not baited but, like others, see this as an attack on the over arching hunting community and needs to be rejected without full disclosure of facts to the hunting community.
I applaud the efforts of all who see this for what it is and refuse to sit by and do nothing. :twocents:
Well said. Thank you!
Post by: billythekidrock on November 02, 2014, 06:22:36 PM
Now that we have gone down the rabbit hole that this "possible" ban on baiting, which depending on ones interpretation, may also take away the use of scents / fragrant or pheromone type attractants would still support what DFW is proposing? I think not many.
Granted the "baiting" definition "may" be refined in the final directive to not have this impact. However, we are all relying on DFW to refine / define what "baiting" is to not have any "unforeseen" or "collateral / broader reaching" impact if this is a direction they choose to go.
If above were the case who believes that calling would not / could not be pulled under this umbrella?
I believe that calls would / could be lumped into this ban as they are a form of attraction thus "bait".
Now there have been a number of individuals on this and the other "baiting threads" that throw out the point "baiting of ungulates" has been banned in XX number of States so more or less "why not" here. My response to this is a cookie cutter solution or position is an intellectually inferior way to resolve some perceived or factual issue and that we the customer deserve factual data which demonstrates the State has used / applied the resources we the customer have provided for a true "science / biologically derived" solution.
Who is to say that WA may not want to be the "1st" to set the standard that calls are no longer legal as they violate the ethos of "fair chase" under the "baiting" umbrella? Little far out there? Sure, but welcome to 2014.
I just see this initiative getting way out of hand, be far more reaching / restrictive then what DFW is communicating. I also believe that individuals contacting DFW on this should encourage DFW to set a side any previous polling data until more refined survey questions are drafted to reflect an accurate assessment of what the perceived "baiting of ungulates" issue is and what GMUs are believed to be impacted.
As I have stated in other threads I have not baited but, like others, see this as an attack on the over arching hunting community and needs to be rejected without full disclosure of facts to the hunting community.
I applaud the efforts of all who see this for what it is and refuse to sit by and do nothing. :twocents:
Well stated.
And for the record, there were some discussions about electronic calls several years ago and I am sure it will come up again.
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 06:26:26 PM
I just see this initiative getting way out of hand, be far more reaching / restrictive
This is not an initiative.
Post by: PolarBear on November 02, 2014, 06:29:43 PM
:yeah:Yeah I've been successful late season without using either one also. I've also been successful using them. It's legal to do so and I want to keep my options open. I sure hope you've NEVER used scents while hunting or that would make you a hypocrite, right?
PB doesn't like baiting but I don't think he supports restricting us from baiting.
Yep, just because it is a practice that I do not care for I will never vote to take it away from others.
The real "enemy" against hunting and the shooting sports are liberal politicians and those who continue to vote these cretins into office! We have members of this forum who are proud of the fact that they endorse politicians that want nothing more than to take away our rights wether it be by banning baiting, the use of hounds, gun control or by appointing anti-hunting greeners as WDFW Directors. Bottom line, the more liberal this state gets, the more liberal and anti-hunting the WDFW gets and therefore more restrictive. Just my opinion.
Post by: Stalker on November 02, 2014, 06:32:42 PM
I just see this initiative getting way out of hand, be far more reaching / restrictive
This is not an initiative.
I fully understand that this is not an "initiative" to be put on the State ballet for voting approval en-mass, but an issue to be decided upon by the governing body of DFW. Thanks for point that out...........
Post by: PolarBear on November 02, 2014, 06:40:55 PM
Post by: oldleclercrd on November 02, 2014, 06:48:03 PM
:yeah:Yeah I've been successful late season without using either one also. I've also been successful using them. It's legal to do so and I want to keep my options open. I sure hope you've NEVER used scents while hunting or that would make you a hypocrite, right?
PB doesn't like baiting but I don't think he supports restricting us from baiting.
Yep, just because it is a practice that I do not care for I will never vote to take it away from others.
The real "enemy" against hunting and the shooting sports are liberal politicians and those who continue to vote these cretins into office! We have members of this forum who are proud of the fact that they endorse politicians that want nothing more than to take away our rights wether it be by banning baiting, the use of hounds, gun control or by appointing anti-hunting greeners as WDFW Directors. Bottom line, the more liberal this state gets, the more liberal and anti-hunting the WDFW gets and therefore more restrictive. Just my opinion.
PolarBear I applaud you for seeing it how it is. If the others on the fence or even against baiting stood up for hunters as a whole like you, we wouldn't be in this mess. I'll be by your (and the others) side when other opportunities are being taken away from hunters in the future.
Post by: PolarBear on November 02, 2014, 06:50:53 PM
Post by: HornHoarder on November 02, 2014, 07:11:57 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 07:19:31 PM
Thanks guys for bringing this to peoples attention of what is really going on here. Email sent :tup:
Thank you
Post by: LeviD1 on November 02, 2014, 07:42:46 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 09:15:58 PM
As mandated by the Washington State Legislature (RCW 77.04.012), “… the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife…”; “the department shall conserve the wildlife… in a manner that does not impair the resource…”; and “The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational… hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.”
Post by: bobcat on November 02, 2014, 09:20:38 PM
Post by: huntnnw on November 02, 2014, 09:47:29 PM
There is no doubt.. hunters who vote in favor of banning baiting (or any hunter right) are taking an anti-hunter position. They are sleeping with the enemy. It would be the same as if all the rifle hunters supported the anti-hunting position of getting rid of bowhunting because they believe too many deer are wounded in that manner.
The bottom line. This isn't about baiting. This is about hunter rights. I get that some of you might not like this particular method because it doesn't fulfill your ideas on the aesthetics of the hunt but for some people it does. Imagine your favorite method of hunting being restricted. Would you be upset? How upset would you be if a majority that didn't use your method of hunting jumped on board and supported the anti-hunting position? Make no mistake about it... this is an apples and apples comparison.
For those of you riding the fence...wishing to remain neutral on the baiting issue... I understand... but I do ask that you don't remain neutral on upholding a fellow hunters rights... that lethargy and laissez-faire neutrality will one day lead to you losing the things you cherish....and if not in your time certainly in your children's time.
As far as baiting goes...it provides a unique and rewarding experience for many.... I ask that you don't take that away from your fellow hunter and instead speak out immediately against this attack on our liberty.
:tup: Couldnt of been said any better.
Post by: huntnnw on November 02, 2014, 09:51:27 PM
To be clear: If you are seeking to restrict existing hunter rights for reasons other than sound game management principles, then you are an Anti-Hunter.
I would say I agree with that. The term Anti-Hunter is a pretty powerful word though, and I think there could a better choice of word.
explain?? what other choice? you are the problem if you voice your opinion against this to WDFW..or atleast to me you are and many others.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 02, 2014, 11:04:02 PM
I support the optional use of baiting for deer and elk. Objective 6 in the draft 2015-2021 Game Management Plan is to facilitate debate on this (and electronic equipment, which I’m not commenting on at this point). To be clear, I oppose any proposed ban on baiting for deer and elk.
From your website:
“The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational… hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.” It is this mandate that sets the overall policy and direction for managing hunted wildlife."
If this is part of the department's mandate why are you facilitating debate on something that could lower opportunity for hunters (particularly juvenile, disabled and senior citizens)?
Ethics:
To be clear....This is not an ethical issue. Aside from hunter safety and the issue of killing animals cleanly, quickly, and humanely, there are very few ethical issues involved in how the practice of hunting is conducted. This is an attempt to regulate the "aesthetics" of the hunt based on the personal values of a majority at the expense of a minority. I don't see anywhere in WDFW's mandate where it says you should manage the aesthetics of a hunt based on majority rule at the potential expense of recreational opportunity for hunters.
The reality of baiting and "ethics" is that it's one of the most ethical forms of hunting because it allows the hunter time to take a shot at a known distance which will increase the likelihood of a quick and humane kill.
Unique Opportunity in WA:
Baiting is not allowed in many states and rarely in the western United States. We should preserve this method of hunting because it provides a very unique opportunity for hunters to practice something that has been utilized since humans first started hunting. It is actually a selling point and something that WDFW should be proud to protect. Hunting whitetail in the big woods/mountains of the NW using bait is an experience you can't get anywhere else (other than perhaps the extreme NE corner of Oregon). I would argue that it is one of the things that makes hunting in this state great.
Economic Factors:
The banning of baiting would have a negative economic impact on the small towns, feed stores, and farmers. We should not consider restricting something that will be economically damaging to the livelihood of people in these small communities when it is not necessary.
Disease:
Some may argue that baiting spreads disease yet we have no proof that baiting is spreading disease in Washington to the detriment of the herd health. I have a nearly a decades worth/50K plus photos of trail cam data to support the fact that the majority of animals survive from one season to the next (assuming no bad winter) with no apparent negative impact to health.
Starvation:
Another common argument is that the deer will starve to death with full stomachs. Yet again, aside from all the trail cam data I have to prove otherwise...... when this does happen (which is rare) it is primarily well after the hunting season during the months of January-March and it is when well meaning people are feeding deer during extremely bad conditions.
WDFW Feeding of Wildlife:
In addition to the above arguments it is not lost upon me that WDFW feeds wildlife during the winter (and has for decades) with little to no impact from disease or starvation. That fact alone would make any of the above unsupported "scientific" arguments against baiting hypocritical at best and completely invalid at worst.
The Data:
I am also extremely disappointed that WDFW did not break out all the data on baiting. In your reporting you combined the data that supported any kind of restriction on baiting. One of the choices was to only restrict outfitters but you combined it with the data that supported the ban on baiting. I can't imagine this manipulation of the data was by accident. This is a serious breech of trust. That being said, it's honestly irrelevant what the results are based on my previous comments above.
Harvest:
WDFW has not provided data suggesting baiting is leading to over harvesting or large scale damage to wildlife. Yet again, we have used this method for decades and the hunting has been great every year with deer numbers generally only dropping off after bad winters.
Objective 5:
Ironically, Objective 5 regarding recruitment and retention of hunters urges policies that encourage hunters to participate more frequently and consistently, and to bring those who’ve quit hunting back to the field. In a time of fee access programs by private timber companies on forest lands for which a tax break is given, and dwindling public land access, it seems the better strategy for Objective 5 is to avoid unfounded cuts in opportunity based on personal opinions of the few or the loud. Banning bait for deer and elk is just that: an unfounded cut that will result in fewer hunters in this state.
Baiting Defined:
You should probably also make it clear what you are referring to when you say "bait". The public needs to know if you are referring to scents also which fits into your current definition of baiting. I don't think the majority of deer hunters would support restricting the use of scents.
Please!!! Stop searching for reasons to interfere with hunter opportunity and spoil what provides many of us very rewarding memories in the WA outdoors.
Respectfully,
Daniel B. Hawthorne
Post by: billythekidrock on November 03, 2014, 05:47:56 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 03, 2014, 07:19:38 AM
Public Perception:The Public Perception on this issue is largely influenced by lack of education and misinformation spread by those opposed. The public perception is certainly damaged when WDFW promotes public debate on these methods which results in massive amounts of personal bias and misinformation that ultimately sways the opinion of those not close to this issue. Most of the public wouldn't argue against something that increases the odds of a quick humane kill but that is not the message being sent. The non-hunting public (on average) is not opposed to eating domestic animals who stand zero chance of escape. This makes hunting by any means/method a far more humane and ethical practice than what they are using to procure their meat. While the public may be opposed to baiting due to misinformation most of them are not concerning themselves with the aesthetics of the hunt. The reality is this "public perception" concern is almost completely fabricated by the non-baiting hunters who are assuming their own personal values are more important and relevant to the public than their fellow hunters who use bait. I have educated many non-hunters on the reasons I bait and more often than not they support it once I give them my reasoning. In most cases they have never heard this reasoning before. They certainly haven't heard anything but negative from WDFW and your strategy to reduce our opportunity by restricting this method.
Post by: boneaddict on November 03, 2014, 01:29:14 PM
Post by: KFhunter on November 03, 2014, 01:45:33 PM
There's been some scuttlebutt about the current bear baiting ban being unconstitutional per the WA state's constitution, in light of that I could see a one size fits all baiting ban to fix the error.
"District court judge in Jefferson County says it's unconstitutional to address bear baiting and body gripping traps (edit: use of hounds sorry) on the same initiative, it's never been challenged that I know of.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife says no. This ruling comes from a district court with limited jurisdiction, but they do admit it will make prosecuting these cases much harder."
Partial quote from online sources.
Is this new deer baiting ban a backdoor attempt to fix that? A one size fit's all ban on baiting? Would that include trapping? (remember it's illegal to trap gophers per the ban)
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2014, 01:53:59 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 03, 2014, 02:08:10 PM
I used your letter, KF. Thanks.
Where is your letter KF?
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 03, 2014, 02:09:40 PM
I used your letter, KF. Thanks.
Where is your letter KF?
I'm an idiot. It was your letter, DB. :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on November 03, 2014, 02:15:03 PM
Post by: stickbuck on November 03, 2014, 02:16:34 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 03, 2014, 02:24:10 PM
I used your letter, KF. Thanks.
Where is your letter KF?
I'm an idiot. It was your letter, DB. :chuckle:
:chuckle: I was wondering.. I have been trying to read as many letters as possible so I can determine if there is another argument I need to add. I would like to refine the arguments I already have. That is just what I cranked out last night and this morning. I borrowed some from the original letter in this post. After the fact I remembered they often mention "public perception" so I wrote up a piece on that too. I wish I would have sent it in with my original submission.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 03, 2014, 02:25:31 PM
I certainly oppose any restriction that would make baiting illegal. Excuse me if it may have already been addressed as I have skipped a few pages of this thread. In regards to baiting bears for example, the use of scents as an attractant is illegal. If baiting all big game would be prohibited, are the hunters who are on the fence opposed to using deer or elk estrus during the rut since this would technically fall into the category of baiting by the letter of the law? The implications are far greater and it is a very slippery slope that will greatly affect not just us as hunters but also the hunting industry. Again, I apologize if the use of scents was already covered.
That is definitely something we have covered. As it stands right now scents are included in the WDFW definition of bait just like you mentioned.
Post by: KFhunter on November 03, 2014, 02:27:38 PM
Post by: Britt-dog on November 03, 2014, 04:04:38 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 03, 2014, 04:50:36 PM
DB, Do you mind if I plagiarize your letter? Mine would require to much editing of inappropriate language. :bdid:
Please use it... Cut and paste that other comment about public perception into there too... It's below the main letter
Post by: Britt-dog on November 03, 2014, 05:09:47 PM
:dunno:DB, Do you mind if I plagiarize your letter? Mine would require to much editing of inappropriate language. :bdid:
Please use it... Cut and paste that other comment about public perception into there too... It's below the main letter
Already did that. I'm forwarding it to several friends. Thanks.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 03, 2014, 05:11:22 PM
1. It provides a good opportunity for youth, disabled, senior, and new hunters in a more controlled environment (e.g., shot opportunities/lanes are clear; a hunting mentor can easily aid these youth/senior/disabled hunters etc.).
2. Banning baiting will have a disproportionate effect on these youth,disabled,senior, and new hunters.
3. Baiting does not impair the senses or ability of game to escape or elude hunters. Success rates and harvest are not dramatically effected by baiting in most instances.
4. There are no current biological concerns with baiting deer/elk...e.g., managers are not concerned with baiting effects to ungulate populations.
5. Baiting is a safe and effective way to allow hunting on smaller parcels of private land and/or near urban areas where other methods of hunting would be ineffective or unsafe.
This is another point I made back in August:
It behooves those of us who want to maintain baiting to not go out of our way to alienate those hunters who have a different view on the ethics of baiting...because imo they are probably a majority or close to it
The confrontational stuff has to stop IMO. I think a fair number of hunters have legitimate concerns that could and should be addressed...to suggest those folks are anti-hunters will only fire up the opposition. We are not in a position to be making enemies.
I really believe, as others have stated, that we could come up with some reasonable regulations for baiting in Washington. I have asked WDFW to consider allowing GMAC to draft regulations to address some of the concerns...not sure if they will consider it. As has been stated...a scalpel is needed here...not an axe. Perhaps with some regulation to address the more serious complaints we can go from 59% opposition to 15-20% opposition. :dunno:
Post by: MtnMuley on November 03, 2014, 05:35:26 PM
To be clear: If you are seeking to restrict existing hunter rights for reasons other than sound game management principles, then you are an Anti-Hunter.
I would say I agree with that. The term Anti-Hunter is a pretty powerful word though, and I think there could a better choice of word.
explain?? what other choice? you are the problem if you voice your opinion against this to WDFW..or atleast to me you are and many others.
Here's your explanation: Somebody that is anti hunter is obviously anti hunting. Those that chose to writing a letter wanting a ban were obviously other hunters that don't believe in baiting. How they came up with their thoughts, I have no clue. Perhaps they were jealous. Perhaps they felt it unethical. Perhaps they noticed a decline in their chances to harvest a deer. Perhaps they saw or heard stories of bins of apples where they hunt trucked in. Who knows and the major point is they are AGAINST baiting. By referring to them as an anti hunter will only fuel their fire more and further separate us hunters as a whole. By educating them on the whole term of "baiting" and its many positive sides might allow them to see that it's different than they thought. Maybe it wouldn't change some of their minds either. I do know this, I don't hunt over bait and never plan on it, but if everyone else chose to do so, I could care less. If I personally see that it has affected certain herds at vulnerable times with greed rather that care and respect for the animal, I will voice my opinion fully. I care much more about the chance to go enjoy a hunt than filling a tag. If you think I'm jealous of others successes baiting, you're dead wrong. I've put more salts and various feed on my back over the years than anybody I personally know, just to get pics of all the wildlife. I really enjoy it and all the exercise being in mountains. I surely don't want that right taken away.
My point is, calling someone an "anti-hunter" surely isn't going to help keep baiting as a positive way of hunting. It'll create even further separation amongst us. Educating them on a misperception they might have is a much better solution in my eyes. :twocents:
Post by: Britt-dog on November 03, 2014, 05:58:34 PM
:dunno:DB, Do you mind if I plagiarize your letter? Mine would require to much editing of inappropriate language. :bdid:
Please use it... Cut and paste that other comment about public perception into there too... It's below the main letter
Updated letter
I support the optional use of baiting for deer and elk. Objective 6 in the draft 2015-2021 Game Management Plan is to facilitate debate on this (and electronic equipment, which I’m not commenting on at this point). To be clear, I oppose any proposed ban on baiting for deer and elk.
From your website:
“The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational… hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.” It is this mandate that sets the overall policy and direction for managing hunted wildlife."
If this is part of the department's mandate why are you facilitating debate on something that could lower opportunity for hunters (particularly juvenile, disabled and senior citizens)?
Ethics:
To be clear....This is not an ethical issue. Aside from hunter safety and the issue of killing animals cleanly, quickly, and humanely, there are very few ethical issues involved in how the practice of hunting is conducted. This is an attempt to regulate the "aesthetics" of the hunt based on the personal values of a majority at the expense of a minority. I don't see anywhere in WDFW's mandate where it says you should manage the aesthetics of a hunt based on majority rule at the potential expense of recreational opportunity for hunters.
The reality of baiting and "ethics" is that it's one of the most ethical forms of hunting because it allows the hunter time to take a shot at a known distance which will increase the likelihood of a quick and humane kill.
Public Perception: The Public Perception on this issue is largely influenced by lack of education and misinformation spread by those opposed. The public perception is certainly damaged when WDFW promotes public debate on these methods which results in massive amounts of personal bias and misinformation that ultimately sways the opinion of those not close to this issue. Most of the public wouldn't argue against something that increases the odds of a quick humane kill but that is not the message being sent. The non-hunting public (on average) is not opposed to eating domestic animals who stand zero chance of escape. This makes hunting by any means/method a far more humane and ethical practice than what they are using to procure their meat. While the public may be opposed to baiting due to misinformation most of them are not concerning themselves with the aesthetics of the hunt. The reality is this "public perception" concern is almost completely fabricated by the non-baiting hunters who are assuming their own personal values are more important and relevant to the public than their fellow hunters who use bait. I have educated many non-hunters on the reasons I bait and more often than not they support it once I give them my reasoning. In most cases they have never heard this reasoning before. They certainly haven't heard anything but negative from WDFW and your strategy to reduce our opportunity by restricting this method.
Unique Opportunity in WA:
Baiting is not allowed in many states and rarely in the western United States. We should preserve this method of hunting because it provides a very unique opportunity for hunters to practice something that has been utilized since humans first started hunting. It is actually a selling point and something that WDFW should be proud to protect. Hunting whitetail in the big woods/mountains of the NW using bait is an experience you can't get anywhere else (other than perhaps the extreme NE corner of Oregon). I would argue that it is one of the things that makes hunting in this state great.
Economic Factors:
The banning of baiting would have a negative economic impact on the small towns, feed stores, and farmers. We should not consider restricting something that will be economically damaging to the livelihood of people in these small communities when it is not necessary.
Disease:
Some may argue that baiting spreads disease yet we have no proof that baiting is spreading disease in Washington to the detriment of the herd health. I have a nearly a decades worth/50K plus photos of trail cam data to support the fact that the majority of animals survive from one season to the next (assuming no bad winter) with no apparent negative impact to health.
Starvation:
Another common argument is that the deer will starve to death with full stomachs. Yet again, aside from all the trail cam data I have to prove otherwise...... when this does happen (which is rare) it is primarily well after the hunting season during the months of January-March and it is when well meaning people are feeding deer during extremely bad conditions.
WDFW Feeding of Wildlife:
In addition to the above arguments it is not lost upon me that WDFW feeds wildlife during the winter (and has for decades) with little to no impact from disease or starvation. That fact alone would make any of the above unsupported "scientific" arguments against baiting hypocritical at best and completely invalid at worst.
The Data:
I am also extremely disappointed that WDFW did not break out all the data on baiting. In your reporting you combined the data that supported any kind of restriction on baiting. One of the choices was to only restrict outfitters but you combined it with the data that supported the ban on baiting. I can't imagine this manipulation of the data was by accident. This is a serious breech of trust. That being said, it's honestly irrelevant what the results are based on my previous comments above.
Harvest:
WDFW has not provided data suggesting baiting is leading to over harvesting or large scale damage to wildlife. Yet again, we have used this method for decades and the hunting has been great every year with deer numbers generally only dropping off after bad winters.
Objective 5:
Ironically, Objective 5 regarding recruitment and retention of hunters urges policies that encourage hunters to participate more frequently and consistently, and to bring those who’ve quit hunting back to the field. In a time of fee access programs by private timber companies on forest lands for which a tax break is given, and dwindling public land access, it seems the better strategy for Objective 5 is to avoid unfounded cuts in opportunity based on personal opinions of the few or the loud. Banning bait for deer and elk is just that: an unfounded cut that will result in fewer hunters in this state.
Baiting Defined:
You should probably also make it clear what you are referring to when you say "bait". The public needs to know if you are referring to scents also which fits into your current definition of baiting. I don't think the majority of deer hunters would support restricting the use of scents.
Please!!! Stop searching for reasons to interfere with hunter opportunity and spoil what provides many of us very rewarding memories in the WA outdoors.
Respectfully,
Daniel B. Hawthorne
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 03, 2014, 09:27:55 PM
I have not read through all of the pages of this thread but from the previous thread in August I wanted to re- post what I believe are key points folks should consider communicating to WDFW commissioners and staff regarding baiting:
1. It provides a good opportunity for youth, disabled, senior, and new hunters in a more controlled environment (e.g., shot opportunities/lanes are clear; a hunting mentor can easily aid these youth/senior/disabled hunters etc.).
2. Banning baiting will have a disproportionate effect on these youth,disabled,senior, and new hunters.
3. Baiting does not impair the senses or ability of game to escape or elude hunters. Success rates and harvest are not dramatically effected by baiting in most instances.
4. There are no current biological concerns with baiting deer/elk...e.g., managers are not concerned with baiting effects to ungulate populations.
5. Baiting is a safe and effective way to allow hunting on smaller parcels of private land and/or near urban areas where other methods of hunting would be ineffective or unsafe.
This is another point I made back in August:
It behooves those of us who want to maintain baiting to not go out of our way to alienate those hunters who have a different view on the ethics of baiting...because imo they are probably a majority or close to it
The confrontational stuff has to stop IMO. I think a fair number of hunters have legitimate concerns that could and should be addressed...to suggest those folks are anti-hunters will only fire up the opposition. We are not in a position to be making enemies.
I really believe, as others have stated, that we could come up with some reasonable regulations for baiting in Washington. I have asked WDFW to consider allowing GMAC to draft regulations to address some of the concerns...not sure if they will consider it. As has been stated...a scalpel is needed here...not an axe. Perhaps with some regulation to address the more serious complaints we can go from 59% opposition to 15-20% opposition. :dunno:
The 59% statistic was manipulated to include people who did not want a full ban on baiting.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 03, 2014, 09:38:46 PM
Do you have the breakdown of what each response (%) was for all the choices? Certainly only the "absolutely ban all baiting" should be reported as the hunters opposed to baiting. Including folks who want to only restrict outfitters etc. is absurd. Also, when they say 59% of hunters...what they really mean is 59% of people who respond to a poll on the internet...not very meaningful even if they weren't lumping all the partial restriction answers together!!!I have not read through all of the pages of this thread but from the previous thread in August I wanted to re- post what I believe are key points folks should consider communicating to WDFW commissioners and staff regarding baiting:
1. It provides a good opportunity for youth, disabled, senior, and new hunters in a more controlled environment (e.g., shot opportunities/lanes are clear; a hunting mentor can easily aid these youth/senior/disabled hunters etc.).
2. Banning baiting will have a disproportionate effect on these youth,disabled,senior, and new hunters.
3. Baiting does not impair the senses or ability of game to escape or elude hunters. Success rates and harvest are not dramatically effected by baiting in most instances.
4. There are no current biological concerns with baiting deer/elk...e.g., managers are not concerned with baiting effects to ungulate populations.
5. Baiting is a safe and effective way to allow hunting on smaller parcels of private land and/or near urban areas where other methods of hunting would be ineffective or unsafe.
This is another point I made back in August:
It behooves those of us who want to maintain baiting to not go out of our way to alienate those hunters who have a different view on the ethics of baiting...because imo they are probably a majority or close to it
The confrontational stuff has to stop IMO. I think a fair number of hunters have legitimate concerns that could and should be addressed...to suggest those folks are anti-hunters will only fire up the opposition. We are not in a position to be making enemies.
I really believe, as others have stated, that we could come up with some reasonable regulations for baiting in Washington. I have asked WDFW to consider allowing GMAC to draft regulations to address some of the concerns...not sure if they will consider it. As has been stated...a scalpel is needed here...not an axe. Perhaps with some regulation to address the more serious complaints we can go from 59% opposition to 15-20% opposition. :dunno:
The 59% statistic was manipulated to include people who did not want a full ban on baiting.
Anyways...good work...we need to keep folks hounding the commission so they don't do something stupid and based on misinformation.
Post by: MeatMaster on November 03, 2014, 10:01:41 PM
Post by: Special T on November 03, 2014, 10:07:15 PM
This would be a good addition to send your letter to. :twocents:
Post by: krapmit on November 03, 2014, 10:39:21 PM
And I too agree, that if you're against baiting, you're hurting the overall sport of hunting. It may not be your preferred tactic, but you're hurting the sport overall. They will slowly take away our rights until we're like california and you have to draw a lottery just to hunt ducks one weekend. Not a good way to go.
PRESERVE IT AND PROTECT IT FOR YOUR ANCESTORS DOWN THE LINE.
Post by: Devils club on November 03, 2014, 10:49:56 PM
Post by: huntnnw on November 03, 2014, 11:07:14 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 03, 2014, 11:15:56 PM
Do you have the breakdown of what each response (%) was for all the choices? Certainly only the "absolutely ban all baiting" should be reported as the hunters opposed to baiting. Including folks who want to only restrict outfitters etc. is absurd. Also, when they say 59% of hunters...what they really mean is 59% of people who respond to a poll on the internet...not very meaningful even if they weren't lumping all the partial restriction answers together!!!I have not read through all of the pages of this thread but from the previous thread in August I wanted to re- post what I believe are key points folks should consider communicating to WDFW commissioners and staff regarding baiting:
1. It provides a good opportunity for youth, disabled, senior, and new hunters in a more controlled environment (e.g., shot opportunities/lanes are clear; a hunting mentor can easily aid these youth/senior/disabled hunters etc.).
2. Banning baiting will have a disproportionate effect on these youth,disabled,senior, and new hunters.
3. Baiting does not impair the senses or ability of game to escape or elude hunters. Success rates and harvest are not dramatically effected by baiting in most instances.
4. There are no current biological concerns with baiting deer/elk...e.g., managers are not concerned with baiting effects to ungulate populations.
5. Baiting is a safe and effective way to allow hunting on smaller parcels of private land and/or near urban areas where other methods of hunting would be ineffective or unsafe.
This is another point I made back in August:
It behooves those of us who want to maintain baiting to not go out of our way to alienate those hunters who have a different view on the ethics of baiting...because imo they are probably a majority or close to it
The confrontational stuff has to stop IMO. I think a fair number of hunters have legitimate concerns that could and should be addressed...to suggest those folks are anti-hunters will only fire up the opposition. We are not in a position to be making enemies.
I really believe, as others have stated, that we could come up with some reasonable regulations for baiting in Washington. I have asked WDFW to consider allowing GMAC to draft regulations to address some of the concerns...not sure if they will consider it. As has been stated...a scalpel is needed here...not an axe. Perhaps with some regulation to address the more serious complaints we can go from 59% opposition to 15-20% opposition. :dunno:
The 59% statistic was manipulated to include people who did not want a full ban on baiting.
Anyways...good work...we need to keep folks hounding the commission so they don't do something stupid and based on misinformation.
59% Opposed
21% Supports
20% Neutral
However, there was an option for those that only wanted to restrict outfitters.... WDFW combined those number with those who oppose baiting and lumped them all together to report the data.
In the past we have also received a lot of support from people who are Neutral because they used to only give two options For/Against.... no doubt..the neutral option was strategic.... Generally the people support by a slight majority (not that I believe "majority rule" should be how these things are decided).
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 03, 2014, 11:21:49 PM
I cant imagine the hit the small feed stores in NE WA will take if its passed.
Exactly... I probably spend 1K-2K in those stores myself... not to mention the lodging fees, food and beverage purchases, etc.
Post by: huntnnw on November 03, 2014, 11:27:00 PM
Post by: drk9988 on November 04, 2014, 04:52:09 PM
Post by: huntnnw on November 04, 2014, 09:39:23 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 04, 2014, 11:25:16 PM
I think the 59% number reported to the commission was from a phone survey before the most recent survey of rule alternatives. I may be wrong but I don't think the alternative rules results are out yet from that survey. We need to keep writing and participate during the public comment periods that are coming soon
If you find out whether that is the case definitely let us know.
Post by: drk9988 on November 05, 2014, 06:21:13 AM
Its the Sept 26,27 meeting
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/sep2614-05-presentation.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/sep2614-05-presentation.pdf)
The above presentation has the number of 59% and if you listen to the meeting transcripts you can hear what type of survey and it wasn't the rules option survey.
Post by: Rainier10 on November 05, 2014, 10:44:42 AM
Post by: Seabass on November 05, 2014, 08:04:20 PM
Post by: Britt-dog on December 05, 2014, 10:10:43 AM
www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/ (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/)
Post by: Rainier10 on December 05, 2014, 10:29:26 AM
WDFW has released their final enviro impact statement. At the end they actually list the written comments from the comment periods. Virtually all the comments from the later period were pro baiting, and very well written, however I did not find my own. when you have a minute take a look and let us know if yours comments were listed.I had started reading it last night and only made it to page 35, lots of history there and insight as to their reasoning on everything from the cost of the first hunting licenses in the state to tribal hunting. Interesting read for sure but really long winded.
www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/ (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/)
Post by: huntnphool on December 05, 2014, 10:29:51 AM
anyone arrogant enough to think that their perspective is superior to my own
OMG, how did I miss Obama personally posting on this forum?
No time to read this whole thing right now, but this will surely be entertaining later. :chuckle:
Post by: oldleclercrd on December 05, 2014, 09:21:53 PM
Post by: curlewkiller on December 05, 2014, 09:35:00 PM
I've had a few PM's asking me to tone down my rhetoric, specifically the use of the term 'Anti-Hunter' in relation to this topic.
To be clear: If you are seeking to restrict existing hunter rights for reasons other than sound game management principles, then you are an Anti-Hunter.
If you think that is a pejorative statement and don't like how it makes you feel then I strongly suggest you rethink your position. This is no longer a discussion regarding opposing positions within a hunter group. You are now trying to restrict my hunting rights and those of my friends. You are the enemy.
Please wake up to this and send an email in support of hunters rights
Thanks
Post by: bowhunterforever on December 05, 2014, 09:49:52 PM
WDFW has released their final enviro impact statement. At the end they actually list the written comments from the comment periods. Virtually all the comments from the later period were pro baiting, and very well written, however I did not find my own. when you have a minute take a look and let us know if yours comments were listed.After I click the link, where do I click to read all the comments?
www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/ (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/)
Post by: Dave of TDG-Farms on December 06, 2014, 10:31:26 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 06, 2014, 10:37:10 AM
click on the link for the final draft, (step 6). Then go about half way down the report ~180 pages give or take.WDFW has released their final enviro impact statement. At the end they actually list the written comments from the comment periods. Virtually all the comments from the later period were pro baiting, and very well written, however I did not find my own. when you have a minute take a look and let us know if yours comments were listed.After I click the link, where do I click to read all the comments?
www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/ (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/)
Post by: returnofsid on December 06, 2014, 03:54:03 PM
Why do all other states that don't allow baiting, allow the use of scents? I can't imagine why Washington would need to be the only state to ban both.
They don't. There are several states that don't allow baiting, that ALSO do NOT allow the use of any attractant, including scents, for deer hunting.
Post by: sirchman on December 06, 2014, 04:44:06 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 06, 2014, 05:06:55 PM
There are many other options to help manage our game in this state.Not flaming, but these will probably be the words used when it gets down to whatever methods you use...assuming wolves don't get them all first.
Post by: Little Dave on December 06, 2014, 05:41:47 PM
An unintended consequence of wanting everyone to hunt the same way you like to hunt is that they will. And they will at the same time and same place.
Adding a new rule is more of a win for attorneys than a win for wildlife management. What is this? Is someone feeling some kind of urgency that we don't have enough rules yet?
Post by: sirchman on December 06, 2014, 06:59:59 PM
I am almost always against new restrictions and rules but along with not agreeing with it i think it hurts the general public's overall opinion of hunting.There are many other options to help manage our game in this state.Not flaming, but these will probably be the words used when it gets down to whatever methods you use...assuming wolves don't get them all first.
Post by: Little Dave on December 06, 2014, 07:37:16 PM
If you talk to the general public about banning the baiting, some granny might cut you off with, "Oh I set some food out for a deer that comes to my yard."
Post by: Britt-dog on December 06, 2014, 09:29:19 PM
Little Dave
"An unintended consequence of wanting everyone to hunt the same way you like to hunt is that they will. And they will at the same time and same place"
Thanks for this statement little Dave. I think many of the people responding negatively to this issue cant see the ramifications of their opinion, or more importantly the other side of the argument.
Post by: longrangehunter338 on December 07, 2014, 03:30:52 AM
Post by: sirchman on December 07, 2014, 06:57:18 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 08, 2014, 06:28:38 AM
By baiting you are essentially training an animal to come in. I see why people want to do it but I think it gives people an improper advantage over the animal.
Easy enough to think that and don't take offense but it shows that you don't have experience in this field.
These animals are much smarter and more wary of bait piles than you think. Sure they'll come in but they approach so cautiously that they bust most hunters and they usually don't come in until nightfall.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 08, 2014, 06:31:43 AM
Just like all those videos that people go out at yell something and then a ton of pet deer come running. Baiting is a canned hunt and seen negatively by the public
You're hilarious. There is no such thing as a canned hunt, particularly when you're talking about a few flakes of alfalfa which constitutes 99% of baiting. Citing the behavior of golf course deer is what non-hunters usually do.
What if I tell you that I think long range hunting is a canned hunt and is seen negatively by the public?
Post by: huntnnw on December 08, 2014, 06:43:19 AM
By baiting you are essentially training an animal to come in. I see why people want to do it but I think it gives people an improper advantage over the animal.
wow another misinformed individual who knows nothing about baiting. I have at just this year in Nov and Dec over 100 hrs in treestands waiting on these so called "trained deer" to come in. I have seen 1 mature whitetail in this time frame
Post by: bhawley76 on December 08, 2014, 07:38:08 AM
Post by: longrangehunter338 on December 08, 2014, 10:24:52 AM
Just like all those videos that people go out at yell something and then a ton of pet deer come running. Baiting is a canned hunt and seen negatively by the public
You're hilarious. There is no such thing as a canned hunt, particularly when you're talking about a few flakes of alfalfa which constitutes 99% of baiting. Citing the behavior of golf course deer is what non-hunters usually do.
What if I tell you that I think long range hunting is a canned hunt and is seen negatively by the public?
Canned hunt as in a high fenced hunt, here are two videos of so called "golf course deer"
If you read the thread "setting the record straight" longrangehunting is hunting out of a backpack and the 338 is the ruger guide gun in 338 I enjoy shooting. Shooting a game animal over bait will be seen negatively by the public just like high fence game farms or more recently:
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/onlookers-dismayed-by-elk-herding-hunters/article_a21e928d-926e-5fd9-b92c-9886d4d0fe3e.html (http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/onlookers-dismayed-by-elk-herding-hunters/article_a21e928d-926e-5fd9-b92c-9886d4d0fe3e.html)
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/hunters-repeat-townsend-area-elk-slaughter/article_945a8672-7a85-11e4-8da4-ef0ac73cbdd5.html (http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/hunters-repeat-townsend-area-elk-slaughter/article_945a8672-7a85-11e4-8da4-ef0ac73cbdd5.html)
http://www.eptrail.com/estes-park-news/ci_26962852/elk-hunting-near-estes-park-neighborhood-raises-concern (http://www.eptrail.com/estes-park-news/ci_26962852/elk-hunting-near-estes-park-neighborhood-raises-concern)
THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLIC READS AND VOTES ON JUST LIKE 594 WHERE COMMERCIALS BRAIN WASH THE PUBLIC AND SOME HOW SHOW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SUICIDE IS REDUCED WITH MORE BACK GROUND CHECKS.
Post by: sirchman on December 08, 2014, 05:17:30 PM
Since I am so misinformed I had to go back and look up the definition of training. Training- the action of teaching a person or animal a specific skill type or behavior. Apparently baiting is incredibly difficult and time consuming so we should change the regulations on it. I propose we open baiting up year round and give out second and third deer tags because the people on this forum have convinced me that it is super inefficient. :bash: I think hunters would be better served if they started worrying more about public opinion than the opinions of other hunters.By baiting you are essentially training an animal to come in. I see why people want to do it but I think it gives people an improper advantage over the animal.
wow another misinformed individual who knows nothing about baiting. I have at just this year in Nov and Dec over 100 hrs in treestands waiting on these so called "trained deer" to come in. I have seen 1 mature whitetail in this time frame
Post by: billythekidrock on December 08, 2014, 05:26:52 PM
Since I am so misinformed I had to go back and look up the definition of training. Training- the action of teaching a person or animal a specific skill type or behavior. Apparently baiting is incredibly difficult and time consuming so we should change the regulations on it. I propose we open baiting up year round and give out second and third deer tags because the people on this forum have convinced me that it is super inefficient. :bash: I think hunters would be better served if they started worrying more about public opinion than the opinions of other hunters.By baiting you are essentially training an animal to come in. I see why people want to do it but I think it gives people an improper advantage over the animal.
wow another misinformed individual who knows nothing about baiting. I have at just this year in Nov and Dec over 100 hrs in treestands waiting on these so called "trained deer" to come in. I have seen 1 mature whitetail in this time frame
Hunters would be better served if we stuck together and stopped trying to change the experience for others.
Post by: Seabass on December 08, 2014, 05:38:12 PM
Post by: sirchman on December 08, 2014, 05:58:48 PM
To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?Does something have to directly affect you to have an opinion on it? Other than my ethical objection to it, it hurts the public opinion of hunters as a whole, which like it or not adversely affects all of us.
Post by: SCRUBS on December 08, 2014, 06:14:49 PM
Since I am so misinformed I had to go back and look up the definition of training. Training- the action of teaching a person or animal a specific skill type or behavior. Apparently baiting is incredibly difficult and time consuming so we should change the regulations on it. I propose we open baiting up year round and give out second and third deer tags because the people on this forum have convinced me that it is super inefficient. :bash: I think hunters would be better served if they started worrying more about public opinion than the opinions of other hunters.By baiting you are essentially training an animal to come in. I see why people want to do it but I think it gives people an improper advantage over the animal.
wow another misinformed individual who knows nothing about baiting. I have at just this year in Nov and Dec over 100 hrs in treestands waiting on these so called "trained deer" to come in. I have seen 1 mature whitetail in this time frame
Hunters would be better served if we stuck together and stopped trying to change the experience for others.
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: T Pearce on December 08, 2014, 06:37:28 PM
My late dear friend voted against bear baiting..... I took him to the woods for bear the next few seasons and he apologized every time we went out. The media convinced him it was an "unfair practice". He had never pursued bears and had nothing to base his decision on other than what he was told by the media........
Politics "The Game of Misconceptions"
Post by: KFhunter on December 08, 2014, 06:52:45 PM
To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?Does something have to directly affect you to have an opinion on it? Other than my ethical objection to it, it hurts the public opinion of hunters as a whole, which like it or not adversely affects all of us.
ethical? Please explain how baiting is unethical and while you're at it please explain just how detrimental baiting is to the public perception of hunters as a whole.
What adversely affects you and I is a loss of opportunity; you're advocating for a loss of that opportunity for many hunters who choose to bait for one reason or another.
I guarantee you that eventually -as opportunity is chipped away- something will be on the chopping block that you cherish as your personal hunting tradition. You'll be up in arms screaming on HW how your being adversely affected by a stupid rule and I'll gently remind everyone how you and others on HW advocated to have baiting removed; doing your part to help usher in more rules and less opportunity to hunt for fellow hunters and huntresses.
We must stop foolishly advocating for further losses to our hunting privileges and start helping secure more opportunity for future generations of hunters.
Post by: sirchman on December 08, 2014, 07:44:21 PM
Is introducing something that plays on animals most basic survival needs considered fair chase? You are right I am advocating for the loss of this opportunity because it is an opportunity that should never have been had. Obviously explaining myself isn't going to change anyone's opinion on HW. Let us agree to disagree on the matter.To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?Does something have to directly affect you to have an opinion on it? Other than my ethical objection to it, it hurts the public opinion of hunters as a whole, which like it or not adversely affects all of us.
ethical? Please explain how baiting is unethical and while you're at it please explain just how detrimental baiting is to the public perception of hunters as a whole.
What adversely affects you and I is a loss of opportunity; you're advocating for a loss of that opportunity for many hunters who choose to bait for one reason or another.
I guarantee you that eventually -as opportunity is chipped away- something will be on the chopping block that you cherish as your personal hunting tradition. You'll be up in arms screaming on HW how your being adversely affected by a stupid rule and I'll gently remind everyone how you and others on HW advocated to have baiting removed; doing your part to help usher in more rules and less opportunity to hunt for fellow hunters and huntresses.
We must stop foolishly advocating for further losses to our hunting privileges and start helping secure more opportunity for future generations of hunters.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 08, 2014, 07:54:41 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 08, 2014, 08:13:24 PM
Is introducing something that plays on animals most basic survival needs considered fair chase?When you hunt early archery do you try to hunt close to the rut? And do you use a bugle and/or cow calls?
Post by: Brad Harshman on December 08, 2014, 08:58:25 PM
you support a restriction on a legal method of hunting, then good on you for recognizing yourself as an anti hunterDo NOT tell me to go away on an open hunting forum where debate is not only allowed it is encouraged.
I'm not here to mince words. To be clear. You are hurting hunting, now go away, this is a save-able issue and I am trying to wake up the sleeping masses.
That this issue has devolved, internally from a few self righteous, arrogant individuals who call themselves hunters is repulsive to me.
You do NOT know where I stand because you are so busy being a preachy _________ you are not willing to listen to people who actually support your effort. Instead you declare exactly how things will go like a giant dicktater instead of inviting people to join you and offering a means of doing that.
You will NOT speak for me even if I agree with your position.
I have already written in opposition of any further restrictions without all your huff an puff but thanks for making more enemies and further eroding the hunting world. Have a great day
have a great day
I agree with these gentlemen.
I'm trying to figure this out because I'm not really a big game hunter. Im an avid waterfowl hunter. I CAN'T BAIT!!! But I'm willing to learn and research before I give my opinion on the topic at hand. That being said your original post does nothing but incite conflict. If you represent the baiting community then, based on pure reaction to your words, I'd oppose baiting. I don't think I'd like to meet or talk to you in the woods. You fail to promote a healthly community for hunters. You immediately create enemies by telling everyone who doesn't agree to go away. This reflects poorly on all of hunters. More so then guys who use salt blocks or bales of hay to increase their odds.
I'm interested to find any research about the benefits or impacts of baiting for ungulates. I encourage everyone to search through the science community and share their findings; pros and cons.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 08, 2014, 09:00:23 PM
To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?
Personally, I'm ambiguous as far as baiting goes.
That said, if you're pulling animals off public land onto private land it affects others.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 08, 2014, 09:29:23 PM
That said, if you're pulling animals off public land onto private land it affects others.I hear (and am very attentive) to this criticism of baiting. My observation is that hunting pressure on public land pushes game to less pressured private land and is far more significant in influencing deer behavior than baiting. :dunno:
Post by: Bango skank on December 08, 2014, 09:46:55 PM
To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?
Personally, I'm ambiguous as far as baiting goes.
That said, if you're pulling animals off public land onto private land it affects
others.
You have a point, but lets look at the reality of the situation. A lot of private land has feed out for livestock that attracts deer. This law wont stop that and would be nearly impossible to enforce as far as prosecuting somebody who shoots a deer on their land that came in to eat the livestock feed. Ive been looking to kill a big buck in my area for 3 years now. I finally found him this year where he hangs out before the snow hits, on public land very near a bunch of private land. The private land nearby will have feed out for livestock no matter what, and it will continue to attract does, which will in turn pull bucks onto private in november. I decided that ghe only chance i had was to fight fire with fire and set a bait pile hoping to keep some of the does on ghe public land. Well the big boy (gross 162 and sime change) was at my bait pile before light on the 19th, but still wandered down onto thd private and got killed that night with only ten minutes left in the season
. I guess my point is that private land feed will continue luring deer off of public land
Now that we cant utilize baiting to counter that effect the only people who will be at a disadvantage are the public land hunters. 3 years ive been after this buck and now its done. And the no baiting law wont keep deer from seeking feed on private lands.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on December 08, 2014, 09:50:01 PM
This year I put ~75 miles on the boots in early general season and came up empty. So in late season I went over out of Spokane where I had a second deer tag to fill and harvested a nice doe over some apples and then a nice buck across a tilled field running a doe. I didn't feel as proud as if I had harvested a nice animal up in the hills and packed it out but in the end that apple fed doe tastes a lot better than that tough old hill deer would have.
My .02
Post by: huntnnw on December 08, 2014, 09:56:58 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 08, 2014, 10:03:28 PM
Is introducing something that plays on animals most basic survival needs considered fair chase? You are right I am advocating for the loss of this opportunity because it is an opportunity that should never have been had. Obviously explaining myself isn't going to change anyone's opinion on HW. Let us agree to disagree on the matter.To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?Does something have to directly affect you to have an opinion on it? Other than my ethical objection to it, it hurts the public opinion of hunters as a whole, which like it or not adversely affects all of us.
ethical? Please explain how baiting is unethical and while you're at it please explain just how detrimental baiting is to the public perception of hunters as a whole.
What adversely affects you and I is a loss of opportunity; you're advocating for a loss of that opportunity for many hunters who choose to bait for one reason or another.
I guarantee you that eventually -as opportunity is chipped away- something will be on the chopping block that you cherish as your personal hunting tradition. You'll be up in arms screaming on HW how your being adversely affected by a stupid rule and I'll gently remind everyone how you and others on HW advocated to have baiting removed; doing your part to help usher in more rules and less opportunity to hunt for fellow hunters and huntresses.
We must stop foolishly advocating for further losses to our hunting privileges and start helping secure more opportunity for future generations of hunters.
Hello God, nice to see you one here.
Post by: mfswallace on December 08, 2014, 10:06:08 PM
you support a restriction on a legal method of hunting, then good on you for recognizing yourself as an anti hunterDo NOT tell me to go away on an open hunting forum where debate is not only allowed it is encouraged.
I'm not here to mince words. To be clear. You are hurting hunting, now go away, this is a save-able issue and I am trying to wake up the sleeping masses.
That this issue has devolved, internally from a few self righteous, arrogant individuals who call themselves hunters is repulsive to me.
You do NOT know where I stand because you are so busy being a preachy _________ you are not willing to listen to people who actually support your effort. Instead you declare exactly how things will go like a giant dicktater instead of inviting people to join you and offering a means of doing that.
You will NOT speak for me even if I agree with your position.
I have already written in opposition of any further restrictions without all your huff an puff but thanks for making more enemies and further eroding the hunting world. Have a great day
have a great day
I agree with these gentlemen.
I'm trying to figure this out because I'm not really a big game hunter. Im an avid waterfowl hunter. I CAN'T BAIT!!! But I'm willing to learn and research before I give my opinion on the topic at hand. That being said your original post does nothing but incite conflict. If you represent the baiting community then, based on pure reaction to your words, I'd oppose baiting. I don't think I'd like to meet or talk to you in the woods. You fail to promote a healthly community for hunters. You immediately create enemies by telling everyone who doesn't agree to go away. This reflects poorly on all of hunters. More so then guys who use salt blocks or bales of hay to increase their odds.
I'm interested to find any research about the benefits or impacts of baiting for ungulates. I encourage everyone to search through the science community and share their findings; pros and cons.
What is the difference between baiting to get ungulates where you can see what's in an area and using decoys to get waterfowl to land in a specific area??
Post by: Bango skank on December 08, 2014, 10:06:55 PM
To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?
Personally, I'm ambiguous as far as baiting goes.
That said, if you're pulling animals off public land onto private land it affects others.
If some animals leave public land to feed on bait they do it at night. Any decent bucks are back to where they feel comfortable during legal shooting hours. Mature bucks know how to stay alive. This has nothing to do with baiting, but for years we leased some prime whitetail land in NE WA. Since it was just us hunting pressure was very light. Every year we hunted that place we would see big bucks bedded down in a field at any time of the day on the gravel road going to or from our place. They were on the property that didn't allow any hunting and didn't hunt themselves. At least one of those bucks we would see just laying there in the wide open was a book buck. And they were only a few hundred yards from where we could have shot them legally.
You could have dumped a dump truck load of apples on our property. They may have came in there at night and ate them. But they still would have been laying there by morning where we couldn't touch them, smiling at us as we drove by.
You say theyll do it at night... that may be generally true for eating the bait, but when the feed on private propetty lures all the does off the public land all bets are off on what dumb moves the bucks will make during daylight hours. Ive seen it plenty oc times
Post by: Turner89 on December 08, 2014, 11:05:29 PM
Well said cboom! It really blows my mind that outdoorsman of all kinds can't stand together on these things. There's lot's of different styles of hunting, fishing, camping, whatever I shake my head at, but would never think of participating in abolishing any legal way of doing it. I would defend it as if it were my own style of hunting/fishing, or whatever.To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?
Personally, I'm ambiguous as far as baiting goes.
That said, if you're pulling animals off public land onto private land it affects others.
If some animals leave public land to feed on bait they do it at night. Any decent bucks are back to where they feel comfortable during legal shooting hours. Mature bucks know how to stay alive. This has nothing to do with baiting, but for years we leased some prime whitetail land in NE WA. Since it was just us hunting pressure was very light. Every year we hunted that place we would see big bucks bedded down in a field at any time of the day on the gravel road going to or from our place. They were on the property that didn't allow any hunting and didn't hunt themselves. At least one of those bucks we would see just laying there in the wide open was a book buck. And they were only a few hundred yards from where we could have shot them legally.
You could have dumped a dump truck load of apples on our property. They may have came in there at night and ate them. But they still would have been laying there by morning where we couldn't touch them, smiling at us as we drove by.
You say theyll do it at night... that may be generally true for eating the bait, but when the feed on private propetty lures all the does off the public land all bets are off on what dumb moves the bucks will make during daylight hours. Ive seen it plenty oc times
My experience has been different I guess? I have spent more than a bit of time hunting the big 3 species of deer in this state among others. I sure haven't seen a shortage of does or a real disproportionate number of them on public land compared to neighboring private lands that have some bait out? Maybe I am just not lucky enough to catch all these big bucks that got big by not making dumb moves all of a sudden doing it? Baiting has been legal in this state for a long time. Change my mind, show us all some pic's of the big bucks that you shot because they all of a sudden got stupid.
I would bet the bucks I have hanging on my wall not many on this forum could match. Most of them were shot at elevations you will most likely never hunt at, and there was no bait involved. But I sure don't have a problem with a guy that wants to use bait. Reality is the people that complain about different methods of hunting are for the most part the guys that don't do well hunting. So they take out the fact that they can't hunt by trying to say they way others do it isn't right.
This may have already been said previously above, but I think I-594 is a pretty good example of how the antis keep picking away at us. They have no problem coming out and saying that 594 is just the beginning........they will keep picking away until they have all our guns. They are doing the same with hunting/fishing. One slice at a time :(
Post by: Bango skank on December 08, 2014, 11:10:01 PM
Post by: Seabass on December 08, 2014, 11:17:06 PM
I believe there is more of this type of thinking going on than we are willing to admit. I'm not painting all opposed with the same broad brush but I do believe it is at the root of some of this debate. I hear about it from folks that I know quite a bit. When I share trail cam pics of giant bucks (none of which I have killed) a common response is, "well if I could afford to bait like you do then......." Or "if I had the time to run as many baits ayou do then".....
Class warfare has been incredibly effective in politics. It is that way because humans are innately that way. Most of us would never admit how we truly feel about another man's success. It is much more prevalent or evident today because of social media and websites just like this one. 15 years ago none of us knew what the other was doing other than rumors. Now we all share it with the world every day. Jealousy used to be reserved for the photo board at the local sporting goods store.
Post by: Turner89 on December 08, 2014, 11:26:00 PM
The elephant in the room finally gets recognized. The success or lack there of has to be explained or blamed on something other than an individual's abilities. We see it all the time don't we?! That guy or group of guys is more successful than I am and there has to be some explanation behind it. It couldn't possibly be that they are just better at something than me. It has to be an unfair advantage and that should be "fixed".:tup:
I believe there is more of this type of thinking going on than we are willing to admit. I'm not painting all opposed with the same broad brush but I do believe it is at the root of some of this debate. I hear about it from folks that I know quite a bit. When I share trail cam pics of giant bucks (none of which I have killed) a common response is, "well if I could afford to bait like you do then......." Or "if I had the time to run as many baits ayou do then".....
Class warfare has been incredibly effective in politics. It is that way because humans are innately that way. Most of us would never admit how we truly feel about another man's success. It is much more prevalent or evident today because of social media and websites just like this one. 15 years ago none of us knew what the other was doing other than rumors. Now we all share it with the world every day. Jealousy used to be reserved for the photo board at the local sporting goods store.
Post by: Bango skank on December 08, 2014, 11:34:22 PM
this post might be hard to understand as "does" (pronounced doze) and "does" (pronounced duzz) are spelled the same, it may cause some confusion.
Post by: jasnt on December 08, 2014, 11:37:24 PM
Post by: Turner89 on December 08, 2014, 11:59:43 PM
okay so maybe im not being clear. the point im trying to make is that baiting DOES, at least around here, lure a lot of does off of public land. And when the does move off, the bucks follow, at least during the rut. But I'm not saying that baiting should be banned because of that, I'm saying that regardless of the law this will continue to happen as does go after livestock feed, and that allowing public land hunters to bait is the best way they can level the playing field when theyre hunting near private land that is heavily baited. for the record i am NOT against baiting, I have used it to some degree, but dont rely on it as my sole means of hunting, and im not some guy who is bitter over a lack of success as I fill my buck tag every year, even since this 4x minimum rule has gone in i always fill my tag. im just stating that banning baiting hurts public land hunters who hunt land adjacent to baited private land, and helps the guys who own 500 acres bordering public land, and leave feed out for their livestock. banning baiting favors those who already have all the advantages. i think maybe we want the same thing but just look at it from different perspectives. sorry if i was a bit ugly on the last post.Great point Bango shank :tup: I haven't read the whole thread, but this is a common sense argument.
this post might be hard to understand as "does" (pronounced doze) and "does" (pronounced duzz) are spelled the same, it may cause some confusion.
Post by: Bango skank on December 09, 2014, 12:27:22 AM
Post by: longrangehunter338 on December 09, 2014, 08:14:59 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 09, 2014, 08:31:08 AM
So why bait? Baiting allows you to attract animals to a specific point and get more and better pictures of the animals in the area, it can be used to help with the position of your blind/stand and to help hold an animal for a better shot for longer. In my experience, that last part is very helpful for youth, senior, and disabled hunters.
Post by: mfswallace on December 09, 2014, 09:43:42 AM
I don't know a single person who's exclusive method of hunting is baiting...so I don't have much concern kids will only have knowledge of baiting methods for hunting. Baiting has been legal forever in Washington and we do not have generations of kids that only bait. I think you will find most of the folks who bait are pretty serious hunters that are very capable of harvesting game with or without bait; however, we enjoy using bait as part of a setup in specific situations. I run baits and I would guess I spent less than 1% of my time hunting over a bait this year...99% of my hunting did not involve any kind of bait.:yeah:
So why bait? Baiting allows you to attract animals to a specific point and get more and better pictures of the animals in the area, it can be used to help with the position of your blind/stand and to help hold an animal for a better shot for longer. In my experience, that last part is very helpful for youth, senior, and disabled hunters.
It seems no matter how many times it is explained by knowledgeable individuals those who don't agree push back with the same, it's not sporting/ethical/necessary....
To that I say please try it or go with someone who does it the right way and experience the highs and lows that it creates just like hunting. It should start in the spring just like scouting and continue to the start or end of hunting season dependent upon your preference. U will see it doesn't take a truck load if you do your scouting homework to get good pictures of alot of Animals in the area that you can then identify easier when hunting. :twocents:
Because I set up a trail cam and used bait to get the animals to stop and say cheese in the area I hunt with my dad I was able to identify a legal buck that my dad, who's eyes aren't that great, could feel comfortable shooting knowing I knew the specific animal
Post by: jasnt on December 09, 2014, 10:59:03 AM
a food plot/creating cover/ providing water / minrels/salt is not enough when your surrounded by un huntable alfalfa fields and no access timber plots.
Post by: billythekidrock on December 09, 2014, 01:16:53 PM
What about the guy that owns just a little chunk of land and surrounded by huge farms and large timbered private land.
a food plot/creating cover/ providing water / minrels/salt is not enough when your surrounded by un huntable alfalfa fields and no access timber plots.
See, your too smart for your own good. They should just pay the high access fee for the timber land or trespass on the private farmland.
Actually this is a point that I have been wanting to make.
These small parcels of huntable land are often surrounded by private land or areas that may not always be safe to shoot, BUT with proper positioning of a bait pile and stand, a shot can be taken in a safe direction. This is something that everyone should encourage in the name of safety.
Post by: jasnt on December 09, 2014, 01:26:22 PM
that is the exact situation in in. North is homes,east are homes and farms, south is a safe shot but no access,same with most west shots and NO access! I have provided the above and a bag of corn or 2 once a week. After 5years now of year round investment in getting some ok bucks and does with very healthy fawns. The best bucks still spend most their times safe in the alfalfa fields or timber and 95% of my deer traffic is after shooting light has ended. Then by late buck the deer seem to disperse. I hunt public land for late season when I can afford to.What about the guy that owns just a little chunk of land and surrounded by huge farms and large timbered private land.
a food plot/creating cover/ providing water / minrels/salt is not enough when your surrounded by un huntable alfalfa fields and no access timber plots.
See, your too smart for your own good. They should just pay the high access fee for the timber land or trespass on the private farmland.
Actually this is a point that I have been wanting to make.
These small parcels of huntable land are often surrounded by private land or areas that may not always be safe to shoot, BUT with proper positioning of a bait pile and stand, a shot can be taken in a safe direction. This is something that everyone should encourage in the name of safety.
that timbered land is private property, not a timber company. It is posted no hunting like everything else in the area
Post by: Bango skank on December 09, 2014, 03:24:18 PM
Is introducing something that plays on animals most basic survival needs considered fair chase? You are right I am advocating for the loss of this opportunity because it is an opportunity that should never have been had. Obviously explaining myself isn't going to change anyone's opinion on HW. Let us agree to disagree on the matter.To those who are opposed to baiting: how does baiting adversely affect you?Does something have to directly affect you to have an opinion on it? Other than my ethical objection to it, it hurts the public opinion of hunters as a whole, which like it or not adversely affects all of us.
ethical? Please explain how baiting is unethical and while you're at it please explain just how detrimental baiting is to the public perception of hunters as a whole.
What adversely affects you and I is a loss of opportunity; you're advocating for a loss of that opportunity for many hunters who choose to bait for one reason or another.
I guarantee you that eventually -as opportunity is chipped away- something will be on the chopping block that you cherish as your personal hunting tradition. You'll be up in arms screaming on HW how your being adversely affected by a stupid rule and I'll gently remind everyone how you and others on HW advocated to have baiting removed; doing your part to help usher in more rules and less opportunity to hunt for fellow hunters and huntresses.
We must stop foolishly advocating for further losses to our hunting privileges and start helping secure more opportunity for future generations of hunters.
So is it time to outlaw duck calls? Or just the feeding call when they get close because they are coming in for their most basic survival needs. I unfairly called out banko a few posts back. I think we cleared that up. But I will say you are wrong, these animals are not just out there easy to be had because some food is in the ground. And please explain yourself, you would change my opinion if you had a shred of fact to back a thing you are saying.
And bango posted up a pic of a nice buck he shot. Happy to see it and happy he got it. Lets see just one good one you got in any legal form of hunting. Should be really easy for you provide that since you seem to be a master at knowing about the animals basic needs. Not going to hold my breath waiting for you to post it up........
if you read my post where i posted the pic, i thought i was pretty clear, i was hunting that buck on public land near private land, and the buck went to bait on the private land and got shot, not by me. he was in my bait pile that morning though before daylight. just used that buck to illustrate y point that the private land will continue to have bait out, if only in the form of livestock feed, and sometimes the only thing you can do when youre hunting next to private land is throw out a bait pile of your own to compete. Didn't quite work out for me, but I figure putting out the competing bait pile was my best bet given the situation.
Post by: Little Dave on December 10, 2014, 12:55:02 AM
If we wanted to, we could devastate the software industry showing screens are bad for children, video games desensitize individuals to violence, used as a vehicle to commit crimes, and access should be controlled and significantly regulated. All we need to do is run a few convincing ads linking horrible incidents to our villainous subject matter and we win over the public.
The software industry is somewhat resilient to this because it is always promoting its positive attributes. Even the gruesome video games are promoted as something that you should want to have in your collection.
It's how we should be. We shouldn't even have this tedious discussion. Instead of talking of banning this or that. Loudly promote the positive benefits of the way you hunt, let your fellow hunters promote the positive benefits of the way they hunt. We are more resilient this way.
The trail of division leads to more problems. If you ban baits for deer and elk, trappers and fishermen will be next. Don't do it. Please reconsider.
Post by: bearpaw on December 10, 2014, 04:28:03 AM
Post by: Brad Harshman on December 10, 2014, 08:19:52 PM
I hope you're joking, right? My decoys are under my control at all times. They cannot be left out, they do not provide nourishment for the birds. If anything the birds become wary of them overtime rather than dependent.you support a restriction on a legal method of hunting, then good on you for recognizing yourself as an anti hunterDo NOT tell me to go away on an open hunting forum where debate is not only allowed it is encouraged.
I'm not here to mince words. To be clear. You are hurting hunting, now go away, this is a save-able issue and I am trying to wake up the sleeping masses.
That this issue has devolved, internally from a few self righteous, arrogant individuals who call themselves hunters is repulsive to me.
You do NOT know where I stand because you are so busy being a preachy _________ you are not willing to listen to people who actually support your effort. Instead you declare exactly how things will go like a giant dicktater instead of inviting people to join you and offering a means of doing that.
You will NOT speak for me even if I agree with your position.
I have already written in opposition of any further restrictions without all your huff an puff but thanks for making more enemies and further eroding the hunting world. Have a great day
have a great day
I agree with these gentlemen.
I'm trying to figure this out because I'm not really a big game hunter. Im an avid waterfowl hunter. I CAN'T BAIT!!! But I'm willing to learn and research before I give my opinion on the topic at hand. That being said your original post does nothing but incite conflict. If you represent the baiting community then, based on pure reaction to your words, I'd oppose baiting. I don't think I'd like to meet or talk to you in the woods. You fail to promote a healthly community for hunters. You immediately create enemies by telling everyone who doesn't agree to go away. This reflects poorly on all of hunters. More so then guys who use salt blocks or bales of hay to increase their odds.
I'm interested to find any research about the benefits or impacts of baiting for ungulates. I encourage everyone to search through the science community and share their findings; pros and cons.
What is the difference between baiting to get ungulates where you can see what's in an area and using decoys to get waterfowl to land in a specific area??
Why do ask? The issue is about baiting. Baiting was so successful for water fowl that they out lawed it. Decoy use is legal for big game and it should continue to be. I've always dreamed of hunting over a salt lick and some apples. I've been lead to believe its highly successful -here on HW. But now I'm hearing that it isn't. Yet IRONICALLY those who do are so passionate about it I tend to think its very successful and they stand to lose a lot if it is outlawed.
Post by: jasnt on December 10, 2014, 08:35:03 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 10, 2014, 11:31:29 PM
Its a lot like other methods of hunting...in specific situations and with a lot of hard work and some luck you can be successful. I think what you are misconstruing is that folks are wanting to make it clear that it is not shooting fish in a barrel....its a method, if employed correctly, that can be successful...far from a guarantee,..but that is the perception we are wanting to clarify...these are not trained, pet deer. They are still very wild, and very wary of the feed etc...if it was creating an overharvest problem like baiting waterfowl wdfw would have to ban it and I would fully support said ban...its not a harvest problem though and so I see no need to ban it.I hope you're joking, right? My decoys are under my control at all times. They cannot be left out, they do not provide nourishment for the birds. If anything the birds become wary of them overtime rather than dependent.you support a restriction on a legal method of hunting, then good on you for recognizing yourself as an anti hunterDo NOT tell me to go away on an open hunting forum where debate is not only allowed it is encouraged.
I'm not here to mince words. To be clear. You are hurting hunting, now go away, this is a save-able issue and I am trying to wake up the sleeping masses.
That this issue has devolved, internally from a few self righteous, arrogant individuals who call themselves hunters is repulsive to me.
You do NOT know where I stand because you are so busy being a preachy _________ you are not willing to listen to people who actually support your effort. Instead you declare exactly how things will go like a giant dicktater instead of inviting people to join you and offering a means of doing that.
You will NOT speak for me even if I agree with your position.
I have already written in opposition of any further restrictions without all your huff an puff but thanks for making more enemies and further eroding the hunting world. Have a great day
have a great day
I agree with these gentlemen.
I'm trying to figure this out because I'm not really a big game hunter. Im an avid waterfowl hunter. I CAN'T BAIT!!! But I'm willing to learn and research before I give my opinion on the topic at hand. That being said your original post does nothing but incite conflict. If you represent the baiting community then, based on pure reaction to your words, I'd oppose baiting. I don't think I'd like to meet or talk to you in the woods. You fail to promote a healthly community for hunters. You immediately create enemies by telling everyone who doesn't agree to go away. This reflects poorly on all of hunters. More so then guys who use salt blocks or bales of hay to increase their odds.
I'm interested to find any research about the benefits or impacts of baiting for ungulates. I encourage everyone to search through the science community and share their findings; pros and cons.
What is the difference between baiting to get ungulates where you can see what's in an area and using decoys to get waterfowl to land in a specific area??
Why do ask? The issue is about baiting. Baiting was so successful for water fowl that they out lawed it. Decoy use is legal for big game and it should continue to be. I've always dreamed of hunting over a salt lick and some apples. I've been lead to believe its highly successful -here on HW. But now I'm hearing that it isn't. Yet IRONICALLY those who do are so passionate about it I tend to think its very successful and they stand to lose a lot if it is outlawed.
Post by: bobcat on December 10, 2014, 11:37:15 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 11, 2014, 08:37:22 AM
Post by: BlacktailBowhunter on December 12, 2014, 11:26:41 PM
Post by: Little Dave on December 13, 2014, 07:48:00 PM
Is there a public session for comment on this? Is this legislative or commission driven? Please pm with any info. I live in OR but hunt WA and oppose any restrictions.
You can send a note to commission@dfw.wa.gov
A canned message in their response:
"If you go to http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/, (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/,) you will find the season setting process. This process is currently in Phase II, which is not open for public comment. However, as you will see, Phase III allows for an additional public comment period on specific rule proposals in January/February 2015."
Even so, if they get a lot of feedback on this subject, they may look at it more carefully.
Post by: BlacktailBowhunter on December 13, 2014, 09:31:47 PM
Is there a public session for comment on this? Is this legislative or commission driven? Please pm with any info. I live in OR but hunt WA and oppose any restrictions.
You can send a note to commission@dfw.wa.gov
A canned message in their response:
"If you go to http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/, (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/,) you will find the season setting process. This process is currently in Phase II, which is not open for public comment. However, as you will see, Phase III allows for an additional public comment period on specific rule proposals in January/February 2015."
Even so, if they get a lot of feedback on this subject, they may look at it more carefully.
Thank you. I help a friend that is a professional political organizer and is also an expert civil rights policy analyst that I am going to have make a strong arguement for the hunting community.
Post by: Brad Harshman on December 16, 2014, 08:46:08 PM
There has been a lot of people sharing their experience of how unsuccessful they have been baiting. Even though they put in a lot of resources it didn't work out for them. So maybe it is a non-issue.
But what about large scale baiting or better yet feeding stations? They obviously work with elk. Apparently the elk feeding stations are a sight to see when the snow gets deep. These stations definitely alter the animals natural eating habits. But it's a necessary evil, right?
But then I just read what the WDFW vet had to say in regards to feeding the the Okanogan deer: "...
In general, WDFW and other wildlife managers discourage the public from winter feeding of deer and other wildlife because it can harm the animals, said Kristin Mansfield, WDFW wildlife veterinarian. Deer, for instance, need to feed on many different kinds of plants to maintain a nutritionally balanced diet. Mansfield noted that some well-intentioned people have been feeding deer fruits and grains.
“Fruit and grains are not a normal part of a deer’s diet at this time of year and can be extremely difficult for deer to digest,” Mansfield said, adding that a steady diet of such high-carbohydrate fare can elevate the animals’ stomach acid levels and cause serious illness and even death.
Mansfield said she appreciates people wanting to help animals in what seems like harsh conditions. “But most feeding just makes us feel good and can end up being bad for the animals,” she said. “Fruit is too high in carbohydrates and lacks the nutrients deer need to stay healthy. It’s a bit like letting your kids eat nothing but candy bars.”
Supplemental feeding also disrupts the natural foraging patterns of deer and concentrates the animals into one location..."
WDFW says we shouldn't bait because it changes their patterns and it does harm the deer's digestive system if done improperly. This information sounds more convincing then Hitler's original post saying there is only one hunter "a bait supporter" and everyone else is evil.
Let's continue to get facts, not necessarily the sifted stuff WDFW references, but the independent studies, so we can make an educated decision on baiting. The best way to convince WDFW is to reference facts from the scientific community not the brash opinions of the outspoken.
Post by: Special T on December 16, 2014, 08:52:56 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 16, 2014, 09:33:22 PM
I haven't seen any quality posts of people sharing scientific evidence that small scale baiting helps animals. Did I miss it? Does it even exist? What about the negative impacts of small scale baiting?The justification for maintaining baiting as a hunting method is not based upon any argument that it "helps" animals; the scientific aspects revolve solely around whether it does any harm. WDFW has been clear they do not believe this is a biological issue. However, part of the reason this is an issue being debated centers around some of the very large, prolific baiting operations...which I could very well see resulting in harm to animals as described by Dr. Mansfield and others. I will continue to beat the dead horse that the best solution on this whole matter would be to regulate baiting so that folks aren't putting 5 metric tons of apples out for the deer. A guy tossing a salt block out and a bag of corn or some alfalfa is not going to result in the impacts described and observed with major feeding programs....which actually brings me back to the justification piece...I can think of one justification for maintaining baiting with some scientific support...most deer and elk in Washington State are selenium deficient. Hunters packing salt blocks (usually loaded with Selenium) are providing a key element that is limited in the environment...ban baiting and probably a whole lot less selenium in the environment. :dunno:
http://www.academia.edu/2045391/The_implications_of_selenium_deficiency_for_wild_herbivore_conservation_a_review (http://www.academia.edu/2045391/The_implications_of_selenium_deficiency_for_wild_herbivore_conservation_a_review)
Post by: Little Dave on December 16, 2014, 10:27:41 PM
It could be argued that baiting, when done properly, is an effective wildlife management tool in zones with high property boundary density. If the goal is to keep a population at or below social carrying capacity, bait may be used in the process of counting the animals, and it may be used to selectively take certain animals from the herd while necessarily respecting property rights.
It's the "when not done properly" part of baiting that might need a look.
Post by: Curly on December 16, 2014, 10:36:00 PM
http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/Issue_reviews/99baiting.pdf
Post by: singleshot12 on December 17, 2014, 07:23:28 AM
Post by: Little Dave on December 17, 2014, 09:29:43 AM
The department has a few helpful pamphlets or Internet pages which describe things like how to clean razor clams, what bait works best for certain fish, what to plant in the garden that the elk and deer won't destroy, etc.
If there is a significant decline in deer population because of baits, some kind of prohibition is reasonable. That's not happening though. We're describing more of a "I don't like the way you dance" subject.
Post by: mfswallace on December 17, 2014, 09:53:11 AM
The solution that I would like to see is professional guidance.
The department has a few helpful pamphlets or Internet pages which describe things like how to clean razor clams, what bait works best for certain fish, what to plant in the garden that the elk and deer won't destroy, etc.
If there is a significant decline in deer population because of baits, some kind of prohibition is reasonable. That's not happening though. We're describing more of a "I don't like the way you dance" subject.
:tup:
Post by: Brad Harshman on December 17, 2014, 05:25:44 PM
There seems to be a couple issues that WDFW is trying to resolve but I agree with many of you a simple "No Baiting" approach is simply too broad of a stroke. Regulations concerning unregulated feeding stations should be addressed. And as far as in-flight in goes, guys if you don't like baiting then don't do it, but respect those who do. It sounds like a ton of work with little advantage given to the hunter. The added benefits of extra calories and trace minerals outweigh negatives it seems.
Thanks to everyone who helps to educate us in a positive and constructive manner.
Post by: drk9988 on February 09, 2015, 07:51:36 PM
Even though I am opposed to any restriction on baiting if this is the best of the two evils then comment now!
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/seasonsetting/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/seasonsetting/)
Post by: dreamunelk on February 09, 2015, 08:46:06 PM
http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/The_Nutritional__Ecological__and_Ethical_Arguments_Against_Baiting_and_Feeding_White-tailed_Deer_Brown.pdf (http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/The_Nutritional__Ecological__and_Ethical_Arguments_Against_Baiting_and_Feeding_White-tailed_Deer_Brown.pdf)
An interesting article.
http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/recreation/bait-hunts-cause-host-of-problems-for-wildlife-habitat-and/article_0ba87436-2524-11e3-aa82-001a4bcf887a.html (http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/recreation/bait-hunts-cause-host-of-problems-for-wildlife-habitat-and/article_0ba87436-2524-11e3-aa82-001a4bcf887a.html)
This is a highly controversial subject. If hunters don't step up to identify ways to make baiting more palatable to the middle of the road public. The middle of the road public may vote in a direction that will further destroy our heritage.
Post by: Special T on February 09, 2015, 09:02:22 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on February 09, 2015, 09:14:27 PM
How is it that there is a bill to bring back bear baiting yet there is this BS to eliminate baiting for deer and elk? :bash: :bash: :bash:
Because hunters brought it to the table. That is how it works.
Post by: Special T on February 09, 2015, 09:17:10 PM
Post by: drk9988 on February 09, 2015, 09:21:48 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on February 09, 2015, 09:32:47 PM
Dont get me wrong I am 100% ok with the 10 gallon option.
I think 5 gallons would be more defensible form a science end but, I think I can defend ten gallons.
Post by: bobcat on February 09, 2015, 10:55:28 PM
Just remember they may start with a 10 gallon limit then when they pull out their calculators and do some math they will decide to charge you for a permit to bait deer and elk like they are trying to do with bear right now. :twocents:
The proposal for baiting bears was not written by the WDFW.
Post by: bobcat on February 09, 2015, 11:00:25 PM
Quote
No Bait Allowed:
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming
Baiting Allowed In Entire State:
Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Washington
Baiting Only In Selected Areas:
Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin
- See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/hooksandbullets/2008/10/14/deer-baiting-across-the-us/#sthash.5itFXjkG.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/hooksandbullets/2008/10/14/deer-baiting-across-the-us/#sthash.5itFXjkG.dpuf)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 09, 2015, 11:04:20 PM
Just FYI:did Alaska change? Thought you could still bait bears. :dunno:QuoteNo Bait Allowed:
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming
Baiting Allowed In Entire State:
Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Washington
Baiting Only In Selected Areas:
Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin
- See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/hooksandbullets/2008/10/14/deer-baiting-across-the-us/#sthash.5itFXjkG.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/hooksandbullets/2008/10/14/deer-baiting-across-the-us/#sthash.5itFXjkG.dpuf)
Post by: bobcat on February 09, 2015, 11:10:32 PM
Just FYI:did Alaska change? Thought you could still bait bears. :dunno:QuoteNo Bait Allowed:
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming
Baiting Allowed In Entire State:
Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Washington
Baiting Only In Selected Areas:
Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin
- See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/hooksandbullets/2008/10/14/deer-baiting-across-the-us/#sthash.5itFXjkG.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/hooksandbullets/2008/10/14/deer-baiting-across-the-us/#sthash.5itFXjkG.dpuf)
This article was about baiting deer, not bears.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 09, 2015, 11:14:11 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 10, 2015, 07:41:13 AM
I think the most important thing at this point is to go to the comment section of the proposals and send a message saying that you are against any kind of restriction on baiting. If they get enough squeaky wheels complaining the other way they will remove it from the proposal at the March meeting. Just state that you are against the restriction, their proposal even says in it that there is no scientific study to back up whether it hurts or helps the herd. Also state how many in your hunting party are against it and that you and none of them were contacted during the telephone survey.
I have been to these approval meetings before and if enough people make an argument one way they often times go with it.
It is not too late to have them just strike both options from the upcoming regs and leave things status quo. I have seen it before and hope that they do it again on this subject.
Go here and click on the "view and comment" button, then on the next page click on the "Start commenting" on the side of all three proposals and let your voice be heard.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/)
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2015, 08:12:53 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 10, 2015, 08:16:15 AM
I strongly oppose any change to baiting laws. I was not contacted on the survey. Comments on hunting season regs in this fashion should require our Wild ID# Since I buy tags I have a Vested interest in the rules. Comments made without Wild ID# have no proof of that interest. The department is mandated to use sound science to make rules not public opinion polls. It is not sound logic to ban bait because of one incident that got bad press.Great comment and I hope you sent that to the WDFW on the comment section. This is the exact thing that they need to hear.
On the survey that was sent out they had over 60% against a change, in the phone survey it was just the opposite. I would trust the email survey where you had to have a wild ID number over a phone survey any day.
Post by: BABackcountryBwhntr on February 10, 2015, 09:31:56 AM
I've been baiting blacktails for three years now and have yet to be successful. In fact in all that time I've only had one deer come in to the apples while I was sitting in the blind, and it was a little fawn, and even at that, it was right at dark with only 5 minutes of legal time left. I get plenty of pictures with the trail camera, but of course, they're all at night.
My buddy and I did it one year on private ground close to a city. And we did it up well! Found the perfect spots for both stands. Started in late summer. We had a hook up for apples and filled garbage cans full of them on a weakly basis when they got in season. Before that it was bags a week of rolled corn an molasses. We ended up with well over a thousand pics on the cams. Some cool ones with coons and deer in the same pics. We had several pic's of two different good bucks. Not one in the daylight even in the summer. But we kept packing those apples out there. We planned on hunting it in the late season. Last day of the regular season we got rained and fogged out up high and decided to sit in our stands that last afternnon. I saw two small bucks basically come running in (not to the bait) chasing does. We thought it was going to be magical come the late season.
Didn't work out exactly that way. Even the few close to town does were wary coming into the bait. Never saw a single buck in two full days come in. I did shoot a small 4 point still hunting the last day a half mile away. Looking at the time and effort we put into that it was one of my hardest hunts I ever did. The pic's we got made it worth it. These guys that seems to think it is some easy slam dunk cheating thing are fools. I guess I shouldn't call them fools, they just don't know any better.
My bet us these are the guys that haven't had much success filling tags no matter what they did. They probably tried to go dump off a five gallon bucket of apples once and expected the deer to roll in. When that didn't happen they jumped on the outlaw it bandwagon, why should others have success when they can't?
Great post! we bait here in oregon and the first year we took 2 book bucks, but it was just like you said... tons of apples all summer long and night time pics over and over... we only had 4 days that a buck was on cam in the day.. 2 of those day we were lucky enough to be in stand... this year we had 2 big bucks on cam.. the big 4x4 showed up 3 days all season.. we were not in stand on those days.. we passed a few smaller bucks and one nice 3x3.. it is far far from easy and requires tons of work to do it properly.
Post by: BABackcountryBwhntr on February 10, 2015, 09:38:55 AM
Dont get me wrong I am 100% ok with the 10 gallon option.
I think 5 gallons would be more defensible form a science end but, I think I can defend ten gallons.
i dump 3-5 garbage cans full of apples every 4-8 days where we hunt.. the deer eat them in that amount of time... what damage is being done? if i could only use 10 gallons I would have to literally bait daily. maybe you guys can pay my diesel bill if that happens? there should be no restriction... just because some outfitters use a ton of bait.. thats a small part of a very big pie.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 10, 2015, 10:23:57 AM
Pay attention to the last sentence. We are setting ourselves up far a fall if we don't use reason. Ton's of apples and feeders will end baiting for us.
http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/The_Nutritional__Ecological__and_Ethical_Arguments_Against_Baiting_and_Feeding_White-tailed_Deer_Brown.pdf (http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/The_Nutritional__Ecological__and_Ethical_Arguments_Against_Baiting_and_Feeding_White-tailed_Deer_Brown.pdf)
An interesting article.
http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/recreation/bait-hunts-cause-host-of-problems-for-wildlife-habitat-and/article_0ba87436-2524-11e3-aa82-001a4bcf887a.html (http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/recreation/bait-hunts-cause-host-of-problems-for-wildlife-habitat-and/article_0ba87436-2524-11e3-aa82-001a4bcf887a.html)
This is a highly controversial subject. If hunters don't step up to identify ways to make baiting more palatable to the middle of the road public. The middle of the road public may vote in a direction that will further destroy our heritage.
Regarding the Missoulian article..... Does this happen... Yes... undeniable.....but it is rare... it certainly isn't like lambs at a slaughter and leading to a large increase in the number of deer/elk killed... I would say no... and they don't have the data to prove that it does... the bottom line is that these predators will be making kills one way or another so they can sustain themselves so the impact on the population is not likely to be that great.
Regarding the Wildlife article.... They can cherry pick the data with the best of them.
1. The die off from supplemental feeding is not happening in the Nov/Dec time frame and it's not from bait that people hunt over... it is literally deer dying because people are feeding them in the dead of winter thinking they are helping the deer out.
2. The study regarding the forage is bunk because it was in a fenced area... A bait pile placed in and around hunting season (the majority of them are)... does not draw and hold deer from miles around... nor do most deer hit it as a primary food source.... I have plenty of evidence and data from personal observations to prove this as fact. The deer that primarily hit the bait piles are ones that live in that area.... Now food plots (which the department want to still allow)... can draw and hold deer from miles around and for long periods of time.... Bottom line... the deer eating the surrounding forage are the ones that already live in the area and eat the forage. The largest majority of bait piles are not maintained long enough to draw and hold deer from miles around (not to mention when there are many bait piles spread out it keeps the deer spread out in their normal areas)... now if you had the only bait pile for miles around and kept it maintained year round then perhaps this argument would have more validity.
3. I will agree that salt lick lead to a little bit of environmental impact... dirt gets turned up and holes are dug... there is some vegetation die off... but the real impact is minimal... Per the Missoulian article I am sure there are some large salt licks out there... But I have covered a ton of miles in the woods and the biggest one I have ever seen was maybe 6x6...and that was just one.... and while I do see them... it's not like I am tripping over them everywhere I go....and I have walked many miles in the Colville National Forest (I hate to say it because ranchers are usually our friends but the Cattle is what seems to harm the natural habitat the most)
4. The hunter to shooter continuum is laughable at best because it's completely subjective. I will take five of the most serious baiters I know and put them up against any other hunters knowledge of deer biology and behavior. On my continuum a "shooter" is someone who kills a deer that they never knew existed (which I think is nothing to be ashamed of) the maximum "hunter" on my continum is someone who kills individual animals they are very familiar with (i.e. they have history with, they understand a lot about the biology, behaviors and patterns of this animal). Of course baiting isn't required to achieve this but I can guarantee that a higher percentage of people who bait fall into that category.
That being said.. I don't think I am right... and I don't think they are wrong on the continuum .... I think it's a matter of preference which is why hunters should stop trying to take away what other hunters enjoy.
5. Regarding the "non-hunting" public" choosing for us... Perhaps... But I can guarantee if they see any weakness in our resolve on any issue they are going to take it away... So the reality is that it's our fellow hunters who attack other hunters right who will be to blame for our losses.. Yes... those opposed to baiting, and other issues.
Below is a direct quote from Gordon Whittington, Editor-in-Chief of North American Whitetail Magazine regarding this baiting issues. I don't know anyone more knowledgeable on whitetails.... and he is good friends with "Dr. Deer"... (Dr. James Kroll) so I am sure they have had many conversations on topics like this:
"Regardless of species or location, I feel hunting regulations should mainly be based on building/maintaining a population in balance with its habitat. Within that very loose framework, set regs to allow for maximum recreational opportunity. In short, if a population is healthy, allow a wide range of management and hunting tools that don't jeopardize the species (or human safety, obviously). I've seen nothing that suggests baiting whitetails is a threat to either."
I have said this before and I will say it again:
The WDFW's "random" sampling on the baiting issue is garbage. They have already admitted they do not have scientific data to support a ban and that instead this is a "social issue"...their words.. .not mine......
Let me demonstrate the flaw in their "population" (Deer Hunters) for the phone survey they are putting so much weight on and the flaw in their logic............ Imagine this...... If they randomly polled "deer hunters" and the majority said we should ban bowhunting (because the majority of hunters in WA only hunt with a rifle) then WDFW is saying this is a social issue that should be addressed by the commission and considered for banning.... That is literally the same logic they are using to address this baiting issue.
If WDFW does decide to do a study on baiting I bet they won't focus it on the average bait habits used by the largest majority of hunters..... if they did... I guarantee the impacts will be minimal to non-existent. There is a large percentage of deer in our national forest that are dying of natural causes...despite all the baiting.... I know this for a fact.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2015, 12:59:26 PM
That is exactly what i posted. I am really upset that they are not requiring Wild ID# like they have in the past. Ive made a fair number of surveys and i can tell you that the main reason why they dont require it is because they dont view SPORTSMEN and thier main focus. Thier numbers are pure BS and people should see right through it.
IF they really felt the need to "know" how the general population feels they should have wild ID# optional so that they can seperate out those who have a vested financial interst from those who dont. Either they have some one incompetent putting this stuff together or it is willful manipulation... I saw that happen on projects i worked on for the University. Makes me sick...
Post by: bobcat on February 10, 2015, 01:09:15 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 10, 2015, 01:18:19 PM
They said that they surveyed "deer hunters" and "elk hunters" by phone. So wouldn't all of those people have WILD ID numbers? I guess I just don't understand where this theory is coming from. :dunno:
Maybe he means people who submit comments online :dunno:
Other than that, I wouldn't know
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2015, 01:20:47 PM
My comments reflect what i know about survey construction and interpreation of the results. Since the Department required them in the past, why are they not doing so now?
I might add that I wrote several people at the WDFW and complemented them on the Wild ID requirement and know several other who did as well.
If you have ever done a survey you will note that the "demographics" portion of the survey(normally beginning or end) can be extensive. The reason for this is trying to determing what factors influence purchase choice given the influences. The Department has acess to really powerful information to determine how WildID holder react to certain changes in seasons, baglimits, price etc. Mostly because they hold all the information. In aggreagate they can find out how many changed weapon types, seasons, tags bought etc. Since much of the information is mandatory the ammount of great information they could gleen should be endless.
Im not saying that I could gleen all this information but i do understand that they are NOT asking the right questions Ignorace & Purposefully doing so are the only choices. Neither are good.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2015, 01:25:04 PM
They said that they surveyed "deer hunters" and "elk hunters" by phone. So wouldn't all of those people have WILD ID numbers? I guess I just don't understand where this theory is coming from. :dunno:
when you get into statistics What the definition of an "elk/deer hunter" is important, and HOW they determine that person is one is EXTREAMLY important. My wild ID number doesn't have my phone number attached to it... So how did they come up with the numbers?
These questions can seem petty and insignificant but they can have a HUGE impact on the numbers... Considering the numbers they gave us from this "Survey" I would imagine that one or several of these details are skewing the results... Likely by design...
Post by: bobcat on February 10, 2015, 01:33:12 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 10, 2015, 02:59:05 PM
The phone survey still seems odd to me that it was the polar opposite of what the online results were. Makes me think something was fishy in who was called or what questions were asked.
Post by: drk9988 on February 10, 2015, 08:31:07 PM
6:00 and 11:44 talks a little about the surveys.. 28:30 starts talk about these numbers from phone survey on baiting 30:29 on baiting and how baiting is defined.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2015, 09:28:02 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/audio/20140926_05.mp3 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/09/audio/20140926_05.mp3)
6:00 and 11:44 talks a little about the surveys.. 28:30 starts talk about these numbers from phone survey on baiting 30:29 on baiting and how baiting is defined.
Thank you for doing that footwork. :tup: This is why Hunt Wa is such a great tool.
The definition of hunters is SELF defined and opens up a lot of possibilities as to who is considered a hunter. I mus also add that this survey was posed to the general public for opinion. It is stated right at 6:05 that is a general public opinion survey...
As bobcat said i went back and looked and he is correct that my phone number is in their database. So the question is WHY would the WDFW NOT use the numbers at their disposal and instead use a general opinion survey and pass it off as "The hunters have spoken!" The fact is that at the end of every season the WDFW has a captive audience that is REQUIRED to fill out paperwork to avoid Administrative fine for not giving them the information.
The Public opinion survey may be important for some questions, however stating that hunters speak with any authority through it is dishonest. It does however give everyone a really good view of how the general public views Sportsmen.
So the PURPOSE of the survey is NOT to survey hunters, but it is a PUBLIC OPINION survey about hunters. This difference is very important because the Intent of the survey and how its being used in the current manner are NOT Accurate. So i didnt listen to all 50 min but i did listen to a good chunk say 20 min or so. The "Findings" from this survey of the goes into great depth about how satisfied hunters are on every imaginable aspect of hunting in Washington state. How valuable/accurate can this information be? At 11:10 the interviewee points out how unreliable the definition of a hunter is his actual work is "Caution"... This is a HUGE red flag for EVERYTHING that is said about what hunters think and nearly everything that follows in the interview.
Let that sink in..
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2015, 09:32:16 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 10, 2015, 09:45:02 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2015, 09:51:35 PM
So, basically, what we've learned is that the terms "deer hunters" and "elk hunters" used in this statement is 100% inaccurate?I don't think there's any way to assess it without knowing more about how they selected their sample. I haven't read of anyone on Hunt WA that was contacted. If the sample was random, there should have been multiple members contacted.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2015, 10:55:36 PM
Basically there is NO way to verify that those who "say" they hunted actually hunted. Not once, every year, NEVER or just walked in the woods or sat in the duck blind.
If you need clarification please LISTEN to the audio it is very revealing if you pay attention. The devil is always in the details... ESPECIALLY in survey/statistical work. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on February 11, 2015, 07:31:38 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 11, 2015, 09:45:11 AM
So it is basically like the initiatives in 1996 that asked the general public about trapping, hunting with hounds and baiting bears. Wildlife management should not be left up to the clueless voters of this state. .......wdfw should realize this and maybe do.Exactly, what gets me is they did the online survey and that was pretty clear that people wanted no change in baiting rules. Why the phone survey and why is there only one person on Hunt-Wa that was contacted? Really seems fishy.
Post by: BABackcountryBwhntr on February 11, 2015, 10:02:03 AM
Post by: Curly on February 11, 2015, 10:21:46 AM
:dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on February 11, 2015, 10:30:27 AM
Caller 2: “Let me see what I can do. I’ve got a focus group that’s helped us out before with these types of issues. I used them when we implemented the change to special permits back in 2010. It allowed us to say we had ‘broad public support’ for it. What a hoot.”
Caller 1: “Thanks Dave. That would be great. How quickly can you get the results? We have a commission meeting coming up.”
Caller 2: “I’ll get on it. I almost forgot to ask: what do you want the results to be?”
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 11, 2015, 11:10:15 AM
Caller 1: “Hi Dave. We need to get some data on hunters’ perceptions of baiting for deer and elk in Washington. Can you help?”
Caller 2: “Let me see what I can do. I’ve got a focus group that’s helped us out before with these types of issues. I used them when we implemented the change to special permits back in 2010. It allowed us to say we had ‘broad public support’ for it. What a hoot.”
Caller 1: “Thanks Dave. That would be great. How quickly can you get the results? We have a commission meeting coming up.”
Caller 2: “I’ll get on it. I almost forgot to ask: what do you want the results to be?”
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:yike:
:puke:
Post by: BABackcountryBwhntr on February 11, 2015, 11:22:47 AM
You might try: Nate Pamplin Nathan.Pamplin@dfw.wa.gov 360-902-2693
:dunno:
Just left him a message
Post by: mfswallace on February 11, 2015, 08:41:37 PM
You might try: Nate Pamplin Nathan.Pamp lin@dfw.wa.gov 360-902-2693
:dunno:
Just left him a message
Let us know
Post by: Little Dave on February 12, 2015, 12:19:56 AM
King County has about 30% the population of the state. That doesn't mean that it has 30% of the hunters, but it should have at least 10%. The survey demographics don't show anything like that. Then there are 7 surveys taken by people that live in California, 5 from Oregon... but just 6 taken by deer hunters that live in any of the NE counties (Okanogan, Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille)... and 4 from the SE counties (Adams, Franklin, Whitman, Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla).
I suspect the fraud may have been accomplished this way: A master list of phone numbers was prepared for the survey taking company, the survey company made random selections from the prepared list. However the prepared list was not a representative sample. This way the survey taking company can legitimately claim that they called random phone numbers.
If the survey was conducted in a scientific manner with a representative sampling, we should expect a similar result. I doubt a properly conducted survey would produce a result like this.
Post by: Special T on February 12, 2015, 08:15:26 AM
If you want to know what the general public thinks its likely OK. WHEN they infer that it represent hunters and then uses it to make policy recommendations THEN there is a HUGE problem. This is done willfully or because of ignorance. In each case it does not reflect on the department in a positive way.
Post by: Curly on February 12, 2015, 08:21:25 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 12, 2015, 09:44:52 AM
Demographics in this survey don't make sense. I suspect fraud.
King County has about 30% the population of the state. That doesn't mean that it has 30% of the hunters, but it should have at least 10%. The survey demographics don't show anything like that. Then there are 7 surveys taken by people that live in California, 5 from Oregon... but just 6 taken by deer hunters that live in any of the NE counties (Okanogan, Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille)... and 4 from the SE counties (Adams, Franklin, Whitman, Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla).
I suspect the fraud may have been accomplished this way: A master list of phone numbers was prepared for the survey taking company, the survey company made random selections from the prepared list. However the prepared list was not a representative sample. This way the survey taking company can legitimately claim that they called random phone numbers.
If the survey was conducted in a scientific manner with a representative sampling, we should expect a similar result. I doubt a properly conducted survey would produce a result like this.
Even it it's not "fraud"...there is no doubt that it is "flawed"... there is no doubt about that and if baiting is restricted in any way based off this type of data we need to bring a law suit on the state.
They are literally saying this is simply a "social issue". However... here is the deal.. This "social issue"... isn't "harming" others... Therefore they are literally attempting to take away a recreational opportunity enjoyed by many for no reason at all except for the fact that a certain percentage of people ( in many cases fellow hunters) don't like this method enjoyed by others.... very flawed.... very, very flawed.... especially when this is going to harm local businesses and rural economies... Business owners and city/county leaders need to be informed how this is going to impact them... If this goes through I alone will not be 8K-10K per year minimum (food, hotels, bait, sporting goods etc) that I alone will not be spending in towns like Kettle Falls, Colville, Chewelah, and Ione... I'm probably on the high end of spending but I would venture to say that a lot of guys are spending $2-3K plus. Replenishing bait sites requires me to spend a lot more time in those areas than I would otherwise which means more dollars spent. When I run mock scrapes licking branches (which is what I will be doing if this goes through) requires me to visit them far, far less....which means a lot less money spent (and honestly I may just stick closer to home and hunt near agriculture because baiting in the mountains is the unique experience I travel there for)
They have admitted this is based on no scientific data that they have collected. Hunters have plenty of data in the form of trail cam photos of the same deer year after year (5,6,7 years) to show these deer are thriving just fine with the minimal amount of baiting (in the whole scheme of things) that takes place in and around hunting season.)... If they ever do collect "data".. I guarantee it won't be based off of the baiting that is done during hunting but rather late winter "mercy" feedings, etc... or just the basic concept that the close proximity of animals from feeding/baiting could "potentially" spread disease (without any strong data that this is actually happening in WA and/or creating a valid threat to the herd) If they did a legitimate study what they will find in almost all instances is that the animals coming to the bait sites are part of the local herd (aside from the rut)....and since they are the local herd they are actually constantly coming into contact with each other (touching noses, licking, etc.... deer are social animals)... .If they do a study based off of baiting that is done for the purposes of hunting in WA they will find there is no reason to ban baiting based off of any legitimate threat to our deer herd.... Whatever data they do collect will be with their agenda in mind so it is already likely to be skewed.
If I believed for one second that this was harming our herd I wouldn't have a single issue with giving this up. The fact is I have years of photographic and observational experience with these whitetail (in particular), elk and mule deer to know that baiting for the purpose of hunting is not harming the herd.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 12, 2015, 10:20:21 AM
Post by: Special T on February 12, 2015, 11:44:34 AM
Post by: BABackcountryBwhntr on February 12, 2015, 02:19:45 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 12, 2015, 03:20:52 PM
I have the email with all the survey info, if you guys want it give me your email, I will forward it.
daniel93077@yahoo.com
Thank you.
Post by: BABackcountryBwhntr on February 12, 2015, 03:36:56 PM
I have the email with all the survey info, if you guys want it give me your email, I will forward it.
daniel93077@yahoo.com
Thank you.
Sent
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 12, 2015, 03:48:43 PM
I have the email with all the survey info, if you guys want it give me your email, I will forward it.
daniel93077@yahoo.com
Thank you.
Thank you
Sent
Post by: Little Dave on February 14, 2015, 12:16:20 PM
A number of the other questions seemed to coach one group of hunters against others. Like, "How many days should the archery season be reduced?" Or like, "How many days should the modern firearm season be reduced?" Shall other user groups pay a new access fee for this or that? Etc.
The demographic component of the survey is an important double-check for accuracy. To repeat the result, which is a principal theme in the scientific method, the next survey taker would need to poll a similar demographic where King County has fewer responses than Clark County and hardly any responses from rural Eastern Washington. Or the converse, hunting licenses should be allocated in this manner to reflect the prescribed demographic.
It is as clear as day that this is a fraud. If the deception works, the technique will be used again. It needs to be called out.
In commenting on the survey it is important to agree that the survey was conducted and analyzed by the survey taker in a scientific manner, with the exception that there was no reasonable explanation for the strange demographic result. With a demographic result that does not resemble the population, the survey results should not be used as a foundation for rule-making exercises.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 14, 2015, 02:01:55 PM
Another peculiar thing about this survey is how many of the hundreds of questions had relatively normal results, except for the two questions about baiting. These two questions (one for deer, one for elk) had bar graph results showing "somewhat opposed" standing out as awkward as an embarrassed boy in a swim lesson class.
A number of the other questions seemed to coach one group of hunters against others. Like, "How many days should the archery season be reduced?" Or like, "How many days should the modern firearm season be reduced?" Shall other user groups pay a new access fee for this or that? Etc.
The demographic component of the survey is an important double-check for accuracy. To repeat the result, which is a principal theme in the scientific method, the next survey taker would need to poll a similar demographic where King County has fewer responses than Clark County and hardly any responses from rural Eastern Washington. Or the converse, hunting licenses should be allocated in this manner to reflect the prescribed demographic.
It is as clear as day that this is a fraud. If the deception works, the technique will be used again. It needs to be called out.
In commenting on the survey it is important to agree that the survey was conducted and analyzed by the survey taker in a scientific manner, with the exception that there was no reasonable explanation for the strange demographic result. With a demographic result that does not resemble the population, the survey results should not be used as a foundation for rule-making exercises.
The offered that "somewhat opposed" option so they could draw people away from being a supporter and then they could combine the data of strongly and somewhat opposed and say (xx percent of hunters oppose baiting in some way)...It's the oldest trick in the book..... They knew that a lot of people who don't bait but would not support a ban but those people people probably do support some kind of regulation on baiting therefore they would be the "somewhat opposed"..... it basically weakened the numbers for those that want no restrictions.
And you are exactly right... the more I read the questionnaire the more I realized that WDFW frame the questions in a manner to pit hunters against each other... they put the questions in a way that shows their overall agenda is to lower hunter opportunity....sure..they dangle a few carrots for us in other areas... but those carrots will eventually go away too.
..and as you pointed out...there are all kinds of flaws with their survey...which would certainly be brought up in a law suit.
Post by: Special T on February 14, 2015, 06:13:40 PM
One of my Professors that owned a marketing firm, before he decided to try something different and teach, said that most of the time surveys are not a truly trying to discover op-pinons but to provide support for an existing view point. I personally have a couple of experiences where that was the case with a government institution. This Marketing firm had to be accommodating some BS from the department.
Post by: Little Dave on February 14, 2015, 09:25:13 PM
I'd like to see a court order to prevent this survey from being used for consideration, and public records inquiry to see communications related to preparation of the list of phone numbers to call.
Post by: Special T on February 15, 2015, 07:57:50 AM
This is the BEST scenario that could take place. The department would know that the data is not completely accurate in regards to hunters.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 19, 2015, 10:37:52 AM
Post by: Odell on February 19, 2015, 10:58:37 AM
They are literally saying this is simply a "social issue". However... here is the deal.. This "social issue"... isn't "harming" others... Therefore they are literally attempting to take away a recreational opportunity enjoyed by many for no reason at all except for the fact that a certain percentage of people ( in many cases fellow hunters) don't like this method enjoyed by others.... very flawed.... very, very flawed.... especially when this is going to harm local businesses and rural economies... Business owners and city/county leaders need to be informed how this is going to impact them... If this goes through I alone will not be 8K-10K per year minimum (food, hotels, bait, sporting goods etc) that I alone will not be spending in towns like Kettle Falls, Colville, Chewelah, and Ione... I'm probably on the high end of spending but I would venture to say that a lot of guys are spending $2-3K plus. Replenishing bait sites requires me to spend a lot more time in those areas than I would otherwise which means more dollars spent. When I run mock scrapes licking branches (which is what I will be doing if this goes through) requires me to visit them far, far less....which means a lot less money spent (and honestly I may just stick closer to home and hunt near agriculture because baiting in the mountains is the unique experience I travel there for)
They have admitted this is based on no scientific data that they have collected. Hunters have plenty of data in the form of trail cam photos of the same deer year after year (5,6,7 years) to show these deer are thriving just fine with the minimal amount of baiting (in the whole scheme of things) that takes place in and around hunting season.)... If they ever do collect "data".. I guarantee it won't be based off of the baiting that is done during hunting but rather late winter "mercy" feedings, etc... or just the basic concept that the close proximity of animals from feeding/baiting could "potentially" spread disease (without any strong data that this is actually happening in WA and/or creating a valid threat to the herd) If they did a legitimate study what they will find in almost all instances is that the animals coming to the bait sites are part of the local herd (aside from the rut)....and since they are the local herd they are actually constantly coming into contact with each other (touching noses, licking, etc.... deer are social animals)... .If they do a study based off of baiting that is done for the purposes of hunting in WA they will find there is no reason to ban baiting based off of any legitimate threat to our deer herd.... Whatever data they do collect will be with their agenda in mind so it is already likely to be skewed.
If I believed for one second that this was harming our herd I wouldn't have a single issue with giving this up. The fact is I have years of photographic and observational experience with these whitetail (in particular), elk and mule deer to know that baiting for the purpose of hunting is not harming the herd.
I would love to hear the definition of 'social issue' and the justification for regulation accordingly.
Anything can be framed this way and then regulated. They could eliminate entire fisheries, or hunting and fishing altogether if the only justification is that it becomes a 'social issue.'
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 19, 2015, 11:00:46 AM
They are literally saying this is simply a "social issue". However... here is the deal.. This "social issue"... isn't "harming" others... Therefore they are literally attempting to take away a recreational opportunity enjoyed by many for no reason at all except for the fact that a certain percentage of people ( in many cases fellow hunters) don't like this method enjoyed by others.... very flawed.... very, very flawed.... especially when this is going to harm local businesses and rural economies... Business owners and city/county leaders need to be informed how this is going to impact them... If this goes through I alone will not be 8K-10K per year minimum (food, hotels, bait, sporting goods etc) that I alone will not be spending in towns like Kettle Falls, Colville, Chewelah, and Ione... I'm probably on the high end of spending but I would venture to say that a lot of guys are spending $2-3K plus. Replenishing bait sites requires me to spend a lot more time in those areas than I would otherwise which means more dollars spent. When I run mock scrapes licking branches (which is what I will be doing if this goes through) requires me to visit them far, far less....which means a lot less money spent (and honestly I may just stick closer to home and hunt near agriculture because baiting in the mountains is the unique experience I travel there for)
They have admitted this is based on no scientific data that they have collected. Hunters have plenty of data in the form of trail cam photos of the same deer year after year (5,6,7 years) to show these deer are thriving just fine with the minimal amount of baiting (in the whole scheme of things) that takes place in and around hunting season.)... If they ever do collect "data".. I guarantee it won't be based off of the baiting that is done during hunting but rather late winter "mercy" feedings, etc... or just the basic concept that the close proximity of animals from feeding/baiting could "potentially" spread disease (without any strong data that this is actually happening in WA and/or creating a valid threat to the herd) If they did a legitimate study what they will find in almost all instances is that the animals coming to the bait sites are part of the local herd (aside from the rut)....and since they are the local herd they are actually constantly coming into contact with each other (touching noses, licking, etc.... deer are social animals)... .If they do a study based off of baiting that is done for the purposes of hunting in WA they will find there is no reason to ban baiting based off of any legitimate threat to our deer herd.... Whatever data they do collect will be with their agenda in mind so it is already likely to be skewed.
If I believed for one second that this was harming our herd I wouldn't have a single issue with giving this up. The fact is I have years of photographic and observational experience with these whitetail (in particular), elk and mule deer to know that baiting for the purpose of hunting is not harming the herd.
I would love to hear the definition of 'social issue' and the justification for regulation accordingly.
Anything can be framed this way and then regulated. They could eliminate entire fisheries, or hunting and fishing altogether if the only justification is that it becomes a 'social issue.'
Exactly... that is why it is so ridiculous that they bring it up every few years to be considered for banning... It's obviously more of a personal agenda for some well connected people more than anything else.
Post by: huntnphool on February 19, 2015, 01:28:30 PM
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 01:32:49 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 19, 2015, 01:52:14 PM
Are there any guarantees that all the people contacted for the survey were actually Washington residents? :dunno:i would rather they survey nonresidents that buy licenses to hunt in wa than resident nonhunters when setting our hunting laws. I know that this may be a small percentage but i dont think they should be disqualified just because they live elsewhere.
I read through and comment on idahos proposals each year because i hunt there amd they affect me.
Not at all saying we should only survey nrs or survey all nrs but just that they shouldnt be dqed from it if they do hunt here.
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2015, 02:08:20 PM
Post by: Curly on February 19, 2015, 02:20:22 PM
The "Eastons" have largely passed over WA when reporting hunting for elk for out of state hunters. Too expensive and too poor of managment.
I bash wdfw all the time for mismanagement, but they do have their hands full in this state. They have the tribes, wolf huggers, tree huggers, and hunters to try to appease all of them. Seems like most of their management is left up to public opinion instead of biology. Spike elk hunting is what we get when no one wants to go to permit only for eastern WA elk.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 19, 2015, 02:34:41 PM
The "Eastons" have largely passed over WA when reporting hunting for elk for out of state hunters. Too expensive and too poor of managment.
I bash wdfw all the time for mismanagement, but they do have their hands full in this state. They have the tribes, wolf huggers, tree huggers, and hunters to try to appease all of them. Seems like most of their management is left up to public opinion instead of biology. Spike elk hunting is what we get when no one wants to go to permit only for eastern WA elk.
They certainly seem the least science based game management organization I have ever seen when it comes to managing whitetail... I can say that for sure.
Post by: huntnphool on February 19, 2015, 04:29:54 PM
The "Eastons" have largely passed over WA when reporting hunting for elk for out of state hunters. Too expensive and too poor of managment.
I bash wdfw all the time for mismanagement, but they do have their hands full in this state. They have the tribes, wolf huggers, tree huggers, and hunters to try to appease all of them. Seems like most of their management is left up to public opinion instead of biology. Spike elk hunting is what we get when no one wants to go to permit only for eastern WA elk.
They certainly seem the least science based game management organization I have ever seen when it comes to managing whitetail... I can say that for sure.
How about the "science based game management" they implimented in the Methow this year, their poor foresight isn't limited to whitetail I can assure you.
Post by: TeacherMan on March 02, 2015, 03:20:22 PM
Post by: 4fletch on March 02, 2015, 06:45:00 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on March 02, 2015, 11:11:06 PM
I think a lot of the proposals are already decided
:yeah:
On more than one occasion I have heard this one was....from sources within WDFW. I don't know if it's truth or rumor mill within the organization.
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 03, 2015, 09:06:55 AM
I think a lot of the proposals are already decided
:yeah:
On more than one occasion I have heard this one was....from sources within WDFW. I don't know if it's truth or rumor mill within the organization.
So what is the consensus on their decision?
Post by: TeacherMan on March 03, 2015, 12:49:59 PM
I think a lot of the proposals are already decided
:yeah:
On more than one occasion I have heard this one was....from sources within WDFW. I don't know if it's truth or rumor mill within the organization.
So what is the consensus on their decision?
Ya that... Wondering if deer baiting with apples will now be a no go
Post by: police women of America on March 18, 2015, 09:29:55 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on March 18, 2015, 09:40:06 AM
so is baiting deer/elk legal now? I tried looking it up and couldn't find anything.Yes
Post by: mburrows on March 18, 2015, 09:42:27 AM
so is baiting deer/elk legal now? I tried looking it up and couldn't find anything.It's always been legal in WA.
Post by: 4fletch on March 18, 2015, 01:04:56 PM
Post by: police women of America on March 18, 2015, 02:41:02 PM
Post by: bowtechian on March 19, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
I wish they would limit the comment and surveys to those who pay ie use your wild-id to be able to do so just so the huggers & anti's can't flood it with their bsAre there any guarantees that all the people contacted for the survey were actually Washington residents? :dunno:i would rather they survey nonresidents that buy licenses to hunt in wa than resident nonhunters when setting our hunting laws. I know that this may be a small percentage but i dont think they should be disqualified just because they live elsewhere.
I read through and comment on idahos proposals each year because i hunt there amd they affect me.
Not at all saying we should only survey nrs or survey all nrs but just that they shouldnt be dqed from it if they do hunt here.
Post by: Britt-dog on March 19, 2015, 11:09:30 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,171839.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,171839.0.html)
Post by: mfswallace on March 20, 2015, 10:55:12 AM
I wish they would limit the comment and surveys to those who pay ie use your wild-id to be able to do so just so the huggers & anti's can't flood it with their bsAre there any guarantees that all the people contacted for the survey were actually Washington residents? :dunno:i would rather they survey nonresidents that buy licenses to hunt in wa than resident nonhunters when setting our hunting laws. I know that this may be a small percentage but i dont think they should be disqualified just because they live elsewhere.
I read through and comment on idahos proposals each year because i hunt there amd they affect me.
Not at all saying we should only survey nrs or survey all nrs but just that they shouldnt be dqed from it if they do hunt here.
Good point to bring up at meeting :tup:
And not base decisions on political or sentimental reasons