Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 01:28:33 AM
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
A bait site must:
- Be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway, if visible from that roadway
- No less than 50 yards from a running or seasonal stream
- No less than 100 yards from a private residence without owner approval
- Have no more than 6 cubic feet of material placed within a 24 hour period
REVISED OPTION (after input from forum members)
Baiting Restrictions
- Bait placed less than 400 yards from a public roadway cannot be visible from the road
- Bait cannot be placed in a lake, pond, or running stream
- Bait sites cannot have more than 8 cubic feet* of bait placed within a 16 hour period
LATEST REVISION (after more input from forum members)
Baiting Restrictions
- Bait placed on public land cannot be visible from less than 400 yards of an open public road
- Bait cannot be placed in a lake, pond, or running stream
- Bait sites cannot have more than 8 cubic feet* of bait placed any calendar day
* 8 cubic feet = 59 Gallons = one bale 16"x18"x48"
Hunters on private land are encouraged to place bait out of sight from neighboring homes and passing traffic. Hunters on public land are encouraged to remove stands, blinds, and any remaining bait when hunting season closes.
This topic is meant to find a workable solution. If you are totally opposed to baiting or unwilling to discuss reasonable rules, please do not comment in this topic, start your own topic please. Rants or provoking remarks will be removed! We welcome positive and negative remarks that are constructive. If you have a baiting situation that will not work under any of these rules please explain why and offer a reasonable solution?
Post by: benhuntin on March 21, 2015, 07:54:38 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on March 21, 2015, 08:03:07 AM
From a guides perspective point, I see your thoughts. Complicated laws tend to get passed under the table these more than a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
I was talking to Todd_Id on the phone tonight about possible solutions to the baiting issue. We asked ourselves what are some simple baiting rules that the average hunter and guides might be able to live with? Some rules that are simple to understand, easy to follow, and easy for LE to enforce? Here is a possible answer, please offer your comments why these points might work or not work.
A bait site must:
- Be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway, if visible from that roadway
- No less than 50 yards from a running or seasonal stream
- No less than 100 yards from a private residence without owner approval
- Have no more than 6 cubic feet of material placed within a 24 hour period
Post by: grundy53 on March 21, 2015, 08:06:37 AM
Post by: Jingles on March 21, 2015, 08:06:49 AM
Sorry but with the number of Road Kills here in the Methow we sure don't need them being drawn closer to the roads plus why make it easier for the road hunters? ( you know the ones I mean the ones to lazy to get out of the vehicles) . I personally would prefer not closer than 1/2 mile to a public road or right of way
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 08:14:55 AM
Visible is gonna be a seasonal thing sometimes. Making it a 1/4 mile is gonna be tough for a person in a wheelchair that would like to hunt/bait a bait setup.
If using containers even if it is a feeder not less than 400 yards from the maintained portion of a public road or right of way and NOT Visible.
Sorry but with the number of Road Kills here in the Methow we sure don't need them being drawn closer to the roads plus why make it easier for the road hunters? ( you know the ones I mean the ones to lazy to get out of the vehicles) . I personally would prefer not closer than 1/2 mile to a public road or right of way
Thank you for replying, we need input! :tup:
Yes, visible could vary, but visible is very relevant to this issue. You know the old saying "Out of sight, Out of Mind", if baiting is out of sight it won't disturb nearly as many people. Since one of the issues is social acceptance then getting bait out of sight would likely be a good step. We tried to come up with a distance that would lessen the issue of people driving by suburban areas and seeing an obnoxious looking pile of bait, yet be workable in open country areas. Under this rule small landowners close towns where game needs to be harvested could bait by simply keeping their bait out of sight from the road. In Colville where I live deer are a problem, this must be true in western WA as well, cities are constantly faced with how to reduce deer populations, if the rule makes it impossible to bait within 400 yards of any road that would greatly increase the problem of too many deer in suburban areas where deer need hunted.
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 08:32:50 AM
Not to argue, but I don't feel your points would be "simple to understand, easy to follow, and easy for LR to enforce. With in 50 yards from a running or seasonal stream would be the easiest of your points to understand. Would this also include lakes and rivers? Wouldn't it deter an LE to take action to investigate if he had to make a decision of exactly a 1/4 of a mile is, without extensive map and computer work? What if my neighbor allowed somebody to bait on his property only 50 yds away from my house? I might not want that, but on the other end he might argue the fact it's on his private property and he's doing as he pleases. Another headache imo that is going to make the LE irritated with the clause. Lastly, how would an LE determine 6 cubic feet in the field? If he determines the person has 7 cubic feet, do you think the LE is going to really ticket the guy with all these new implemented rules?
From a guides perspective point, I see your thoughts. Complicated laws tend to get passed under the table these more than a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
Good points! :tup:
Water: Yes, the wording may need a slight change to include lakes, I will offer another suggestion in the first post.
LE: I think if the LE has reason to believe they can proceed. If LE is on a roadway and the rangefinder says 300 yds to a visible bait, pretty cut and dried.
Homes: Trying to eliminate problems from neighboring homes that might have to view ugly bait sites bait from their home. If you feel 100 yards is unworkable then what distance would be better?
Quantity: The key here is "placed within a 24 hour period", this prevents someone from dumping a truckload at one time. If someone is observed unloading a truckload then write a ticket.
I did some research and 6 cf might need to be 8 cf:
A large small bale that might weigh 100ish pounds might measure 16x18x48 = 13824 ci / 1728 = 8 cubic feet
8 cubic feet X 7.48052 gallon = 59.85 Gallons (that fills a 55 Gallon Drum)
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 08:40:23 AM
Visible is gonna be a seasonal thing sometimes. Making it a 1/4 mile is gonna be tough for a person in a wheelchair that would like to hunt/bait a bait setup.If using containers even if it is a feeder not less than 400 yards from the maintained portion of a public road or right of way and NOT Visible.
Sorry but with the number of Road Kills here in the Methow we sure don't need them being drawn closer to the roads plus why make it easier for the road hunters? ( you know the ones I mean the ones to lazy to get out of the vehicles) . I personally would prefer not closer than 1/2 mile to a public road or right of way
Thank you for replying, we need input! :tup:
Yes, visible could vary, but visible is very relevant to this issue. You know the old saying "Out of sight, Out of Mind", if baiting is out of sight it won't disturb nearly as many people. Since one of the issues is social acceptance then getting bait out of sight would likely be a good step. We tried to come up with a distance that would lessen the issue of people driving by suburban areas and seeing an obnoxious looking pile of bait, yet be workable in open country areas. Under this rule small landowners close towns where game needs to be harvested could bait by simply keeping their bait out of sight from the road. In Colville where I live deer are a problem, this must be true in western WA as well, cities are constantly faced with how to reduce deer populations, if the rule makes it impossible to bait within 400 yards of any road that would greatly increase the problem of too many deer in suburban areas where deer need hunted.
Bearpaw
While I see your point about being able to Possibly cull the in town problem deer population even if baiting was allowed within 100 feet of a road, in this area most all road side property close to where the problem deer are is private and more and more of the property owners are flower sniffing, granola eating, wolf and wild animal loving Subaru driving 60's hippie wannabes
I will use myself as an example, we have a prolific deer population in my neighborhood, I live about 2 miles from the city limits and have three small parcels of land, 2 1/2 acres, 8 acres, and 22 acres. We take 1 to 4 deer off these properties every year and not all, but some other neighbors hunt as well and kill deer. Safety in the neighborhood is a concern, so baits also allow us to control shooting direction when we need to shoot. Under these rules I could hunt any of the three of those properties, so I'm thinking most other small landowners could do the same.
Please offer any language you think might work better?
Post by: Jingles on March 21, 2015, 08:46:23 AM
Bait sites on public property must be a minimum of 300 yards from the maintained portion a public road or right of way.
That way it gets and keeps the gammies out and off private property and the land owner has the discretion of placing the bait where he wants for either safety or animal viewing opportunities
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 09:04:06 AM
I don't understand the reason for the distances.
A distance provides an accurate measurement for the hunter and for LE.
Post by: Special T on March 21, 2015, 09:06:51 AM
- No less than 50 yards from a running or seasonal stream
- No less than 100 yards from a private residence without owner approval
I find this wording confusing
Not Closer than... would be better it makes it sound like you must be within 50-100 yards. :twocents:
Post by: 3dvapor on March 21, 2015, 09:12:20 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 21, 2015, 09:14:22 AM
I will be very interested to hear Todd's take of todays commission meeting. I think if the commission is hell bent on making rules about baiting they ought to have a committee get together and hammer out some reasonable rules...guys with experience baiting and who understand some of the concerns about dumping truckloads of apples etc.
Post by: mazama on March 21, 2015, 09:47:14 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 09:58:01 AM
I think adding rules is a bad idea. i understand where your at and what your thinking. Better rules are still more rules for the bunny huggers.
- No less than 50 yards from a running or seasonal stream
- No less than 100 yards from a private residence without owner approval
I find this wording confusing
Not Closer than... would be better it makes it sound like you must be within 50-100 yards. :twocents:
Sometimes rules are needed for reasonable use of opportunity, I would rather see workable rules created by those who know baiting than rules created by people who may not fully understand baiting.
Perhaps simpler language would be:
- Be at least 50 yards from lakes, ponds, and running or seasonal streams
- Be at least 100 yards from a private residence without owner approval
Post by: jasnt on March 21, 2015, 10:00:44 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 10:12:50 AM
I don't agree with any rule changes for baiting. But if I had to choose I'd say not visible from maintained road and I'd be ok with 8 cu ft. Let's not make it complicated. No need for set distance or even a set amount. Bale of hay or few sacks of grain
I had advocated for the simplest of rules if we must have rules.
Quick Question: Would any of the rules in my first post unreasonably affect your baiting practices?
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 21, 2015, 10:16:59 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 10:18:00 AM
Post by: lokidog on March 21, 2015, 10:24:05 AM
I don't agree with any rule changes for baiting. But if I had to choose I'd say not visible from maintained road and I'd be ok with 8 cu ft. Let's not make it complicated. No need for set distance or even a set amount. Bale of hay or few sacks of grain
I had advocated for the simplest of rules if we must have rules.
Quick Question: Would any of the rules in my first post unreasonably affect your baiting practices?
Yes! I hunt no public land but bait on private parcels that have no parts more than 1/4 mile from a road. If this was for public land OK, but the way it is written there is no distiction between private and public. This is a problem.
Post by: jasnt on March 21, 2015, 11:03:52 AM
no they would not effect me what so ever. But May effect some hunters that do not have private land to hunt or less mobility than me. If there must be rules for baiting than I think they should be as simple as possible to understand and enforce and also the less restrictive as possible for disabled or senior hunters.I don't agree with any rule changes for baiting. But if I had to choose I'd say not visible from maintained road and I'd be ok with 8 cu ft. Let's not make it complicated. No need for set distance or even a set amount. Bale of hay or few sacks of grain
I had advocated for the simplest of rules if we must have rules.
Quick Question: Would any of the rules in my first post unreasonably affect your baiting practices?
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 11:13:07 AM
no they would not effect me what so ever. But May effect some hunters that do not have private land to hunt or less mobility than me. If there must be rules for baiting than I think they should be as simple as possible to understand and enforce and also the less restrictive as possible for disabled or senior hunters.I don't agree with any rule changes for baiting. But if I had to choose I'd say not visible from maintained road and I'd be ok with 8 cu ft. Let's not make it complicated. No need for set distance or even a set amount. Bale of hay or few sacks of grain
I had advocated for the simplest of rules if we must have rules.
Quick Question: Would any of the rules in my first post unreasonably affect your baiting practices?
Disabled & Elderly
I agree we want rules that do not inhibit special needs hunters while at the same time making baiting more acceptable to others. Please remember, the real opposition to baiting is from other hunters who don't like it.
So your biggest opposition is the distance from a public road?
How can we reword that to assist special needs hunters and still clean up the baiting issue so it's more acceptable?
Post by: lokidog on March 21, 2015, 11:26:19 AM
:twocents:
Post by: lokidog on March 21, 2015, 11:32:44 AM
I have four 1/2 acre properties that I can bait/hunt, they all run along a road and are all less than 200 yards deep. One property I have hunted is eight acres and has the same description as it is long and skinny. And, before I hear, those aren't big enough to hunt anyways, I have permission to recover animals from most adjoining properties.
Reasonable solution --> No restrictions besides amount on private land!
Post by: Special T on March 21, 2015, 11:42:57 AM
Post by: jasnt on March 21, 2015, 11:49:33 AM
i think disabled should be exempt from the distance rule. The visibility part needs clairified as well. Bait not visible or site not visible? Pretty easy to conceal bait from the road but to conceal a site would be toughno they would not effect me what so ever. But May effect some hunters that do not have private land to hunt or less mobility than me. If there must be rules for baiting than I think they should be as simple as possible to understand and enforce and also the less restrictive as possible for disabled or senior hunters.I don't agree with any rule changes for baiting. But if I had to choose I'd say not visible from maintained road and I'd be ok with 8 cu ft. Let's not make it complicated. No need for set distance or even a set amount. Bale of hay or few sacks of grain
I had advocated for the simplest of rules if we must have rules.
Quick Question: Would any of the rules in my first post unreasonably affect your baiting practices?
Disabled & Elderly
I agree we want rules that do not inhibit special needs hunters while at the same time making baiting more acceptable to others. Please remember, the real opposition to baiting is from other hunters who don't like it.
So your biggest opposition is the distance from a public road?
How can we reword that to assist special needs hunters and still clean up the baiting issue so it's more acceptable?
Post by: turkeyfeather on March 21, 2015, 12:29:52 PM
Maybe the solution is limiting baiting to private lands? I have ran across old bait sites on public lands that were left quite a mess.Not all of us have access or like to hunt private land.
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 21, 2015, 12:48:17 PM
It wasn't until I left that I realized maybe we should be discussing bait food types versus volume issues. Apples seemed to be the point of conflict. They don't offer quality nutrition that the deer and elk need, especially late season.
So why not focus our efforts baiting type regulations and not so much quantities. Alfalfa hay and salt blocks, especially with selenium, would offer longer term benefits to elk and deer.
What do you guys think of this?
Post by: singleshot12 on March 21, 2015, 01:01:54 PM
I attended the public meeting with WDFW today in Moses Lake. Baiting was discussed and everyone who wanted to speak on the topic had to sign up and then was allowed 3 minutes. It went very well. Everyone was respectful and cordial. Lots of good ideas were discussed too. They were kicking around the 10 gallon limit for baiting but we're hanging up with enforceability.
It wasn't until I left that I realized maybe we should be discussing bait food types versus volume issues. Apples seemed to be the point of conflict. They don't offer quality nutrition that the deer and elk need, especially late season.
So why not focus our efforts baiting type regulations and not so much quantities. Alfalfa hay and salt blocks, especially with selenium, would offer longer term benefits to elk and deer.
What do you guys think of this?
:yeah: is what I was thinking also.. Apples,molasses etc. is like crack cocaine for deer, rots their teeth out as well.
And any kind of nutritional baiting should be done post rut.
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 03:21:58 PM
I don't agree with any rule changes for baiting. But if I had to choose I'd say not visible from maintained road and I'd be ok with 8 cu ft. Let's not make it complicated. No need for set distance or even a set amount. Bale of hay or few sacks of grain
I had advocated for the simplest of rules if we must have rules.
Quick Question: Would any of the rules in my first post unreasonably affect your baiting practices?
Yes! I hunt no public land but bait on private parcels that have no parts more than 1/4 mile from a road. If this was for public land OK, but the way it is written there is no distiction between private and public. This is a problem.
- Be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway, if visible from that roadway
(just keep it out of sight, that's reasonable)
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 03:23:29 PM
Maybe the solution is limiting baiting to private lands? I have ran across old bait sites on public lands that were left quite a mess.
We talked about that, but that penalizes hunters who don't own land where they can hunt, so it doesn't seem fair
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 03:25:34 PM
How about we leave private land baiting alone (I think quantity limitations are fine for both private and public). Public land baiting could require a visible label somewhere with the baiter's contact info on it. I think the distance restriction would have to be a lot less for public land, like 50-100 yards from a road. I don't think there needs to be any restriction pertaining to proximity to water, what is the point of that? It's not like people are using oils or fats for baiting deer/elk.
:twocents:
some of the biggest problems are on private land
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 03:28:20 PM
If you have a baiting situation that will not work under any of these rules please explain why and offer a reasonable solution?
I have four 1/2 acre properties that I can bait/hunt, they all run along a road and are all less than 200 yards deep. One property I have hunted is eight acres and has the same description as it is long and skinny. And, before I hear, those aren't big enough to hunt anyways, I have permission to recover animals from most adjoining properties.
Reasonable solution --> No restrictions besides amount on private land!
Can you simply place the bait out of sight from the road, so it doesn't anger passerby's? You say you have permission so all other rules should not be a problem.
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 03:32:26 PM
The situations described by Loki are why I cannot get behind many rules, especially baiting. If Im on private land then it should be up to the owner. Rules get convoluted and hard to understand because we make them that way.... I dont want to contribute the to complication of our sport... THAT reduces recruitment, and THAT causes people to quit...
From what I understand the commission may not want the "no change option".
What if this is the choice:
Reasonable rules we offer or Rules written by people who may not understand baiting?
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 03:39:32 PM
I attended the public meeting with WDFW today in Moses Lake. Baiting was discussed and everyone who wanted to speak on the topic had to sign up and then was allowed 3 minutes. It went very well. Everyone was respectful and cordial. Lots of good ideas were discussed too. They were kicking around the 10 gallon limit for baiting but we're hanging up with enforceability.
It wasn't until I left that I realized maybe we should be discussing bait food types versus volume issues. Apples seemed to be the point of conflict. They don't offer quality nutrition that the deer and elk need, especially late season.
So why not focus our efforts baiting type regulations and not so much quantities. Alfalfa hay and salt blocks, especially with selenium, would offer longer term benefits to elk and deer.
What do you guys think of this?
So to condense this into simple language that fits the suggested format:
not contain apples or molasses (added to first post)
Post by: grundy53 on March 21, 2015, 04:01:11 PM
I don't understand the reason for the distances.
A distance provides an accurate measurement for the hunter and for LE.
I understand that. What I don't understand is the need to have the distances to begin with. If there is no distance limitation then there is no need for an accurate measurement from hunter or LE. I don't like the 1/4 mile from a public road and I don't like the 50 feet from a stream. I can understand a limit on quantity of bait but not these arbitrary distances.
Post by: grundy53 on March 21, 2015, 04:04:47 PM
How about we leave private land baiting alone (I think quantity limitations are fine for both private and public). Public land baiting could require a visible label somewhere with the baiter's contact info on it. I think the distance restriction would have to be a lot less for public land, like 50-100 yards from a road. I don't think there needs to be any restriction pertaining to proximity to water, what is the point of that? It's not like people are using oils or fats for baiting deer/elk.
:twocents:
:yeah:
If we have to change our baiting rules this would be my vote.
Post by: bearpaw on March 21, 2015, 04:10:16 PM
I don't understand the reason for the distances.
A distance provides an accurate measurement for the hunter and for LE.
I understand that. What I don't understand is the need to have the distances to begin with. If there is no distance limitation then there is no need for an accurate measurement from hunter or LE. I don't like the 1/4 mile from a public road and I don't like the 50 feet from a stream. I can understand a limit on quantity of bait but not these arbitrary distances.
My position: I would rather have no rules.
But what if this is the choice:
Reasonable rules that we offer or Rules written by people who may not understand baiting?
Post by: Lucky1 on March 21, 2015, 04:29:41 PM
Post by: jasnt on March 21, 2015, 04:34:52 PM
sounds to me that the distance rule would only apply if it was visible from a county road.I don't understand the reason for the distances.
A distance provides an accurate measurement for the hunter and for LE.
I understand that. What I don't understand is the need to have the distances to begin with. If there is no distance limitation then there is no need for an accurate measurement from hunter or LE. I don't like the 1/4 mile from a public road and I don't like the 50 feet from a stream. I can understand a limit on quantity of bait but not these arbitrary distances.
Post by: KFhunter on March 21, 2015, 04:39:34 PM
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
Post by: Lucky1 on March 21, 2015, 04:47:16 PM
Why are we even capitulating on this?
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
:yeah:
I agree. There is not really a need for the law. The restrictions are proposed by anti hunters and they get people who hunt to agree with them by playing on their emotions.
Post by: LeviD1 on March 21, 2015, 05:11:44 PM
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 21, 2015, 05:37:48 PM
Today at the WDFW meeting, it was NOT anti-hunters wishing for baiting restrictions. It was fellow hunters. But they didn't want to see total outlaw of baiting, they wanted to see the excessive baiting to be put in check.Why are we even capitulating on this?
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
:yeah:
I agree. There is not really a need for the law. The restrictions are proposed by anti hunters and they get people who hunt to agree with them by playing on their emotions.
It sounds like it's the guides in the Okanogan that are causing the ruckus. Other hunters are sick of it. The guides are making money from our state's deer without regulation (unlike fishing guides). The guides are altering migration routes with these dump truck loads of snicker bars (apples). They're pulling deer from other hunter's property.
It's a big enough deal for them to start calling out this baiting practice. I heard it first hand today.
Post by: jasnt on March 21, 2015, 05:50:48 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on March 21, 2015, 06:56:01 PM
Post by: Elkstuffer on March 21, 2015, 06:58:36 PM
The GMAC voted 17 to 0 for no change also.
We also may see expandable broadheads legalized this year too. Jerry Nelson had a pretty convincing argument for that.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on March 21, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
Why are we even capitulating on this?
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
:yeah: :yeah:
Divide and conquer...Get all the hunters arguing about how much to put out , how far from the road/stream/property line..visible not visible, no apples, no molasses, what dates you can bait , how much to charge for a baiting license , goes on and on!! The WDFW has some moles amongst us keeping the pot stirred.
I can see it now the WDFW sending samples to the lab to determine if there are illegal amounts of whatever illegal substances the WDFW passes. And confiscating your truck and gun because there is evidence that there was an apple in the bed of your truck that is parked within 50 feet of a stream that only flows three months a year. But the stream could have a Bull Trout migrating through and eating a piece of corn that washed into said "stream" from your bait pile.. Give me a break. Problem was created by the WDFW. THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. Just my two cents worth here. Might be a little on the angy side....must be that I just got out of heart surgery a couple days ago--I'll blame it on the drugs.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 21, 2015, 07:18:59 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 21, 2015, 08:25:21 PM
... what is the difference from dumping a bag of feed on pubic land...:yike:
Post by: Bob33 on March 21, 2015, 08:44:45 PM
Read the quote carefully. ;)... what is the difference from dumping a bag of feed on pubic land...:yike:
I have run across a couple real messes people have left behind. I figured this was a big part of the anti-baiting thing?
Post by: lokidog on March 21, 2015, 08:57:19 PM
Post by: Jingles on March 21, 2015, 09:19:32 PM
I totally disagree with the no restrictions for the "disabled" and my reason is as follows
Look around at the majority of the handicap disabled placards and the lard asses getting out of the cars using these placards.
I'm sorry but being a fat A-- and being to dumb to realize you need to loose weigh and to lazy to get off the couch except to go to Walmart and get in their electric shopping cart in no excuse for a handicap placard and sure as hell isn't deserving of special privileges....
Post by: KFhunter on March 21, 2015, 09:38:31 PM
I know I'm going to get slammed here but oh well Go ahead.
I totally disagree with the no restrictions for the "disabled" and my reason is as follows
Look around at the majority of the handicap disabled placards and the lard asses getting out of the cars using these placards.
I'm sorry but being a fat A-- and being to dumb to realize you need to loose weigh and to lazy to get off the couch except to go to Walmart and get in their electric shopping cart in no excuse for a handicap placard and sure as hell isn't deserving of special privileges....
Couldn't you just simply state you don't agree with a possible baiting exemption for disabled hunters?
The rest of your statement is unnecessary and very likely to derail the topic.
Post by: KFhunter on March 21, 2015, 09:53:01 PM
It's no longer enjoyable if someone in my party is doing something not quite kosher with the regulations, even gray area things. Saps the enjoyment right out of it, I won't be a party to it. It's creeps me out.
So no I won't just ignore the regs "because they can't enforce it anyways".
Post by: jasnt on March 21, 2015, 10:19:15 PM
I know I'm going to get slammed here but oh well Go ahead.it takes much more than being obese to get a dissabled hunters card. It is not as easy as getting disability or a handicap sticker!
I totally disagree with the no restrictions for the "disabled" and my reason is as follows
Look around at the majority of the handicap disabled placards and the lard asses getting out of the cars using these placards.
I'm sorry but being a fat A-- and being to dumb to realize you need to loose weigh and to lazy to get off the couch except to go to Walmart and get in their electric shopping cart in no excuse for a handicap placard and sure as hell isn't deserving of special privileges....
Post by: huntingbaldguy on March 22, 2015, 05:42:07 AM
Distance is only a thing for me because i don't want the deer to run on someone elses property. The law already exists that you can't retrieve an animal from private property unless you get the permission of the landowner. So we are sitting here thinking of ways to double up on laws and it makes no sense.
Deer also eat apples that fall from trees naturally. I have it on cam, right under an apple tree.
If you're asking me to propose common sense laws, i will always go with ones that strengthen our ability to bait and hunt, never ones that restrict more. If you want those, i will rattle off half a dozen in minutes, but i can't think of a single one i like that restricts me more.
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 22, 2015, 07:05:05 AM
I was also at the meeting today and voiced my opinion in favor of "No Change". After listening to everyone's testimony and the reaction that a few of the commission members had I really believe that there will be no change at this time until it can be studied further. I also stated that this should be a "biological" issue and not a "social" issue, which is what the bear baiting turned in to. Mr. Kehne, commissioner from Omak (where the biggest issue of baiting seems to be the quantity of bait used) agreed that there shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to this agenda. So hopefully we are good for another 3 years.Elkstuffer - your testimony was spot on. I really appreciated your insight on WDFWs guiding principles about how they need to manage the game in a scientific manner. And not making game management decisuons based on social issues. I thought to myself, "this guy knows his stuff." You put the Commission in their place, you reminded them that this issue, if not looked at through a biological lens, is not an issue for them at all. Were you quoting their mission statement?
The GMAC voted 17 to 0 for no change also.
We also may see expandable broadheads legalized this year too. Jerry Nelson had a pretty convincing argument for that.
I also agree with you, no changes will be made to the baiting rules this year. On the other hand we could very well see expandable broadheads legalized for big game this year.
HuntWa needs to have hats made up so we can recognize fellow members wherever we go.
Post by: Special T on March 22, 2015, 07:09:24 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 08:30:34 AM
Today at the WDFW meeting, it was NOT anti-hunters wishing for baiting restrictions. It was fellow hunters. But they didn't want to see total outlaw of baiting, they wanted to see the excessive baiting to be put in check.Why are we even capitulating on this?
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
:yeah:
I agree. There is not really a need for the law. The restrictions are proposed by anti hunters and they get people who hunt to agree with them by playing on their emotions.
It sounds like it's the guides in the Okanogan that are causing the ruckus. Other hunters are sick of it. The guides are making money from our state's deer without regulation (unlike fishing guides). The guides are altering migration routes with these dump truck loads of snicker bars (apples). They're pulling deer from other hunter's property.
It's a big enough deal for them to start calling out this baiting practice. I heard it first hand today.
Are the complaints mostly coming from private land baiting or public land baiting?
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 08:31:39 AM
My property is 1 acre. I have been baiting deer here for years. The farthest I can put my bait from the road is 80 yards. That puts the bait about 10 yards from a seasonal creek. Your limitations would make it illegal for me to bait on my property. I use apples.
Thank you for posting this info.
Even though I prefer no baiting restrictions, if the commission feels they must regulate baiting to resolve some of the problems I would much rather see rules that do not affect the average hunter negatively. By knowing circumstances like you have detailed, we can advise minimal rules that will have the least impact on the average guy who isn't causing the problems.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 08:56:42 AM
My property is 1 acre. I have been baiting deer here for years. The farthest I can put my bait from the road is 80 yards. That puts the bait about 10 yards from a seasonal creek. Your limitations would make it illegal for me to bait on my property. I use apples.
Thank you for posting this info.
Even though I prefer no baiting restrictions, if the commission feels they must regulate baiting to resolve some of the problems I would much rather see rules that do not affect the average hunter negatively. By knowing circumstances like you have detailed, we can advise minimal rules that will have the least impact on the average guy who isn't causing the problems.
After considering your situation and other comments I came up with these simple rules:
OPTION 2 (after input from forum members)
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I would ask if there are any members who cannot live with these simple rules if the Commission feels they must set some limitations?
Please, constructive comments only!
Post by: lokidog on March 22, 2015, 09:26:52 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 09:32:26 AM
No, no, no, if I want to place bait on my private property and it is visible from the road, TOO BAD!!! Don't look at it if you don't like it.
Would you rather have the commission (many non-hunters) write some rules or should we offer some well thought out and reasonable options?
Post by: lokidog on March 22, 2015, 09:35:33 AM
No, no, no, if I want to place bait on my private property and it is visible from the road, TOO BAD!!! Don't look at it if you don't like it.
Would you rather have the commission (many non-hunters) write some rules or should we offer some well thought out and reasonable options?
WHy not have a distinction for public and private land? Seems pretty easy to know the difference?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 22, 2015, 09:36:26 AM
I still think that no change is best. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 09:39:32 AM
No, no, no, if I want to place bait on my private property and it is visible from the road, TOO BAD!!! Don't look at it if you don't like it.
Would you rather have the commission (many non-hunters) write some rules or should we offer some well thought out and reasonable options?
WHy not have a distinction for public and private land? Seems pretty easy to know the difference?
Unless I am mistaken, many of the biggest complaints are coming from baits that are on on private land. I'm wondering if those rules would hinder you to the point of not being able to bait?
would the general public have the same rules about feeding deer? I ask because I live in a neighborhood and the neighbor throws bread or veggies out sometimes in their yard to see the deer. it is visible from a road... I would hate to set rules that also prohibit this activity...
I still think that no change is best. :twocents:
These are hunting over bait rules.
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 09:41:03 AM
My property is 1 acre. I have been baiting deer here for years. The farthest I can put my bait from the road is 80 yards. That puts the bait about 10 yards from a seasonal creek. Your limitations would make it illegal for me to bait on my property. I use apples.
Thank you for posting this info.
Even though I prefer no baiting restrictions, if the commission feels they must regulate baiting to resolve some of the problems I would much rather see rules that do not affect the average hunter negatively. By knowing circumstances like you have detailed, we can advise minimal rules that will have the least impact on the average guy who isn't causing the problems.
After considering your situation and other comments I came up with these simple rules:
OPTION 2 (after input from forum members)
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I would ask if there are any members who cannot live with these simple rules if the Commission feels they must set some limitations?
Please, constructive comments only!
Could you please explain the reasoning for the buffer near water? Is there a run off concern?
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 09:43:08 AM
I would be ok with no baiting on public land. It is basically littering. No change to private land with the exception of volume restrictions for those doing it commercially.
How is it littering if the bait is biodegradable?
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 09:46:35 AM
My property is 1 acre. I have been baiting deer here for years. The farthest I can put my bait from the road is 80 yards. That puts the bait about 10 yards from a seasonal creek. Your limitations would make it illegal for me to bait on my property. I use apples.
Thank you for posting this info.
Even though I prefer no baiting restrictions, if the commission feels they must regulate baiting to resolve some of the problems I would much rather see rules that do not affect the average hunter negatively. By knowing circumstances like you have detailed, we can advise minimal rules that will have the least impact on the average guy who isn't causing the problems.
After considering your situation and other comments I came up with these simple rules:
OPTION 2 (after input from forum members)
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I would ask if there are any members who cannot live with these simple rules if the Commission feels they must set some limitations?
Please, constructive comments only!
Could you please explain the reasoning for the buffer near water? Is there a run off concern?
Contamination of water! That is a huge deal everywhere. In all my operating permits in every state there are limitations detailing distances from water for almost any activity. In Idaho they limit how close you can place bait to water. Contamination of salmon streams is the last thing we want to happen, that could cause a serious reaction by government.
I would be ok with no baiting on public land. It is basically littering. No change to private land with the exception of volume restrictions for those doing it commercially.
How is it littering if the bait is biodegradable?
:yeah:
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 09:49:07 AM
My property is 1 acre. I have been baiting deer here for years. The farthest I can put my bait from the road is 80 yards. That puts the bait about 10 yards from a seasonal creek. Your limitations would make it illegal for me to bait on my property. I use apples.
Thank you for posting this info.
Even though I prefer no baiting restrictions, if the commission feels they must regulate baiting to resolve some of the problems I would much rather see rules that do not affect the average hunter negatively. By knowing circumstances like you have detailed, we can advise minimal rules that will have the least impact on the average guy who isn't causing the problems.
After considering your situation and other comments I came up with these simple rules:
OPTION 2 (after input from forum members)
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I would ask if there are any members who cannot live with these simple rules if the Commission feels they must set some limitations?
Please, constructive comments only!
Could you please explain the reasoning for the buffer near water? Is there a run off concern?
Contamination of water! That is a huge deal everywhere. In all my operating permits in every state there are limitations detailing distances from water for almost any activity. In Idaho they limit how close you can place bait to water. Contamination of salmon streams is the last thing we want to happen, that could cause a serious reaction by government.I would be ok with no baiting on public land. It is basically littering. No change to private land with the exception of volume restrictions for those doing it commercially.
How is it littering if the bait is biodegradable?
:yeah:
How is it going to contaminate the water? Deer bait isn't the same as bear bait. There generally isn't greases and oils. It's plant matter or minerals.
Post by: Skillet on March 22, 2015, 09:50:24 AM
:twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 09:51:57 AM
I would be ok with no baiting on public land. It is basically littering. No change to private land with the exception of volume restrictions for those doing it commercially.
How is it littering if the bait is biodegradable?
I have never seen an exception in any littering law saying it is ok to dump stuff if it is biodegradable? It can still make a stinky mess for quite some time.
There is also no exception saying you can litter on private property either. I don't think its's even close to littering. I also don't think we should ban a hunting method on public land that we allow on private land.
Post by: jasnt on March 22, 2015, 09:53:27 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 10:03:58 AM
My property is 1 acre. I have been baiting deer here for years. The farthest I can put my bait from the road is 80 yards. That puts the bait about 10 yards from a seasonal creek. Your limitations would make it illegal for me to bait on my property. I use apples.
Thank you for posting this info.
Even though I prefer no baiting restrictions, if the commission feels they must regulate baiting to resolve some of the problems I would much rather see rules that do not affect the average hunter negatively. By knowing circumstances like you have detailed, we can advise minimal rules that will have the least impact on the average guy who isn't causing the problems.
After considering your situation and other comments I came up with these simple rules:
OPTION 2 (after input from forum members)
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I would ask if there are any members who cannot live with these simple rules if the Commission feels they must set some limitations?
Please, constructive comments only!
Could you please explain the reasoning for the buffer near water? Is there a run off concern?
Contamination of water! That is a huge deal everywhere. In all my operating permits in every state there are limitations detailing distances from water for almost any activity. In Idaho they limit how close you can place bait to water. Contamination of salmon streams is the last thing we want to happen, that could cause a serious reaction by government.I would be ok with no baiting on public land. It is basically littering. No change to private land with the exception of volume restrictions for those doing it commercially.
How is it littering if the bait is biodegradable?
:yeah:
How is it going to contaminate the water? Deer bait isn't the same as bear bait. There generally isn't greases and oils. It's plant matter or minerals.
It's not my concern, I'm just trying to offer some reasonable solutions that everyone can live with. Please ask the Dept of Ecology what you can put in salmon streams, or any stream for that matter!
Bearpaw, with all due respect - all of the proximity and public/private rules in the world won't help the commission appease the majority of those that oppose baiting - which you state to be other hunters who don't like it. I believe the focus needs to be on what those hunters don't like about it, and I tend to believe that as stated earlier in this thread, they feel it results in reduced opportunities for themselves. A couple of dumptrucks full of apples will move deer off of their normal patterns, no doubt about it. That's means we should focus on volume alone, not location or land ownership.
:twocents:
Water is a serious concern
Visibility is a concern (what's out of sight, is out of mind)
One of the biggest complaints I hear is the dumping of truckloads of bait
If we deal with these issues then the people who still want to complain are just complainers that will never be satisfied.
What about man-made ponds. In my food plots I have built a watering hole. It is right next to the corn feeder and mineral site.
I don't know! Is your feeder throwing corn in the water, is that even an issue? If it is an issue can you simply move the feeder over a few feet?
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 10:08:45 AM
Have the people opposed to baiting (other hunters) even brought up water quality? I understand why you are coming up with these options but why limit ourselves further than necessary?My property is 1 acre. I have been baiting deer here for years. The farthest I can put my bait from the road is 80 yards. That puts the bait about 10 yards from a seasonal creek. Your limitations would make it illegal for me to bait on my property. I use apples.
Thank you for posting this info.
Even though I prefer no baiting restrictions, if the commission feels they must regulate baiting to resolve some of the problems I would much rather see rules that do not affect the average hunter negatively. By knowing circumstances like you have detailed, we can advise minimal rules that will have the least impact on the average guy who isn't causing the problems.
After considering your situation and other comments I came up with these simple rules:
OPTION 2 (after input from forum members)
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I would ask if there are any members who cannot live with these simple rules if the Commission feels they must set some limitations?
Please, constructive comments only!
Could you please explain the reasoning for the buffer near water? Is there a run off concern?
Contamination of water! That is a huge deal everywhere. In all my operating permits in every state there are limitations detailing distances from water for almost any activity. In Idaho they limit how close you can place bait to water. Contamination of salmon streams is the last thing we want to happen, that could cause a serious reaction by government.I would be ok with no baiting on public land. It is basically littering. No change to private land with the exception of volume restrictions for those doing it commercially.
How is it littering if the bait is biodegradable?
:yeah:
How is it going to contaminate the water? Deer bait isn't the same as bear bait. There generally isn't greases and oils. It's plant matter or minerals.
It's not my concern, I'm just trying to offer some reasonable solutions that everyone can live with. Please ask the Dept of Ecology what you can put in salmon streams, or any stream for that matter!Bearpaw, with all due respect - all of the proximity and public/private rules in the world won't help the commission appease the majority of those that oppose baiting - which you state to be other hunters who don't like it. I believe the focus needs to be on what those hunters don't like about it, and I tend to believe that as stated earlier in this thread, they feel it results in reduced opportunities for themselves. A couple of dumptrucks full of apples will move deer off of their normal patterns, no doubt about it. That's means we should focus on volume alone, not location or land ownership.
:twocents:
Water is a serious concern
Visibility is a concern (what's out of sight, is out of mind)
One of the biggest complaints I hear is the dumping of truckloads of bait
If we deal with these issues then the people who still want to complain are just complainers that will never be satisfied.What about man-made ponds. In my food plots I have built a watering hole. It is right next to the corn feeder and mineral site.
I don't know! Is your feeder throwing corn in the water, is that even an issue? If it is an issue can you simply move the feeder over a few feet?
Address the gripe if needed but why go above and beyond that?
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 10:13:16 AM
I think you are going to seriously divide hunters even further if you allow it on private but ban it on public.I would be ok with no baiting on public land. It is basically littering. No change to private land with the exception of volume restrictions for those doing it commercially.
How is it littering if the bait is biodegradable?
I have never seen an exception in any littering law saying it is ok to dump stuff if it is biodegradable? It can still make a stinky mess for quite some time.
There is also no exception saying you can litter on private property either. I don't think its's even close to littering. I also don't think we should ban a hunting method on public land that we allow on private land.
Its not littering if I dump an old couch (Or call it a load of horse manure which is biodegradable) on my property. It is littering if I dump it on somebody else's property or public property. After seeing a few bait sites on public land I would most definitely call it littering. I can't go till up a couple acres and plant winter wheat on public land for a food plot, but I can on mine. That is another method that can only be used on private. Owning, leasing, or having access to private ground definitely can have some advantages.
Post by: jasnt on March 22, 2015, 10:13:32 AM
What about man-made ponds. In my food plots I have built a watering hole. It is right next to the corn feeder and mineral site.
I don't know! Is your feeder throwing corn in the water, is that even an issue? If it is an issue can you simply move the feeder over a few feet?
It dosent throw. It's just a pile next to the water hole. It is the perfect place for the camera. Food water and minerals all in one spot gives me all the info on one cam. My fear is if this passes and no baiting near water some Leo may say I'm baiting near a pond even tho it is my pond I built(I'm a land scaper by trade). If corn falls in it from their mouths wich happens a lot the corn germanates and floats to the top where it's eaten by the birds
Post by: lokidog on March 22, 2015, 10:20:39 AM
Address the gripe if needed but why go above and beyond that?
:yeah: Seems like looking for a solution to a problem that has not even been brought up. :dunno:
How about this if you need something:
1. Bait quantity (public and private land)- at most, fresh bait + existing left-over bait may not exceed two five gallon buckets in volume, bait piles (set by one person) may not be located closer than, say 30 yards from each other.
2. Bait, if placed on public lands, must not be visible from the road right of way if less than 100 yards from the road right of way.
3. Bait placed on public land must have a visible label with name and contact information of person placing the bait. Label must be located within twenty feet of bait.
As mentioned, a quantity restriction addresses many of the alleged concerns over baiting: not enough to drastically alter the natural movement of game, eyesore, pollution to water or land (a smaller amount will likely be eaten more completely, though you'd better keep the deer away from the water afterwards as they might poop.... :rolleyes: ).
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 10:24:37 AM
Have the people opposed to baiting (other hunters) even brought up water quality? I understand why you are coming up with these options but why limit ourselves further than necessary?My property is 1 acre. I have been baiting deer here for years. The farthest I can put my bait from the road is 80 yards. That puts the bait about 10 yards from a seasonal creek. Your limitations would make it illegal for me to bait on my property. I use apples.
Thank you for posting this info.
Even though I prefer no baiting restrictions, if the commission feels they must regulate baiting to resolve some of the problems I would much rather see rules that do not affect the average hunter negatively. By knowing circumstances like you have detailed, we can advise minimal rules that will have the least impact on the average guy who isn't causing the problems.
After considering your situation and other comments I came up with these simple rules:
OPTION 2 (after input from forum members)
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I would ask if there are any members who cannot live with these simple rules if the Commission feels they must set some limitations?
Please, constructive comments only!
Could you please explain the reasoning for the buffer near water? Is there a run off concern?
Contamination of water! That is a huge deal everywhere. In all my operating permits in every state there are limitations detailing distances from water for almost any activity. In Idaho they limit how close you can place bait to water. Contamination of salmon streams is the last thing we want to happen, that could cause a serious reaction by government.I would be ok with no baiting on public land. It is basically littering. No change to private land with the exception of volume restrictions for those doing it commercially.
How is it littering if the bait is biodegradable?
:yeah:
How is it going to contaminate the water? Deer bait isn't the same as bear bait. There generally isn't greases and oils. It's plant matter or minerals.
It's not my concern, I'm just trying to offer some reasonable solutions that everyone can live with. Please ask the Dept of Ecology what you can put in salmon streams, or any stream for that matter!Bearpaw, with all due respect - all of the proximity and public/private rules in the world won't help the commission appease the majority of those that oppose baiting - which you state to be other hunters who don't like it. I believe the focus needs to be on what those hunters don't like about it, and I tend to believe that as stated earlier in this thread, they feel it results in reduced opportunities for themselves. A couple of dumptrucks full of apples will move deer off of their normal patterns, no doubt about it. That's means we should focus on volume alone, not location or land ownership.
:twocents:
Water is a serious concern
Visibility is a concern (what's out of sight, is out of mind)
One of the biggest complaints I hear is the dumping of truckloads of bait
If we deal with these issues then the people who still want to complain are just complainers that will never be satisfied.What about man-made ponds. In my food plots I have built a watering hole. It is right next to the corn feeder and mineral site.
I don't know! Is your feeder throwing corn in the water, is that even an issue? If it is an issue can you simply move the feeder over a few feet?
Address the gripe if needed but why go above and beyond that?
I don't know if water has been a serious issue with hunters who complain about bait.
Below is what Idaho got for baiting rules when the rules were written by government. I am saying we should come up with some less restrictive rules that will work for the most people and agencies, then suggest that if the commission must implement baiting rules that these be the rules they implement. :tup:
It dosent throw. It's just a pile next to the water hole. It is the perfect place for the camera. Food water and minerals all in one spot gives me all the info on one cam. My fear is if this passes and no baiting near water some Leo may say I'm baiting near a pond even tho it is my pond I built(I'm a land scaper by trade). If corn falls in it from their mouths wich happens a lot the corn germanates and floats to the top where it's eaten by the birds
Per the lastest proposed rules (OPTION 2) I can't see why this is an issue if the feeder isn't throwing bait in the water. :dunno:
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 10:33:55 AM
Have the people opposed to baiting (other hunters) even brought up water quality? I understand why you are coming up with these options but why limit ourselves further than necessary?
Address the gripe if needed but why go above and beyond that?
:yeah: Seems like looking for a solution to a problem that has not even been brought up. :dunno:
How about this if you need something:
1. Bait quantity (public and private land)- at most, fresh bait + existing left-over bait may not exceed two five gallon buckets in volume, bait piles (set by one person) may not be located closer than, say 30 yards from each other.
I think enforcement will have a problem with this, are they suppose to carry a rake and have to rake it all up and measure it in two buckets? What if other material gest raked up, do they have to sort through? This must be a rule that is very easy to determine.
2. Bait, if placed on public lands, must not be visible from the road right of way if less than 100 yards from the road right of way.
I'm almost certain most of the biggest complaints are coming from bait placed on private lands.
3. Bait placed on public land must have a visible label with name and contact information of person placing the bait. Label must be located within twenty feet of bait.
That's just more regulation on hunters, the idea was to offer the least amount of rules, I personally do not want to put my name on a bait for others to see
As mentioned, a quantity restriction addresses many of the alleged concerns over baiting: not enough to drastically alter the natural movement of game, eyesore, pollution to water or land (a smaller amount will likely be eaten more completely, though you'd better keep the deer away from the water afterwards as they might poop.... :rolleyes: ).
Trying to address the biggest concern I've heard, that baiters are dumping truckloads of bait
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 10:37:02 AM
Idaho's rules are for bear baiting. I don't think there are the same issues with the baits commonly used for deer.
Just an example of what we could get if people who are not hunters draft the bait rules. The rules they come up with could be more restrictive than this, think Washington verses Idaho. ;)
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 10:39:09 AM
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, or running stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I eliminated seasonal stream!
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 10:40:32 AM
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 10:42:52 AM
Can anyone honestly tell me that these rules are not workable for your hunting?That's better. I think we should shorten the quarter mile though.
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 10:43:06 AM
Well in Idaho you can't bait deer at all. So we probably shouldn't keep using them as an example... :chuckle:
:chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 11:03:18 AM
Can anyone honestly tell me that these rules are not workable for your hunting?That's better. I think we should shorten the quarter mile though.
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
With these rules if your bait is out of site it could be closer. Do you want baits that are visible from the road to be closer to the road?
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
I agree. My only concern would be a LEO claiming they could see it when you know they can't.Can anyone honestly tell me that these rules are not workable for your hunting?That's better. I think we should shorten the quarter mile though.
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
With these rules if your bait is out of site it could be closer. Do you want baits that are visible from the road to be closer to the road?
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 11:13:13 AM
I agree. My only concern would be a LEO claiming they could see it when you know they can't.Can anyone honestly tell me that these rules are not workable for your hunting?That's better. I think we should shorten the quarter mile though.
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
With these rules if your bait is out of site it could be closer. Do you want baits that are visible from the road to be closer to the road?
I would say show me! :dunno:
I think more than anything this will encourage baiters to keep their bait out of sight so it's not a public eyesore. Some people simply are not smart enough to do that without being told. :bash:
Baiting probably wouldn't be an issue if guys didn't dump truckloads of bait where it can be seen by others. :twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2015, 11:13:54 AM
I agree.I agree. My only concern would be a LEO claiming they could see it when you know they can't.Can anyone honestly tell me that these rules are not workable for your hunting?That's better. I think we should shorten the quarter mile though.
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, stream, or seasonal stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
With these rules if your bait is out of site it could be closer. Do you want baits that are visible from the road to be closer to the road?
I would say show me! :dunno:
I think more than anything this will encourage baiters to keep their bait out of sight so it's not a public eyesore. Some people simply are not smart enough to do that without being told. :bash:
Post by: jrebel on March 22, 2015, 11:17:54 AM
Can anyone honestly tell me that these rules are not workable for your hunting?
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, or running stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I eliminated seasonal stream!
Makes sense to me. Pretty easy to follow those rules. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 11:23:14 AM
Can anyone honestly tell me that these rules are not workable for your hunting?
Bait must:
- be at least 1/4 mile from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, or running stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
I eliminated seasonal stream!
Makes sense to me. Pretty easy to follow those rules. :tup:
Baiters I know in Idaho use a rangefinder to make sure they are far enough from streams, roads, etc. For that reason I think maybe we should change the distance to yards.
Bait must:
- be at least 400 yards from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, or running stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
While it's important to get bait sites out of public view, I think it's very important that these rules do not prevent small landowners from baiting. Is there anyone who could not bait on their property or even on public land with these rules?
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 22, 2015, 11:38:09 AM
Private Land. It's mostly a hand full of guide services. They're hauling dump truck and semi truck loads of apples and dumping them. Apparently you can get truck loads of apples for free In fall.Today at the WDFW meeting, it was NOT anti-hunters wishing for baiting restrictions. It was fellow hunters. But they didn't want to see total outlaw of baiting, they wanted to see the excessive baiting to be put in check.Why are we even capitulating on this?
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
:yeah:
I agree. There is not really a need for the law. The restrictions are proposed by anti hunters and they get people who hunt to agree with them by playing on their emotions.
It sounds like it's the guides in the Okanogan that are causing the ruckus. Other hunters are sick of it. The guides are making money from our state's deer without regulation (unlike fishing guides). The guides are altering migration routes with these dump truck loads of snicker bars (apples). They're pulling deer from other hunter's property.
It's a big enough deal for them to start calling out this baiting practice. I heard it first hand today.
Are the complaints mostly coming from private land baiting or public land baiting?
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 22, 2015, 11:43:31 AM
It'd be easier to enforce, apples dump = ticket. Simple.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 11:49:08 AM
BearPaw. Let's slow down here. It's not where you what, it's what you bait with that's the issue. Apples are bad. Scientifically speaking, the deer don't need more protien in the winter fall, and apples don't provide that. If guys want to bait, let them, but require them to bait with quality nutritional foods. If they use salt they should be required to use mineral blocks that contain selenium, which is necessary for does to carry full term.
It'd be easier to enforce, apples dump = ticket. Simple.
So at the commission meeting most of the complaints boiled down to using apples? Prohibiting apples will be opposed by many hunters who bait! :twocents:
Private Land. It's mostly a hand full of guide services. They're hauling dump truck and semi truck loads of apples and dumping them. Apparently you can get truck loads of apples for free In fall.Today at the WDFW meeting, it was NOT anti-hunters wishing for baiting restrictions. It was fellow hunters. But they didn't want to see total outlaw of baiting, they wanted to see the excessive baiting to be put in check.Why are we even capitulating on this?
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
:yeah:
I agree. There is not really a need for the law. The restrictions are proposed by anti hunters and they get people who hunt to agree with them by playing on their emotions.
It sounds like it's the guides in the Okanogan that are causing the ruckus. Other hunters are sick of it. The guides are making money from our state's deer without regulation (unlike fishing guides). The guides are altering migration routes with these dump truck loads of snicker bars (apples). They're pulling deer from other hunter's property.
It's a big enough deal for them to start calling out this baiting practice. I heard it first hand today.
Are the complaints mostly coming from private land baiting or public land baiting?
In your opinion, from what you heard, would these rules help resolve the problem?
Bait must:
- be at least 400 yards from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, or running stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
(While it's important to get bait sites out of public view and resolve issues, it's very important that these rules do not prevent small landowners from baiting. Hunters want to be able to bait on their properties and on public land under these rules?)
Post by: Skillet on March 22, 2015, 12:04:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 12:13:35 PM
Quick question - how did you arrive at 16 hour intervals instead of 24 hour intervals?
Good question that i should have explained!
If a guy baits in the afternoon he might also want to bring more bait again in the morning before hunting. I almost went with 12 hours but early in the archery season a person could more easily place bait twice the same day. Trying to word it the best for most hunting situations and still have some restrictions that address the most serious concern which seems to be bait quantity.
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 22, 2015, 12:18:56 PM
The biggest problem with the above proposed rules, in my opinion, is the enforceability. And again, it's not antihunters that we need to keep baiting out of sight from, it's the hunters. We aren't tolerant of other's legal choices. I'm sure most hunters are against excessive baiting that alters migration routes, and pulling heards off others or public lands. But that shouldn't take away the opportunity for the regular guys, both on public and private lands.BearPaw. Let's slow down here. It's not where you what, it's what you bait with that's the issue. Apples are bad. Scientifically speaking, the deer don't need more protien in the winter fall, and apples don't provide that. If guys want to bait, let them, but require them to bait with quality nutritional foods. If they use salt they should be required to use mineral blocks that contain selenium, which is necessary for does to carry full term.
It'd be easier to enforce, apples dump = ticket. Simple.
So at the commission meeting most of the complaints boiled down to using apples? Prohibiting apples will be opposed by many hunters who bait! :twocents:Private Land. It's mostly a hand full of guide services. They're hauling dump truck and semi truck loads of apples and dumping them. Apparently you can get truck loads of apples for free In fall.Today at the WDFW meeting, it was NOT anti-hunters wishing for baiting restrictions. It was fellow hunters. But they didn't want to see total outlaw of baiting, they wanted to see the excessive baiting to be put in check.Why are we even capitulating on this?
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
:yeah:
I agree. There is not really a need for the law. The restrictions are proposed by anti hunters and they get people who hunt to agree with them by playing on their emotions.
It sounds like it's the guides in the Okanogan that are causing the ruckus. Other hunters are sick of it. The guides are making money from our state's deer without regulation (unlike fishing guides). The guides are altering migration routes with these dump truck loads of snicker bars (apples). They're pulling deer from other hunter's property.
It's a big enough deal for them to start calling out this baiting practice. I heard it first hand today.
Are the complaints mostly coming from private land baiting or public land baiting?
In your opinion, from what you heard, would these rules help resolve the problem?
Bait must:
- be at least 400 yards from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, or running stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
(While it's important to get bait sites out of public view and resolve issues, it's very important that these rules do not prevent small landowners from baiting. Hunters want to be able to bait on their properties and on public land under these rules?)
Let's regulate the commercial aspects. Let's regulate the biological affects that can harm or disrupt the heards. Let's NOT regulate our legal opportunity to hunt over baits that provide quality nutrition and salts.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 22, 2015, 12:33:43 PM
I say we educate the general hunting population away from the baiting norm instead of more laws to keep it. Deer and elk DON'T don't need to be baited for a successful hunt.
OR make it simple and only allow baiting for the handi-cap and over 65 :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 12:44:30 PM
BearPaw. Let's slow down here. It's not where you what, it's what you bait with that's the issue. Apples are bad. Scientifically speaking, the deer don't need more protien in the winter fall, and apples don't provide that. If guys want to bait, let them, but require them to bait with quality nutritional foods. If they use salt they should be required to use mineral blocks that contain selenium, which is necessary for does to carry full term.
It'd be easier to enforce, apples dump = ticket. Simple.
So at the commission meeting most of the complaints boiled down to using apples? Prohibiting apples will be opposed by many hunters who bait! :twocents:Private Land. It's mostly a hand full of guide services. They're hauling dump truck and semi truck loads of apples and dumping them. Apparently you can get truck loads of apples for free In fall.Today at the WDFW meeting, it was NOT anti-hunters wishing for baiting restrictions. It was fellow hunters. But they didn't want to see total outlaw of baiting, they wanted to see the excessive baiting to be put in check.Why are we even capitulating on this?
A person looking to find a problem can find one in just about anything a person does, demonize it - and get another "rule" or law passed.
I'm sick of it, just leave us the heck alone :bash:
:yeah:
I agree. There is not really a need for the law. The restrictions are proposed by anti hunters and they get people who hunt to agree with them by playing on their emotions.
It sounds like it's the guides in the Okanogan that are causing the ruckus. Other hunters are sick of it. The guides are making money from our state's deer without regulation (unlike fishing guides). The guides are altering migration routes with these dump truck loads of snicker bars (apples). They're pulling deer from other hunter's property.
It's a big enough deal for them to start calling out this baiting practice. I heard it first hand today.
Are the complaints mostly coming from private land baiting or public land baiting?
In your opinion, from what you heard, would these rules help resolve the problem?
Bait must:
- be at least 400 yards from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, or running stream
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
(While it's important to get bait sites out of public view and resolve issues, it's very important that these rules do not prevent small landowners from baiting. Hunters want to be able to bait on their properties and on public land under these rules?)
I thought these rules were easy for enforcement?
- be at least 400 yards from a public maintained roadway if visible from that roadway
measurable from a public road with a rangefinder
- not come in contact with a lake, pond, or running stream
If a warden sees bait in the water! :dunno:
- have no more than 8 cubic feet of material placed within a 16 hour period
If someone is spotted unloading a truck load or dump truck or semi load of bait!
I sent a message to WDFW and the Commission to ask for their input.
Quote
Dear WDFW and Commissioners,
I am an outfitter in NE Washington and I own a popular hunting forum, Hunting-Washington. I’m aware of some of the complaints about baiting and the areas where the complaints are coming from. I wanted to make the Moses Lake meeting but was too busy. I’m trying to determine some minimal rules which are acceptable to most hunters that will address the major concerns that WDFW and the commission have with baiting. Could some of you please reply back to me with a summation of the major concerns that you feel need resolved. I would like to be able to say on the forum that I received correspondence from at least one commissioner or from WDFW (no name need be mentioned) and this is a list of major concerns. Using that list of concerns I would like to discuss it on the forum to establish some simple rules which are acceptable to most hunters. I look forward to any help you can provide.
Please feel free to follow the conversation and comment if you wish: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,172226.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,172226.html)
Best Regards,
Dale
Post by: jrebel on March 22, 2015, 12:45:14 PM
We didn't have any of these problems before becuase you know why? Hardly anyone baited! Back in the day 20 yrs ago most hunted the traditional way for their venison.
I say we educate the general hunting population away from the baiting norm instead of more laws to keep it. Deer and elk DON'T don't need to be baited for a successful hunt.
Make it simple and only allow baiting for the handi-cap and over 65 :twocents:
Using this argument...we should be able to bait bear and run dogs on cougars too. :tup: We could also say that because the natives used long bows, spears and other primitive weapons....that we should also outlaw all firearms. It worked back int the day, therefor we should not allow new methods now.
:dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 12:49:19 PM
We didn't have any of these problems before becuase you know why? Hardly anyone baited! Back in the day 20 yrs ago most hunted the traditional way for their venison.
I say we educate the general hunting population away from the baiting norm instead of more laws to keep it. Deer and elk DON'T don't need to be baited for a successful hunt.
OR make it simple and only allow baiting for the handi-cap and over 65 :twocents:
Hunting is needed in close proximity to towns/cities, baiting is arguably the most successful and safest way to hunt on small private lands in close proximity to urban areas, especially areas with significant deer problems where animals need hunted the most. :twocents:
Post by: singleshot12 on March 22, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
Designated areas for baiting deer and elk should be seriously considered also
Post by: jrebel on March 22, 2015, 01:12:42 PM
Baiting bear and running dogs was tradition and the only successful way to manage preditors.That was a major mistake when voted away.
Designated areas for baiting deer and elk should be seriously considered also
That was my point....but then we should outlaw modern firearms because natives were very successful with traditional weapons.
My only point is why restrict a method of hunting because it wasn't used by our elders / past generations. Times change and methods evolve. What works for me may or may not work for you (or others).
Post by: fishngamereaper on March 22, 2015, 01:23:54 PM
Post by: zike on March 22, 2015, 01:46:56 PM
Post by: jrebel on March 22, 2015, 02:01:41 PM
Why should the seniors and the disabled be penalized under these rules. You think the disabled can shlep bait 400 yards, maybe some seniors can but not all. Lets level the playing, no bait for the disabled, no bait for anyone.
If they cant carry it they can get help. If we are going to look at every extreme might be case in the name a fairness we may all well end all hunting. :dunno:
So if your eyes are bad and you can't shoot an open site muzzleloader over 50 yards....I shouldn't be able to either. This makes no sense what so ever. Maybe we should eliminate all youth tags because the odds are better for youth and that's not fair either. Just level the playing field throughout.
This is a very slippery slope.... :bash:
Post by: singleshot12 on March 22, 2015, 02:05:22 PM
Baiting bear and running dogs was tradition and the only successful way to manage preditors.That was a major mistake when voted away.
Designated areas for baiting deer and elk should be seriously considered also
That was my point....but then we should outlaw modern firearms because natives were very successful with traditional weapons.
My only point is why restrict a method of hunting because it wasn't used by our elders / past generations. Times change and methods evolve. What works for me may or may not work for you (or others).
I understand what you are saying,and yes times change and methods evolve,and that is exactly why baiting should be looked at. Never before has it been so popular and widespread. Other hunters with logical reason see baiting as a threat to the future of hunting.
Post by: 4fletch on March 22, 2015, 02:08:37 PM
Post by: Skillet on March 22, 2015, 02:13:16 PM
Why should the seniors and the disabled be penalized under these rules. You think the disabled can shlep bait 400 yards, maybe some seniors can but not all. Lets level the playing, no bait for the disabled, no bait for anyone.
Per Dale's proposed rules, they wouldn't have to schlep it 400 yards unless they wanted to leave it on plain sight...
Dale, may I suggest a terminology change on this point to something like "If located within 400 yards of any publicly maintained roadway, a bait station must be not be visible from said roadway."
Post by: zike on March 22, 2015, 02:20:39 PM
I know I'm going to get slammed here but oh well Go ahead.
I totally disagree with the no restrictions for the "disabled" and my reason is as follows
Look around at the majority of the handicap disabled placards and the lard asses getting out of the cars using these placards.
I'm sorry but being a fat A-- and being to dumb to realize you need to loose weigh and to lazy to get off the couch except to go to Walmart and get in their electric shopping cart in no excuse for a handicap placard and sure as hell isn't deserving of special privileges....
And lazy a**es like you who are to stupid and lazy to get out and actually hunt something, should be allowed to continue baiting so you can sit on your bait pile and kill your deer? No baiting for anyone and the disabled won't get any special privileges.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 02:40:05 PM
I know I'm going to get slammed here but oh well Go ahead.
I totally disagree with the no restrictions for the "disabled" and my reason is as follows
Look around at the majority of the handicap disabled placards and the lard asses getting out of the cars using these placards.
I'm sorry but being a fat A-- and being to dumb to realize you need to loose weigh and to lazy to get off the couch except to go to Walmart and get in their electric shopping cart in no excuse for a handicap placard and sure as hell isn't deserving of special privileges....
And lazy a**es like you who are to stupid and lazy to get out and actually hunt something, should be allowed to continue baiting so you can sit on your bait pile and kill your deer? No baiting for anyone and the disabled won't get any special privileges.
Two things:
Stop with the profanity!
Please consider that other people may want to hunt differently than you and that baiting is the safest method of hunting in populated areas.
Post by: Special T on March 22, 2015, 02:45:44 PM
I sent a message to WDFW and the Commission to ask for their input.QuoteDear WDFW and Commissioners,
I am an outfitter in NE Washington and I own a popular hunting forum, Hunting-Washington. I’m aware of some of the complaints about baiting and the areas where the complaints are coming from. I wanted to make the Moses Lake meeting but was too busy. I’m trying to determine some minimal rules which are acceptable to most hunters that will address the major concerns that WDFW and the commission have with baiting. Could some of you please reply back to me with a summation of the major concerns that you feel need resolved. I would like to be able to say on the forum that I received correspondence from at least one commissioner or from WDFW (no name need be mentioned) and this is a list of major concerns. Using that list of concerns I would like to discuss it on the forum to establish some simple rules which are acceptable to most hunters. I look forward to any help you can provide.
Please feel free to follow the conversation and comment if you wish: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,172226.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,172226.html)
Best Regards,
Dale
Inviting them to view this discussion was bad strategy BP. Its one thing for you and I to discuss what to do in a worst case scenario... Like what kind of wording to steer ignorant commissioners to.
Its wrong because it would appear that our arguments imply that we know rules on baiting are coming and we have given up ground in the fight against BS baiting rules.
Post by: Bob33 on March 22, 2015, 02:55:26 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 02:59:43 PM
Why should the seniors and the disabled be penalized under these rules. You think the disabled can shlep bait 400 yards, maybe some seniors can but not all. Lets level the playing, no bait for the disabled, no bait for anyone.
Per Dale's proposed rules, they wouldn't have to schlep it 400 yards unless they wanted to leave it on plain sight...
Dale, may I suggest a terminology change on this point to something like "If located within 400 yards of any publicly maintained roadway, a bait station must be not be visible from said roadway."
Yes, the wording seems to be confusing some people, how is this....
Baiting Restrictions
- Bait placed less than 400 yards from a public roadway cannot be visible from the road
- Bait cannot be placed in a lake, pond, or running stream
- Bait sites cannot have more than 8 cubic feet* of bait placed within a 16 hour period
*8 cubic feet = 59 Gallons = (1) 16"x18"x48" bale
(While it's important to get bait sites out of public view and resolve bait quantity issues, it's very important that these rules do not prevent small landowners from baiting. Hunters want to be able to bait on their own properties and on public land, this can be done following these rules?)
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 03:02:22 PM
If you believe this forum isn't already read by commissioners, WDFW employees, legislators and others in positions of authority you would be mistaken.
That is correct!
Post by: Special T on March 22, 2015, 03:15:26 PM
If you believe this forum isn't already read by commissioners, WDFW employees, legislators and others in positions of authority you would be mistaken.
When I talk business strategy with my partner I usually dont call attention to myself while doing so. I have the conversation in my truck not standing in front of the customer. It is a tactical difference of opinion, thats all.
We have nothing to hide and SEVERAL people have voiced thier displeasure with ANY potential baiting rule changes. IF the Commission is actually concerned with science or good management then its a non issue... I am disappointed at the under-representation of hunters on the commission so i think being cautious and skeptical is the right course.
Post by: steeleywhopper on March 22, 2015, 03:16:23 PM
Bad enough we have wolves now and I'm sure more Grizzlies are coming next. Don't need hunters to help regulate ourselves out of options.
I could give a rip if you want to bait, shoot a deer with mechanical tips, use lighted nocks, or maybe trap a beaver. I sure the heck ain't gonna make it any harder for you folks that want to do it. Sad day for hunters as far as This is concerned.
Right now Anti hunting groups are applauding some of you for doing their dirty work. :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 03:20:24 PM
If you believe this forum isn't already read by commissioners, WDFW employees, legislators and others in positions of authority you would be mistaken.
When I talk business strategy with my partner I usually dont call attention to myself while doing so. I have the conversation in my truck not standing in front of the customer. It is a tactical difference of opinion, thats all.
We have nothing to hide and SEVERAL people have voiced thier displeasure with ANY potential baiting rule changes. IF the Commission is actually concerned with science or good management then its a non issue... I am disappointed at the under-representation of hunters on the commission so i think being cautious and skeptical is the right course.
This whole forum is a public discussion. :dunno:
Back in the late 90's it was the anti's that got bear baiting outlawed, now it's hunters trying to cut their own throats. You dipshi@ts ought to quit trying to cut off your noses to spite your face. This crap makes me sick.
Bad enough we have wolves now and I'm sure more Grizzlies are coming next. Don't need hunters to help regulate ourselves out of options.
I could give a rip if you want to bait, shoot a deer with mechanical tips, use lighted nocks, or maybe trap a beaver. I sure the heck ain't gonna make it any harder for you folks that want to do it. Sad day for hunters as far as This is concerned.
Right now Anti hunting groups are applauding some of you for doing their dirty work. :bash:
If you had read previous posts you would understand this is an issue expressed by other hunters. It has little to do with non-hunters. :twocents:
Post by: steeleywhopper on March 22, 2015, 03:32:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2015, 03:35:25 PM
Well I noticed hunters in this thread wanting to ban it and I spoke my opinion. Disregard if it's out of topic.
I know it's frustrating, that's why I am trying to find a solution we can offer that everyone can live with! :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2015, 05:20:00 PM
I also don't have a problem with keeping the bait piles reasonable in size while on public ground.
Don't regulate baiting on private ground or folks would get in trouble for shooting a deer eating off a round bale left out in the hay field.
Post by: jrebel on March 22, 2015, 05:33:15 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2015, 05:34:32 PM
Same could be said for people shooting deer off an agricultural field that is leased public land. There should be wording the excludes agricultural lands...both private and public. :twocents:
good point
Post by: idahohuntr on March 22, 2015, 07:09:26 PM
For the quantity and timing...I say you just set a maximum quantity and not do anything with time restrictions. You can have 8 cu ft. of bait at a site at any one time...bait as frequently as you want...just don't exceed 8 cu feet.
The other issue that needs addressed is what constitutes a bait site? We need to think in terms of what prevents the semi-truck of apples guy from doing his thing? Because you could (with a little work) put 8 cu ft of apples every 10 feet and still have a huge quantity of bait in a small area but "technically" be legal. This is where I was leaning towards the Idaho bait tag model where a uniquely coded tag (zip tie) is attached near the bait and each hunter gets a max of x bait tags or something which are unique to each hunter. Or maybe just say you get 8 cu ft of bait, and only 1 bait per xxxx yards radius?
I applaud bearpaw for seeing the value in being proactive and participating in the rule making...hopefully we get some very straightforward and reasonable restrictions that make most hunters happy. The anti-baiters and the semi-truck of apples guys can cancel each other out :chuckle:
Post by: LeviD1 on March 22, 2015, 08:36:31 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 22, 2015, 08:51:05 PM
If you needed bait tags then on top of over priced tags in wa for season they give in my opinion that is then they would sell bait tags for probably like $15 a piece or some crap. WA tries to charge for everything that's what makes me mad.idaho charges for bait permits for bear. They also charge for archery permit to hunt archery season as well as a muzzle loader permit to hunt muzzle loader season.
Post by: lokidog on March 22, 2015, 09:05:45 PM
BearPaw. Let's slow down here. It's not where you what, it's what you bait with that's the issue. Apples are bad. Scientifically speaking, the deer don't need more protien in the winter fall, and apples don't provide that. If guys want to bait, let them, but require them to bait with quality nutritional foods. If they use salt they should be required to use mineral blocks that contain selenium, which is necessary for does to carry full term.
It'd be easier to enforce, apples dump = ticket. Simple.
This is BS, alfalfa at certain times of year can be a lot worse for deer than apples. They can digest sugars for energy use anytime but may not have the proper bacterial mix to digest alfalfa when it is given in the middle of the winter thus filling their bellies with no useable food.
So Bearpaw, you think it is OK to limit bait volume to 8 cubic feet but think saying two five gallon buckets is too hard to figure out? How the He... are they supposed to measure 8 cubic feet? It seems to me that two five gallon buckets would be a lot easier to estimate if not actually "raking it up". :dunno: It seems that you are just set on getting "your way" and not really taking other people's opinions into consideration.....
As far as private land goes, if I want to dump a pile of apples on the end of my friggin' driveway, there is noone in this country that has a right to tell me I can't do so!!! Now, if there is a bait quantity limit, then fine limit my pile to two buckets or some nebulous 8 cubic feet, but noone can tell me where I can or can't put it on my property.
If you needed bait tags then on top of over priced tags in wa for season they give in my opinion that is then they would sell bait tags for probably like $15 a piece or some crap. WA tries to charge for everything that's what makes me mad.
I don't think they should be able to charge for the "tags" but I have no problem with requiring some form of accountability for baits on public land.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 22, 2015, 09:20:25 PM
Thats not what I have observed...he has taken a lot of input and is trying to find a solution to provide the commission that will protect people who bait while addressing the most egregious practices which have created this uproar.BearPaw. Let's slow down here. It's not where you what, it's what you bait with that's the issue. Apples are bad. Scientifically speaking, the deer don't need more protien in the winter fall, and apples don't provide that. If guys want to bait, let them, but require them to bait with quality nutritional foods. If they use salt they should be required to use mineral blocks that contain selenium, which is necessary for does to carry full term.
It'd be easier to enforce, apples dump = ticket. Simple.
This is BS, alfalfa at certain times of year can be a lot worse for deer than apples. They can digest sugars for energy use anytime but may not have the proper bacterial mix to digest alfalfa when it is given in the middle of the winter thus filling their bellies with no useable food.
So Bearpaw, you think it is OK to limit bait volume to 8 cubic feet but think saying two five gallon buckets is too hard to figure out? How the He... are they supposed to measure 8 cubic feet? It seems to me that two five gallon buckets would be a lot easier to estimate if not actually "raking it up". :dunno: It seems that you are just set on getting "your way" and not really taking other people's opinions into consideration.....
As far as private land goes, if I want to dump a pile of apples on the end of my friggin' driveway, there is noone in this country that has a right to tell me I can't do so!!! Now, if there is a bait quantity limit, then fine limit my pile to two buckets or some nebulous 8 cubic feet, but noone can tell me where I can or can't put it on my property.
As far as no one telling you where you can put bait...I suppose thats true...but if you want to hunt over that bait then you will have to comply with whatever rules are passed by the commission or legislature.
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2015, 09:27:05 PM
Post by: lokidog on March 22, 2015, 09:33:20 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 22, 2015, 09:35:27 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2015, 09:37:31 PM
Post by: lokidog on March 22, 2015, 09:40:42 PM
this whole issue is about baiting mule deer
That may be, but it is not where the impact will stop.
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2015, 09:41:17 PM
Post by: zike on March 22, 2015, 09:43:51 PM
If you needed bait tags then on top of over priced tags in wa for season they give in my opinion that is then they would sell bait tags for probably like $15 a piece or some crap. WA tries to charge for everything that's what makes me mad.
I don't think they should be able to charge for the "tags" but I have no problem with requiring some form of accountability for baits on public land.
[/quote]
You know what they say, you want to play you have to pay, it costs money for the tags.LOL
I was watching ME game wardens, cleaning up a pile of apples. They were saying baiting isn't fair chase. Of course what do they know.
Post by: lokidog on March 22, 2015, 10:00:30 PM
If you needed bait tags then on top of over priced tags in wa for season they give in my opinion that is then they would sell bait tags for probably like $15 a piece or some crap. WA tries to charge for everything that's what makes me mad.
I don't think they should be able to charge for the "tags" but I have no problem with requiring some form of accountability for baits on public land.
You know what they say, you want to play you have to pay, it costs money for the tags.LOL
I was watching ME game wardens, cleaning up a pile of apples. They were saying baiting isn't fair chase. Of course what do they know.
[/quote]
They only "know" what their opinion is.....
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2015, 10:13:44 PM
Post by: jasnt on March 22, 2015, 10:17:15 PM
hillarious that people think wild animals will just consume whatever you dump till they die! same thing with salt licks...deer and elk only hit them when they need it and they move on..they dont just sit on them for hours and gorge on salt! Most elk and deer spend minutes at a site and leave, same with bait. Most mature bucks hit a site for mere minutes and leave. Same with does they might hit a site for 10 min and leave and come back hours laterthis is what I've seen consistently with my year round baiting practices for the last 5 years with white tails. But when there is less forage or the most my plots are done for the year then they hit the bait more often than usual.
:yeah:Thats not what I have observed...he has taken a lot of input and is trying to find a solution to provide the commission that will protect people who bait while addressing the most egregious practices which have created this uproar.BearPaw. Let's slow down here. It's not where you what, it's what you bait with that's the issue. Apples are bad. Scientifically speaking, the deer don't need more protien in the winter fall, and apples don't provide that. If guys want to bait, let them, but require them to bait with quality nutritional foods. If they use salt they should be required to use mineral blocks that contain selenium, which is necessary for does to carry full term.
It'd be easier to enforce, apples dump = ticket. Simple.
This is BS, alfalfa at certain times of year can be a lot worse for deer than apples. They can digest sugars for energy use anytime but may not have the proper bacterial mix to digest alfalfa when it is given in the middle of the winter thus filling their bellies with no useable food.
So Bearpaw, you think it is OK to limit bait volume to 8 cubic feet but think saying two five gallon buckets is too hard to figure out? How the He... are they supposed to measure 8 cubic feet? It seems to me that two five gallon buckets would be a lot easier to estimate if not actually "raking it up". :dunno: It seems that you are just set on getting "your way" and not really taking other people's opinions into consideration.....
As far as private land goes, if I want to dump a pile of apples on the end of my friggin' driveway, there is noone in this country that has a right to tell me I can't do so!!! Now, if there is a bait quantity limit, then fine limit my pile to two buckets or some nebulous 8 cubic feet, but noone can tell me where I can or can't put it on my property.
As far as no one telling you where you can put bait...I suppose thats true...but if you want to hunt over that bait then you will have to comply with whatever rules are passed by the commission or legislature.
Post by: lokidog on March 22, 2015, 10:24:24 PM
everyone's definition of "fare chase" is different. I know there are several legal methods of hunting/fishing that I personally don't agree with, bur I'm not going to regulate opportunity away just because I don't like it.
This would be WDFW's definition, we will charge you a huge "fare" to chase anything..... ;) :chuckle:
Post by: Dan-o on March 22, 2015, 10:37:02 PM
Having said that, if NO CHANGE isn't an option, I'd go for minimal change, to include no baiting within XX yards of a public road.
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2015, 10:44:42 PM
Post by: Elkstuffer on March 23, 2015, 08:07:55 AM
We didn't have any of these problems before becuase you know why? Hardly anyone baited! Back in the day 20 yrs ago most hunted the traditional way for their venison.
I say we educate the general hunting population away from the baiting norm instead of more laws to keep it. Deer and elk DON'T don't need to be baited for a successful hunt.
OR make it simple and only allow baiting for the handi-cap and over 65 :twocents:
Obviously you have never tried still hunting for whitetail in NE WA with a bow when there is 4" of crunchy snow under foot in Nov.
How about this concept: IF IT IS A LEGAL METHOD OF HUNTING SUPPORT YOUR FELLOW HUNTER INSTEAD OF GOING AGAINST THEM!!!!!!
"IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING TO PROTECT HUNTING (WHICH INCLUDES ALL LEGAL METHODS) THEN YOU ARE WORKING TO DESTROY IT"! Fred Bear said this a long time ago and it couldn't be more spot on today.
Post by: grundy53 on March 23, 2015, 08:10:24 AM
We didn't have any of these problems before becuase you know why? Hardly anyone baited! Back in the day 20 yrs ago most hunted the traditional way for their venison.
I say we educate the general hunting population away from the baiting norm instead of more laws to keep it. Deer and elk DON'T don't need to be baited for a successful hunt.
OR make it simple and only allow baiting for the handi-cap and over 65 :twocents:
Obviously you have never tried still hunting for whitetail in NE WA with a bow when there is 4" of crunchy snow under foot in Nov.
How about this concept: IF IT IS A LEGAL METHOD OF HUNTING SUPPORT YOUR FELLOW HUNTER INSTEAD OF GOING AGAINST THEM!!!!!!
"IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING TO PROTECT HUNTING (WHICH INCLUDES ALL LEGAL METHODS) THEN YOU ARE WORKING TO DESTROY IT"! Fred Bear said this a long time ago and it couldn't be more spot on today.
:yeah:
Post by: Elkstuffer on March 23, 2015, 08:20:23 AM
I beg to differ Zike, I'm the most fit 50 yr old I know and baiting is far from lazy. It is simply a LEGAL method of hunting that I choose to use. I start going to my hunting area in the spring, which is a 5 1/2 hr drive one way. I pack a 50lb salt block into my sight about 1/2 mile from the truck. Then multiple trips (usually 5) starting in Aug and leading up to Nov and pack in a couple bales of alfalfa and 50lb bags of cob. Last year during the season I averaged 11 hrs a day in a treestand with the average temps about 2 degrees. I've been doing it this way for 6 years now and have yet to kill a trophy buck. I could have killed a number of does, fawns and small bucks at any given time. So tell me Zike, what part of this sounds lazy to you? I suppose driving to the woods on opening morning for the first time all year and venturing a couple hundreds yrds off the road and back to the truck by 10 am is the less lazy and more manly way of hunting because that's what your old man taught you. Give me a brake!I know I'm going to get slammed here but oh well Go ahead.
I totally disagree with the no restrictions for the "disabled" and my reason is as follows
Look around at the majority of the handicap disabled placards and the lard asses getting out of the cars using these placards.
I'm sorry but being a fat A-- and being to dumb to realize you need to loose weigh and to lazy to get off the couch except to go to Walmart and get in their electric shopping cart in no excuse for a handicap placard and sure as hell isn't deserving of special privileges....
And lazy a**es like you who are to stupid and lazy to get out and actually hunt something, should be allowed to continue baiting so you can sit on your bait pile and kill your deer? No baiting for anyone and the disabled won't get any special privileges.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2015, 10:03:09 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 10:15:00 AM
:yeah: Or just regulate it to a certain time frame. GMU XXX will only have baiting allowed from the month(s) of September to October, all bait must be removed by Nov. 1st to protect migrating animals. Or just don't change it at all.tbis is probably the best idea i have heard if anything should be done. Addresses the issue at hand without impeding anyone else...
Post by: MtnMuley on March 23, 2015, 10:34:50 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 23, 2015, 10:41:13 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2015, 10:47:14 AM
What's wrong with the one proposed option that makes it illegal "if the volume of bait exceeds 10 gallons"? That rule is easily understood and easily enforceable, especially when the person baiting is putting out a truckload of apples each time.Ten gallons isn't necessarily a lot of bait. A bag of corn or alfalfa pellets is between 7-8 gallons. Might be fine for a couple days, but if you bait for a week's worth of time for your cams that restriction might leave more days unbaited than baited.
Post by: zike on March 23, 2015, 11:07:35 AM
Post by: lokidog on March 23, 2015, 11:10:14 AM
What's wrong with the one proposed option that makes it illegal "if the volume of bait exceeds 10 gallons"? That rule is easily understood and easily enforceable, especially when the person baiting is putting out a truckload of apples each time.Ten gallons isn't necessarily a lot of bait. A bag of corn or alfalfa pellets is between 7-8 gallons. Might be fine for a couple days, but if you bait for a week's worth of time for your cams that restriction might leave more days unbaited than baited.
This may be true, but what is the biggest complaint we have been hearing about? Truckloads of apples altering the natural behavior of animals in an area? A quantity limit would address this issue. Yes, it would make the person who does not live near the property travel more or bait less, but there are other negatives already to not living near where you hunt. If this is a problem, hunt closer to where you live.
From my narrow experience, I can throw three or four apples on a trail in front of my camera, and get an idea of what is there. If I do this a few times, the deer will come look to see if there is anything there and then move on to their other regular food after eating them or looking for them. I agree that bait should not be used to keep animals in an area they do not normally hang out out. I do not bait to "feed" the deer, during hunting season anyways, I do "feed" the deer later in the winter, but then I use quality pellets to give them a protien and carb boost during the time of year that they need a little more help (here on the island anyways) and I still don't supply enough to be their only food source, though I would feed more if I could afford to do so. But if it is indeed used for getting a still shot at an animal or positioning one in a more ideal location, then a ten gallon limit should not be a problem. If a person is using alfalfa bales, the rule could be written something like ten gallons of feed or a "standard" bale of xyz dimensions. Either of these is pretty easy to estimate when spread out on the ground by anyone that is familiar with a bale of hay or a bucket of apples. If LEOs can't figure out how to estimate this in the field, w/o "raking it up" then maybe they need to go back to warden school (I met one once that could not identify a drake pintail in eclipse plumage that probably needed to go back to bird ID class, fortunately, he knew his limitations and was polite about asking what kind of duck it was ;) ).
Elkstuffer something I learned over the years. Never argue with idiots as they will do nothing but bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Zike, you need to... oh wait never mind, not going to argue with you.... :chuckle:
Post by: fishngamereaper on March 23, 2015, 11:11:01 AM
Elkstuffer something I learned over the years. Never argue with idiots as they will do nothing but bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Wow... Now there's a mature statement. Really sheds some light on the whole topic. :dunno:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 11:11:16 AM
What's wrong with the one proposed option that makes it illegal "if the volume of bait exceeds 10 gallons"? That rule is easily understood and easily enforceable, especially when the person baiting is putting out a truckload of apples each time.how would this be enforced with a compressed alfalfa bail. Sub 10 gallons when banded but as soon as the bands are cut it expands greatly and after being kicked aroud by deer will never fit into a 10 gallon container again. Also what about the stems or remains of alfalfa that the deer dont eat? Will it coun t toward the 10 gallon?
Post by: Curly on March 23, 2015, 11:13:48 AM
Quote
But if it is indeed used for getting a still shot at an animal or positioning one in a more ideal location, then a ten gallon limit should not be a problem. If a person is using alfalfa bales, the rule could be written something like ten gallons of feed or a "standard" bale of xyz dimensions. Either of these is pretty easy to estimate when spread out on the ground by anyone that is familiar with a bale of hay or a bucket of apples.
Ten gallons or standard bale.
Post by: TommyH on March 23, 2015, 11:18:14 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 23, 2015, 11:20:04 AM
What's wrong with the one proposed option that makes it illegal "if the volume of bait exceeds 10 gallons"? That rule is easily understood and easily enforceable, especially when the person baiting is putting out a truckload of apples each time.how would this be enforced with a compressed alfalfa bail. Sub 10 gallons when banded but as soon as the bands are cut it expands greatly and after being kicked aroud by deer will never fit into a 10 gallon container again. Also what about the stems or remains of alfalfa that the deer dont eat? Will it coun t toward the 10 gallon?
I don't think it could be strictly enforced, and that's what I like about it. I think they wouldn't bother anybody unless it was very obvious that they were well over the ten gallon limit.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2015, 11:20:17 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 11:23:45 AM
why would anybody want to put a law on the books that is admittadly unenforceable by the letter of the law. Make it cut and dry. I like the reg idea for gmus or groups of gmus... address the problem while leaving everyone else alone. :twocents:......
I don't think it could be strictly enforced, and that's what I like about it. I think they wouldn't bother anybody unless it was very obvious that they were well over the ten gallon limit.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
Post by: grundy53 on March 23, 2015, 11:29:16 AM
:yeah: Or just regulate it to a certain time frame. GMU XXX will only have baiting allowed from the month(s) of September to October, all bait must be removed by Nov. 1st to protect migrating animals. Or just don't change it at all.Now we're getting somewhere. Point restrictions, permits, and quotas are all GMU specific. Why not this too.
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 12:18:05 PM
So Bearpaw, you think it is OK to limit bait volume to 8 cubic feet but think saying two five gallon buckets is too hard to figure out? How the He... are they supposed to measure 8 cubic feet? It seems to me that two five gallon buckets would be a lot easier to estimate if not actually "raking it up". :dunno: It seems that you are just set on getting "your way" and not really taking other people's opinions into consideration.....
Please read all my posts in this topic as I try to find what will work for everyone and then please ask yourself if you were off base with this post. :bash:
Post by: coachcw on March 23, 2015, 12:19:55 PM
Post by: WSU on March 23, 2015, 12:24:56 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 23, 2015, 12:38:30 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but exactly what issues are you trying to address?"I would rather see workable rules created by those who know baiting than rules created by people who may not fully understand baiting.
An assumption is that the Commission does not like the "No Change" option."
Post by: zike on March 23, 2015, 01:07:14 PM
What are you baiters going to do when they finally ban baiting, hang it up or learn what real hunting is all about.
Post by: Bob33 on March 23, 2015, 01:12:14 PM
What's there to understand about baiting, you throw out a bunch of bait to lure them in and then you crush there _______ head. Lots of skill in that.You should be happy. If baiting is banned, only you and the other real hunters will have the woods to yourself.
What are you baiters going to do when they finally ban baiting, hang it up or learn what real hunting is all about.
Post by: WSU on March 23, 2015, 01:14:00 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but exactly what issues are you trying to address?"I would rather see workable rules created by those who know baiting than rules created by people who may not fully understand baiting.
An assumption is that the Commission does not like the "No Change" option."
I guess I'm curious exactly what we are trying to solve? Are there specific issues that need addressing or is this an attempt to create a rule in hopes that somebody else won't beat you to the punch?
Post by: Bob33 on March 23, 2015, 01:17:54 PM
From reading the entire thread, the intent is to be proactive and develope palatable rules if the Commission insists on some baiting restrictions. There were no specific issues being addressed.I didn't read the whole thread, but exactly what issues are you trying to address?"I would rather see workable rules created by those who know baiting than rules created by people who may not fully understand baiting.
An assumption is that the Commission does not like the "No Change" option."
I guess I'm curious exactly what we are trying to solve? Are there specific issues that need addressing or is this an attempt to create a rule in hopes that somebody else won't beat you to the punch?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 01:18:21 PM
What's there to understand about baiting, you throw out a bunch of bait to lure them in and then you crush there _______ head. Lots of skill in that.You hqve it all figured out! Just one question for you? Whats it like to be a living legend? :chuckle: :bash:
What are you baiters going to do when they finally ban baiting, hang it up or learn what real hunting is all about.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2015, 01:20:49 PM
From what I've read....I didn't read the whole thread, but exactly what issues are you trying to address?"I would rather see workable rules created by those who know baiting than rules created by people who may not fully understand baiting.
An assumption is that the Commission does not like the "No Change" option."
I guess I'm curious exactly what we are trying to solve? Are there specific issues that need addressing or is this an attempt to create a rule in hopes that somebody else won't beat you to the punch?
The main complaint is from groups of hunters that hunt muleys in a certain region of the state during a late season. They are becoming increasingly irritated about guys on private land dumping truckloads of apples for deer. Makes the deer bypass a lot of the public land as they move down into the private and are then shot by guide outfits over the apples.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 01:27:29 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 01:28:31 PM
am I correct in assuming that GMU 204 and 101 are the major cause for this discussion?i think it is only the okanogan muley hunts late in the year... at least that was really the focus at the commission meeting saturday.
Post by: grundy53 on March 23, 2015, 01:42:11 PM
Then that would also add GMU's 215 and 233.am I correct in assuming that GMU 204 and 101 are the major cause for this discussion?i think it is only the okanogan muley hunts late in the year... at least that was really the focus at the commission meeting saturday.
Post by: grundy53 on March 23, 2015, 01:43:26 PM
Why are you even concerned with something you obviously know nothing about?What's there to understand about baiting, you throw out a bunch of bait to lure them in and then you crush there _______ head. Lots of skill in that.
What are you baiters going to do when they finally ban baiting, hang it up or learn what real hunting is all about.
Ha! Spoken in true ignorance. Never shot an animal over bait, had the opportunity but never capitalized. In no way does baiting ensure harvesting trophy class animals. A better proven method would be to use a spotting scope, I'd wager more mature mule deer meet their demise from a 60X scope rather then a pile of apples.
So if there's a better method, why are you sitting on a pile of stinking apples? I'm really hoping they ban baiting so I can hear you whiners for the next decade or two.
Post by: WSU on March 23, 2015, 01:51:17 PM
Then that would also add GMU's 215 and 233.am I correct in assuming that GMU 204 and 101 are the major cause for this discussion?i think it is only the okanogan muley hunts late in the year... at least that was really the focus at the commission meeting saturday.
If that's the case, none of the suggestions will help since said pile of apples could still be placed. I would be reluctant to add restrictions because a small group of people during one season are displeased with how others are hunting.
Post by: grundy53 on March 23, 2015, 01:53:36 PM
Post by: h20hunter on March 23, 2015, 01:58:05 PM
What's there to understand about baiting, you throw out a bunch of bait to lure them in and then you crush there _______ head. Lots of skill in that.
What are you baiters going to do when they finally ban baiting, hang it up or learn what real hunting is all about.
Oh all knowing......I shall now bow down and worship his holliness oh great hollierthanthouest......
For I know not of what this "real hunting" is all about without your ever knowing and allknowest wisdom.....
:kneel:
Where is that link to the term....elitist.....I know it is around here somewhere.
Post by: bowtechian on March 23, 2015, 02:09:38 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on March 23, 2015, 02:26:17 PM
Post by: Elkstuffer on March 23, 2015, 02:44:03 PM
Seem more of a divide and conquer tactic to me seems like on fishing & hunting issues this is how the anti's with friends in places hack away @ us! Just my 0.02
That is exactly what it is bowtechian. That is why this is so disturbing to me. Other hunters that enjoy hunting and the outdoors just like everyone else want to attack each other and try to force "their" elitest ways on the rest of us. They think there way is the only way therefore the right way.
Post by: bowtechian on March 23, 2015, 02:53:31 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on March 23, 2015, 02:57:03 PM
I wish the rule making was game management driven & not some mis-informed opinion also having under qualified ppl on the commission doesn't help either
All it takes is a few Zike's to rattle enough cages. I 100% agree and have said all along that if you showed me that it was at all a detriment to the herd's health I would have no issue stopping baiting all together. Until then, its just emotional and that is no way to manage and resource.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 23, 2015, 03:07:11 PM
I'm definitely against restrictions.
I'm definitely for the health of the herd. If a restriction needs to be put in place, do it. If it isn't causing a problem with the herd health, leave it alone.
Post by: Special T on March 23, 2015, 03:46:49 PM
There is NO WAY to prevent this without affecting the small scale property owner...
I would bet that you could also kill quite the stack of coyotes eating off that truckload of apples. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 03:50:09 PM
- I am opposed to restrictions on baiting
- I was told "NO CHANGE" is not an option for the Wildlife Commission
- The most complaints are about certain outfitters dumping truckloads of apples in the Okanogan
- The most serious issue seems to be those large bait piles on private land
- WDFW has said large quantities of apples are bad for deer and changing migration patterns
- USFS personnel have told me that large piles of hay on USFS lands are a concern
- Water contamination should be considered, ask the Dept of Ecology what you can put in water
The goal is to find simple rules that address the problems without inhibiting the average hunter. I sent a message to the full Commission and to multiple WDFW personal asking for clarification of major baiting concerns. I have not received a reply from anyone so the above info is what I have available!
Additional Considerations:
- Offer some reasonable rules rather than have people who do not understand baiting write new rules
- Be considerate of the methods other hunters prefer
- Baiting is the safest method to hunt suburban areas where deer/elk numbers need reduced
- Rules should be avoided that prevent landowners of any size of private parcel from baiting
- Many hunters do not own private hunting land so public land baiting is important to many hunters
- If baiting is kept out of sight from public roadways that may reduce complaints
- Rules must be simple for hunters to understand and measurable for enforceable by LEO's
Please consider these points, positive or negative comments are desired that are relevant to the conversation. Rants or provoking remarks will be removed, if you have nothing constructive to offer please don't comment, please start another topic. After considerable input including private property and public land concerns the following language has evolved. I will continue to modify the language as good points are made known!
REVISED
Baiting Restrictions
- Bait placed on public land cannot be visible from less than 400 yards of an open public road
- Bait cannot be placed in a lake, pond, or running stream
- Bait sites cannot have more than 8 cubic feet* of bait placed on any day
* 8 cubic feet = 59 Gallons = one bale 16"x18"x48"
Hunters on private land are encouraged to place bait out of sight from neighboring homes and passing traffic. Hunters on public land are encouraged to remove stands, blinds, and any remaining bait when hunting season closes.
Please offer your thoughts on this language?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 04:01:06 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 04:10:55 PM
Why not incorporate some gmu restrictions bearpaw?
Why have more rules than we need to solve the problems? Would that be fair to hunters who bait in those GMU's who do not cause problems?
Post by: Naches Sportsman on March 23, 2015, 04:29:38 PM
Also, I think baiting should be regulated to be no less than 200 yds from riparian areas.
If bios do a study and it turns out baiting is bad for deer and elk health, I would be for totally banning it.
Post by: Buckmark on March 23, 2015, 04:30:27 PM
Articles about baiting have already been written and published by antihunters, non hunters are just that and can be educated about the benefits of baiting...I wish the rule making was game management driven & not some mis-informed opinion also having under qualified ppl on the commission doesn't help either
All it takes is a few Zike's to rattle enough cages. I 100% agree and have said all along that if you showed me that it was at all a detriment to the herd's health I would have no issue stopping baiting all together. Until then, its just emotional and that is no way to manage and resource.
It won't be me you have to worry about, but one day someone will write an article. About you Bambi killers using bait to kill a poor deer. That will get the non hunters and anti hunters up it arms.
Me I'm just enjoying rattling your chains.
Oh and Bambi was way too small, now his dad on the other hand... :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on March 23, 2015, 04:33:31 PM
Why not incorporate some gmu restrictions bearpaw?
Why have more rules than we need to solve the problems? Would that be fair to hunters who bait in those GMU's who do not cause problems?
With that kind of logic BP you should be pushing for an across the board volume limit regaurdless of GMU. Besides a few bails of hay doesnt affect the water, and the issue isnt hay its semi truck loads of apples... So make it 55 gal of fruit or 1 ton a hay....
Bambi tastes fine, kinda like veal...
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 04:52:42 PM
Why not incorporate some gmu restrictions bearpaw?
Why have more rules than we need to solve the problems? Would that be fair to hunters who bait in those GMU's who do not cause problems?
With that kind of logic BP you should be pushing for an across the board volume limit regaurdless of GMU. Besides a few bails of hay doesnt affect the water, and the issue isnt hay its semi truck loads of apples... So make it 55 gal of fruit or 1 ton a hay....
Bambi tastes fine, kinda like veal...
I'm not going to argue with you, post up your recommended language, let's see how it sounds to everyone. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 05:02:38 PM
Tell us why these rules would be unreasonable or if you think this is a better option than the other options I've outlined?
Quote
LATEST REVISION (after more input from forum members)
Baiting Restrictions
- Bait placed on public land cannot be visible from less than 400 yards of an open public road
- Bait cannot be placed in a lake, pond, or running stream
- Bait sites cannot have more than 8 cubic feet* of bait placed any calendar day
* 8 cubic feet = 59 Gallons = one bale 16"x18"x48"
Hunters on private land are encouraged to place bait out of sight from neighboring homes and passing traffic. Hunters on public land are encouraged to remove stands, blinds, and any remaining bait when hunting season closes.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 23, 2015, 05:28:38 PM
We didn't have any of these problems before becuase you know why? Hardly anyone baited! Back in the day 20 yrs ago most hunted the traditional way for their venison.
I say we educate the general hunting population away from the baiting norm instead of more laws to keep it. Deer and elk DON'T don't need to be baited for a successful hunt.
OR make it simple and only allow baiting for the handi-cap and over 65 :twocents:
Obviously you have never tried still hunting for whitetail in NE WA with a bow when there is 4" of crunchy snow under foot in Nov.
How about this concept: IF IT IS A LEGAL METHOD OF HUNTING SUPPORT YOUR FELLOW HUNTER INSTEAD OF GOING AGAINST THEM!!!!!!
"IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING TO PROTECT HUNTING (WHICH INCLUDES ALL LEGAL METHODS) THEN YOU ARE WORKING TO DESTROY IT"! Fred Bear said this a long time ago and it couldn't be more spot on today.
Fred Bear was for baiting? I'M NOT WORKING TO PROTECT HUNTING :dunno: You keep telling yourself and you're gonna believe it! Why does every baiting thread get spun :rolleyes:
Post by: Elkstuffer on March 23, 2015, 05:29:51 PM
Post by: Elkstuffer on March 23, 2015, 05:36:18 PM
Post by: SilkOnTheDrySide on March 23, 2015, 05:36:29 PM
Only Masters should be allowed to do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: singleshot12 on March 23, 2015, 05:41:54 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 23, 2015, 05:44:41 PM
For the record...I have and had multiple baited camera sites but have mostly only used selenium/trace mineral salt and a few pumpkins here and there. I think over 2 years on one salt baited site, I've put down 3 50# bags of salt and probably have 10-12k pictures from that 1 camera to show for it.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 23, 2015, 05:46:44 PM
Post by: ATM green head machine on March 23, 2015, 05:49:18 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 05:53:42 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 05:55:25 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 23, 2015, 05:55:38 PM
You completly missed the boat on that one jackelope. :chuckle: id spell it out but i may get banned.
Dangit...you're right. Totally missed the boat.
I suck.
:chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 23, 2015, 05:58:38 PM
You completly missed the boat on that one jackelope. :chuckle: id spell it out but i may get banned.
Dangit...you're right. Totally missed the boat.
I suck.
:chuckle:
I got a good laugh out of it. :chuckle: maybe your just more mature or civilised than the rest of us.
Post by: jackelope on March 23, 2015, 06:01:50 PM
You completly missed the boat on that one jackelope. :chuckle: id spell it out but i may get banned.
Dangit...you're right. Totally missed the boat.
I suck.
:chuckle:
I got a good laugh out of it. :chuckle: maybe your just more mature or civilised than the rest of us.
Yes, I would assume that is the case indeed.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 23, 2015, 06:20:03 PM
Seem more of a divide and conquer tactic to me seems like on fishing & hunting issues this is how the anti's with friends in places hack away @ us! Just my 0.02
That is exactly what it is bowtechian. That is why this is so disturbing to me. Other hunters that enjoy hunting and the outdoors just like everyone else want to attack each other and try to force "their" elitest ways on the rest of us. They think there way is the only way therefore the right way.
Do you really think that those people that spoke Saturday along with you, are really wanting to chip away as an "elitist", or moreover did they present factual information of a problem that is occurring that they're bothered by?? It's disturbing to me that somebody might be too stubborn to see that there might be an actual problem that needs addressed......... :dunno:
Post by: ATM green head machine on March 23, 2015, 06:49:30 PM
everyone's definition of "fare chase" is different. I know there are several legal methods of hunting/fishing that I personally don't agree with, bur I'm not going to regulate opportunity away just because I don't like it.
This would be WDFW's definition, we will charge you a huge "fare" to chase anything..... ;) :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: nice one
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2015, 06:51:03 PM
The solution to baiting is simple.Wonder how WDFW would run that? Some courses, volunteer projects and a test?
Only Masters should be allowed to do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: fair-chase on March 23, 2015, 06:55:58 PM
With that out of the way...
LATEST REVISION (after more input from forum members)
Baiting Restrictions
- Bait placed on public land cannot be visible from less than 400 yards of an open public road
- Bait cannot be placed in a lake, pond, or running stream
- Bait sites cannot have more than 8 cubic feet* of bait placed any calendar day
* 8 cubic feet = 59 Gallons = one bale 16"x18"x48"
Bearpaw, you must have an oddball baler to get them that long and narrow. Tell the truth now, are you still using steel wire to wrap those bales??? :chuckle:
2 string = 14" x 18" x 36" = 9,072cu.in. = 39.27gallons
3 string = 16" x 24" x 48" = 18,432cu.in. = 79.79gallons
I would rewrite the previous suggestions as follows...
-Bait sites limited to 40 gallons at any given time.
This should appease those who use automatic feeders as well as those who use bales. 40 gallons is an easy enough measurement for enforcement to calculate. Works out to a full 2 string bale, half a 3 string bale, or 8 five gallon buckets. Simple. It also keeps the dump trucks of apples from being dropped. Restocking in 40 gallon increments may be doable for some of the outfitters in question, but it will also take a considerable amount of time and manpower versus the previous method of dumping by the truckload.
-Each individual/business allowed one bait site per square mile.
Per person and per square mile allows small landowners to bait even within close distance to neighbors. Even neighbors who are also baiting. While still keeping the larger tracts free from over use.
-Bait can be no closer than 100ft from any natural stream, river, or pond.
Keyword being natural. We don't need the WDFW checking every bird feeder, pool, or man-made wallow for spilled bait. 100ft is a fairly standard easement for forestry work, so it seems to fit here as well.
"Visible from a public road" does not sit well with me. Far too many ways for that to be interpreted. There could be instances where you could see the bait by stopping and peering through the bushes, but nobody driving the speed limit on that road would be the wiser. Does that qualify as visible? What if I drive to a lookout and see a bait site in the valley 2 miles away? Does that qualify as visible?
I also don't agree with restrictions that use hours or the calendar day. I believe that going by total amount on the ground is a better system. What if it takes someone several trips to their site to stock it? What if they only get to their bait site once a week or month and want to make several trips? As long as they don't exceed the maximum allowable feed (i.e. 40gal.), why do we care how many times it takes them to drop it off?
Post by: Elkstuffer on March 23, 2015, 06:57:25 PM
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 23, 2015, 07:26:36 PM
There were no facts presented at the meeting. One guy was upset that his neighbors/friends were pulling deer off of his property, another that considered it an eye sore and one more that just didn't agree with the practice. That is why a couple of the commissioners, one being from the "problem" area of Omak, chose to shelf this until there is some biological facts presented to WDFW.Elkstuffer - remember there was a presentation. WDFW Staff presented facts about the surveys. But then there was testimony given by the public. These we're anecdotal, opinions, for the most part. People describing how the migration route has changed, about the deep trails in the snow leading to bait piles, how hunters success rate is down, except those being guided and hunting over these excessive bait piles. There was also the professional biologist that gave factual informaion about the negative affects of apples calling them "snicker bars." He was not a WDFW biologists though.
There was also testimony from the older lady who has been serving on the Game Management Advisory Council. She was awesome. She described the GMAC l lengthy debates on this topic and how they voted 17-0 in favor of no change to baiting laws. She also offered up that hunting guides are not regulated and that this is some thing the Commission should look into.
Sorry if what I had posted earlier was misleading as factual wildlife survey results, if there is a such thing
Post by: idahohuntr on March 23, 2015, 08:10:36 PM
There was also testimony from the older lady who has been serving on the Game Management Advisory Council. She was awesome. She described the GMAC l lengthy debates on this topic and how they voted 17-0 in favor of no change to baiting laws. She also offered up that hunting guides are not regulated and that this is some thing the Commission should look into.Yes she is :tup:
I believe facts are definitely lacking in this debate when it comes to effects of baiting...WDFW has described it as a social issue...not a biological issue. They have no indication of biological problems. :dunno:
We are coming up with a bunch of good ideas on potential rule changes that will address the folks causing the bulk of the problem...I have to wonder if another approach might address the concerns but not result in additional rules...should hunters contact these guides/outfitters that are the primary cause of this latest uproar and ask them to modify their practices? Or is it a bunch of people, and not just a few outfitters in N-C Wa?
I
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2015, 08:17:35 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 09:42:03 PM
As I suspected, most of the problems of concern are occurring on private land, mostly on the east side but also on the west side of the state. The primary concern is limiting the quantity of bait on the ground. It is a concern that 8 cf of bait per day would accumulate if someone dumped that quantity every day. There are many ifs, ands, or buts when it comes to limiting bait quantity.
WDFW has proposed two 5 gallon buckets as a maximum. That could prohibit barrel feeders that have a timer which only put down a small amount each day. 10 gallons of hay isn't much hay. There are many variables: Deer normally tear apart a bale and eat the leafy portions leaving all the stems! How can hay be measured after it has been broken apart and rained on? How does a hunter or warden measure loose bait to know if a bait is compliant? Should hay be measured differently than other baits? Some people might avoid quantity limits by placing multiple baits close together. But many hunters like to have more than one bait so they have hunting options.
There is no doubt that we are likely going to see limitations on bait quantity. With that in mind I'm going to change the direction of this conversation to concentrate on the quantity issue. What rules will work best for limiting the total quantity of bait on the ground?
A STARTING POINT
The following limitations apply to hunting with the aid of bait
- No more than ___ pounds of hay can be available for consumption at a bait site
- No more than a total of ___ gallons of all other consumable materials can be available for consumption at a bait site
- No hunter, group, or business can place more than one bait per each ___ acres of private land
- No hunter, group, or business can place bait closer than ___ from another bait they placed on public land
That gets the conversation going in the direction of limiting quantity, let's hear your thoughts?
Post by: lokidog on March 23, 2015, 09:55:11 PM
Many people disagreed with your proposed 1/4 mile visibility limit, and most, that said something, did not agree with 400 yards either. You seemed against a possible list with no distance from a public road restriction, that was what I meant by not listening to the input.
Still not sure how __ acres of private land would translate to putting bait on two or more smaller adjacent private lots for those of us that don't have the luxury of lots of acreage to hunt.
Post by: jrebel on March 23, 2015, 09:57:10 PM
Just a thought.
Post by: CementFinisher on March 23, 2015, 10:09:42 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 23, 2015, 10:10:24 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 10:20:12 PM
Quote
Bearpaw, you must have an oddball baler to get them that long and narrow. Tell the truth now, are you still using steel wire to wrap those bales??? :chuckle:
2 string = 14" x 18" x 36" = 9,072cu.in. = 39.27gallons
3 string = 16" x 24" x 48" = 18,432cu.in. = 79.79gallons
I rarely use hay, I think it makes too big of mess, I do have bait sites where we put out about 1/4 to 1/2 gallon of grain per day. I'm fine with their proposed 10 gallons per day, I would much rather plant food plots in the spring and see them grow then spend my time scouting and hunting rather than running baits anyway. The main reason I run baits is that it gives my hunters who want to hunt bait a better shot opportunity and we see fewer wounded animals. I actually have my highest success rates by spotting and stalking in Montana where bait is not even legal.
I looked up various bale sizes on google and it said that is a larger sized small bale. They sell 100-120 pound bales to hunters at the local feed store so that seemed like a good size to consider. I was trying to help out the conversation. Other people like to use hay so lets figure something out that works for them.
Post by: bobcat on March 23, 2015, 10:22:42 PM
I'm pretty sure the department does not have the money nor the manpower to do the type of studies that you would like to see. All they will do is look at harvest reports to determine whether the deer population is up or down.
Post by: CementFinisher on March 23, 2015, 10:24:45 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 10:31:03 PM
That's funny BP, that list looks almost identical to one I posted....I'm happy that you are happy! :tup:
Many people disagreed with your proposed 1/4 mile visibility limit, and most, that said something, did not agree with 400 yards either. You seemed against a possible list with no distance from a public road restriction, that was what I meant by not listening to the input.
Still not sure how __ acres of private land would translate to putting bait on two or more smaller adjacent private lots for those of us that don't have the luxury of lots of acreage to hunt.
I like to think of myself as a problem solver rather than a complainer. I was under the impression that visibility mattered. I learned that it is a concern but not the major concern. The main concern is limiting the amount of bait on the ground. So let's find some acceptable guidelines to do that!
Quote
So how does this affect my deer squirrel and songbird feeders? Still the same limitations?I think it would apply if you hunt deer and elk over them. Otherwise why worry?
Post by: Britt-dog on March 23, 2015, 10:39:55 PM
I could write for an hour why I think any changes to the rules are unnecessary, but I won't. I will simply say that any of your proposals are entirely unenforceable, and would lead to much finger pointing, accusations and wasted time for our wardens. How many fellow hunters would be turning in every bait they were aware of, looking for points? we should not be capitulating to any regulation until it is forced upon us. Volume, distance, frequency, or sight limits will just be the beginning of the end. This debate has just started, we should all be fighting for no change.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 23, 2015, 10:40:58 PM
As far as barrel feeders with timers......If it is in a barrel and being dispensed over a period of time, does it really mean it is "available" for consumption. It would be nice if there was wording that defines "Available." Maybe "Available" could be defined as amount of food readily available for consumption at any one given time. Food in the barrel is not readily available to game until it is dispensed on the ground.:yeah:
Just a thought.
Barrel feeders dispensing feed a little at a time are not the problem, so we should make sure rules don't restrict them. Even under WDFW's 10 gallon limit I presumed as long as 10+ gallons was not available to the animal at any one time you would be fine with filling your 40 or 50 gallon feeders.
I received a phone call this afternoon and we discussed this issue!The quantity needs to be high enough that it exceeds most commercially available feeders and what most people could carry on a pack...but low enough that a truck load of apples is clearly outside the bounds. This makes it so their is less concern with hair splitting (do you have 8 gallons or 11 gallons of bait) and doesn't make the average guy suffer or change his ways because of the practices of a few.
As I suspected, most of the problems of concern are occurring on private land, mostly on the east side but also on the west side of the state. The primary concern is limiting the quantity of bait on the ground. It is a concern that 8 cf of bait per day would accumulate if someone dumped that quantity every day. There are many ifs, ands, or buts when it comes to limiting bait quantity.
WDFW has proposed two 5 gallon buckets as a maximum. That could prohibit barrel feeders that have a timer which only put down a small amount each day. 10 gallons of hay isn't much hay. There are many variables: Deer normally tear apart a bale and eat the leafy portions leaving all the stems! How can hay be measured after it has been broken apart and rained on? How does a hunter or warden measure loose bait to know if a bait is compliant? Should hay be measured differently than other baits? Some people might avoid quantity limits by placing multiple baits close together. But many hunters like to have more than one bait so they have hunting options.
There is no doubt that we are likely going to see limitations on bait quantity. With that in mind I'm going to change the direction of this conversation to concentrate on the quantity issue. What rules will work best for limiting the total quantity of bait on the ground?
A STARTING POINT
The following limitations apply to hunting with the aid of bait
- No more than _50__ pounds of hay can be available for consumption at a bait site
- No more than a total of _50__ gallons of all other consumable materials can be available for consumption at a bait site
- No hunter, group, or business can place more than one bait per each _individual parcel OR 20__ acres of private land, whichever is less
- No hunter, group, or business can place bait closer than _1/2 mile__ from another bait they placed on public land
That gets the conversation going in the direction of limiting quantity, let's hear your thoughts?
The trickiest part is how do you stop the "me and 37 of my cousins each put our xx gallons of bait right next to each other".
Post by: lokidog on March 23, 2015, 10:52:06 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 10:59:42 PM
I think the wording of having an amount at the site rather than a per day would address wdfw concerns a little better. id support 50 gallons. as far as hay weight I don't think would work well due to fresh hay out of the field can vary so much wether it was grown in a low spot or a high and dry area of the field. perhaps 5'x5'x2'. Dale you having so much access to private lands what acrage per site would you recommend? I don't hunt over bait but love it for trail cameras. its a shame that some people have taken it to a point where so many others now want to reduce methods and opportunities of others. Seems to be a discrepancy as to whether or not the wdfw is set on a change or possibly leaving it as is. Dale is the person you spoke with an employee of wdfw?
I spoke to someone who definitely knows the details. Not going to say much more about who it was.
I would say 1 small bait site per 100 acres of private property. That's just my opinion, I know 6 people will have 6 different opinions. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 11:04:12 PM
As far as barrel feeders with timers......If it is in a barrel and being dispensed over a period of time, does it really mean it is "available" for consumption. It would be nice if there was wording that defines "Available." Maybe "Available" could be defined as amount of food readily available for consumption at any one given time. Food in the barrel is not readily available to game until it is dispensed on the ground.:yeah:
Just a thought.
Barrel feeders dispensing feed a little at a time are not the problem, so we should make sure rules don't restrict them. Even under WDFW's 10 gallon limit I presumed as long as 10+ gallons was not available to the animal at any one time you would be fine with filling your 40 or 50 gallon feeders.I received a phone call this afternoon and we discussed this issue!The quantity needs to be high enough that it exceeds most commercially available feeders and what most people could carry on a pack...but low enough that a truck load of apples is clearly outside the bounds. This makes it so their is less concern with hair splitting (do you have 8 gallons or 11 gallons of bait) and doesn't make the average guy suffer or change his ways because of the practices of a few.
As I suspected, most of the problems of concern are occurring on private land, mostly on the east side but also on the west side of the state. The primary concern is limiting the quantity of bait on the ground. It is a concern that 8 cf of bait per day would accumulate if someone dumped that quantity every day. There are many ifs, ands, or buts when it comes to limiting bait quantity.
WDFW has proposed two 5 gallon buckets as a maximum. That could prohibit barrel feeders that have a timer which only put down a small amount each day. 10 gallons of hay isn't much hay. There are many variables: Deer normally tear apart a bale and eat the leafy portions leaving all the stems! How can hay be measured after it has been broken apart and rained on? How does a hunter or warden measure loose bait to know if a bait is compliant? Should hay be measured differently than other baits? Some people might avoid quantity limits by placing multiple baits close together. But many hunters like to have more than one bait so they have hunting options.
There is no doubt that we are likely going to see limitations on bait quantity. With that in mind I'm going to change the direction of this conversation to concentrate on the quantity issue. What rules will work best for limiting the total quantity of bait on the ground?
A STARTING POINT
The following limitations apply to hunting with the aid of bait
- No more than _50__ pounds of hay can be available for consumption at a bait site
- No more than a total of _50__ gallons of all other consumable materials can be available for consumption at a bait site
- No hunter, group, or business can place more than one bait per each _individual parcel OR 20__ acres of private land, whichever is less
- No hunter, group, or business can place bait closer than _1/2 mile__ from another bait they placed on public land
That gets the conversation going in the direction of limiting quantity, let's hear your thoughts?
The trickiest part is how do you stop the "me and 37 of my cousins each put our xx gallons of bait right next to each other".
:yeah: I'm not sure you can prevent guys from exploiting shady gray areas. Probably if rules stop the large piles that's going to solve the biggest concerns.
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 23, 2015, 11:04:26 PM
Just my humble thoughts here.
Post by: lokidog on March 23, 2015, 11:05:40 PM
I would say 1 small bait site per 100 acres of private property. That's just my opinion, I know 6 people will have 6 different opinions. :chuckle:
OMG! One per 100 acres? Here I thought you didn't personally have issues with baiting. :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2015, 11:21:25 PM
I would say 1 small bait site per 100 acres of private property. That's just my opinion, I know 6 people will have 6 different opinions. :chuckle:
OMG! One per 100 acres? Here I thought you didn't personally have issues with baiting. :bash:
I was asked my opinion so I replied, I'm sure you did the same. I really don't care if you want to place baits 10 feet apart, as far as I'm concerned we don't need any rules for baiting, but that doesn't appear to be what others think who are anxious to limit each others hunting methods. Just glad I don't work for WDFW. :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on March 24, 2015, 06:23:51 AM
Post by: grundy53 on March 24, 2015, 08:58:41 AM
I am really pleased that the gmac folks are in 100% agreement on the issue. That should really help the commission decide on the no change option.:yeah: Hopefully
Post by: vandeman17 on March 24, 2015, 01:43:52 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 24, 2015, 02:34:04 PM
No limits, no bans.
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2015, 02:44:52 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 24, 2015, 03:57:07 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 24, 2015, 04:02:20 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 24, 2015, 09:33:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2015, 09:40:59 PM
Their thinking may be either do it now or put it off until 2018, and I don't think they want to wait three more years.
I'm expecting to see some sort of restrictions on baiting. But I definitely could be wrong.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 24, 2015, 09:45:36 PM
I dont think anything happens this yearThat is fine. Lets handle this baiting like every thing else...kick around a few ideas, mull it over a few years, plan a 5 year study, then evaluate data for 8 or 10 years...conclude the study needs improvement...several staff retire...institutional knowledge is lost, a few more years go by and nobody remembers anything about baiting issues. :chuckle:
Or, how about we agree to evaluate baiting and potential rule changes to baiting right after wolves are de-listed and hunting seasons are set by the commission :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2015, 10:32:15 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2015, 11:15:41 PM
This issue reminds me of the dumb WDFW lady that suggested only 22caliber ammo and #8 bird shot for coyote hunting!
Actually I think they were going to allow as big as #6. :chuckle: :rolleyes: :bash:
Post by: jasnt on March 25, 2015, 12:29:33 AM
:tup:I dont think anything happens this yearThat is fine. Lets handle this baiting like every thing else...kick around a few ideas, mull it over a few years, plan a 5 year study, then evaluate data for 8 or 10 years...conclude the study needs improvement...several staff retire...institutional knowledge is lost, a few more years go by and nobody remembers anything about baiting issues. :chuckle:
Or, how about we agree to evaluate baiting and potential rule changes to baiting right after wolves are de-listed and hunting seasons are set by the commission :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 25, 2015, 09:30:43 AM
Being proactive will likely have the effect that questions to ATF regarding the sig brace being fired from the shoulder had. People should leave it alone.
Post by: KFhunter on March 25, 2015, 09:40:04 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 25, 2015, 09:55:27 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 25, 2015, 10:12:02 AM
enforcing that would be near impossible, that might be our biggest hurdle to keep baiting legal.:chuckle:
Riiinnnngggg...rrriiinnngggg....
WDFW: Hello. WDFW Emergency Poaching Response Team
Caller: Uh yes, I saw a hunter going up squirrel creek and he had an apple in his hand.
WDFW: Good job citizen! Our team is in route, we will be there shortly.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 25, 2015, 10:16:30 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 25, 2015, 12:11:00 PM
I dont see a problem. Ag and livestock purposes are exempt in all the current rules drafted by WDFW and I assume the same would apply for the ideas we are kicking around here. Food plots are also exempt.
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2015, 12:37:36 PM
It seems to me there WILL BE an outright ban, unless some other option can be agreed upon that restricts baiting in some way.
Would an outright ban for one year be so bad? perhaps it would rile hunters up enough to get motivated...
Being "Proactive" and trying to be "Reasonable" only reinforces the NON SCIENCE based decision of banning bait. Force thier hand and raise holy hell if they do bann it and show how unreasonable and un scientific it is.... Worst case you loose baiting for 1 year then you get to compromise and sound reasonable.
BTW Im not reasonable because it takes a FOOL to argue with one and try an convince them of your sound logic. :twocents:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 25, 2015, 12:40:14 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 25, 2015, 12:55:41 PM
Once it's banned it's done. And then it's on to the next minority hunter group. Sad nobody sees the pattern.I agree. Someone will have to blame a different group for lack of success and turn on them too. It will be the easier pickings at first. You'll get some zikes on here wanting to ban bugles and rattling because it isn't fair chase making the animals come to you, it'll be called lazy--need to 'real hunt' them.
Post by: TeacherMan on March 25, 2015, 02:45:51 PM
Once it's banned it's done. And then it's on to the next minority hunter group. Sad nobody sees the pattern.I agree. Someone will have to blame a different group for lack of success and turn on them too. It will be the easier pickings at first. You'll get some zikes on here wanting to ban bugles and rattling because it isn't fair chase making the animals come to you, it'll be called lazy--need to 'real hunt' them.
just like trapping...
Post by: woodswalker on March 25, 2015, 03:26:11 PM
Or, how about we agree to evaluate baiting and potential rule changes to baiting right after wolves are de-listed and hunting seasons are set by the commission :dunno: :chuckle:
That works for me!
Post by: Wenatcheejay on March 25, 2015, 03:27:22 PM