Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2015, 07:08:34 PM
-Will allow those who have a hunter companion card to actually kill game on behalf of the disabled hunter. Current law basically says the disabled hunter must shoot the animal and the companion can deliver a kill shot
-Institute a $20 fee for Master Hunter deer and elk tags
-Institute a $20 fee for elk and deer damage tags
-Removes the discount small game license fee for those purchasing big game and small game licenses at the same time. Currently if you buy the licenses at the same time the small game fee is $20. Under this bill the fee will be $35 for all purchases, this is the current fee if you didn't purchase it with a big game license.
-Authorizes WDFW to charge a fee for the hunt by reservation system
-Combo fishing license will increase by $1
-Saltwater, freshwater, shellfish and seaweed licenses will increase by $2
-Temporary fishing licenses will increase by $2
-Institutes a commercial fishing crewmember license as is proposed in other bills
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5632.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5632.pdf)
Post by: trophyhunt on January 27, 2015, 07:15:34 PM
Post by: robodad on January 27, 2015, 07:16:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2015, 07:17:54 PM
I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 27, 2015, 07:18:11 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 27, 2015, 07:19:44 PM
That is very interesting, was not aware of that. ThanksI was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.
Post by: bobcat on January 27, 2015, 07:24:10 PM
The small game license- I was already considering not buying it, since I buy it every year and end up having no need for it. I only need it in case I see a bobcat.
This year I may do some waterfowl hunting, but I can now wait until I know I'll be doing that before I purchase the license. (Since there's no benefit to buying it early)
Post by: trophyhunt on January 27, 2015, 07:27:53 PM
Just read this in the 2014 hunting pamphlet; The hunter companion card allows for a person to assist or ACT on behalf of the disabled hunter. The hunter companion must be in the physical presence of the disabled hunter, not to exceed a 1/4 mile separation. While stalking or shooting an animal, the hunter and companion must have a form of reliable and direct communication. The way I read this, it is legal to kill and animal for the disabled hunter? Am I reading it wrong?I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.
Post by: Bob33 on January 27, 2015, 07:45:52 PM
That is very interesting, was not aware of that. ThanksI was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.
I don't agree.
(a) The designated hunter companion must accompany the hunter with a disability when stalking or shooting game on behalf of the hunter with a disability.
Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2015, 07:48:26 PM
Per RCW 77.32.238 the law is: A person with a disability holding a disabled hunter permit may be accompanied by one licensed hunter who may assist the person with a disability by killing game wounded by the person with a disability, and by tagging and retrieving game killed by the person with a disability or the designated licensed hunter companion. A nondisabled hunter shall not possess a loaded gun in, or shoot from, a motor vehicle.Just read this in the 2014 hunting pamphlet; The hunter companion card allows for a person to assist or ACT on behalf of the disabled hunter. The hunter companion must be in the physical presence of the disabled hunter, not to exceed a 1/4 mile separation. While stalking or shooting an animal, the hunter and companion must have a form of reliable and direct communication. The way I read this, it is legal to kill and animal for the disabled hunter? Am I reading it wrong?I was under the impression that the companion card that a disabled person has already allows the card holder to kill the animal for them, as long as they were together or within sight of each other?No. Under current law the disabled hunter must physically shoot/wound the animal, the companion can then deliver the kill shot.
The bill would change "wounded by" to on "behalf of"
Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2015, 07:50:04 PM
Problem is some officers base their judgment off the WAC, other use the RCW.
The WDFW Sergeant in my area uses the RCW. He may not cite an offender because of it, but it is a troublesome area.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 27, 2015, 07:56:27 PM
The problem is the WAC and RCW don't currently match up. The RCW currently says companions can only kill wounded game, the WAC says otherwise.I'd say it's confusing for sure, the regs that must of us hunters abide by say it's legal. I hope this passes so to clear it up at least.
Problem is some officers base their judgment off the WAC, other use the RCW.
The WDFW Sergeant in my area uses the RCW. He may not cite an offender because of it, but it is a troublesome area.
Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2015, 08:01:06 PM
The RCW is the "law" while a WAC is a "regulation." In legal/law studies you are told the law is the more important of the two. It's very similar to the feds who have the US Code (similar to RCW) and the Code of Federal Regulations (similar to WAC.)The problem is the WAC and RCW don't currently match up. The RCW currently says companions can only kill wounded game, the WAC says otherwise.I'd say it's confusing for sure, the regs that must of us hunters abide by say it's legal. I hope this passes so to clear it up at least.
Problem is some officers base their judgment off the WAC, other use the RCW.
The WDFW Sergeant in my area uses the RCW. He may not cite an offender because of it, but it is a troublesome area.
So in this sense you have the law saying you can't do something while a regulation says you can. Okay which is right?
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 27, 2015, 08:07:36 PM
I also thought companion hunters were already allowed to shoot the disabled person's animal. We've done it twice. :yike:
The small game license- I was already considering not buying it, since I buy it every year and end up having no need for it. I only need it in case I see a bobcat.
This year I may do some waterfowl hunting, but I can now wait until I know I'll be doing that before I purchase the license. (Since there's no benefit to buying it early)
Well it appears you will need the small game to hunt turkeys in this state.
Those under a buck birds are looking better at the store everyday.
Post by: Bob33 on January 27, 2015, 09:05:12 PM
My guess is that the number of companion hunters convicted for killing an otherwise legal animal for a disabled hunter is zero.The RCW is the "law" while a WAC is a "regulation." In legal/law studies you are told the law is the more important of the two. It's very similar to the feds who have the US Code (similar to RCW) and the Code of Federal Regulations (similar to WAC.)The problem is the WAC and RCW don't currently match up. The RCW currently says companions can only kill wounded game, the WAC says otherwise.I'd say it's confusing for sure, the regs that must of us hunters abide by say it's legal. I hope this passes so to clear it up at least.
Problem is some officers base their judgment off the WAC, other use the RCW.
The WDFW Sergeant in my area uses the RCW. He may not cite an offender because of it, but it is a troublesome area.
So in this sense you have the law saying you can't do something while a regulation says you can. Okay which is right?
Post by: washelkhunter on January 27, 2015, 09:43:09 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 27, 2015, 09:52:29 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2015, 10:56:10 PM
This bill does nothing more than generate revenue, it is its only purpose.It's not a secret. The actual title of the bill is "increasing revenue to the state wildlife account."
WDFW is getting less tax (general fund) money each budget year. Like it or not, it's becoming more of a user funded agency.
Post by: bobcat on January 27, 2015, 11:40:09 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on January 28, 2015, 10:06:31 AM
NO NO NO!
Post by: Blackjaw on January 28, 2015, 11:01:56 AM
I don't mind paying more every year as long as there is more opportunity, if I have to pay more for less opportunity I get a little perturbed !! 8)
Exactly!!!
Post by: washelkhunter on January 28, 2015, 11:47:02 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2015, 12:52:51 PM
I am opposed to eliminating the small game discount because a lot of people will quit buying the small game. I would be more agreeable if they increased the fee but still had some sort of discount. The goal should be to keep as many people buying all types of hunting licenses as possible, I know some hunters may not agree with that, but hunter numbers have declined over the years, we need to retain and recruit as many hunters as possible for all types of hunting.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 28, 2015, 01:23:44 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2015, 01:27:36 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 28, 2015, 01:46:44 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 28, 2015, 03:09:10 PM
I would be happy to pay even more if hunters had a bigger say in wildlife management and they were working to increase herds. :twocents:
:yeah: x 100
Since that's not the case, stupid SB once again. :twocents:
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 28, 2015, 03:21:36 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on January 28, 2015, 03:36:01 PM
It's too bad that they packaged a good thing, bullet point # 1, with a bunch of money grab items, all the other points.:yeah:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on January 28, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
It's too bad that they packaged a good thing, bullet point # 1, with a bunch of money grab items, all the other points.they lump it all together like that so people will go for it even though they don't like the increases.
Post by: bigtex on January 28, 2015, 06:18:00 PM
If they need more let them tap into the general fund more.Not going to happen in our lifetime, especially with the McCleary decision which says the state needs to pump billions more into K-12 education.
Post by: Man Tracker on January 28, 2015, 07:59:08 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 28, 2015, 09:11:35 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 28, 2015, 11:16:11 PM
I would be happy to pay even more if hunters had a bigger say in wildlife management and they were working to increase herds. :twocents:
:yeah: x 100
Since that's not the case, stupid SB once again. :twocents:
:yeah:
Post by: Special T on February 02, 2015, 06:11:23 PM
There are many who purchase the combo earlier in the year than they normally would due to special permitt tags OR buy just because. I think you will see a drop in small game sales as a result.
I would love to do some research on how bear cougar tags sales declined when they took away the Deer or Elk + Bear&Cougar tags. I know that i only bought the deer small game combo because I no longer travel or take time off for elk hunting. (no elk hunting near me) I know that if this passes Im likley to buy the deer tag last min. I only ended up deer hunting 1 mornign this year, and likley wouldnt have even bothered if i had not already bought the small game/deer combo. Likely i will just bird hunt, and only get a deer tag if i can fit it into my everfilling weekend schedual. I bet if you could get ahold of the raw data, including the end of year seasons that you would find the WDFW recives a LOT of $ on tags/activites that sportmen only do occasionally. I know my hunting has become more focused because of increasing costs, and less personal time. I would bet that many hunters have quit hunting much the same way.
The trends are in the raw numbers that the WDFW has available but they sure dont make much use of it from a Marketing perspective.... Just another way I think the department fails. :twocents:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 02, 2015, 06:21:23 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on February 02, 2015, 06:36:04 PM
Post by: oneshot12 on February 03, 2015, 09:14:28 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on February 03, 2015, 02:45:46 PM
It's a spending problem. Increasing revenue won't fix a problem spender.
NO!
Post by: actionshooter on February 03, 2015, 08:48:25 PM
Almost done in this state. I don't need to hunt in WA. It is cheaper for me to hunt in Idaho as a non res than a res in WA.
That's how I feel.
Post by: timberfaller on February 05, 2015, 08:49:46 AM
Our Hunter ED IST last year was on just this!! There are more(WAC vs RCW non-matching) then one realizes and it makes mass confusion for LEO's to sort out. That is why it's important NOT to be arrogant, you know what, around a Warden.
Like any/all money grabbers in Olympia, they all "sugar coat" ideas, looking for the LIV'S who will not question their efforts so they can get their desires, aka: more money.
AND YES its past time to split the department back to what it was before the Fish people got their eyes on the Pittman/Robertson monies!! Oh that's right, it was done to SAVE money, silly me :chuckle: