Post by: 724wd on November 20, 2015, 06:59:31 PM
"The GMAC (game management Advisory Committee) will be meeting Dec 5th in Ellensburg, I am the GMAC rep for the WSAA and Ray C.(alt) will be attending the meeting. I just received the proposed Agenda and a couple of the important items, I'd like to get some feedback on. You can either post here or PM me your ideas/questions etc...
Baiting proposals - There has been a push to change the current law allowing baiting of deer and elk over the past few years, and last year it was set aside as part of the new 3 year season setting package. The Wildlife Commission has once again asked for a proposal to come before them for a vote. The WDFW has a working sub committee of hunters, guides and environmentalists that have been meeting this year. The head biologist (WDFW) assigned to this committee will be briefing the GMAC on their proposal (if any). I as a member of that sub committee can say that its been tough to get much of an agreement at this time. Some of the ideas coming out are:
2. If salt/mineral is allowed for hunting, there should be a stipulation that it cannot be within 200 yds from water bodies
3. 10 gal should be per hunter per season.
4. Restricting baiting to 10 days prior to hunting will do nothing because you could bait from Aug. 21 to Dec. 15. Don’t need timing restriction
5. If baiting is allowed, it should be limited to private lands only with written permission of the owner required
6. Electronic feeders should be illegal (most votes to make illegal)
9. Removed bait within 72 hours of the end of the last hunting season
Those are the major items that we are looking at.
Another agenda item of interest:
Changes to the preference point system. Many ideas regarding this, love to hear what you think we could do to improve it.
Those are the 2 action items that are of interest. We will also get updates on the Colockum Bull study, the current status of the Wolf and population updates, and a report on the effects of the fires on priority habitats."
Post by: boneaddict on November 20, 2015, 07:13:03 PM
I don't bait so don't have much of an opinion on it, but am tired of seeing damage done by people who don't have a clue what salt does.
Post by: Bigshooter on November 20, 2015, 07:16:03 PM
I don't care about baiting.
Post by: Curly on November 20, 2015, 07:21:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 20, 2015, 07:25:39 PM
Changes to the point system (not "preference" point, as we don't have that type of system, we have "bonus" points):
I'm strongly against any changes that further complicate the system. I would like to see a waiting period for those who draw a permit.
Post by: huntnphool on November 20, 2015, 07:26:55 PM
I do have a couple questions that maybe you can answer. First, who is in the GMAC and where do the members come from?
Second, for whom do these GMAC members speak?
Post by: jrebel on November 20, 2015, 07:28:00 PM
1. Bring back the ability to bait bear.
2. Deer and Elk Baiting: Leave it alone, we don't need more rules / laws. How does it affect anything??? We are still only allowd to harvest one animal per year. What is next.....you are not allowed to hunt orchards because the deer are coming to bait, corn fields, alfalfa, wheat, etc. etc. etc. What is next you can't wear camoflauge because it give the hunter another advantage?? Where does all this insanity end??
Preference points: Not sure what you mean by this? If you mean the draw system, I would like to see where a person can only draw one "draw" per animal per year. Keep all the Catagories but if a person draws "quality" they cannot draw "buck" "doe" "second deer", etc. Start the draw with the quality and go down from there. This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal. :twocents:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 20, 2015, 07:31:42 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on November 20, 2015, 07:36:52 PM
#2- Get rid of the point system. Its a money grab joke by the state.
#3- Continue to allow baiting of deers and elks.
#4- Make archery deer's and elks the whole month of September.
#5- Take note on how the state of Idaho runs there Game Dept. and manages for the game not the Dollar$$$$$$$$.
OK I'll stop at those for now....... Thanks for the post!!!!! :tup:
Post by: grundy53 on November 20, 2015, 07:39:12 PM
Baiting:This
1. Bring back the ability to bait bear.
2. Deer and Elk Baiting: Leave it alone, we don't need more rules / laws. How does it affect anything??? We are still only allowd to harvest one animal per year. What is next.....you are not allowed to hunt orchards because the deer are coming to bait, corn fields, alfalfa, wheat, etc. etc. etc. What is next you can't wear camoflauge because it give the hunter another advantage?? Where does all this insanity end??
Preference points: Not sure what you mean by this? If you mean the draw system, I would like to see where a person can only draw one "draw" per animal per year. Keep all the Catagories but if a person draws "quality" they cannot draw "buck" "doe" "second deer", etc. Start the draw with the quality and go down from there. This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal. :twocents:
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: X-Force on November 20, 2015, 07:39:44 PM
As a guy who applies for every eligible permit and a father of two kids under 5 I would support moving to a system like Idaho. With the number of hunters applying to number of permits available it would improve odds across the board. It would also improve Hunter participation on every permit because hunters would be focusing more on particular hunts.
I haven't looked in a while but overall permit participation is typically 30-70% very few hunts actually get 100% participation. In my opinion that is because the threshold to apply to a permit is to low.
Baiting is a touchy subject for some but in urban/suburban areas and areas with small properties its important in animal management. I support no change at this time.
Post by: Curly on November 20, 2015, 07:43:49 PM
#2 I don't have a problem with.
#3 I think is a crazy low amount. 10 gallons per hunter per season? Who comes up with these ideas? Might as well not even bait if that's all that is allowed.
#4. Why limit to hunting season. What about baiting as a scouting tool?
#5 I disagree with this too. Is there a problem currently with bait on public land?
#6.. I think they should be allowed on private property.
#9 why? Just let the animals clean it up.
I don't bait but I don't see the need to implement most of these ideas. Isn't there more important issues to work on like access for hunting?
Post by: bobcat on November 20, 2015, 07:46:01 PM
Post by: PolarBear on November 20, 2015, 07:46:32 PM
Don't want a preference point system. They are the devil!:yeah:
I don't bait so don't have much of an opinion on it, but am tired of seeing damage done by people who don't have a clue what salt does.
Post by: huntnphool on November 20, 2015, 07:47:31 PM
Preference points: Not sure what you mean by this? If you mean the draw system, I would like to see where a person can only draw one "draw" per animal per year. Keep all the Catagories but if a person draws "quality" they cannot draw "buck" "doe" "second deer", etc. Start the draw with the quality and go down from there. This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal. :twocents:
There is a old, squeaky wheel in the meetings that has been whining that he is going to die before he draws his percieved entitled OIL tags. So he has been pushing to get a certain amount of the tags given only to the top point holders each year. :bdid:
Post by: huntnphool on November 20, 2015, 07:50:52 PM
The WDFW would be very unpopular if they did that.
Yeah, as if their approval rating could actually go much lower. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on November 20, 2015, 07:54:10 PM
The WDFW would be very unpopular if they did that.
Yeah, as if their approval rating could actually go much lower. :chuckle:
And that's one thing that would cause just that! After people have been building up points for 20 years? Just not going to happen. Besides, look at how much money they make just because of the point system.
Post by: huntnphool on November 20, 2015, 07:55:16 PM
The WDFW would be very unpopular if they did that.
Yeah, as if their approval rating could actually go much lower. :chuckle:
And that's one thing that would cause just that! After people have been building up points for 20 years? Just not going to happen. Besides, look at how much money they make just because of the point system.
Oh I agree with you, just thought your comment was funny.
Post by: KNOPHISH on November 20, 2015, 07:55:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on November 20, 2015, 07:57:52 PM
Points system needs to award top point holders with tags, maybe 50% of available tags?
That's a preference system, :bdid:
Post by: X-Force on November 20, 2015, 08:30:20 PM
Points system needs to award top point holders with tags, maybe 50% of available tags?
That's a preference system, :bdid:
It's worse than a bad idea.
Whether the state eliminates the point system or not it will be something I will discuss anytime its brought up. The question hunters should ask themselves is what is a statical chance of drawing a permit? 1,3,5,10% then they need to look at the odds of drawing, even antlerless permits. It's not my fault people receive a point for every application and think it means something... It only means less and less every year
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on November 20, 2015, 08:35:09 PM
Points system needs to award top point holders with tags, maybe 50% of available tags?
That's a preference system, :bdid:
It's worse than a bad idea.
Whether the state eliminates the point system or not it will be something I will discuss anytime its brought up. The question hunters should ask themselves is what is a statical chance of drawing a permit? 1,3,5,10% then they need to look at the odds of drawing, even antlerless permits. It's not my fault people receive a point for every application and think it means something... It only means less and less every year
That is so awesome! NOT!!!!! :bash:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on November 20, 2015, 08:38:28 PM
Quote
If baiting is allowed, it should be limited to private lands only with written permission of the owner requiredNO
NO
AND AGAIN,..NO!!!
The WDFW needs to quite eliminating opportunities for the general public.
Post by: buglebrush on November 20, 2015, 08:40:56 PM
Post by: lokidog on November 20, 2015, 08:41:48 PM
I think our "bonus" point system is fine in that even a first timer has a chance at drawing a tag.
Post by: Limhangerslayer on November 20, 2015, 09:12:00 PM
Leave deer elk baiting as it, no limit. Baiting for bears ok too. Heck give those bear & cat dogs their jobs back. May as well start a petition so they can't manage fish & game by ballot box. Points system needs to award top point holders with tags, maybe 50% of available tags?Not a good idea in this state, we have an over saturated draw system as it is. If we did any kind of preference system some people would never be drawn again in their lifetime.
Post by: Bango skank on November 20, 2015, 09:19:24 PM
Post by: 724wd on November 20, 2015, 09:33:38 PM
Thanks for posting this up 724wd.
I do have a couple questions that maybe you can answer. First, who is in the GMAC and where do the members come from?
Second, for whom do these GMAC members speak?
i dunno. I saw it on the WSAA facebook wall. Ren's info is probably available on the WSAA website. http://washingtonarchery.org/
Post by: Bob33 on November 20, 2015, 09:39:56 PM
Thanks for posting this up 724wd.wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/gmac/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/gmac/)
I do have a couple questions that maybe you can answer. First, who is in the GMAC and where do the members come from?
Second, for whom do these GMAC members speak?
Post by: Todd_ID on November 20, 2015, 09:53:43 PM
Post by: mfswallace on November 20, 2015, 10:04:47 PM
The GMAC is made up of guys like all of us. 15-25 guys sitting around a campfire being provided with information. They're the ones who have volunteered to be the spokesman for their cause and want to make sure their groups' interests are heard. But, more importantly, they want to insure bad ideas stay out of game management for the health of the herds, the future of our sport, and the public good.
To bad the wolf advisory group wasn't made up of people like this instead of people trying to end hunting :bash:
Post by: bigtex on November 20, 2015, 10:20:40 PM
Baiting:That would take legislative action. WDFW can prohibit deer/elk baiting through the WDFW Commission (WAC). Bear baiting is in state law (RCW) which can only be changed by the legislature.
1. Bring back the ability to bait bear.
Post by: Firedogg on November 20, 2015, 10:38:52 PM
I do see a change in the winds as far as baiting, especially with the pressure put on by the non-hunting groups. One suggestion may be to only allow vegetable or fruit baits in natural form to be used. This eliminates the problems with salts, invasive grasses, and other baits that leach into the ground causing wildlife to dig up the ground increasing erosion. Makes it simple and easy to follow and enforce.
No one will like my bear bait idea. Charge for a baiting permit, specific areas with a required distance from buildings/cabins, and use the funds to manage the bear program. Yep.... I knew no one would like this one. lol. Just tossing out random thoughts.
Post by: kenzmad on November 20, 2015, 10:42:57 PM
Leave the point system alone, no matter what is done to it people will be pissed. It works, building points is not a guarantee that some day you "will" get the tag, it's just more chances at drawing it..
I do see a change in the winds as far as baiting, especially with the pressure put on by the non-hunting groups. One suggestion may be to only allow vegetable or fruit baits in natural form to be used. This eliminates the problems with salts, invasive grasses, and other baits that leach into the ground causing wildlife to dig up the ground increasing erosion. Makes it simple and easy to follow and enforce.
No one will like my bear bait idea. Charge for a baiting permit, specific areas with a required distance from buildings/cabins, and use the funds to manage the bear program. Yep.... I knew no one would like this one. lol. Just tossing out random thoughts.
I actually dont have an issue with your bear baiting idea. Suck we have to pay for it but its better than we have now. We get bait, they get money. Isnt this what both sides are looking for?
Post by: huntnphool on November 20, 2015, 10:51:22 PM
The GMAC is made up of guys like all of us. 15-25 guys sitting around a campfire being provided with information. They're the ones who have volunteered to be the spokesman for their cause and want to make sure their groups' interests are heard. But, more importantly, they want to insure bad ideas stay out of game management for the health of the herds, the future of our sport, and the public good.
Thanks Todd. The only issue I have with this is those 15-25 guys/gals are not voted in to speak for us. This is in no way singling you out, but without being voted in by the group (hunters) as whole, and soliciting majority opinion from that group, how does the group know each one of their best interests are being put forward?
For example, the permit system and the squeaky wheel lobbying to get "grease". Or the recent lighted nock issue, where for years it got held up by a select few based on their own opinion and not that of the group majority?
I'm all for a select group having a voice and representing us in meetings with WDFW, my concern is I know very few who have ever been asked their opinion by such a organization, before going into those meetings with what should be majority decision. :twocents:
Post by: mkcj on November 20, 2015, 11:31:26 PM
:yeah:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 21, 2015, 01:20:21 AM
3. 10 gal should be per hunter per season.
Unenforceable
5. If baiting is allowed, it should be limited to private lands only with written permission of the owner required
So private land owners can lure animals away from public land hunters who can't bait? I don't think so.
As for preference points. Get rid of the whole system and only allow hunters to apply for one hunt per animal. Then only allow successful applicants to apply again for that species after a 3-5 year wait. That is the most fair system there is.
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2015, 01:21:08 AM
First, I oppose restrictions!
Second, everyone needs to understand that if rules are created they must be reasonable and simple for hunters to understand and follow, and must be easy for WDFW officers to enforce.
Third, most restrictions are only needed on lands open to public use. I could live with the following simple rules that seem easy to enforce:
Baiting Restrictions
- A $5 bait permit must be secured and visible at each bait (permit shows Wild ID number for LE purposes)
- Bait may not be placed within 50 feet of surface water
- Bait may not be placed within 1/4 mile of a designated public campground
- A hunter must have at least 500 feet distance between their baits
- Bait must be free of litter
- No more than 100 pounds of hay may be placed at one time
- No more than 20 cubic feet of hay may accumulate at a bait
- The total volume of other types of bait available to be eaten shall not exceed 10 gallons at any bait site (barrels with timed feeders ok)
- Bait and any materials used while baiting may not be placed more than 30 days prior to the opening date of the season you are licensed to hunt
- Bait and any materials placed when baiting must be removed within 10 days after the close of the season you were licensed to hunt
Additional requirements for baiting on lands open to public use:
- Bait shall not be placed within 300 feet of any public accessible roadway or designated trail
- Bait cannot be visible from less than 1/4 mile of any public accessible roadway (hunters are advised to keep bait out of sight from public roadways)
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.
I'm not representing anyone other than myself with these possible rules, but if we must have rules I think these are reasonable and would be easy to follow and enforce! :dunno:
Post by: Mxracer532 on November 21, 2015, 06:24:30 AM
Baiting
First, I oppose restrictions!
Second, everyone needs to understand that if rules are created they must be reasonable and simple for hunters to understand and follow, and must be easy for WDFW officers to enforce.
Third, most restrictions are only needed on lands open to public use. I could live with the following simple rules that seem easy to enforce:
Baiting Restrictions
- A $5 bait permit must be secured and visible at each bait (permit shows Wild ID number for LE purposes)
- Bait may not be placed within 50 feet of surface water
- Bait may not be placed within 1/4 mile of a designated public campground
- A hunter must have at least 500 feet distance between their baits
- Bait must be free of litter
- No more than 100 pounds of hay may be placed at one time
- No more than 20 cubic feet of hay may accumulate at a bait
- The total volume of other types of bait available to be eaten shall not exceed 10 gallons at any bait site (barrels with timed feeders ok) - Bait and any materials used while baiting may not be placed more than 30 days prior to the opening date of the season you are licensed to hunt
- Bait and any materials placed when baiting must be removed within 10 days after the close of the season you were licensed to hunt
Additional requirements for baiting on lands open to public use:
- Bait shall not be placed within 300 feet of any public accessible roadway or designated trail
- Bait cannot be visible from less than 1/4 mile of any public accessible roadway (hunters are advised to keep bait out of sight from public roadways)
Enforcement
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.
I'm not representing anyone other than myself with these possible rules, but if we must have rules I think these are reasonable and would be easy to follow and enforce! :dunno:
#1 $5 permit, WE PAY ENOUGH ALREADY!
#2 None of those are EASY for LE to enforce. Pretty sure they dont carry a scale to weigh hay thats scattered on the ground.
#3 They are supposed to carry something to some how test how much volume of liquid that has been poored on the ground??? Or scoop up apples and test the volume????
NONE OF THOSE ARE EASY TO ENFORCE!
My :twocents:
The baiting debate is a joke, leave it alone. The more and more regulations we place on ourselves or the state places on us is just another step towards taking something else. Its just a snow ball effect drivin by the anti's and we have more then enough in this state already.
As for the permit system, I would be ok with changing to if you draw a quality tag you wait 2 years to apply again. (unless of course you are like me and a few others who drew a quality tag only to have to turn it in due to the fires, in which case grandfather to the next year) This would better anyone who hasnt drawn odds but cost the state $. (NOT GONNA HAPPEN)
Post by: Jim the Plumber on November 21, 2015, 07:42:08 AM
Where in Ellensburg and what time is this meeting? And is it open to the public?
Thanks.
Post by: X-Force on November 21, 2015, 07:59:36 AM
Post by: Stickerbush on November 21, 2015, 08:49:29 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on November 21, 2015, 08:50:42 AM
I could get behind a permit system for baiting. $5-$15 seems like a reasonable price. You aren't required to bait so 80-90% of guys won't be effected and if permits are created a monitoring/enforcement program should be funded
Just more money for the general fund. :twocents:
Post by: Stein on November 21, 2015, 09:11:03 AM
I could get behind a permit system for baiting. $5-$15 seems like a reasonable price. You aren't required to bait so 80-90% of guys won't be effected and if permits are created a monitoring/enforcement program should be funded
First step toward getting it banned.
Post by: huntnphool on November 21, 2015, 09:24:01 AM
This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal.
Simple solution for someone that draws two "like species" permits in the same year, dont apply for more than one, problem solved!
Ridiculous to change the system over a individuals stupidity, anyone that has fallen into that category has nobody to blame but themselves. :twocents:
Post by: Mxracer532 on November 21, 2015, 09:24:08 AM
I could get behind a permit system for baiting. $5-$15 seems like a reasonable price. You aren't required to bait so 80-90% of guys won't be effected and if permits are created a monitoring/enforcement program should be funded
Just more money for the general fund. :twocents:
general fund to what? Put more stupid fish statues over a freeway in Seattle??? No thanks!
Post by: TomT on November 21, 2015, 01:54:19 PM
Haven't thought it through thoroughly, but my initial thoughts are as follows:
Run the draw in order of difficulty to draw. For example run the OIL tag draws first. If you draw one, you are done in the drawing, but will still get points in the other categories. Maybe draw quality tags next, buck/bull tags after that, antlerless tags next, etc. If at any point, you draw a tag, you are then done in the drawing.
This would prevent people from drawing multiple tags in one year and give other people a chance. I don't know about the rest of you, but I get tired of hearing how lucky other people are in drawing multiple tags (some which cannot be used because they draw multiple tags on the same species), when I cannot even manage to draw a cow tag with 9 points! Seems like it would spread the wealth and increase the odds of an individual to draw a tag.
Leave the baiting alone. Not broken.
Post by: boneaddict on November 21, 2015, 02:04:01 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 21, 2015, 02:04:40 PM
I like your idea. That's something I haven't heard before.
Only problem is it could complicate things quite a bit. One issue- what about the group applications? If one person in the group draws another permit, do they eliminate only that person from the group, or throw out the entire application?
Post by: grundy53 on November 21, 2015, 02:18:28 PM
I like idahos system best. You either put in for OIL or deer and elk. Can't do both. No bonus points, though they are pushing for it. What slays me are people that think that's better, and even more mind boggling, this that think preference points are better.:yeah:
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: TomT on November 21, 2015, 02:27:35 PM
I'm sure there's more than one thing I had not thought of, and I had not thought of that.
I think that the solution to that would be to separate the drawing dates. Do OIL first, and a month later, do Quality, and so on. That way a person would know if he was even available for a group hunt.
It would complicate it for WDFW, but lots of states run the draws separately, so it can't be rocket science.
Post by: bobcat on November 21, 2015, 03:04:18 PM
Bobcat,
I'm sure there's more than one thing I had not thought of, and I had not thought of that.
I think that the solution to that would be to separate the drawing dates. Do OIL first, and a month later, do Quality, and so on. That way a person would know if he was even available for a group hunt.
It would complicate it for WDFW, but lots of states run the draws separately, so it can't be rocket science.
Perfect! I like it. There's no reason that couldn't work. WDFW may not like it though, as they'd sell less applications. I guess they'd need to increase the price slightly to make up for it.
Post by: TomT on November 21, 2015, 03:29:01 PM
Post by: mfswallace on November 21, 2015, 07:29:23 PM
This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal.
Simple solution for someone that draws two "like species" permits in the same year, dont apply for more than one, problem solved!
Ridiculous to change the system over a individuals stupidity, anyone that has fallen into that category has nobody to blame but themselves. :twocents:
What I don't get is if the state bio's say it's ok to give out so many tags for certain types of animals and someone draws 2 of the approved tags why can't that lucky individual fill both tags ?? Is it cause those complaining are jealous ?
If I draw quality bull and a cow tag why shouldn't I be able to fill both?
Post by: bigtex on November 21, 2015, 07:30:53 PM
WDFW license/permit fees don't go into the general fund, they go into the wildlife fund.....I could get behind a permit system for baiting. $5-$15 seems like a reasonable price. You aren't required to bait so 80-90% of guys won't be effected and if permits are created a monitoring/enforcement program should be fundedJust more money for the general fund. :twocents:
Post by: X-Force on November 21, 2015, 07:40:28 PM
Drawing System:
Haven't thought it through thoroughly, but my initial thoughts are as follows:
Run the draw in order of difficulty to draw. For example run the OIL tag draws first. If you draw one, you are done in the drawing, but will still get points in the other categories. Maybe draw quality tags next, buck/bull tags after that, antlerless tags next, etc. If at any point, you draw a tag, you are then done in the drawing.
This would prevent people from drawing multiple tags in one year and give other people a chance. I don't know about the rest of you, but I get tired of hearing how lucky other people are in drawing multiple tags (some which cannot be used because they draw multiple tags on the same species), when I cannot even manage to draw a cow tag with 9 points! Seems like it would spread the wealth and increase the odds of an individual to draw a tag.
Leave the baiting alone. Not broken.
The likelihood of drawing multiple tags is extremely low. Not drawing a cow tag with 9 points has everything to do with everyone applying for every category and little to do with a handful of people a year drawing multiple tags.
WDFW license/permit fees don't go into the general fund, they go into the wildlife fund.....I could get behind a permit system for baiting. $5-$15 seems like a reasonable price. You aren't required to bait so 80-90% of guys won't be effected and if permits are created a monitoring/enforcement program should be fundedJust more money for the general fund. :twocents:
I am all for leaving baiting status quo but if it did go permit I see no problem in a nominal fee.
Post by: bigtex on November 21, 2015, 07:41:32 PM
#1 $5 permit, WE PAY ENOUGH ALREADY!There's precedent in other states. Idaho for example has a bear bait permit which is $12.75 and is available only at Idaho Fish & Game offices.
WDFW has adopted several license/permit ideas from other states. Many states before WA had a two pole fishing license endorsement before WDFW finally approved it. California has a "ocean enhancement validation" if you fish south of Santa Barbara County, they just discontinued the "Colorado River Validation," these were in place before WA's "Columbia River Endorsement"
Post by: Bango skank on November 21, 2015, 07:58:32 PM
This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal.
Simple solution for someone that draws two "like species" permits in the same year, dont apply for more than one, problem solved!
Ridiculous to change the system over a individuals stupidity, anyone that has fallen into that category has nobody to blame but themselves. :twocents:
What I don't get is if the state bio's say it's ok to give out so many tags for certain types of animals and someone draws 2 of the approved tags why can't that lucky individual fill both tags ?? Is it cause those complaining are jealous ?
If I draw quality bull and a cow tag why shouldn't I be able to fill both?
Because you didnt draw two tags. You have one tag, and you drew two permits
Post by: huntnphool on November 21, 2015, 08:01:34 PM
This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal.
Simple solution for someone that draws two "like species" permits in the same year, dont apply for more than one, problem solved!
Ridiculous to change the system over a individuals stupidity, anyone that has fallen into that category has nobody to blame but themselves. :twocents:
What I don't get is if the state bio's say it's ok to give out so many tags for certain types of animals and someone draws 2 of the approved tags why can't that lucky individual fill both tags ?? Is it cause those complaining are jealous ?
If I draw quality bull and a cow tag why shouldn't I be able to fill both?
That would be a great question for WDFW, :tup: but since we all know that it doesn't work that way right now, if you apply for both and draw both, you can't blame anybody but yourself. ;)
Post by: mfswallace on November 21, 2015, 08:03:34 PM
This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal.
Simple solution for someone that draws two "like species" permits in the same year, dont apply for more than one, problem solved!
Ridiculous to change the system over a individuals stupidity, anyone that has fallen into that category has nobody to blame but themselves. :twocents:
What I don't get is if the state bio's say it's ok to give out so many tags for certain types of animals and someone draws 2 of the approved tags why can't that lucky individual fill both tags ?? Is it cause those complaining are jealous ?
If I draw quality bull and a cow tag why shouldn't I be able to fill both?
Because you didnt draw two tags. You have one tag, and you drew two permits
Your right, but it's just semantics-- Why can't I fill both permits I was drawn for and the state bio's have said those animals are ok to take? Seems that the state would want those animals their bio's say need to be taken, taken.... :dunno:
Post by: Bango skank on November 21, 2015, 08:15:53 PM
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2015, 08:29:34 PM
ONE problem does NOT need a bunch of BS laws on the books. This whole issue is because a guide had truckloads of culled apples from his leases piled up to attract mule deer.
I personally dislike new laws because they mostly dont solve jack... I dont think they should change the baiting law, and i dislike the "solutions" presented.
The WDFW has not even presented what the "Problem" is so how can we asses a solution? IMO this is just another attempt to hurt hunting opportunity. I have to say that is why Im VERY disappointed in Bearpaw's suggestions since he is always proclaiming how hunters need to stand together to protect each others preferred method of hunting.
Post by: mfswallace on November 21, 2015, 08:41:41 PM
Its not semantics, tags and permits are completely different things. You cant "fill a permit" You can hunt on a permit, in order to fill a tag. A permit is not a tag.
However u want to waste time not answering my question ok :pee:
Post by: Bango skank on November 21, 2015, 08:44:20 PM
Mfswallace-----> :yike: :pee: <------me
I can use the little pictures too! :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on November 21, 2015, 09:01:02 PM
EnforcementThere is only one instance in all of WA law that I am aware of where an officer is only permitted to issue a written warning upon the first offense. That violation is negligently feeding wild carnivores, which in many cases means someone leaves garbage out that a bear gets into. In that case on a first offense an officer can issue a written warning, if after two days the offender has not picked up the garbage then a natural resource infraction is issued. WDFW does not set fines the Supreme Court does, in this case the supreme court has said the fine is $150. The reason why this offense has the first time offense = warning stipulation is because the legislature and WDFW believed that most citizens would not know of a law regarding negligently feeding wildlife, so they figured the warning should be enough to give them a "wake up call."
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.
I have a hard time with Bearpaw's enforcement suggestion of a first time offense = warning with a 7 day correction requirement. As hunter's we are supposed to know the regs. An officer can always issue a verbal warning, written warning, etc. Realistically, putting in place a law that says a first time = warning simply means that I can go break baiting laws and if I am caught then oh well, I'll get a piece of paper that means nothing.
In this case I would much rather see the violation be handled just like WDFW proposed this year. In the spring WDFW Commission meeting the commission was faced with three possible baiting regulations. In all cases the penalty would be the same. If you violated the baiting regs and did NOT kill an animal the ticket was a natural resource infraction (ticket). If you violated baiting regs and DID kill an animal then you are charged with the criminal offense of unlawful hunting of big game. This is the trend that WDFW has approached since 2012. Prior to 2012 most fish and wildlife offenses were criminal offenses, due to a change in court regs WDFW is now going towards making offenses where no fish/wildlife were actually taken into an infraction so that the more serious offenses (where fish/wildlife are taken) can be prosecuted. Infractions don't take up prosecutors time, criminal offenses do.
Post by: Bango skank on November 21, 2015, 09:31:59 PM
EnforcementIf you violated the baiting regs and did NOT kill an animal the ticket was a natural resource infraction (ticket). If you violated baiting regs and DID kill an animal then you are charged with the criminal offense of unlawful hunting of big game.
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.
So how would this play out. I see baiting as feeding wildlife for the purpose of hunting. If youre not hunting them then its just feeding right? What about me feeding deer in december - feb to grt them to drop antlers on my property?
Post by: Todd_ID on November 21, 2015, 09:32:46 PM
Ren is a member of Silver Arrow Bowman and was heavily involved in Whidbey Island Bowmen before it was closed. He is a hunter, Archer, and all around good guy.I agree that Ren is a good guy, that Bearpaw has earned his respect, and that new restrictions are not good. However, this issue was pushed on us, so we'd better respond with a solution that works for hunters.
ONE problem does NOT need a bunch of BS laws on the books. This whole issue is because a guide had truckloads of culled apples from his leases piled up to attract mule deer.
I personally dislike new laws because they mostly dont solve jack... I dont think they should change the baiting law, and i dislike the "solutions" presented.
The WDFW has not even presented what the "Problem" is so how can we asses a solution? IMO this is just another attempt to hurt hunting opportunity. I have to say that is why Im VERY disappointed in Bearpaw's suggestions since he is always proclaiming how hunters need to stand together to protect each others preferred method of hunting.
You're correct about the issue being pushed by hunters not liking the baiting practices of a couple outfitters (one for Mule deer, another for elk). The WDFW did present the issue to the public at the Moses Lake Commission meeting. Without the testimony of just a few, we'd have lost baiting completely in a few short minutes. Bearpaw's suggestion did not come from a non-thought-out-position. It was drafted as an example that could be used which would place restrictions on the right places but leave the little guy alone to hunt how he always has.
Post by: mfswallace on November 21, 2015, 09:41:02 PM
Im answering clearly. Youre just not understanding.
Mfswallace-----> :yike: :pee: <------me
I can use the little pictures too! :chuckle:
I will rephrase your honor;
If wdfw bio's decide a certain amount of game can be taken and wdfw allow a person to apply to take said amounts(take your money!) and draw for different permits why shouldn't you then be allowed to fill those permits? If certain groups(not bashing its legal) can kill anything and everything why can't others kill what the state deems appropriate when they pay to play??
Post by: bobcat on November 21, 2015, 09:52:03 PM
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2015, 09:59:04 PM
Ren is a member of Silver Arrow Bowman and was heavily involved in Whidbey Island Bowmen before it was closed. He is a hunter, Archer, and all around good guy.I agree that Ren is a good guy, that Bearpaw has earned his respect, and that new restrictions are not good. However, this issue was pushed on us, so we'd better respond with a solution that works for hunters.
ONE problem does NOT need a bunch of BS laws on the books. This whole issue is because a guide had truckloads of culled apples from his leases piled up to attract mule deer.
I personally dislike new laws because they mostly dont solve jack... I dont think they should change the baiting law, and i dislike the "solutions" presented.
The WDFW has not even presented what the "Problem" is so how can we asses a solution? IMO this is just another attempt to hurt hunting opportunity. I have to say that is why Im VERY disappointed in Bearpaw's suggestions since he is always proclaiming how hunters need to stand together to protect each others preferred method of hunting.
You're correct about the issue being pushed by hunters not liking the baiting practices of a couple outfitters (one for Mule deer, another for elk). The WDFW did present the issue to the public at the Moses Lake Commission meeting. Without the testimony of just a few, we'd have lost baiting completely in a few short minutes. Bearpaw's suggestion did not come from a non-thought-out-position. It was drafted as an example that could be used which would place restrictions on the right places but leave the little guy alone to hunt how he always has.
The best solution that works for hunters is by putting the MIN additional regulations in place. How about limiting the bait to one cubic yard? Its easy to determine, its more than most people would use but still covers a large square, or round bail. More permits and other regulatory BS does not make it any better for hunters, just Anti's... Which is what those yahoos want. Perhaps these 2 "Guides" just need a good old fashioned verbal dressing down since not only are they going to screw it up for themselves but everyone else.
Post by: mfswallace on November 21, 2015, 10:14:47 PM
The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.
Why :dunno:
Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair! or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?
Post by: huntnphool on November 21, 2015, 10:29:54 PM
The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.
Why :dunno:
Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair! or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?
Indians have a right to hunt, you are privaledged to hunt, that's the law, get over it. :twocents:
Post by: mfswallace on November 21, 2015, 11:03:52 PM
The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.
Why :dunno:
Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair! or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?
Indians have a right to hunt, you are privaledged to hunt, that's the law, get over it. :twocents:
I'm saddened u think that, I guess that's why we won't, unlike other states, have a condition in our state constitution to make this a right for all :'( Must be a Indians lives matter type of thing instead of an all lives matter :dunno:
I agree, its legal for natives(those that meet the blood quantum laws, however low/corrupt-again like all human endeavors man can manipulate and cheat the system) to hunt anything and everything. I know I've made that clear.
But why should someone who Pays into a point system the state agency responsible for setting game harvest limits says are ok to harvest be denied? With this state agency point system that is aimed at providing the best/fairest way for those that Pay into it, to dole out the right to harvest said game be robbed of there money if the agency has no intention of letting that individual fill the permit.
Post by: Bango skank on November 21, 2015, 11:08:40 PM
Post by: huntnphool on November 21, 2015, 11:23:59 PM
The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.
Why :dunno:
Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair! or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?
Indians have a right to hunt, you are privaledged to hunt, that's the law, get over it. :twocents:
I'm saddened u think that, I guess that's why we won't, unlike other states, have a condition in our state constitution to make this a right for all :'( Must be a Indians lives matter type of thing instead of an all lives matter :dunno:
I agree, its legal for natives(those that meet the blood quantum laws, however low/corrupt-again like all human endeavors man can manipulate and cheat the system) to hunt anything and everything. I know I've made that clear.
But why should someone who Pays into a point system the state agency responsible for setting game harvest limits says are ok to harvest be denied? With this state agency point system that is aimed at providing the best/fairest way for those that Pay into it, to dole out the right to harvest said game be robbed of there money if the agency has no intention of letting that individual fill the permit.
Don't mistake my understanding of the law as agreement of the law. I believe it's been quite evident over the years that I have been as critical as anyone on this forum to the Indians hunting practices.
That being said, you are intelligent enough to understand that until the law is changed, you can only harvest one of each species, regardless what the draw system dolls out. ;)
Post by: Brad Harshman on November 21, 2015, 11:39:23 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163783.250.html
There are a lot of emotions involved here. But like others have said before, decisions should be made on scientific evidence, not political agendas.
With that said, the egregious amounts of apples being dumped on public and private lands (at times semi trailers atop semi trailers) by a few guide services, primarily in the okanagon, are the major issue here. Anecdotal evidence suggests it's altering mule deer migration routes, but scientificaly, and more importantly, it's known that apples are unhealthy for the deer in the fall/winter.
Not all bait is bad though, salt blocks containing trace minerals such as selenium, help mule deer reproduction systems.
I think there's room here to add restrictions to baiting without infringing on the vast majority of people who choose to responsibly bait. As well as, enforcing it.
There is no way to please everyone.
Good luck.
Brad
Post by: mfswallace on November 21, 2015, 11:44:33 PM
A permit is not a tag. You dont fill a permit. It just gives you additional options of how you can fill your tag. If you draw quality elk and antlerless elk, thats two extra ways you are "permitted" to fill your one tag. Get it? Nowhere does it say its for an additional elk. I dont know whats so hard to understand about that. You drew two options, not any additional animals. And this has nothing to do with natives, christ. Youre like walter in the big lebowski bringing ip viet nam where there is no connection whatsoever. Anyway, this thread was about baiting, not the draw system.
The china man is not the issue here, shut *censored* up Donny :chuckle: That's in jest
I'm not like Walter, you must not have read the first post all the way through :o
from the OP this thread is about baiting AND "Changes to the preference point system. Many ideas regarding this, love to hear what you think we could do to improve it."
I think improvements would be to let those who draw multiple permits fill them as they had as "fair" a shot to draw and payed to play like everyone else :twocents:
Post by: mfswallace on November 21, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
The law allows one deer and one elk per year, per hunter. To change that would be seen by most as unfair, me included.
Why :dunno:
Your older than me and should have seen this coming- Life isn't Fair! or--- Life is not fair, but life is not fair for everyone...which actually makes it fair.
Its unfair that natives can kill anything and everything but its legal and they don't pay into the system...why should it be different for those that pay (jump thru the hoops) to get drawn?
Indians have a right to hunt, you are privaledged to hunt, that's the law, get over it. :twocents:
I'm saddened u think that, I guess that's why we won't, unlike other states, have a condition in our state constitution to make this a right for all :'( Must be a Indians lives matter type of thing instead of an all lives matter :dunno:
I agree, its legal for natives(those that meet the blood quantum laws, however low/corrupt-again like all human endeavors man can manipulate and cheat the system) to hunt anything and everything. I know I've made that clear.
But why should someone who Pays into a point system the state agency responsible for setting game harvest limits says are ok to harvest be denied? With this state agency point system that is aimed at providing the best/fairest way for those that Pay into it, to dole out the right to harvest said game be robbed of there money if the agency has no intention of letting that individual fill the permit.
Don't mistake my understanding of the law as agreement of the law. I believe it's been quite evident over the years that I have been as critical as anyone on this forum to the Indians hunting practices.
That being said, you are intelligent enough to understand that until the law is changed, you can only harvest one of each species, regardless what the draw system dolls out. ;)
:tup:
Post by: winshooter88 on November 22, 2015, 12:41:55 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 22, 2015, 05:24:50 AM
Ren is a member of Silver Arrow Bowman and was heavily involved in Whidbey Island Bowmen before it was closed. He is a hunter, Archer, and all around good guy.I agree that Ren is a good guy, that Bearpaw has earned his respect, and that new restrictions are not good. However, this issue was pushed on us, so we'd better respond with a solution that works for hunters.
ONE problem does NOT need a bunch of BS laws on the books. This whole issue is because a guide had truckloads of culled apples from his leases piled up to attract mule deer.
I personally dislike new laws because they mostly dont solve jack... I dont think they should change the baiting law, and i dislike the "solutions" presented.
The WDFW has not even presented what the "Problem" is so how can we asses a solution? IMO this is just another attempt to hurt hunting opportunity. I have to say that is why Im VERY disappointed in Bearpaw's suggestions since he is always proclaiming how hunters need to stand together to protect each others preferred method of hunting.
You're correct about the issue being pushed by hunters not liking the baiting practices of a couple outfitters (one for Mule deer, another for elk). The WDFW did present the issue to the public at the Moses Lake Commission meeting. Without the testimony of just a few, we'd have lost baiting completely in a few short minutes. Bearpaw's suggestion did not come from a non-thought-out-position. It was drafted as an example that could be used which would place restrictions on the right places but leave the little guy alone to hunt how he always has.
I wished we didn't have to restrict baiting. But as the OP pointed out, the commission is asking for recommendations, so it appears they are going to take action. I think many of us understand how this process works and how important it is to help solve the problem with restrictions that least impact the average hunter. If you don't help offer sensible restrictions we may be faced with restrictions that none of us like.
Post by: bearpaw on November 22, 2015, 05:30:58 AM
EnforcementThere is only one instance in all of WA law that I am aware of where an officer is only permitted to issue a written warning upon the first offense. That violation is negligently feeding wild carnivores, which in many cases means someone leaves garbage out that a bear gets into. In that case on a first offense an officer can issue a written warning, if after two days the offender has not picked up the garbage then a natural resource infraction is issued. WDFW does not set fines the Supreme Court does, in this case the supreme court has said the fine is $150. The reason why this offense has the first time offense = warning stipulation is because the legislature and WDFW believed that most citizens would not know of a law regarding negligently feeding wildlife, so they figured the warning should be enough to give them a "wake up call."
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.
I have a hard time with Bearpaw's enforcement suggestion of a first time offense = warning with a 7 day correction requirement. As hunter's we are supposed to know the regs. An officer can always issue a verbal warning, written warning, etc. Realistically, putting in place a law that says a first time = warning simply means that I can go break baiting laws and if I am caught then oh well, I'll get a piece of paper that means nothing.
In this case I would much rather see the violation be handled just like WDFW proposed this year. In the spring WDFW Commission meeting the commission was faced with three possible baiting regulations. In all cases the penalty would be the same. If you violated the baiting regs and did NOT kill an animal the ticket was a natural resource infraction (ticket). If you violated baiting regs and DID kill an animal then you are charged with the criminal offense of unlawful hunting of big game. This is the trend that WDFW has approached since 2012. Prior to 2012 most fish and wildlife offenses were criminal offenses, due to a change in court regs WDFW is now going towards making offenses where no fish/wildlife were actually taken into an infraction so that the more serious offenses (where fish/wildlife are taken) can be prosecuted. Infractions don't take up prosecutors time, criminal offenses do.
I strongly support our wardens but I have a hard time with the hard line stance often taken. I think there is room for more compassion and understanding in law enforcement. Too often I think tickets are written for the purpose of sticking it to the hunter as hard as they can. I strongly commend those wardens who exhibit compassion and do not follow that path.
Post by: Mxracer532 on November 22, 2015, 06:06:06 AM
#1 $5 permit, WE PAY ENOUGH ALREADY!There's precedent in other states. Idaho for example has a bear bait permit which is $12.75 and is available only at Idaho Fish & Game offices.WDFW has adopted several license/permit ideas from other states. Many states before WA had a two pole fishing license endorsement before WDFW finally approved it. California has a "ocean enhancement validation" if you fish south of Santa Barbara County, they just discontinued the "Colorado River Validation," these were in place before WA's "Columbia River Endorsement"
Yes, now look at how much tags and licenses are for an Idaho resident compared to ours! We just keep adding more and more cost to everything. Its getting out of hand. Pretty soon they will want a permit to take a crap in the woods!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Mxracer532 on November 22, 2015, 06:23:57 AM
Ren is a member of Silver Arrow Bowman and was heavily involved in Whidbey Island Bowmen before it was closed. He is a hunter, Archer, and all around good guy.
ONE problem does NOT need a bunch of BS laws on the books. This whole issue is because a guide had truckloads of culled apples from his leases piled up to attract mule deer.
I personally dislike new laws because they mostly dont solve jack... I dont think they should change the baiting law, and i dislike the "solutions" presented.
The WDFW has not even presented what the "Problem" is so how can we asses a solution? IMO this is just another attempt to hurt hunting opportunity. I have to say that is why Im VERY disappointed in Bearpaw's suggestions since he is always proclaiming how hunters need to stand together to protect each others preferred method of hunting.
:yeah: Very well put!
Post by: Mxracer532 on November 22, 2015, 06:28:28 AM
EnforcementIf you violated the baiting regs and did NOT kill an animal the ticket was a natural resource infraction (ticket). If you violated baiting regs and DID kill an animal then you are charged with the criminal offense of unlawful hunting of big game.
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.
So how would this play out. I see baiting as feeding wildlife for the purpose of hunting. If youre not hunting them then its just feeding right? What about me feeding deer in december - feb to grt them to drop antlers on my property?
Lets also think about the feed being beneficial to the animals. We arent just BAITING, we are also giving them valuable minerals that help them. (atleast thats what they claim? :dunno:)
Post by: mfswallace on November 22, 2015, 07:04:53 AM
So mfswallace, how much should you have to pay for the transport tag to go along with the extra permits you draw, the same as the first tag, or since it is extra opportunity should it be like a second deer or elk tag and cost much more. To take an animal you have to have a tag as well as the permit you draw so how much is an extra deer or elk worth to you? WDFW is not likely to make the extra tags to go along with the permits cheap, so what do you think is reasonable?
It actually isn't more-- Deer License $44.90- 2nd Deer Tag (only available by Special Permit) $43.40
Elk License $50.40 - 2nd Elk Tag (only available by Special Permit) $22.50
The additional "tag" could cost as much as the primary or a 10% increase on the price from the primary would be reasonable imo... Again they are willing to take our money why shouldn't we expect to get the opportunity to fill the permits we draw as it has already been approved by the bio's that those animals can be taken?
Post by: winshooter88 on November 22, 2015, 07:38:54 AM
As for the price, I forgot that they lowered the price last year.
Post by: Special T on November 22, 2015, 09:26:37 AM
When a gov agency pushes for a change but "allows" groups to direct the solution it does 2 things. It provides the agency to pass rules that are mostly un necessary and more complicated. It gives cover to the agency because the solution came from the "affected parties".
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: buckfvr on November 22, 2015, 10:36:11 AM
If they again go with cwd concerns then obviously we must get rid of water tanks and feed bins. We must prohibit cattle ranchers from allowing deer and elk to feed with their stock, and or yard up in areas near their operations...........yes, this is all ridiculous as is the whole idea of it being related to cwd concerns, and yes, last go round it was one of their pointed concerns.
WDFW wants baiting gone, they did last year and were very disappointed with the out come and my money says they will get their way this year period. They have too many people who make the formal recommendations in their corner. Too many political IOU's floating about. I fear the out come is predetermined as it so often seems to be. If you want to spend some effort that may pay off down the road sooner than later, come up with ideas on restricting the governor and changing management policies of wdfw from hierarchy management to regional management by regionally elected local managers........WDFW is the problem, not baiting.
Post by: SCRUBS on November 22, 2015, 10:41:53 AM
By agreeing to go along with baiting restrictions, you are essentially setting one foot over the line.......it will be only a short time before wdfw grabs you by the arm and pulls you all the way over the line. There is no argument to end baiting except that it is agenda driven as a consideration for non/anti hunting constituency of the governor and his wdfw hierarchy . They no doubt feel if they can stop baiting and save just one life by doing it, well then, its a victory/success story for them.
If they again go with cwd concerns then obviously we must get rid of water tanks and feed bins. We must prohibit cattle ranchers from allowing deer and elk to feed with their stock, and or yard up in areas near their operations...........yes, this is all ridiculous as is the whole idea of it being related to cwd concerns, and yes, last go round it was one of their pointed concerns.
WDFW wants baiting gone, they did last year and were very disappointed with the out come and my money says they will get their way this year period. They have too many people who make the formal recommendations in their corner. Too many political IOU's floating about. I fear the out come is predetermined as it so often seems to be. If you want to spend some effort that may pay off down the road sooner than later, come up with ideas on restricting the governor and changing management policies of wdfw from hierarchy management to regional management by regionally elected local managers........WDFW is the problem, not baiting.
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: Special T on November 22, 2015, 11:42:22 AM
Thank you for doing a much better job than me at explaining what i was trying to.By agreeing to go along with baiting restrictions, you are essentially setting one foot over the line.......it will be only a short time before wdfw grabs you by the arm and pulls you all the way over the line. There is no argument to end baiting except that it is agenda driven as a consideration for non/anti hunting constituency of the governor and his wdfw hierarchy . They no doubt feel if they can stop baiting and save just one life by doing it, well then, its a victory/success story for them.
If they again go with cwd concerns then obviously we must get rid of water tanks and feed bins. We must prohibit cattle ranchers from allowing deer and elk to feed with their stock, and or yard up in areas near their operations...........yes, this is all ridiculous as is the whole idea of it being related to cwd concerns, and yes, last go round it was one of their pointed concerns.
WDFW wants baiting gone, they did last year and were very disappointed with the out come and my money says they will get their way this year period. They have too many people who make the formal recommendations in their corner. Too many political IOU's floating about. I fear the out come is predetermined as it so often seems to be. If you want to spend some effort that may pay off down the road sooner than later, come up with ideas on restricting the governor and changing management policies of wdfw from hierarchy management to regional management by regionally elected local managers........WDFW is the problem, not baiting.
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 22, 2015, 11:44:44 AM
By agreeing to go along with baiting restrictions, you are essentially setting one foot over the line.......it will be only a short time before wdfw grabs you by the arm and pulls you all the way over the line. There is no argument to end baiting except that it is agenda driven as a consideration for non/anti hunting constituency of the governor and his wdfw hierarchy . They no doubt feel if they can stop baiting and save just one life by doing it, well then, its a victory/success story for them.
If they again go with cwd concerns then obviously we must get rid of water tanks and feed bins. We must prohibit cattle ranchers from allowing deer and elk to feed with their stock, and or yard up in areas near their operations...........yes, this is all ridiculous as is the whole idea of it being related to cwd concerns, and yes, last go round it was one of their pointed concerns.
WDFW wants baiting gone, they did last year and were very disappointed with the out come and my money says they will get their way this year period. They have too many people who make the formal recommendations in their corner. Too many political IOU's floating about. I fear the out come is predetermined as it so often seems to be. If you want to spend some effort that may pay off down the road sooner than later, come up with ideas on restricting the governor and changing management policies of wdfw from hierarchy management to regional management by regionally elected local managers........WDFW is the problem, not baiting.
:yeah: :tup:
:yeah: :yeah: :tup: :tup:
Post by: eastsidemallard74 on November 22, 2015, 12:18:20 PM
Post by: JakeLand on November 22, 2015, 01:17:54 PM
Baiting:
1. Bring back the ability to bait bear.
2. Deer and Elk Baiting: Leave it alone, we don't need more rules / laws. How does it affect anything??? We are still only allowd to harvest one animal per year. What is next.....you are not allowed to hunt orchards because the deer are coming to bait, corn fields, alfalfa, wheat, etc. etc. etc. What is next you can't wear camoflauge because it give the hunter another advantage?? Where does all this insanity end??
Preference points: Not sure what you mean by this? If you mean the draw system, I would like to see where a person can only draw one "draw" per animal per year. Keep all the Catagories but if a person draws "quality" they cannot draw "buck" "doe" "second deer", etc. Start the draw with the quality and go down from there. This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal. :twocents:
:yeah: you nailed on how I feel
Post by: winshooter88 on November 22, 2015, 02:30:13 PM
Post by: buckfvr on November 22, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 22, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on November 22, 2015, 02:37:10 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 22, 2015, 02:43:08 PM
Sorry buckfvr, but I am on the GMAC and hunters are part of the driving force behind this.
I guess it would not surprise me that they would be judgmental enough of others to be used by the other side considering this is Washington and Inslee was elected governor, Murray is still senator....... and so is Maria
Divide and Conquer
Post by: Stein on November 22, 2015, 02:43:35 PM
If we can't add hunting opportunities (like wolves) without decades of studies, it should also work in the reverse. Show me a decade of studies clearly outlining the harm and then we'll talk.
By the way, I have baited a grand total of one time with 10 apples and a salt brick. It didn't work.
Post by: winshooter88 on November 22, 2015, 02:46:24 PM
Post by: 2labs on November 22, 2015, 02:47:38 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on November 22, 2015, 02:56:43 PM
Post by: Bango skank on November 22, 2015, 03:02:26 PM
SpecialT, this is not just driven by non/anti hunting groups, there are many hunters who are against baiting as they say it isn't ethical or fair chase. Some of them are worried that antis will take all baiting away if we don't police it ourselves.
If they dont think ots ethical they dont have to do it. What next? People will cry that food plots arent fair chase, then trail cameras, decoys, electronic calls for predators, then scents, mock scrapes etc etc etc. Its a slippery slope
Post by: Bango skank on November 22, 2015, 03:04:06 PM
The 2 biggest concerns seem to be social pressure and a couple of guides using multiple truck loads of bait every year and possibly affecting migration patterns.
If guides are yhe problem then just restrict guides. As far as social pressure, deal with it, there is no scientific reason to ban baiting
Post by: Bango skank on November 22, 2015, 03:31:07 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on November 22, 2015, 03:31:25 PM
Post by: Bango skank on November 22, 2015, 03:35:00 PM
Post by: buckfvr on November 22, 2015, 03:49:11 PM
Sorry buckfvr, but I am on the GMAC and hunters are part of the driving force behind this.
Well then you certainly have a different take on it then the two guys I know on the GMAC.....The GMAC is set to convey hunters messages to the commission, and up the chain it goes. However, a close look reveals this as nothing more than protocall, and wdfw could care less what hunters think, and they arent fond of the gmac either.....if you truly think you have their ear, you are just kidding yourself........in one and out the other.
Post by: Black tail killer on November 22, 2015, 03:51:35 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: buckfvr on November 22, 2015, 03:54:13 PM
Yes, hunters are the driving force. Anti-hunters probably think baiting is already illegal.
Still disillusioned..........................irreparably Im afraid.................
Post by: 2labs on November 22, 2015, 03:58:08 PM
Keep baiting as it is it , it ain't harming anyone. We have enough restrictions already. Next thing they'll take our guns and won't let us hunt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This. Keep loosing the little stuff. You don't get it back! Ever. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on November 22, 2015, 04:02:53 PM
I wonder if any of these hunters behind taking away deer baiting think that it was okay to take away bear baiting because some folks didnt think it was ethical and fair chase? If youve ever bitched about losing bear baiting, but support the loss of deer baiting, you are a hypocriteIt appears that you don't favor any regulations that address fair chase?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 22, 2015, 04:05:53 PM
I wonder if any of these hunters behind taking away deer baiting think that it was okay to take away bear baiting because some folks didnt think it was ethical and fair chase? If youve ever bitched about losing bear baiting, but support the loss of deer baiting, you are a hypocriteIt appears that you don't favor any regulations that address fair chase?
HUH??????? MANY things are rarely as they appear to the untrained eye .....I don't see that there, and mines not trained well :chuckle:
Post by: winshooter88 on November 22, 2015, 04:12:39 PM
Post by: huntnphool on November 22, 2015, 06:29:05 PM
Buckfvr, The GMAC was setup to advise the director of the WDFW and report to him, not the game commission, and they serve at the director's pleasure not the commission.
Opinion? http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,186125.msg2460088.html#msg2460088
Post by: bigtex on November 22, 2015, 07:35:06 PM
I have no problem with compassion, and over a year ago I posted a stat that showed that wardens in California are more likely to issue a citation for a fish/wildlife offense then in WA and that WDFW Officers issue warnings over 50% of the time. The longstanding "norm" in LE is that 50% of your contacts should end in a warning and the other 50% in a ticket/arrest.I strongly support our wardens but I have a hard time with the hard line stance often taken. I think there is room for more compassion and understanding in law enforcement. Too often I think tickets are written for the purpose of sticking it to the hunter as hard as they can. I strongly commend those wardens who exhibit compassion and do not follow that path.EnforcementThere is only one instance in all of WA law that I am aware of where an officer is only permitted to issue a written warning upon the first offense. That violation is negligently feeding wild carnivores, which in many cases means someone leaves garbage out that a bear gets into. In that case on a first offense an officer can issue a written warning, if after two days the offender has not picked up the garbage then a natural resource infraction is issued. WDFW does not set fines the Supreme Court does, in this case the supreme court has said the fine is $150. The reason why this offense has the first time offense = warning stipulation is because the legislature and WDFW believed that most citizens would not know of a law regarding negligently feeding wildlife, so they figured the warning should be enough to give them a "wake up call."
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.
I have a hard time with Bearpaw's enforcement suggestion of a first time offense = warning with a 7 day correction requirement. As hunter's we are supposed to know the regs. An officer can always issue a verbal warning, written warning, etc. Realistically, putting in place a law that says a first time = warning simply means that I can go break baiting laws and if I am caught then oh well, I'll get a piece of paper that means nothing.
In this case I would much rather see the violation be handled just like WDFW proposed this year. In the spring WDFW Commission meeting the commission was faced with three possible baiting regulations. In all cases the penalty would be the same. If you violated the baiting regs and did NOT kill an animal the ticket was a natural resource infraction (ticket). If you violated baiting regs and DID kill an animal then you are charged with the criminal offense of unlawful hunting of big game. This is the trend that WDFW has approached since 2012. Prior to 2012 most fish and wildlife offenses were criminal offenses, due to a change in court regs WDFW is now going towards making offenses where no fish/wildlife were actually taken into an infraction so that the more serious offenses (where fish/wildlife are taken) can be prosecuted. Infractions don't take up prosecutors time, criminal offenses do.
The problem with writing in law that a 1st time offense is a warning is you are basically telling hunters that it's ok to bait deer/elk even though it's illegal, because if you do get caught you won't get a ticket. Hunters/fishers talk and after awhile it will become widely known what the "penalty" is for baiting deer/elk. We saw this about 10 years ago in Spokane County where the county prosecutor's office would dismiss fish and wildlife charges if the defendant pled not guilty. Well after awhile you had people constantly being cited by WDFW, go into court and pled not guilty and the most it cost them was the gas they drove to court.
Realistically, if the adopted penalty that WDFW proposed earlier this year went into place those who were issued the infraction would basically get the equivalent of a parking ticket. Under state law any new fish and wildlife offense that is created after July 2005 and is classified as an infraction doesn't count towards hunting/fishing license suspension. Since it is an infraction it doesn't appear on a criminal record. So realistically, an individual could be cited for baiting deer/elk without taking an animal everyday and not lose their license, not have it appear on a criminal record, not face a mandatory court date, etc. Doesn't sound like a "hard" penalty to me.....
Post by: jasnt on November 22, 2015, 07:54:54 PM
Post by: jasnt on November 22, 2015, 08:02:10 PM
Baiting:100% agrea with jrebel
1. Bring back the ability to bait bear.
2. Deer and Elk Baiting: Leave it alone, we don't need more rules / laws. How does it affect anything??? We are still only allowd to harvest one animal per year. What is next.....you are not allowed to hunt orchards because the deer are coming to bait, corn fields, alfalfa, wheat, etc. etc. etc. What is next you can't wear camoflauge because it give the hunter another advantage?? Where does all this insanity end??
Preference points: Not sure what you mean by this? If you mean the draw system, I would like to see where a person can only draw one "draw" per animal per year. Keep all the Catagories but if a person draws "quality" they cannot draw "buck" "doe" "second deer", etc. Start the draw with the quality and go down from there. This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal. :twocents:
Post by: dreamunelk on November 22, 2015, 08:05:58 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 23, 2015, 05:03:40 AM
#1 $5 permit, WE PAY ENOUGH ALREADY!There's precedent in other states. Idaho for example has a bear bait permit which is $12.75 and is available only at Idaho Fish & Game offices.WDFW has adopted several license/permit ideas from other states. Many states before WA had a two pole fishing license endorsement before WDFW finally approved it. California has a "ocean enhancement validation" if you fish south of Santa Barbara County, they just discontinued the "Colorado River Validation," these were in place before WA's "Columbia River Endorsement"
Yes, now look at how much tags and licenses are for an Idaho resident compared to ours! We just keep adding more and more cost to everything. Its getting out of hand. Pretty soon they will want a permit to take a crap in the woods!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something you need to understand is that Idaho has a large non-resident sales, non-residents are paying $873.25 to hunt deer and elk in Idaho, that helps keep the cost of resident licenses lower. One way or another every state has to make money to operate!
Post by: bearpaw on November 23, 2015, 05:15:27 AM
I have no problem with compassion, and over a year ago I posted a stat that showed that wardens in California are more likely to issue a citation for a fish/wildlife offense then in WA and that WDFW Officers issue warnings over 50% of the time. The longstanding "norm" in LE is that 50% of your contacts should end in a warning and the other 50% in a ticket/arrest.I strongly support our wardens but I have a hard time with the hard line stance often taken. I think there is room for more compassion and understanding in law enforcement. Too often I think tickets are written for the purpose of sticking it to the hunter as hard as they can. I strongly commend those wardens who exhibit compassion and do not follow that path.EnforcementThere is only one instance in all of WA law that I am aware of where an officer is only permitted to issue a written warning upon the first offense. That violation is negligently feeding wild carnivores, which in many cases means someone leaves garbage out that a bear gets into. In that case on a first offense an officer can issue a written warning, if after two days the offender has not picked up the garbage then a natural resource infraction is issued. WDFW does not set fines the Supreme Court does, in this case the supreme court has said the fine is $150. The reason why this offense has the first time offense = warning stipulation is because the legislature and WDFW believed that most citizens would not know of a law regarding negligently feeding wildlife, so they figured the warning should be enough to give them a "wake up call."
First time offense should be a warning with 7 days time to correct the offense.
Second time offenders of the same rule should get a minor infraction.
Third time offenders should get hammered, these are the guys who are probably giving baiting a black eye.
I have a hard time with Bearpaw's enforcement suggestion of a first time offense = warning with a 7 day correction requirement. As hunter's we are supposed to know the regs. An officer can always issue a verbal warning, written warning, etc. Realistically, putting in place a law that says a first time = warning simply means that I can go break baiting laws and if I am caught then oh well, I'll get a piece of paper that means nothing.
In this case I would much rather see the violation be handled just like WDFW proposed this year. In the spring WDFW Commission meeting the commission was faced with three possible baiting regulations. In all cases the penalty would be the same. If you violated the baiting regs and did NOT kill an animal the ticket was a natural resource infraction (ticket). If you violated baiting regs and DID kill an animal then you are charged with the criminal offense of unlawful hunting of big game. This is the trend that WDFW has approached since 2012. Prior to 2012 most fish and wildlife offenses were criminal offenses, due to a change in court regs WDFW is now going towards making offenses where no fish/wildlife were actually taken into an infraction so that the more serious offenses (where fish/wildlife are taken) can be prosecuted. Infractions don't take up prosecutors time, criminal offenses do.
The problem with writing in law that a 1st time offense is a warning is you are basically telling hunters that it's ok to bait deer/elk even though it's illegal, because if you do get caught you won't get a ticket. Hunters/fishers talk and after awhile it will become widely known what the "penalty" is for baiting deer/elk. We saw this about 10 years ago in Spokane County where the county prosecutor's office would dismiss fish and wildlife charges if the defendant pled not guilty. Well after awhile you had people constantly being cited by WDFW, go into court and pled not guilty and the most it cost them was the gas they drove to court.
Realistically, if the adopted penalty that WDFW proposed earlier this year went into place those who were issued the infraction would basically get the equivalent of a parking ticket. Under state law any new fish and wildlife offense that is created after July 2005 and is classified as an infraction doesn't count towards hunting/fishing license suspension. Since it is an infraction it doesn't appear on a criminal record. So realistically, an individual could be cited for baiting deer/elk without taking an animal everyday and not lose their license, not have it appear on a criminal record, not face a mandatory court date, etc. Doesn't sound like a "hard" penalty to me.....
I see your point about the infraction, that sounds fair enough, I will modify my post.
Post by: bearpaw on November 23, 2015, 05:40:49 AM
Baiting
First, I oppose restrictions!
Second, everyone needs to understand that if rules are created they must be reasonable and simple for hunters to understand and follow, and must be easy for WDFW officers to enforce.
Third, most restrictions are only needed on lands open to public use. I could live with the following simple rules that seem easy to enforce:
Baiting Restrictions
- A $5 bait permit must be secured and visible at each bait (permit shows Wild ID number for LE purposes)
- Bait may not be placed within 50 feet of surface water
- Bait may not be placed within 1/4 mile of a designated public campground
- A hunter must have at least 500 feet distance between their baits
- Bait must be free of litter
- No more than 100 pounds of hay may be placed at one time
- No more than 20 cubic feet of hay may accumulate at a bait
- The total volume of other types of bait available to be eaten shall not exceed 10 gallons at any bait site (barrels with timed feeders ok)
- Bait and any materials used while baiting may not be placed more than 30 days prior to the opening date of the season you are licensed to hunt
- Bait and any materials placed when baiting must be removed within 10 days after the close of the season you were licensed to hunt
Additional requirements for baiting on lands open to public use:
- Bait shall not be placed within 300 feet of any public accessible roadway or designated trail
- Bait cannot be visible from less than 1/4 mile of any public accessible roadway (hunters are advised to keep bait out of sight from public roadways)
I'm not representing anyone other than myself with these possible rules, but if we must have rules I think these are reasonable and would be easy to follow and enforce! :dunno:
I am convinced the commission is going to address baiting whether we like it or not. Some of you seem to think if you blindly oppose baiting the issue will go away, I would like to think the same but know better. Rather than get rules forced upon us that are ill conceived, I thought I would offer up a few simple rules to keep baiting as acceptable as possible to the majority of hunters and that would help keep baiting out of the public eye. If these rules don't work for someone please explain why so I might offer better options?
Many of you spend $5 a day at the coffee shop. Bait permits and rules seems to work in Idaho for bear baiting permits and you put your permit at your bait site. The strongest argument in favor of some regulations on baiting is that Idaho still has bear baiting and we don't! Some states that allow deer baiting have restrictions and that seems to work for them, I think that by supporting some common sense workable rules we can continue deer and elk baiting in Washington. I am convinced it will not work to just be blindly opposed any rules and stuff our heads in the sand! :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 23, 2015, 06:49:17 AM
:yeah:Baiting
First, I oppose restrictions!
Second, everyone needs to understand that if rules are created they must be reasonable and simple for hunters to understand and follow, and must be easy for WDFW officers to enforce.
Third, most restrictions are only needed on lands open to public use. I could live with the following simple rules that seem easy to enforce:
Baiting Restrictions
- A $5 bait permit must be secured and visible at each bait (permit shows Wild ID number for LE purposes)
- Bait may not be placed within 50 feet of surface water
- Bait may not be placed within 1/4 mile of a designated public campground
- A hunter must have at least 500 feet distance between their baits
- Bait must be free of litter
- No more than 100 pounds of hay may be placed at one time
- No more than 20 cubic feet of hay may accumulate at a bait
- The total volume of other types of bait available to be eaten shall not exceed 10 gallons at any bait site (barrels with timed feeders ok)
- Bait and any materials used while baiting may not be placed more than 30 days prior to the opening date of the season you are licensed to hunt
- Bait and any materials placed when baiting must be removed within 10 days after the close of the season you were licensed to hunt
Additional requirements for baiting on lands open to public use:
- Bait shall not be placed within 300 feet of any public accessible roadway or designated trail
- Bait cannot be visible from less than 1/4 mile of any public accessible roadway (hunters are advised to keep bait out of sight from public roadways)
I'm not representing anyone other than myself with these possible rules, but if we must have rules I think these are reasonable and would be easy to follow and enforce! :dunno:
I am convinced the commission is going to address baiting whether we like it or not. Some of you seem to think if you blindly oppose baiting the issue will go away, I would like to think the same but know better. Rather than get rules forced upon us that are ill conceived, I thought I would offer up a few simple rules to keep baiting as acceptable as possible to the majority of hunters and that would help keep baiting out of the public eye. If these rules don't work for someone please explain why so I might offer better options?
Many of you spend $5 a day at the coffee shop. Bait permits and rules seems to work in Idaho for bear baiting permits and you put your permit at your bait site. The strongest argument in favor of some regulations on baiting is that Idaho still has bear baiting and we don't! Some states that allow deer baiting have restrictions and that seems to work for them, I think that by supporting some common sense workable rules we can continue deer and elk baiting in Washington. I am convinced it will not work to just be blindly opposed any rules and stuff our heads in the sand! :dunno:
Many good points. I support bearpaws recommended rules. They seek to regulate baiting in a responsible way that will have little or no impact to 99.99% of guys who bait.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Bango skank on November 23, 2015, 07:08:55 AM
Post by: Bango skank on November 23, 2015, 09:36:04 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 09:48:42 AM
I have no problem with compassion, and over a year ago I posted a stat that showed that wardens in California are more likely to issue a citation for a fish/wildlife offense then in WA and that WDFW Officers issue warnings over 50% of the time. The longstanding "norm" in LE is that 50% of your contacts should end in a warning and the other 50% in a ticket/arrest.
Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2015, 09:53:54 AM
How in the world did you get that out of my statement?I have no problem with compassion, and over a year ago I posted a stat that showed that wardens in California are more likely to issue a citation for a fish/wildlife offense then in WA and that WDFW Officers issue warnings over 50% of the time. The longstanding "norm" in LE is that 50% of your contacts should end in a warning and the other 50% in a ticket/arrest.
Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.
CA wardens cite more often then WDFW.
The norm in LE is that out of violators contacted 50% should get a warning and 50% a ticket.
Nowhere did i say every hunter is breaking the law....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 09:59:56 AM
How in the world did you get that out of my statement?I have no problem with compassion, and over a year ago I posted a stat that showed that wardens in California are more likely to issue a citation for a fish/wildlife offense then in WA and that WDFW Officers issue warnings over 50% of the time. The longstanding "norm" in LE is that 50% of your contacts should end in a warning and the other 50% in a ticket/arrest.
Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.
CA wardens cite more often then WDFW.
The norm in LE is that out of violators contacted 50% should get a warning and 50% a ticket.
Nowhere did i say every hunter is breaking the law....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
You didn't say that 50% of violators should get a warning and 50% should get a ticket. You said 50% of your contacts should get a ticket and 50% should get a warning. Big difference between contacts and violators.
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2015, 10:00:55 AM
I think most would assume that i was referring to violator contacts....How in the world did you get that out of my statement?I have no problem with compassion, and over a year ago I posted a stat that showed that wardens in California are more likely to issue a citation for a fish/wildlife offense then in WA and that WDFW Officers issue warnings over 50% of the time. The longstanding "norm" in LE is that 50% of your contacts should end in a warning and the other 50% in a ticket/arrest.
Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.
CA wardens cite more often then WDFW.
The norm in LE is that out of violators contacted 50% should get a warning and 50% a ticket.
Nowhere did i say every hunter is breaking the law....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
You didn't say that 50% of violators should get a warning and 50% should get a ticket. You said 50% of your contacts should get a ticket and 50% should get a warning. Big difference between contacts and violators.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: Wacenturion on November 23, 2015, 10:01:16 AM
The more we as hunters throw out suggestions for regulations, the more the bureaucracy will oblige regulating us. WDFW has a history of non management. By that I mean management by perceived public opinion rather than scientific reality. Don't really have a dog in this fight, but do have a new piece of property that I did feed some during the summer for cam picture purposes.
As I'm planning on farming some of the property as well as putting in food plots and various trees....i.e apple, etc., I really don't have a stong opinion one way or the other. However it should be based on creditable information rather than emotion.
Has there been any major problems? One can still only harvest one deer per year. Fair chase....what's fair chase? I would suggest that using a rifle might be considered not to be fair chase. Everything else including scents covers, tree stands, food plots, on and on might be as well.
The GMAC is in my opinion a tool that allowed WDFW to justify a sportsman buy in. At least the years I was still there it was. Nothing negative to those who volunteer for the job mind you. It's the system.
One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 10:19:23 AM
I think most would assume that i was referring to violator contacts....How in the world did you get that out of my statement?I have no problem with compassion, and over a year ago I posted a stat that showed that wardens in California are more likely to issue a citation for a fish/wildlife offense then in WA and that WDFW Officers issue warnings over 50% of the time. The longstanding "norm" in LE is that 50% of your contacts should end in a warning and the other 50% in a ticket/arrest.
Seriously? What you are saying is that every hunter is breaking the law. I find that to be a troubling mind set.
CA wardens cite more often then WDFW.
The norm in LE is that out of violators contacted 50% should get a warning and 50% a ticket.
Nowhere did i say every hunter is breaking the law....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
You didn't say that 50% of violators should get a warning and 50% should get a ticket. You said 50% of your contacts should get a ticket and 50% should get a warning. Big difference between contacts and violators.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Not necessarily. It would explain why the game warden skidded sideways in the road after I had pulled into the ditch to let him by (Not knowing it was a warden) and jumped out with his hand on his gun and proceeded to sneak around my truck peering into the back while his partner tried to keep me distracted and played good cop, bad cop with me. My 70 some year old dad, and nine year old son, and I were just driving into the North River unit and hadn't even started hunting yet when this happened. Very aggressive actions for a license check. Was my son's first contact with an LEO. What do you think he thought about that? The one guy never took his hand off his gun until they got back into their car to leave.
Post by: jasnt on November 23, 2015, 10:36:15 AM
i would support that as well. It sucks we have to give up these tiny little things tho:yeah:Baiting
First, I oppose restrictions!
Second, everyone needs to understand that if rules are created they must be reasonable and simple for hunters to understand and follow, and must be easy for WDFW officers to enforce.
Third, most restrictions are only needed on lands open to public use. I could live with the following simple rules that seem easy to enforce:
Baiting Restrictions
- A $5 bait permit must be secured and visible at each bait (permit shows Wild ID number for LE purposes)
- Bait may not be placed within 50 feet of surface water
- Bait may not be placed within 1/4 mile of a designated public campground
- A hunter must have at least 500 feet distance between their baits
- Bait must be free of litter
- No more than 100 pounds of hay may be placed at one time
- No more than 20 cubic feet of hay may accumulate at a bait
- The total volume of other types of bait available to be eaten shall not exceed 10 gallons at any bait site (barrels with timed feeders ok)
- Bait and any materials used while baiting may not be placed more than 30 days prior to the opening date of the season you are licensed to hunt
- Bait and any materials placed when baiting must be removed within 10 days after the close of the season you were licensed to hunt
Additional requirements for baiting on lands open to public use:
- Bait shall not be placed within 300 feet of any public accessible roadway or designated trail
- Bait cannot be visible from less than 1/4 mile of any public accessible roadway (hunters are advised to keep bait out of sight from public roadways)
I'm not representing anyone other than myself with these possible rules, but if we must have rules I think these are reasonable and would be easy to follow and enforce! :dunno:
I am convinced the commission is going to address baiting whether we like it or not. Some of you seem to think if you blindly oppose baiting the issue will go away, I would like to think the same but know better. Rather than get rules forced upon us that are ill conceived, I thought I would offer up a few simple rules to keep baiting as acceptable as possible to the majority of hunters and that would help keep baiting out of the public eye. If these rules don't work for someone please explain why so I might offer better options?
Many of you spend $5 a day at the coffee shop. Bait permits and rules seems to work in Idaho for bear baiting permits and you put your permit at your bait site. The strongest argument in favor of some regulations on baiting is that Idaho still has bear baiting and we don't! Some states that allow deer baiting have restrictions and that seems to work for them, I think that by supporting some common sense workable rules we can continue deer and elk baiting in Washington. I am convinced it will not work to just be blindly opposed any rules and stuff our heads in the sand! :dunno:
Many good points. I support bearpaws recommended rules. They seek to regulate baiting in a responsible way that will have little or no impact to 99.99% of guys who bait.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Next it will be something else and then a little more. Just seems like we loose a little more of or sport every year. Kinda like compromising our way to nothing at all before we know it. I would rather fight to keep what we have. It's a non stop battle just to keep our heritage alive.
Post by: huntnphool on November 23, 2015, 12:14:31 PM
I favor the K.I.S.S. principal.....Keep It Simple Stupid! :bash:
The more we as hunters throw out suggestions for regulations, the more the bureaucracy will oblige regulating us. WDFW has a history of non management. By that I mean management by perceived public opinion rather than scientific reality. Don't really have a dog in this fight, but do have a new piece of property that I did feed some during the summer for cam picture purposes.
As I'm planning on farming some of the property as well as putting in food plots and various trees....i.e apple, etc., I really don't have a stong opinion one way or the other. However it should be based on creditable information rather than emotion.
Has there been any major problems? One can still only harvest one deer per year. Fair chase....what's fair chase? I would suggest that using a rifle might be considered not to be fair chase. Everything else including scents covers, tree stands, food plots, on and on might be as well.
The GMAC is in my opinion a tool that allowed WDFW to justify a sportsman buy in. At least the years I was still there it was. Nothing negative to those who volunteer for the job mind you. It's the system.
One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.
+1
Post by: Curly on November 23, 2015, 12:30:38 PM
If giving in a little is what the concensus is, then it seems like the it could make sense to limit the amount of bait dumped. Since it sounds like the problem is truckloads of apples, why not just make it illegal for someone to dump truckloads of bait? Set a limit of 10 gallons or something like that.
(I think I'm still a little upset with the GMAC recommending the current draw system we are stuck with and all the categories). >:( Hopefully the GMAC isn't going to be suggesting a bunch of baiting restrictions). :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2015, 12:39:08 PM
One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.I'm not following that logic. Are you referring to four different categories (quality, buck, antlerless, etc.), or four hunt choices within one category?
If everyone has four hunt choices within a category, or everyone has only one choice why would that matter? Why would someone spend more to apply for four choices when everyone else also has four? How does that reduce draw odds? One choice, or four choices with four times the number of names in the hat?
Perhaps I misunderstood.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 23, 2015, 12:47:54 PM
One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.I'm not following that logic. Are you referring to four different categories (quality, buck, antlerless, etc.), or four hunt choices within one category?
If everyone has four hunt choices within a category, or everyone has only one choice why would that matter? Why would someone spend more to apply for four choices when everyone else also has four? How does that reduce draw odds? One choice, or four choices with four times the number of names in the hat?
Perhaps I misunderstood.
I think one choice is what he means, like category quality, second deer, buck deer, antler less, etc.
Post by: Curly on November 23, 2015, 12:51:44 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2015, 12:52:03 PM
OK. That makes sense. Thank you.One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.I'm not following that logic. Are you referring to four different categories (quality, buck, antlerless, etc.), or four hunt choices within one category?
If everyone has four hunt choices within a category, or everyone has only one choice why would that matter? Why would someone spend more to apply for four choices when everyone else also has four? How does that reduce draw odds? One choice, or four choices with four times the number of names in the hat?
Perhaps I misunderstood.
I think one choice is what he means, like category quality, second deer, buck deer, antler less, etc.
Post by: Bango skank on November 23, 2015, 12:53:36 PM
If you apply for quality elk, you cant apply for antlerless, etc. Never happen though, loss of revenue
Post by: idahohuntr on November 23, 2015, 12:55:48 PM
Hopefully the GMAC isn't going to be suggesting a bunch of baiting restrictions. :twocents:The last vote was 17-0 recommending no change to baiting. If all members were present it might be closer to 20-2 - for no change.
However, I think its clear some commissioners want to address some of the public image/mass quantity issue. We either get folks like bearpaw to provide reasonable recommendations or it will be left to people who couldn't find their backside with 2 hands and a compass. I wish like many others it would just be left alone...but it is downright scary to think of what those less informed could come up with if we don't guide the process.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 12:58:54 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 01:05:01 PM
One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.I'm not following that logic. Are you referring to four different categories (quality, buck, antlerless, etc.), or four hunt choices within one category?
If everyone has four hunt choices within a category, or everyone has only one choice why would that matter? Why would someone spend more to apply for four choices when everyone else also has four? How does that reduce draw odds? One choice, or four choices with four times the number of names in the hat?
Perhaps I misunderstood.
Bob, getting four choices in each category lessens your odds of getting the hunt you want most in two ways. First it decreases your odds because people who didn't really want that hunt will apply with one of their extra choices so there will be more applicants for that hunt. Second if you apply for that hunt and three others, you might get drawn for one of the other hunts that you only applied for because of the extra choices. Then you lose your preference points and start all over again and that lowers your odds. And if you only apply for the actual hunt you want and no others, you are still facing lowered odds because other guys used all four of their choices and used the hunt you want for a backup hunt.
And by creating all the different categories that everyone can apply for now, the state just made it that much harder to be drawn because everybody can apply for four hunts in each category. For example; Before you may have had 4 choices for an elk draw. Guys who wanted a cow tag could apply for 4 cow hunts, guys who wanted a quality bull tag could apply for 4 quality hunts. Not many quality guys would apply for a cow tag and risk using up their points on a cow and serious meat hunters would rather apply for easier to draw cow tags than a hard to draw quality hunt. So it kept a lot of people from applying for your favorite hunt. But by allowing hunters to have four choices in each category, all of a sudden it didn't cost your quality points to apply for a cow tag, so more people put in for a cow tag, and meat hunters could put in for a cow tag and still have a chance at a quality tag which would be a bonus if you got it. So in effect it made all tags harder to draw. Top it off with allowing people to carry their points they currently had to all different categories and it gave an advantage to drawing cow tags and others to guys who had never put in for them before. Because most of the guys with a lot of points were guys who only put in for hard to draw quality tags. So they went more years without drawing and accumulated more points.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 01:06:31 PM
One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.I'm not following that logic. Are you referring to four different categories (quality, buck, antlerless, etc.), or four hunt choices within one category?
If everyone has four hunt choices within a category, or everyone has only one choice why would that matter? Why would someone spend more to apply for four choices when everyone else also has four? How does that reduce draw odds? One choice, or four choices with four times the number of names in the hat?
Perhaps I misunderstood.
I think one choice is what he means, like category quality, second deer, buck deer, antler less, etc.
I'd rather see 1 or 2 choices per species. Better odds all the way around.
Post by: Curly on November 23, 2015, 01:09:10 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
Wacenturian explained it before (very well too). And one choice would increase the odds in the hunt he would like to draw.
The other advantage to going to one choice is it would be easier to figure out draw odds. You could see where most people apply. I think one choice would be the way to go.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 01:15:46 PM
I agree that the additional categories made much more difficult odds all around.
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2015, 01:16:59 PM
I understand the issue of multiple categories quite well. I don' t necessarily agree that having multiple hunt choices per category diminishes draw odds significantly. If I am drawn for a fourth choice, I'm still drawn.One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.I'm not following that logic. Are you referring to four different categories (quality, buck, antlerless, etc.), or four hunt choices within one category?
If everyone has four hunt choices within a category, or everyone has only one choice why would that matter? Why would someone spend more to apply for four choices when everyone else also has four? How does that reduce draw odds? One choice, or four choices with four times the number of names in the hat?
Perhaps I misunderstood.
Bob, getting four choices in each category lessens your odds of getting the hunt you want most in two ways. First it decreases your odds because people who didn't really want that hunt will apply with one of their extra choices so there will be more applicants for that hunt. Second if you apply for that hunt and three others, you might get drawn for one of the other hunts that you only applied for because of the extra choices. Then you lose your preference points and start all over again and that lowers your odds. And if you only apply for the actual hunt you want and no others, you are still facing lowered odds because other guys used all four of their choices and used the hunt you want for a backup hunt.
And by creating all the different categories that everyone can apply for now, the state just made it that much harder to be drawn because everybody can apply for four hunts in each category. For example; Before you may have had 4 choices for an elk draw. Guys who wanted a cow tag could apply for 4 cow hunts, guys who wanted a quality bull tag could apply for 4 quality hunts. Not many quality guys would apply for a cow tag and risk using up their points on a cow and serious meat hunters would rather apply for easier to draw cow tags than a hard to draw quality hunt. So it kept a lot of people from applying for your favorite hunt. But by allowing hunters to have four choices in each category, all of a sudden it didn't cost your quality points to apply for a cow tag, so more people put in for a cow tag, and meat hunters could put in for a cow tag and still have a chance at a quality tag which would be a bonus if you got it. So in effect it made all tags harder to draw. Top it off with allowing people to carry their points they currently had to all different categories and it gave an advantage to drawing cow tags and others to guys who had never put in for them before. Because most of the guys with a lot of points were guys who only put in for hard to draw quality tags. So they went more years without drawing and accumulated more points.
Post by: Curly on November 23, 2015, 01:20:06 PM
With additional choices, you throw out other hunts for the hell of it, thus adding to the applicant pool in those units.
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2015, 01:22:18 PM
Multiple choices diminishes the draw odds for the unit a guy wants to draw the most. With one choice, you apply for the unit you most wish to draw.I don't. I apply for four hunts that I want.
With additional choices, you throw out other hunts for the hell of it, thus adding to the applicant pool in those units.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 01:23:33 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
Multiple choices diminishes the draw odds for the unit a guy wants to draw the most. With one choice, you apply for the unit you most wish to draw.I don't. I apply for four hunts that I want.
With additional choices, you throw out other hunts for the hell of it, thus adding to the applicant pool in those units.
:yeah:
I have never applied for a hunt that I did not wish to draw.
Post by: Curly on November 23, 2015, 01:26:37 PM
The popular permits will get lots of applicants regardless of how many choices we have. Question is, which hunts would see better odds and which hunts would the odds get worse? There's no way to predict that. But overall, odds would remain the same.
You may be able to predict it by going back before the category system was created and see how many applicants applied for various hunts. Then compare to after the category system was implemented. I remember Wacenturian posting about some hunt in the Blues where he used to draw all the time and then when it went to the category system he can't draw anymore because the amount of applicants has increased exponentially.
Post by: singleshot12 on November 23, 2015, 01:27:58 PM
Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
Post by: jackelope on November 23, 2015, 02:09:20 PM
Sure can. Depends on the scenario. Can't hunt everywhere like a lot of us do out west. I've had to learn multiple styles of hunting because of where I've lived in my life. It may not be for everyone, but it is for some...and because of that, we should do what we can to keep it legal. Division is our worst enemy.Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
Post by: Wacenturion on November 23, 2015, 02:25:37 PM
One last comment....you want to have a better chance of drawing your favorite permit.....one choice and one choice only. Not four choices. That is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the permit process. By hey, it's not about you, it's all about $$$.I'm not following that logic. Are you referring to four different categories (quality, buck, antlerless, etc.), or four hunt choices within one category?
If everyone has four hunt choices within a category, or everyone has only one choice why would that matter? Why would someone spend more to apply for four choices when everyone else also has four? How does that reduce draw odds? One choice, or four choices with four times the number of names in the hat?
Perhaps I misunderstood.
Primarily addressing one choice per category. I'll use an example of my favorite permit....
Blu Mtn A and B....east or west...whatever ity's been called in the past 20 or so years. Used to be 600 applicants putting in for 100 permits. Generally get drawn every 3-4 years. Add 3 additional choices by everyone for this type of permit statewide and you now have anywhere from 1700 to 2100 applicants for the same 100 permmits. Then allow antlerless deer applicants to cross over and not lose their antlerless points if they put in and draw this same tag. Now 2200-2400 applicants. Lucky to get drawn every 10 years.
Sad thing is, like many 2nd to 4th choices, people aren't even familiar with the areas they draw on a lesser choice. Same with other permit units unless you actually have spent time hunting them. How many times have we seen as an example in this unit people draw and then ask...."not familiar with the area need help"....."didn't realize it was mostly private"....etc. Lot of tag soup statewide in units because of this.
I put in for one choice and one choice only so I don't take a usable tag from someone whose favorite area is somewhere else. Just refuse to do it. It's all about money and using "useful idiots....us. :twocents:
As a side note then let antlerless permit holders....100 of them hunt the area during the same time frame. Good grief, if you need to harvest does do it during the general season, not during a quality rut hunt timeframe. Just plain stupid and certainly not based on anything creditable.
Post by: Wacenturion on November 23, 2015, 02:27:07 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: skeeter 20i on November 23, 2015, 02:27:39 PM
Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
This kind of comment makes me laugh every time. So exactly who is it that decides what "actual hunting" is? You? :bash:
Different strokes for different folks just because you don't agree with another style of hunting doesn't make that style wrong. Let others hunt in the style they want, lawfully of course.
Too darn many people thinking they need to tell others how and what to do these days IMHO.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 02:30:40 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
:chuckle:
Like I said, I'd be okay with only one choice per application. I just don't feel it would make much difference on odds of drawing.
A few years ago they changed the number of choices in quality applications from four to two. Are quality permits easier to draw since that change? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Post by: singleshot12 on November 23, 2015, 02:34:31 PM
Sure can. Depends on the scenario. Can't hunt everywhere like a lot of us do out west. I've had to learn multiple styles of hunting because of where I've lived in my life. It may not be for everyone, but it is for some...and because of that, we should do what we can to keep it legal. Division is our worst enemy.Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
Personally I wouldn't want my kids first deer to be taken over a bait pile. I would want him to learn and hone the skills of tracking,stalking and everything that goes along with the non-bait method.
But I understand what you're saying.
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2015, 02:40:33 PM
I've never seen any studies on this topic; it would be interesting if someone did.Sure can. Depends on the scenario. Can't hunt everywhere like a lot of us do out west. I've had to learn multiple styles of hunting because of where I've lived in my life. It may not be for everyone, but it is for some...and because of that, we should do what we can to keep it legal. Division is our worst enemy.Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
Personally I wouldn't want my kids first deer to be taken over a bait pile. I would want him to learn and hone the skills of tracking,stalking and everything that goes on long with the non-bait method.
But I understand what you're saying.
"When I was a kid", I hunted for years and years with my father without killing a big game animal. I hunted 15 years with him for elk, and saw one legal animal. I loved every minute of the experiences.
In today's instant gratification world, I believe it would be difficult for a young hunter to continue having an interest in hunting without more immediate success.
Post by: singleshot12 on November 23, 2015, 02:50:45 PM
Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
This kind of comment makes me laugh every time. So exactly who is it that decides what "actual hunting" is? You? :bash:
Different strokes for different folks just because you don't agree with another style of hunting doesn't make that style wrong. Let others hunt in the style they want, lawfully of course.
Too darn many people thinking they need to tell others how and what to do these days IMHO.
I'm just having a hard time trying to relate baiting to fair chase hunting. To me each method is worlds apart. Oh no here we go again :rolleyes:
Post by: grundy53 on November 23, 2015, 02:51:34 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.How would it decrease the odds of any of them?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 02:53:37 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.How would it decrease the odds of any of them?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
More people decide to pick a particular hunt for their one and only choice.
Post by: singleshot12 on November 23, 2015, 02:56:01 PM
That's a lot of it right there "In todays instant gratification world".. Then maybe the young hunter wasn't meant to hunt if they loose interest. Learning traditional skills of hunting is far more important that the risk of a young hunter loosing interest IMO.I've never seen any studies on this topic; it would be interesting if someone did.Sure can. Depends on the scenario. Can't hunt everywhere like a lot of us do out west. I've had to learn multiple styles of hunting because of where I've lived in my life. It may not be for everyone, but it is for some...and because of that, we should do what we can to keep it legal. Division is our worst enemy.Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
Personally I wouldn't want my kids first deer to be taken over a bait pile. I would want him to learn and hone the skills of tracking,stalking and everything that goes on long with the non-bait method.
But I understand what you're saying.
"When I was a kid", I hunted for years and years with my father without killing a big game animal. I hunted 15 years with him for elk, and saw one legal animal. I loved every minute of the experiences.
In today's instant gratification world, I believe it would be difficult for a young hunter to continue having an interest in hunting without more immediate success.
Post by: grundy53 on November 23, 2015, 02:56:58 PM
And you think that one pick wouldn't be one of the four they would pick if it stayed the same?One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.How would it decrease the odds of any of them?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
More people decide to pick a particular hunt for their one and only choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on November 23, 2015, 02:59:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 03:00:16 PM
And you think that one pick wouldn't be one of the four they would pick if it stayed the same?One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.How would it decrease the odds of any of them?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
More people decide to pick a particular hunt for their one and only choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Yes probably so. But now it's everyone's first choice.
Post by: Curly on November 23, 2015, 03:01:59 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 03:04:41 PM
Every additional choice an applicant has is like having that many more applicants in the pool.
No it's not.
Post by: huntnphool on November 23, 2015, 03:09:44 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Like I said, I'd be okay with only one choice per application. I just don't feel it would make much difference on odds of drawing.
If multiple choices does not give you better odds of drawing a permit, then why do they have different choices, 1 through 4?
It should be easy to understand that if your number comes up for choices, and your first choice has already been filled by other applicants, but your second choice has not and you are issued a permit, your odds of actually getting a permit indeed increased by having that second choice!
Post by: grundy53 on November 23, 2015, 03:13:40 PM
I would think everyone's first would most likely stay their first choice. I don't see why their choice would change.And you think that one pick wouldn't be one of the four they would pick if it stayed the same?One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.How would it decrease the odds of any of them?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
More people decide to pick a particular hunt for their one and only choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Yes probably so. But now it's everyone's first choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 03:16:35 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Like I said, I'd be okay with only one choice per application. I just don't feel it would make much difference on odds of drawing.
If multiple choices does not give you better odds of drawing a permit, then why do they have different choices, 1 through 4?
It should be easy to understand that if your number comes up for choices, and your first choice has already been filled by other applicants, but your second choice has not and you are issued a permit, your odds of actually getting a permit indeed increased by having that second choice!
Now you're talking about something entirely different.
To simplify this, let's say there are 1,000 permits in a particular category. Let's say 10,000 people apply for those hunts. The overall odds of drawing one of those permits is 1 in 10. No matter how many choices are available on an application, the odds are 1 in 10. There's nothing you can do to change the fact that only 1 out of 10 people will draw a permit in that category.
Post by: huntnphool on November 23, 2015, 03:19:13 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Like I said, I'd be okay with only one choice per application. I just don't feel it would make much difference on odds of drawing.
If multiple choices does not give you better odds of drawing a permit, then why do they have different choices, 1 through 4?
It should be easy to understand that if your number comes up for choices, and your first choice has already been filled by other applicants, but your second choice has not and you are issued a permit, your odds of actually getting a permit indeed increased by having that second choice!
Now you're talking about something entirely different.
To simplify this, let's say there are 1,000 permits in a particular category. Let's say 10,000 people apply for those hunts. The overall odds of drawing one of those permits is 1 in 10. No matter how many choices are available on an application, the odds are 1 in 10. There's nothing you can do to change the fact that only 1 out of 10 people will draw a permit in that category.
I understand that Bob, but what you don't take into account is that if there was only 1 choice, then there wouldn't be 10000 applicants.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 03:19:43 PM
I would think everyone's first would most likely stay their first choice. I don't see why their choice would change.And you think that one pick wouldn't be one of the four they would pick if it stayed the same?One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.How would it decrease the odds of any of them?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
More people decide to pick a particular hunt for their one and only choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Yes probably so. But now it's everyone's first choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Mine would change. I would apply for a permit that had better odds of drawing if I had only one choice. With multiple choices I usually put in for hunts with nearly impossible odds. The hunt I think I have a decent chance to draw will be last on my list of choices.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 03:24:31 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Like I said, I'd be okay with only one choice per application. I just don't feel it would make much difference on odds of drawing.
If multiple choices does not give you better odds of drawing a permit, then why do they have different choices, 1 through 4?
It should be easy to understand that if your number comes up for choices, and your first choice has already been filled by other applicants, but your second choice has not and you are issued a permit, your odds of actually getting a permit indeed increased by having that second choice!
Now you're talking about something entirely different.
To simplify this, let's say there are 1,000 permits in a particular category. Let's say 10,000 people apply for those hunts. The overall odds of drawing one of those permits is 1 in 10. No matter how many choices are available on an application, the odds are 1 in 10. There's nothing you can do to change the fact that only 1 out of 10 people will draw a permit in that category.
I understand that Bob, but what you don't take into account is that if there was only 1 choice, then there wouldn't be 10000 applicants.
No, you didn't understand.
Answer this question- quality applications only allow two choices now. So is a quality permit easy to draw compared to when you had four choices?
Post by: grundy53 on November 23, 2015, 03:24:38 PM
Which would improve the odds of the hunts you will no longer be choosing. The hunt you would now be choosing will have better odds because everyone is not putting in for it with their fourth choice.I would think everyone's first would most likely stay their first choice. I don't see why their choice would change.And you think that one pick wouldn't be one of the four they would pick if it stayed the same?One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.How would it decrease the odds of any of them?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
More people decide to pick a particular hunt for their one and only choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Yes probably so. But now it's everyone's first choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Mine would change. I would apply for a permit that had better odds of drawing if I had only one choice. With multiple choices I usually put in for hunts with nearly impossible odds. The hunt I think I have a decent chance to draw will be last on my list of choices.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 03:28:22 PM
Which would improve the odds of the hunts you will no longer be choosing. The hunt you would now be choosing will have better odds because everyone is not putting in for it with their fourth choice.I would think everyone's first would most likely stay their first choice. I don't see why their choice would change.And you think that one pick wouldn't be one of the four they would pick if it stayed the same?One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.How would it decrease the odds of any of them?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
More people decide to pick a particular hunt for their one and only choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Yes probably so. But now it's everyone's first choice.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Mine would change. I would apply for a permit that had better odds of drawing if I had only one choice. With multiple choices I usually put in for hunts with nearly impossible odds. The hunt I think I have a decent chance to draw will be last on my list of choices.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Possibly, yes. But how can that be predicted? I don't know what other people would do. Either way, some permits WOULD become easier to draw, but other permits would then have to become more difficult. It's an impossibility to make better odds for ALL permits.
Post by: huntnphool on November 23, 2015, 03:32:39 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Like I said, I'd be okay with only one choice per application. I just don't feel it would make much difference on odds of drawing.
If multiple choices does not give you better odds of drawing a permit, then why do they have different choices, 1 through 4?
It should be easy to understand that if your number comes up for choices, and your first choice has already been filled by other applicants, but your second choice has not and you are issued a permit, your odds of actually getting a permit indeed increased by having that second choice!
Now you're talking about something entirely different.
To simplify this, let's say there are 1,000 permits in a particular category. Let's say 10,000 people apply for those hunts. The overall odds of drawing one of those permits is 1 in 10. No matter how many choices are available on an application, the odds are 1 in 10. There's nothing you can do to change the fact that only 1 out of 10 people will draw a permit in that category.
I understand that Bob, but what you don't take into account is that if there was only 1 choice, then there wouldn't be 10000 applicants.
No, you didn't understand.
Answer this question- quality applications only allow two choices now. So is a quality permit easy to draw compared to when you had four choices?
Yes Bob, because with two choices their are less people applying for that same permit than four.
Let's make this easy for even you to understand Bob. If your first choice has 1000 first choice applicants, but there are 500 other people that have that same hunt as their second choice, you are not 1-1000, you are 1-1500 if their number comes up before yours.
Without that second choice, your odds of drawing have improved because it just eliminated 500 others from possibly being drawn before you.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 03:37:29 PM
You can't possibly know if the odds for your favorite unit would go up or down.
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2015, 03:41:52 PM
Some of the 500 will draw their first choice and not be competing, but the odds of Bob drawing his first choice should conceivably decline. That is offset by the possibility that he's still in the running for a permit with three other choices.One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Like I said, I'd be okay with only one choice per application. I just don't feel it would make much difference on odds of drawing.
If multiple choices does not give you better odds of drawing a permit, then why do they have different choices, 1 through 4?
It should be easy to understand that if your number comes up for choices, and your first choice has already been filled by other applicants, but your second choice has not and you are issued a permit, your odds of actually getting a permit indeed increased by having that second choice!
Now you're talking about something entirely different.
To simplify this, let's say there are 1,000 permits in a particular category. Let's say 10,000 people apply for those hunts. The overall odds of drawing one of those permits is 1 in 10. No matter how many choices are available on an application, the odds are 1 in 10. There's nothing you can do to change the fact that only 1 out of 10 people will draw a permit in that category.
I understand that Bob, but what you don't take into account is that if there was only 1 choice, then there wouldn't be 10000 applicants.
No, you didn't understand.
Answer this question- quality applications only allow two choices now. So is a quality permit easy to draw compared to when you had four choices?
Yes Bob, because with two choices their are less people applying for that same permit than four.
Let's make this easy for even you to understand Bob. If your first choice has 1000 first choice applicants, but there are 500 other people that have that same hunt as their second choice, you are not 1-1000, you are 1-1500 if their number comes up before yours.
Without that second choice, your odds of drawing have improved because it just eliminated 500 others from possibly being drawn before you.
Post by: Wacenturion on November 23, 2015, 04:19:43 PM
One choice instead of the two, or four, that we have now will not change the overall odds. It would increase odds for some hunts and decrease drawing odds for others. There's no way to know if your favorite hunt choice would become easier to draw.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Like I said, I'd be okay with only one choice per application. I just don't feel it would make much difference on odds of drawing.
If multiple choices does not give you better odds of drawing a permit, then why do they have different choices, 1 through 4?
It should be easy to understand that if your number comes up for choices, and your first choice has already been filled by other applicants, but your second choice has not and you are issued a permit, your odds of actually getting a permit indeed increased by having that second choice!
Now you're talking about something entirely different.
To simplify this, let's say there are 1,000 permits in a particular category. Let's say 10,000 people apply for those hunts. The overall odds of drawing one of those permits is 1 in 10. No matter how many choices are available on an application, the odds are 1 in 10. There's nothing you can do to change the fact that only 1 out of 10 people will draw a permit in that category.
I understand that Bob, but what you don't take into account is that if there was only 1 choice, then there wouldn't be 10000 applicants.
Thank you!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 05:27:42 PM
Some of the 500 will draw their first choice and not be competing, but the odds of Bob drawing his first choice should conceivably decline. That is offset by the possibility that he's still in the running for a permit with three other choices.
But, by drawing one of his three alternate choices, that also lessens Bob's chances of getting the tag he really covets. Because then, he just used up his points and has to start all over.
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2015, 05:41:56 PM
Who gave you the right to decide what he wants?
Some of the 500 will draw their first choice and not be competing, but the odds of Bob drawing his first choice should conceivably decline. That is offset by the possibility that he's still in the running for a permit with three other choices.
But, by drawing one of his three alternate choices, that also lessens Bob's chances of getting the tag he really covets. Because then, he just used up his points and has to start all over.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 06:10:51 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 06:14:18 PM
Who gave you the right to decide what he wants?
Some of the 500 will draw their first choice and not be competing, but the odds of Bob drawing his first choice should conceivably decline. That is offset by the possibility that he's still in the running for a permit with three other choices.
But, by drawing one of his three alternate choices, that also lessens Bob's chances of getting the tag he really covets. Because then, he just used up his points and has to start all over.
When did I decide what Bob wants. Bob decides that. I'm just explaining how odds work.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 06:15:25 PM
The permit I "covet" is the one I can draw.
That may be true for you Bob. Some people covet very specific tags.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 06:18:46 PM
The permit I "covet" is the one I can draw.
That may be true for you Bob. Some people covet very specific tags.
True. And what I'm trying to explain here is that decreasing the number of choices on an application isn't the simple solution that it may appear to be in improving draw odds.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 06:26:41 PM
Odds for drawing a permit example. 10 permits, 1,000 hunters.
1st example, each hunter picks 1 hunt and it's evenly divided for example. So there are 1,000 applicants making 100
applicants for each set of 10 tags. 100 hunters drawing for 10 tags means odds are 10% you'll draw your special
quality hunt or favorite cow tag.
2nd example, each hunter gets 4 choices, and again every hunt gets an equal number of interested hunters. Since each
hunter gets 4 choices, there are now 4,000 chances at drawing. divided by 10 hunts means each hunt has 400 applicants.
This drops your odds of drawing a particular hunt to 2.5%. You still have an overall chance of 10% of being drawn for
something, but your odds of drawing that one special quality tag just dropped by 75%.
3rd example, now take each of those same 10 hunts and make everybody eligible to apply for all 10 of them. Kind of like when
they divided species into categories and now there are 1000 applying for each hunt. That drops your odds to 1% to get
that one special quality tag. You would still have a 10% chance overall at drawing something.
So while none of these scenarios decreases or increases your overall odds of being drawn, all things being equal, it
does significantly lower your odds of being drawn for one special, particular hunt. It may not matter to some, but it
matters for those who want to cow hunt where they normally hunt for bulls or have purchased an access permit. It could
also matter if you draw a hunt where you can't purchase a permit because they are all sold out. It also matters to
those trying to draw a specific quality hunt. It may also matter to those who want to hunt close to home.
OK for guys like Bob who only care about drawing something, but bad for guys who want to hunt a specific hunt.
Post by: jasnt on November 23, 2015, 07:37:45 PM
:yeah:Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
This kind of comment makes me laugh every time. So exactly who is it that decides what "actual hunting" is? You? :bash:
Different strokes for different folks just because you don't agree with another style of hunting doesn't make that style wrong. Let others hunt in the style they want, lawfully of course.
Too darn many people thinking they need to tell others how and what to do these days IMHO.
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2015, 07:51:11 PM
When you said "that also lessens Bob's chances of getting the tag he really covets."Who gave you the right to decide what he wants?
Some of the 500 will draw their first choice and not be competing, but the odds of Bob drawing his first choice should conceivably decline. That is offset by the possibility that he's still in the running for a permit with three other choices.
But, by drawing one of his three alternate choices, that also lessens Bob's chances of getting the tag he really covets. Because then, he just used up his points and has to start all over.
When did I decide what Bob wants. Bob decides that. I'm just explaining how odds work.
Post by: huntingbaldguy on November 24, 2015, 12:23:30 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on November 24, 2015, 12:38:10 AM
Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
I'm just having a hard time trying to relate baiting to fair chase hunting. To me each method is worlds apart. Oh no here we go again :rolleyes:
Hunters hunt.... the rest is just dick measuring. Division is the best way for anti's to win. Bait has its place, muzzleloaders have their place, bows, giant magnums etc.... hell even high fence has a role in allowing someone to feel tied to nature. When you decide what everyone else needs to do then we aren't living in America anymore... and sadly more and more folks are pretty sure they are right and everyone else is wrong and needs to respect their wishes only. Best of luck teaching your youngster how you want the chase to go... but please don't have some much hubris to tell another they are doing it wrong... if we get kids in the woods our traditions will live on past us. Or just buy them an X-box and hope to reminisce over that game of Call of Duty you played 30 years ago with Dad. *eyeroll*
This kind of comment makes me laugh every time. So exactly who is it that decides what "actual hunting" is? You? :bash:
Different strokes for different folks just because you don't agree with another style of hunting doesn't make that style wrong. Let others hunt in the style they want, lawfully of course.
Too darn many people thinking they need to tell others how and what to do these days IMHO.
Post by: Bango skank on November 24, 2015, 09:55:01 AM
I can only get on board with bait proximity to roadways and trails, nothing else. It's impossible to enforce for one, and it implies there's something wrong with giving the animals a nutritious food source in a time that animals die from starvation during winter in some areas. I fed literally 2 to 3 dozen deer and shot one this year. Tell me i didn't help some fawns put on some much needed weight before winter came around. I'm still feeding them, even after my season ended with an arrow. The entire debate is dumb imo.
Im still feeding my dleer too, and ill continue to until greenup starts.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 24, 2015, 10:23:35 AM
Additionally, the only baiting rules I can feature at this time would be the amount at a site
Post by: jasnt on November 25, 2015, 05:47:36 AM
Food, minerals, water.
Post by: fireweed on November 25, 2015, 06:50:22 AM
Tags/Draw: I would like to be able to transfer a special tag to a youth and also expand youth to age 18 or 19. The kids only have a couple years to be classified as youth. People have proposed restrictions on an age that is too young to hunt, and are encouraging kids to wait until 14 to hunt, so the window of youth opportunity is small since by 16 they are "adults". With school most kids can only hunt weekends or a "sick" day anyway. My kid at 17 has been an adult hunter for a couple years now! With timber company permits required at age 18 and adult license/tags at 16 you can see why we are loosing hunters. Spouse Drew a late buck tag that would have been great to transfer to one of the kids. Opportunity at a nice late buck could have made them hunters for life.
Post by: jasnt on November 25, 2015, 09:13:15 AM
Baiting: no new "rules" but a set of proper baiting guidelines might help educate hunters on some of the problems bad practices can create. An education campaign. Real messes probably could be charged with something already on the books.i support that!
Tags/Draw: I would like to be able to transfer a special tag to a youth and also expand youth to age 18 or 19. The kids only have a couple years to be classified as youth. People have proposed restrictions on an age that is too young to hunt, and are encouraging kids to wait until 14 to hunt, so the window of youth opportunity is small since by 16 they are "adults". With school most kids can only hunt weekends or a "sick" day anyway. My kid at 17 has been an adult hunter for a couple years now! With timber company permits required at age 18 and adult license/tags at 16 you can see why we are loosing hunters. Spouse Drew a late buck tag that would have been great to transfer to one of the kids. Opportunity at a nice late buck could have made them hunters for life.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 25, 2015, 09:29:35 AM
I have no opinion on changing the draw system. I rarely participate in special draws and am not familiar enough to make changes.
Post by: westsidehntr on November 25, 2015, 05:19:53 PM
Baiting: no new "rules" but a set of proper baiting guidelines might help educate hunters on some of the problems bad practices can create. An education campaign. Real messes probably could be charged with something already on the books.
Tags/Draw: I would like to be able to transfer a special tag to a youth and also expand youth to age 18 or 19. The kids only have a couple years to be classified as youth. People have proposed restrictions on an age that is too young to hunt, and are encouraging kids to wait until 14 to hunt, so the window of youth opportunity is small since by 16 they are "adults". With school most kids can only hunt weekends or a "sick" day anyway. My kid at 17 has been an adult hunter for a couple years now! With timber company permits required at age 18 and adult license/tags at 16 you can see why we are loosing hunters. Spouse Drew a late buck tag that would have been great to transfer to one of the kids. Opportunity at a nice late buck could have made them hunters for life.
I don't support tag transfer. You could potentially have multiple applications that would all be for one persons tag.
Post by: buglebrush on November 25, 2015, 07:19:23 PM
:yeah:Baiting is a fabulous way to start a youngster of with success. Don't limit other's freedom just because you choose not to participate.
Success maybe? But does baiting teach a kid the life long skills of actual hunting?
The main concern of baiting is the spread of desease.
This kind of comment makes me laugh every time. So exactly who is it that decides what "actual hunting" is? You? :bash:
Different strokes for different folks just because you don't agree with another style of hunting doesn't make that style wrong. Let others hunt in the style they want, lawfully of course.
Too darn many people thinking they need to tell others how and what to do these days IMHO.
To be clear. I've never baited myself. However, I have a 9 year old I am planning to use bait for next year. It is very very important to get a youngster to have early success. I will definitely be teaching them spot and stalk, etc... too. As I said I have never put out or hunted over bait, but why would I limit others ability to do so just because I don't personally like to hunt that way? I suppose if you were a fly fisherman you would be in favor of eliminating bobber and worm?
Post by: Bango skank on December 05, 2015, 05:42:15 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on December 08, 2015, 04:01:34 AM
Baiting was discussed but no definite recommendations were made, there will be another subcommittee meeting and a conference call before the commission meeting in March in Moses Lake.
Since this thread was also discussing preference or bonus points, you might be interested in what was talked about, the idea of setting a percentage of tags aside for high point holders was discussed and what the research shows is that it really would not solve anything. There are to many people with lots of points for any long term benefits, the pool would just keep getting bigger each year and it would also be unfair to the rest of the applicants since it would reduce their chances of drawing a tag. The only way to improve draw odds is to have more tags available and that only happens if the are more animals available in the herds, so no action was taken.
We got an update on wolves and the new pack in Okanogan county.
And we heard an update on the WDFW budget, and Pittman-Robertson funds, nothing really new.
Talked about the cougar quotas and what happened, It was changed by request of the governor supposedly due to a procedural error and they are working on righting the problem, but at this time there is no change in the adjusted quota till 1/1/2016.
We talked about vehicle killed wildlife salvage and possible rules that might allow that in the future for certain species.
And we had an update on hoof disease research, nothing major to report on that front.
We also heard a little about the plans to make the website for WDFW more accessible for everyone.
And an update on sage and sharp-tailed grouse.
Post by: boneaddict on December 08, 2015, 04:58:30 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 08, 2015, 05:46:07 AM
Post by: lokidog on December 08, 2015, 06:35:24 AM
Thanks for the info
:yeah:
Post by: Wacenturion on December 08, 2015, 08:44:32 AM
Yes the meeting was on Saturday.
Baiting was discussed but no definite recommendations were made, there will be another subcommittee meeting and a conference call before the commission meeting in March in Moses Lake.
Since this thread was also discussing preference or bonus points, you might be interested in what was talked about, the idea of setting a percentage of tags aside for high point holders was discussed and what the research shows is that it really would not solve anything. There are to many people with lots of points for any long term benefits, the pool would just keep getting bigger each year and it would also be unfair to the rest of the applicants since it would reduce their chances of drawing a tag. The only way to improve draw odds is to have more tags available and that only happens if the are more animals available in the herds, so no action was taken.
We got an update on wolves and the new pack in Okanogan county.
And we heard an update on the WDFW budget, and Pittman-Robertson funds, nothing really new.
Talked about the cougar quotas and what happened, It was changed by request of the governor supposedly due to a procedural error and they are working on righting the problem, but at this time there is no change in the adjusted quota till 1/1/2016.
We talked about vehicle killed wildlife salvage and possible rules that might allow that in the future for certain species.
And we had an update on hoof disease research, nothing major to report on that front.
We also heard a little about the plans to make the website for WDFW more accessible for everyone.
And an update on sage and sharp-tailed grouse.
Or......limit applications to one choice, the one hunt you actually prefer to draw in permit drawings. You reduce the total number of applicants theoretically by as much as 75% if everyone now puts in for four choices. The reason for so many applicants is that the same initial applicants are added back into the pool another three times again without any additional tags.
Perhaps that individual with a high point total might just draw his or her dream moose, elk or sheep hunt if he wasn't competing with an additional 75% in the hopper.
Food for thought.............
Post by: Rainier10 on December 08, 2015, 08:59:56 AM
Points system is a mess, hopefully they don't change that as I think they would only make it more difficult. More animals is the only way to get more tags and more opportunity. Until then it is what it is.
Thanks again for the update.
Post by: 724wd on December 18, 2015, 10:23:18 AM
AS many of you know I am the GMAC rep, and baiting has become a hot issue over the past few years. The move to outlaw this, as they did hound hunting is on. Whether you bait or not, or consider it ethical or not, this is the "enviros' or anti hunters taking steps to slowly erode our hunting. I am also on the committee that was working as directed by a commissioner (Mr. Kehne) to come up with options to a new baiting rule, or to seek a compromise. Just when we thought a common sense compromise was going to be reached, a measure to just limit the amount of bait at each bait site, the anti's decided to send out an email to everyone on the committee stating we needed to start over and push for an outright ban on all baiting. I have responded to that email, and replied to the whole committee that I no longer could support any compromise, that if the group started over to even consider outright banning, then the discussion was over. So what I am asking here from those of you who hunt or support hunting in our State to please call, email and make phone calls to the Wildlife Commission and let them know you are against any new regulations that would take away from our hunting heritage. We must stop this now, as I said this is another step towards taking away hunting in our state. Here is contact info:
Mailing Address
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone: 360-902-2267
Fax: 360-902-2448
commission@dfw.wa.gov
Bradley Smith, Ph.D., Chair
Larry Carpenter, Vice Chair
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/members.html
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 18, 2015, 10:38:07 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 18, 2015, 10:40:14 AM
Post by: lokidog on December 18, 2015, 10:55:38 AM
There is no documented negative impact on the health of Washington's deer or elk herds due to the use of baiting techniques.
Many of Washington's hunters are limited to hunting on small pieces of private land and baiting can be an effective technique to help these hunters ensure quick ethical harvests while not disturbing their neighbors.
Please consider the scientific/logical arguments over the emotional rhetoric of the anti hunting crowd that has no vested interest in the tradition of harvesting high quality natural food from Washington's abundant resources.
Do not support a baiting ban!
Thank you,
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2015, 11:23:21 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 18, 2015, 11:31:32 AM
I am an avid hunter, an instructor for hunter education and a member of the Master Hunter program.
I am writing to you in response to rumors that I have heard about a push to ban or limit baiting of wildlife. I know that this was a topic for the last three year cycle meeting and I made my comments and concerns known then. I was happy to see that baiting was left as is for this new cycle. I would like to readdress those items and let you know that my opinion has not changed.
I believe that baiting has its place in hunting. I believe that there are times that baiting is a benefit to wildlife and enables the hunter to view multiple animals and take the older age class. I believe it has a real benefit to youth and senior hunters. I think it is a great tool for first time hunters to get experience of having game in front of them. I think that each hunter should be free to chose what works best for them and if baiting is a practice that they wish to partake in I am all for it.
I know that there are instances where this practice may be abused but I believe that to be true of every hunting method, there are always going to be exceptions or instances where rules are abused.
I have yet to see any type of evidence that baiting is having an adverse affect on the wildlife population or the carrying capacity of the habitat. If there are isolated areas where baiting is having an impact on the land I am sure there are already regulations in place that could be used to counter that damage. If there are areas where too many animals are being taken because of the use of bait a small adjustment in hunting dates or permit quotas could be made in those specific areas versus a broad stroke of banning or even limiting baiting statewide.
I think if you look at what is really hurting wildlife more than anything, loss of habitat would have to be at the top of the list followed by overharvest illegally by poachers.
I think these are the areas that should have more focus than putting more restrictions on hunters and how some may chose to hunt.
Thank you for your time and I hope each of you has a happy holiday season,
Post by: grundy53 on December 18, 2015, 12:39:48 PM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2015, 01:30:55 PM
However, those opposed to hunting are organized, dedicated, and in it for the long haul.
Post by: grundy53 on December 18, 2015, 01:41:32 PM
More often than not, I believe it’s a case of the silent majority of hunters not caring as much about protecting their rights and privileges as others are of taking them away. Only a small minority of our state’s population hunts, but a majority tend to support legal hunting.I would agree. However, not in this case. This is happening because of fellow hunters.
However, those opposed to hunting are organized, dedicated, and in it for the long haul.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2015, 01:46:13 PM
I interpreted the quote a previous post as suggesting otherwise but I could be wrong. I know that hunters have pushed for some restrictions.More often than not, I believe it’s a case of the silent majority of hunters not caring as much about protecting their rights and privileges as others are of taking them away. Only a small minority of our state’s population hunts, but a majority tend to support legal hunting.I would agree. However, not in this case. This is happening because of fellow hunters.
However, those opposed to hunting are organized, dedicated, and in it for the long haul.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
"Just when we thought a common sense compromise was going to be reached, a measure to just limit the amount of bait at each bait site, the anti's decided to send out an email to everyone on the committee stating we needed to start over and push for an outright ban on all baiting.".
Post by: grundy53 on December 18, 2015, 01:51:35 PM
Yes, the anti's want a full ban now. But it was only on the agenda in the first place because other hunters.I interpreted the quote a previous post as suggesting otherwise but I could be wrong. I know that hunters have pushed for some restrictions.More often than not, I believe it’s a case of the silent majority of hunters not caring as much about protecting their rights and privileges as others are of taking them away. Only a small minority of our state’s population hunts, but a majority tend to support legal hunting.I would agree. However, not in this case. This is happening because of fellow hunters.
However, those opposed to hunting are organized, dedicated, and in it for the long haul.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
"Just when we thought a common sense compromise was going to be reached, a measure to just limit the amount of bait at each bait site, the anti's decided to send out an email to everyone on the committee stating we needed to start over and push for an outright ban on all baiting.".
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2015, 01:53:17 PM
I'm still hopeful that they'll only place a limit on the quantity that can be used.
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2015, 02:03:50 PM
If they get 300 emails from people opposed to baiting and 10 in support of it, hunters need to look in the mirror for part of the blame if restrictions are implemented.
Post by: grundy53 on December 18, 2015, 02:04:26 PM
The problem is, how many hunters use bait for deer or elk? Maybe 1 in 100? The hunters who don't bait, don't care if it is banned.The problem is the hunters that made it an issue. It would of flown under the radar. Especially since few hunters do it.
I'm still hopeful that they'll only place a limit on the quantity that can be used.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on December 18, 2015, 02:05:14 PM
If all the hunters who care about keeping baiting legal were to take the time to write a brief email or letter to the WDFW Commission respectfully expressing their opinions, it is likely to make a difference.I agree with you there.
If they get 300 emails from people opposed to baiting and 10 in support of it, hunters need to look in the mirror for part of the blame if restrictions are implemented.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 18, 2015, 02:11:07 PM
The problem is, how many hunters use bait for deer or elk? Maybe 1 in 100? The hunters who don't bait, don't care if it is banned.
I hope you're wrong. I do think that it's a good deal more than 1%. I also hope that people who don't bait have the brains to oppose the restriction.
The dumbest thing I've heard is this... "well you can't bait in Idaho either so why should you be able to in Washington?" In Idaho you can hunt does with an OTC tag and hunt every weapon season from September to December. With our short seasons, weapon selection, APRs and crowded areas, baiting should NOT be eliminated.
I might actually skip Washington next year if they ban baiting. Again it's not because I am a consistent baiter, master or otherwise. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2015, 02:15:24 PM
I wonder if 221 emails have been to the Commission yet by those in support of baiting?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 18, 2015, 02:16:41 PM
The problem is, how many hunters use bait for deer or elk? Maybe 1 in 100? The hunters who don't bait, don't care if it is banned.
I'm still hopeful that they'll only place a limit on the quantity that can be used.
And that is exactly why we will never win in the long run. Too many attitudes of "it don't effect me so I don't care," well once all these little issues are taken away, do you really think the anti's will be happy and stop?
Any one who thinks their adgenda is anything less that all hunting stopped, is foolish, naive or just not able to step outside their selfish attitude and think long term.
It is clear what their tactics are, take it away piece-by-piece, untill there is nothing left. They are in it for the long run, and have a united front, you don't see bickering amongst them.
Pick a subject regarding a legal method...baiting, road hunting, crossbows, anything!! Then start a thread and sit back and watch hunters turn on each other...oh wait, there are already plenty of those examples on here already...
Too many selfish, my way is the right way attitudes to ever make a united stand.
Post by: Stein on December 18, 2015, 02:35:37 PM
If you think the anti's will retire after baiting is banned you need to have your head examined. The only way they can ban hunting is to chip around at the edges until there is nothing left.
Post by: Special T on December 18, 2015, 02:38:51 PM
He told me that it seems that commisions tend to hold a greater value on hunter imput that other venue s. Make sure to let them know that Ren speaks for you as hunter. There were many bad proposals from those who dont hunt or those who have only hunted EWA. He understands the need for the minimum regulation possible. This whole issue stems from truckloads of apples dumped by the outfitter/orchardist hunters on surrounding land complaining, & now the anti hunters have picures of it to paint all baiting in the same light.
I havent baited in many years but will want to when I try and get my girl on her 1st deer. I will be writing my letter shortly.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 18, 2015, 08:01:10 PM
Fit the "illegal" box around more people.
It started with traps and hounds and baiting bears. If hunters keep letting this happen, it will eventually come to your favorite way of hunting. Voting is not an acceptable way to manage fish and game. Better pick out your new pass time.
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2015, 08:37:57 PM
I really don't feel like we have much choice in the matter.
Post by: SeaRun1 on December 18, 2015, 08:39:10 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2015, 09:02:07 PM
The problem is, how many hunters use bait for deer or elk? Maybe 1 in 100? The hunters who don't bait, don't care if it is banned.If every one of those 1 in 100s communicated with the Commission it would have a tremendous impact but sadly few of them will.
I'm still hopeful that they'll only place a limit on the quantity that can be used.
Post by: WARHORSE on December 18, 2015, 09:14:32 PM
The problem is, how many hunters use bait for deer or elk? Maybe 1 in 100? The hunters who don't bait, don't care if it is banned.If every one of those 1 in 100s communicated with the Commission it would have a tremendous impact but sadly few of them will.
I'm still hopeful that they'll only place a limit on the quantity that can be used.
1 in 100???? Good lord you obviously are out of touch with how much baiting goes on.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 18, 2015, 09:21:17 PM
For the westside, given the amount of road hunters I'd be surprised if it was as high as 1%.The problem is, how many hunters use bait for deer or elk? Maybe 1 in 100? The hunters who don't bait, don't care if it is banned.If every one of those 1 in 100s communicated with the Commission it would have a tremendous impact but sadly few of them will.
I'm still hopeful that they'll only place a limit on the quantity that can be used.
1 in 100???? Good lord you obviously are out of touch with how much baiting goes on.
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2015, 09:21:26 PM
The problem is, how many hunters use bait for deer or elk? Maybe 1 in 100? The hunters who don't bait, don't care if it is banned.If every one of those 1 in 100s communicated with the Commission it would have a tremendous impact but sadly few of them will.
I'm still hopeful that they'll only place a limit on the quantity that can be used.
1 in 100???? Good lord you obviously are out of touch with how much baiting goes on.
Maybe so, it was just a guess. I know a lot of hunters think baiting is illegal. And many don't have time to bait. The average hunter doesn't think about hunting every day of the year like many of us on this site do.
Post by: WARHORSE on December 18, 2015, 09:29:50 PM
Post by: lokidog on December 18, 2015, 11:10:26 PM
That may be a stretch and i guess iam basing my numbers on what i see in late archery season. I have bated it didnt do a thing for me. The only thing that really bothers me is the amount of bait out in late arcchery. One songle person dropping 300 bins of apples, another dumping dump truck loads of apples. Its a bit muck. The rutted out mulies dont stand a chance of coursr they are going to come from miles around to eat off the mtn of apples when they should be resting and recovering from the rut
Or, it could be looked at that there are a whole lot of non-targeted deer that are getting some extra calories (even though not the most nutritious) when they need it? BTW, I am not a proponent of 300 bin dumps, however, if this needs to be allowed in order for those of us that throw out a dozen apples or a gallon of stock pellets to continue to do so, I will support that.
Post by: winshooter88 on December 19, 2015, 12:29:12 AM
The idea to ban baiting in this state was brought forth by both the anti-hunting community and a group of hunters who believe that baiting is unethical. The Wildlife commission was very close to banning baiting altogether at one of their meeting and it was suggested to them that they have the GMAC group look at it and give them input. The GMAC formed the small committee to look into the concerns and options, at Commissioner Jay Kehne's request a guide from the Okanogan was added to the small group, he happens to be (by his own admission) one of the guides who dumps multiple bins of fruit every year for bait.
If this small group and then the GMAC don't report back to the commission with some options then there will be only two ways to go, make no changes to baiting in this state, or ban baiting in the state.
What some may not realize is that the stuff you put out to attract animals to game cameras is considered baiting and would most likely fall under what ever rules are decided on.
Because the people that are against baiting are very organized, people who want to maintain baiting in whatever form need to make their voices heard. If they don't then baiting as we know it now will be gone.
I am on the baiting committee and for whatever reason I did not receive the e-mail from the enviros or who ever sent it about stopping baiting altogether as being the only option. I do believe that a compromise of some kind, particularly addressing the large amount of bait put out by guides, will be necessary to keep from losing baiting altogether.
Among the guidelines set out for the baiting committee was to keep any rules simple and enforceable, the one that would be the simplest and most easily enforceable would be to limit the dates that they could bait and the amount of bait they could use for guides in this state. Smaller bait sites used by individuals would be hard to find in most instances, let alone who owns them.
Post by: Todd_ID on December 19, 2015, 01:18:09 AM
Guys,Good response! And thanks for your service in sticking up for hunters. No change is the best answer. But, I didn't get the sense that would be an option lately. If migration effects are truly the main problem, then only enact rules that address that. No bait placed from Dec 15 to April 1.
The idea to ban baiting in this state was brought forth by both the anti-hunting community and a group of hunters who believe that baiting is unethical. The Wildlife commission was very close to banning baiting altogether at one of their meeting and it was suggested to them that they have the GMAC group look at it and give them input. The GMAC formed the small committee to look into the concerns and options, at Commissioner Jay Kehne's request a guide from the Okanogan was added to the small group, he happens to be (by his own admission) one of the guides who dumps multiple bins of fruit every year for bait.
If this small group and then the GMAC don't report back to the commission with some options then there will be only two ways to go, make no changes to baiting in this state, or ban baiting in the state.
What some may not realize is that the stuff you put out to attract animals to game cameras is considered baiting and would most likely fall under what ever rules are decided on.
Because the people that are against baiting are very organized, people who want to maintain baiting in whatever form need to make their voices heard. If they don't then baiting as we know it now will be gone.
I am on the baiting committee and for whatever reason I did not receive the e-mail from the enviros or who ever sent it about stopping baiting altogether as being the only option. I do believe that a compromise of some kind, particularly addressing the large amount of bait put out by guides, will be necessary to keep from losing baiting altogether.
Among the guidelines set out for the baiting committee was to keep any rules simple and enforceable, the one that would be the simplest and most easily enforceable would be to limit the dates that they could bait and the amount of bait they could use for guides in this state. Smaller bait sites used by individuals would be hard to find in most instances, let alone who owns them.
Post by: jasnt on December 19, 2015, 09:22:17 AM
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
Post by: creature522 on December 19, 2015, 09:50:39 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: creature522 on December 19, 2015, 10:06:24 AM
I just had a great discussion On this topic with Ren @ silver arrow bowmen Over lunch. He is helping to repaint the clubhouse floor.
He told me that it seems that commisions tend to hold a greater value on hunter imput that other venue s. Make sure to let them know that Ren speaks for you as hunter. There were many bad proposals from those who dont hunt or those who have only hunted EWA. He understands the need for the minimum regulation possible. This whole issue stems from truckloads of apples dumped by the outfitter/orchardist hunters on surrounding land complaining, & now the anti hunters have picures of it to paint all baiting in the same light.
I havent baited in many years but will want to when I try and get my girl on her 1st deer. I will be writing my letter shortly.
It's not an anti hunter movement. It's about hunters caring about the wildlife because the ones that live here see what is happening. Those pictures don't lie, that is what is going on. When I'm out with my kids that's what they see.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: WARHORSE on December 19, 2015, 01:20:09 PM
The problem is in the okanogan area. A lot of our public land has some private pieces mixed in. This is where the guides dump the dump truck loads of apples. The deer are drawn to their location. Less deer for the public to hunt. Then on public land I was walking with my son through the woods and stumbled upon a bait pile. The guy in the blind was not happy. It happens all the time. They take ownership over that location. I guess that's Hunting on public land now. But by all means let's listen to the hunting guides that make the money of our animals and the people who use them to buy our animals. Its unique to this area from what I've seen so why not just stop it in the 3 gmus it affects. The three guides will get upset?
Yes i agree! I have no problem with disabled, senoir and even some youth hunters hunting over bait in modern season. Heck bait whitetail great if thats what yer into but the late archery mule deer baiting in okanogan county is rediculas. I have seen first hand how many people bait, and how much bait is out and about. I have seen the quality of deer decline as more and more people bait. If you dont believe me look at the guides web sites compair the deer they killed 3 and 4 years ago when baiting got big to this year. Yet still great bucks not near the quality. Also look at it this way... Each guide has 20ish clients. These guides are" 100% opportunity" 99.9% success or however they advertise themselves. Thats 60ish decent bucks out of three gmu's! Not Including the rest of the 6 million people that hunt these three units in November. Baiting in the okanogan isnt helping anything........maybe the guides pocket books. And before yall pop off about being jeliouse of the guides blah blah i worked for one i no longer do as it became more about how many clients could be thrown in blinds over bait and how much money could be made. Cant blame a guy for tryin to earn a dollar but i guess i hold the animals i hunt and the sport i love higher then $$.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: zike on December 19, 2015, 01:43:09 PM
Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on December 19, 2015, 02:01:53 PM
Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
I beg to disagree with your statement, can you back up the no baiting at all in the majority of States? Most allow some form of baiting ( or better stated, many do, but they also have restrictions) I already know the number. I have had a long absence from this site, for many reasons. However, my name is mentioned on or in this thread quite a bit. Thankfully not many bad names.. :-) Appreciate the input, and welcome any via messages or emails,
Ren
Post by: Stein on December 19, 2015, 02:02:10 PM
Email sentWashington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
Yeah, there are also states that where you can only use a shotgun and states where 97% of the land is private. If you don't care about diy public land hunting, go ahead and piss away your hunting privileges one step at a time.
Post by: DUGANDEER on December 19, 2015, 02:02:48 PM
Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
:yeah:
Agreed!
Post by: 2labs on December 19, 2015, 02:08:04 PM
Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
Yeah, there are also states that where you can only use a shotgun and states where 97% of the land is private. If you don't care about diy public land hunting, go ahead and piss away your hunting privileges one step at a time.
Death by a thousand paper cuts! I feel the same way about people who buy passes to timber companies that are getting Redonkulas tax breaks.
Lets have some elected folk with some ---- ----!
Post by: jasnt on December 19, 2015, 03:31:11 PM
ive taken many deer with out baiting and I don't need to bait where I do. I have an acre food plot and mineral sights and a fresh water source. My food plot in irrigated and the deer feed heavily on it when everything around us is dry and dead. But like stated I like having the option. I like feeding the deer because I want the healthiest deer I can. I want big mature bucks and fat healthy doe's. I like seeing the fawns that are 50% larger than fawns on public land. I enjoy all of our opertunetys we have in Washington and miss the ones we have lost. I'm not ok with loosing one more opertunety here!!! Dosent matter if it's somthing that I do. I stand with all my hunting brothers and sisters and don't want any of us to loose a single opertunety!!!!!Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
Post by: zike on December 19, 2015, 06:53:54 PM
Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
I beg to disagree with your statement, can you back up the no baiting at all in the majority of States? Most allow some form of baiting ( or better stated, many do, but they also have restrictions) I already know the number. I have had a long absence from this site, for many reasons. However, my name is mentioned on or in this thread quite a bit. Thankfully not many bad names.. :-) Appreciate the input, and welcome any via messages or emails,
Ren
I found this article from Field and stream that states 28 states ban baiting, thats a majority. It also gives some good reasons for a baiting ban. Really bad a hunting mag calling for a baiting ban.
"
Seven Reasons to Stop Baiting Whitetails Now
by Scott Bestul
49
Photo: Charles Alsheimer
I think baiting for whitetails has to stop. Now.
Okay, okay, before you peg me as a purist who thinks all baiters are slobs, hear me out. If you watch a spin feeder or camp near a pile of sugar beets, I’m not going to attack your character or question your allegiance to the flag. But I do think that if you gave up the bait, we’d all be better off.
Baiting divides us. Nationally, 28 states ban the practice in any form, while 22 allow it (eight with significant restrictions). And recent headlines point to deep divisions within individual states. Last spring, legislation passed by the Mississippi House and Senate would have allowed baiting in the Magnolia State for the first time had Gov. Haley Barbour not vetoed the bill. In Michigan, a state long synonymous with baiting, officials shocked the deer hunting community by abruptly banning the practice in the entire Lower Peninsula after a single game-farm doe tested positive for chronic wasting disease. In the Upper Peninsula, however, baiting remains legal.
What we need is to unify—against baiting. Not because it’s unethical (that’s a complicated argument and an ugly fight), but because deer hunters, deer hunting, and deer would all benefit. Here’s why:
1 | We’d see more deer during daylight. It doesn’t take whitetails long to associate bait piles with humans, and when deer know people are around, they wait for dark to feed. Studies from Texas, Michigan, and Mississippi all show that daylight buck visits to bait sites range from rare to virtually nonexistent. Whitetails already restrict their daytime movements. Why make it worse?
2 | Deer would generally be more active. Foraging whitetails must travel to find food. Bait reduces the need for this movement, creating not only a nocturnal buck but a lazy one.
3 | Deer would be healthier. Researchers have proved a link between baiting and bovine tuberculosis in whitetails. The CWD connection is shakier, but find me a biologist who thinks concentrating deer near a pinpoint food source is a good thing. Besides, baited deer in nonagricultural areas can get sick from eating too much grain. The disease is called lactic acidosis, and it can kill a whitetail.
4 | We’d be better managers. Baiting can lead to unnaturally high survival and birth rates, particularly in northern deer. It also concentrates whitetails, which eat more than just what we put out for them. That densely packed herd can wipe out native plant species and retard forest regeneration. We’ve long told the public, “We’re the managers who keep whitetail numbers in tune with their habitat.” Well, are we?
5 | We’d fight less with one another. We’re all aware of the battle lines drawn over the ethics of baiting. But beyond that, once a hunter puts out a pile of corn, his neighbors feel obliged to follow suit. Soon, a seemingly benign activity turns ultracompetitive. In 1984, only 29 percent of Michigan hunters reported using bait. Just nine years later, the figure had risen to 56 percent, and more than one in five hunters told the Department of Natural Resources that baiting to compete with other hunters was “very important” to them. Wisconsin DNR researcher Mark Toso estimates that Badger State gun hunters alone place 4.5 million pounds of corn on the ground each day—enough to feed the state’s entire herd of 1.8 million deer—during the firearms season.
Baiting is especially troubling on public lands, where hunters who place bait often claim ownership for their sites and a considerable territory around them. This practice—known as “homesteading”—ruins the hunting experience for everyone.
6 | We’d improve our public image. Surveys reveal that most of the nonhunting public supports our tradition as long as hunting remains a fair-chase, ethical endeavor. If the ethics of baiting is controversial among hunters, what must the general populace think? And make no mistake; what they think is critical to deer hunting’s future.
7 | We’d tag just as many deer. Baiting proponents argue they’d kill significantly fewer deer without the bait, but only one Texas study supports that. Other research reveals equal or near equal success. Just this past fall, Michigan hunters—despite complaints that the bait ban would slash their harvest—bagged nearly the same number of deer as they did during the previous season.
But suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we’d bag slightly fewer deer. So what? I’ll take that—along with better hunting, healthier deer, and one less wedge to divide us—any day of the week. --Scott Bestul
Also this from an article by Rex Rogers "Actually, I think baiting harms hunting because it removes much of the need for hunters to spend time in the craft and improve their hunting skills. To put it bluntly, about anyone can sit with a gun and shoot when a target comes in view. That’s not hunting. It’s a carnival shooting gallery." LOL
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2015, 07:00:59 PM
Quote
5 | We'd fight less with one anotherHAHAHA!!
No, we'd all move along to the next grave injustice of why other people are killing the animals we wish we were killing.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 19, 2015, 07:31:36 PM
Post by: Hunting7mm on December 19, 2015, 07:48:27 PM
Post by: lokidog on December 19, 2015, 08:09:36 PM
ive taken many deer with out baiting and I don't need to bait where I do. I have an acre food plot and mineral sights and a fresh water source. My food plot in irrigated and the deer feed heavily on it when everything around us is dry and dead. But like stated I like having the option. I like feeding the deer because I want the healthiest deer I can. I want big mature bucks and fat healthy doe's. I like seeing the fawns that are 50% larger than fawns on public land. I enjoy all of our opertunetys we have in Washington and miss the ones we have lost. I'm not ok with loosing one more opertunety here!!! Dosent matter if it's somthing that I do. I stand with all my hunting brothers and sisters and don't want any of us to loose a single opertunety!!!!!Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
:tup: A true sportsman that cares about others, not just their own narrow perspective....
Many states have banned baiting for the simple reason that they have CWD and don't want to encourage large groups of deer slobbering on each other, there is no other reason, other than maybe some other selfish hunters didn't like it. :bash:
Post by: grundy53 on December 20, 2015, 07:04:34 AM
ive taken many deer with out baiting and I don't need to bait where I do. I have an acre food plot and mineral sights and a fresh water source. My food plot in irrigated and the deer feed heavily on it when everything around us is dry and dead. But like stated I like having the option. I like feeding the deer because I want the healthiest deer I can. I want big mature bucks and fat healthy doe's. I like seeing the fawns that are 50% larger than fawns on public land. I enjoy all of our opertunetys we have in Washington and miss the ones we have lost. I'm not ok with loosing one more opertunety here!!! Dosent matter if it's somthing that I do. I stand with all my hunting brothers and sisters and don't want any of us to loose a single opertunety!!!!!Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
Well said!
Post by: grundy53 on December 20, 2015, 07:16:30 AM
Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
I beg to disagree with your statement, can you back up the no baiting at all in the majority of States? Most allow some form of baiting ( or better stated, many do, but they also have restrictions) I already know the number. I have had a long absence from this site, for many reasons. However, my name is mentioned on or in this thread quite a bit. Thankfully not many bad names.. :-) Appreciate the input, and welcome any via messages or emails,
Ren
I found this article from Field and stream that states 28 states ban baiting, thats a majority. It also gives some good reasons for a baiting ban. Really bad a hunting mag calling for a baiting ban.
"
Seven Reasons to Stop Baiting Whitetails Now
by Scott Bestul
49
Photo: Charles Alsheimer
I think baiting for whitetails has to stop. Now.
Okay, okay, before you peg me as a purist who thinks all baiters are slobs, hear me out. If you watch a spin feeder or camp near a pile of sugar beets, I’m not going to attack your character or question your allegiance to the flag. But I do think that if you gave up the bait, we’d all be better off.
Baiting divides us. Nationally, 28 states ban the practice in any form, while 22 allow it (eight with significant restrictions). And recent headlines point to deep divisions within individual states. Last spring, legislation passed by the Mississippi House and Senate would have allowed baiting in the Magnolia State for the first time had Gov. Haley Barbour not vetoed the bill. In Michigan, a state long synonymous with baiting, officials shocked the deer hunting community by abruptly banning the practice in the entire Lower Peninsula after a single game-farm doe tested positive for chronic wasting disease. In the Upper Peninsula, however, baiting remains legal.
What we need is to unify—against baiting. Not because it’s unethical (that’s a complicated argument and an ugly fight), but because deer hunters, deer hunting, and deer would all benefit. Here’s why:
1 | We’d see more deer during daylight. It doesn’t take whitetails long to associate bait piles with humans, and when deer know people are around, they wait for dark to feed. Studies from Texas, Michigan, and Mississippi all show that daylight buck visits to bait sites range from rare to virtually nonexistent. Whitetails already restrict their daytime movements. Why make it worse?
2 | Deer would generally be more active. Foraging whitetails must travel to find food. Bait reduces the need for this movement, creating not only a nocturnal buck but a lazy one.
3 | Deer would be healthier. Researchers have proved a link between baiting and bovine tuberculosis in whitetails. The CWD connection is shakier, but find me a biologist who thinks concentrating deer near a pinpoint food source is a good thing. Besides, baited deer in nonagricultural areas can get sick from eating too much grain. The disease is called lactic acidosis, and it can kill a whitetail.
4 | We’d be better managers. Baiting can lead to unnaturally high survival and birth rates, particularly in northern deer. It also concentrates whitetails, which eat more than just what we put out for them. That densely packed herd can wipe out native plant species and retard forest regeneration. We’ve long told the public, “We’re the managers who keep whitetail numbers in tune with their habitat.” Well, are we?
5 | We’d fight less with one another. We’re all aware of the battle lines drawn over the ethics of baiting. But beyond that, once a hunter puts out a pile of corn, his neighbors feel obliged to follow suit. Soon, a seemingly benign activity turns ultracompetitive. In 1984, only 29 percent of Michigan hunters reported using bait. Just nine years later, the figure had risen to 56 percent, and more than one in five hunters told the Department of Natural Resources that baiting to compete with other hunters was “very important” to them. Wisconsin DNR researcher Mark Toso estimates that Badger State gun hunters alone place 4.5 million pounds of corn on the ground each day—enough to feed the state’s entire herd of 1.8 million deer—during the firearms season.
Baiting is especially troubling on public lands, where hunters who place bait often claim ownership for their sites and a considerable territory around them. This practice—known as “homesteading”—ruins the hunting experience for everyone.
6 | We’d improve our public image. Surveys reveal that most of the nonhunting public supports our tradition as long as hunting remains a fair-chase, ethical endeavor. If the ethics of baiting is controversial among hunters, what must the general populace think? And make no mistake; what they think is critical to deer hunting’s future.
7 | We’d tag just as many deer. Baiting proponents argue they’d kill significantly fewer deer without the bait, but only one Texas study supports that. Other research reveals equal or near equal success. Just this past fall, Michigan hunters—despite complaints that the bait ban would slash their harvest—bagged nearly the same number of deer as they did during the previous season.
But suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we’d bag slightly fewer deer. So what? I’ll take that—along with better hunting, healthier deer, and one less wedge to divide us—any day of the week. --Scott Bestul
Also this from an article by Rex Rogers "Actually, I think baiting harms hunting because it removes much of the need for hunters to spend time in the craft and improve their hunting skills. To put it bluntly, about anyone can sit with a gun and shoot when a target comes in view. That’s not hunting. It’s a carnival shooting gallery." LOL
That is one of the most ignorant articles I've ever read. His reasoning is selfish and poorly thought out /Ignorant. Also, 22 states still allow baiting which is a far cry from " a few states" like you claimed earlier. It's nearly half.
Post by: grundy53 on December 20, 2015, 07:28:32 AM
Post by: jasnt on December 20, 2015, 10:49:19 AM
Post by: creature522 on December 20, 2015, 10:54:02 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on December 20, 2015, 10:55:39 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 20, 2015, 10:57:01 AM
For those of you that are against deer/elk baiting. How do you feel about bear baiting (where legal)or coyote baiting? How bout bait for fishing, or crab pots? Sure there are other ways to hunt bear or coyote, artificial lures or artificial "baits" for fishing and crabing. How is deer and elk any diffrent? I just don't understand how or why any one would want to limit our vanishing opertunetys for sportsman!
:yeah:
Add in electronic callers....unfair advantage,
Hunting during the rut....unfair advantage,
Electronic fish finders....unfair advantage,
Lazer rangefinders....unfair advantage,
Can tear a building down one brick at a time if you are patient, and most won't notice or care until it is too late and it falls down!!
Fellow hunters are, and sadly will always be, our own worse enemy, until it is too late!!
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 20, 2015, 10:59:33 AM
I can understand being against truck loads of bait. So what would be wrong with simply placing a limit on the amount of bait a person can set out? Seems like a fairly simple solution to what appears to be the problem.
Yes, best way to make a bad situation more palatable in general.
Nobody wants more rules and restrictions, but sometimes that is the only reasonable way to avoid the total banning of it...
Post by: grundy53 on December 20, 2015, 11:09:08 AM
Haha his reasoning is selfish! Aren't we all making our arguments for selfish reasons? Especially if we benefit financially from the subject. Also his article is based on his location and his perceptions and it may not pertain to every state and every situation. Ignorant?Nope. I do not believe I'm standing up for baiting for selfish reasons seeing as how I've never hunted over bait. I'm just trying to stand up for my fellow hunter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 20, 2015, 12:38:41 PM
:yeah:For those of you that are against deer/elk baiting. How do you feel about bear baiting (where legal)or coyote baiting? How bout bait for fishing, or crab pots? Sure there are other ways to hunt bear or coyote, artificial lures or artificial "baits" for fishing and crabing. How is deer and elk any diffrent? I just don't understand how or why any one would want to limit our vanishing opertunetys for sportsman!
:yeah:
Add in electronic callers....unfair advantage,
Hunting during the rut....unfair advantage,
Electronic fish finders....unfair advantage,
Lazer rangefinders....unfair advantage,
Can tear a building down one brick at a time if you are patient, and most won't notice or care until it is too late and it falls down!!
Fellow hunters are, and sadly will always be, our own worse enemy, until it is too late!!
One of the problems with wishing everybody did what/how you do things is when it actually happens--the unintended consequences.
If a guy with 5 acres can't bait to pull animals off of golf courses, hobby farms, housing developments then he's going to do what? Possibly be getting timber passes or hitting the national forest or driving the roads, increasing all the competition amongst the anti baiters.
Post by: zike on December 20, 2015, 01:01:13 PM
Email sent
No change !
Dec 15-April 1 is when they could use the extra food. I feed year round and from dec-march I have alfalfa out
That's great. I think it will still be legal to feed if baiting is banned as long as you don't hunt over it. The question is are you still going to feed if you can't hunt there?
Washington is one of the few states that allow baiting. The rest of the hunters in the country survive without luring there deer in with a pile of apples. The baiters on here are running around like chicken little, crying the sky is falling. It will be all right if its banned, you'll just have to adept and hunt harder.
I beg to disagree with your statement, can you back up the no baiting at all in the majority of States? Most allow some form of baiting ( or better stated, many do, but they also have restrictions) I already know the number. I have had a long absence from this site, for many reasons. However, my name is mentioned on or in this thread quite a bit. Thankfully not many bad names.. :-) Appreciate the input, and welcome any via messages or emails,
Ren
I found this article from Field and stream that states 28 states ban baiting, thats a majority. It also gives some good reasons for a baiting ban. Really bad a hunting mag calling for a baiting ban.
That is one of the most ignorant articles I've ever read. His reasoning is selfish and poorly thought out /Ignorant. Also, 22 states still allow baiting which is a far cry from " a few states" like you claimed earlier. It's nearly half.
Of the 22 states that allow baiting over 1/3 restrict baiting which most of the baiters oppose.
Post by: zike on December 20, 2015, 01:02:55 PM
Post by: grundy53 on December 20, 2015, 01:04:16 PM
Baiting isn't hunting. It’s a carnival shooting gallery."No it's not. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: jasnt on December 20, 2015, 01:19:37 PM
:yeah:Baiting isn't hunting. It’s a carnival shooting gallery."No it's not. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
People act like you can just toss out some bait and deer come running. It's not like that at all! 99% of all activity will be at night. Most big bucks will not approach bait at all. Some will simply go down wind then leave. Most of the deer will be does and young bucks and like I said at night. It takes along time to get any regular visitors and even then most will be after shooting light. It's no diffrent than using buck bombs or artificial scrapes. It's not a shooting gallery. Not even close. It takes a lot of work and $ to get a good deer with bait and most of the time you have to set up a long ways from the bait on a travel route to the bait in order to get a deer before dark.
Your comment comes across as just stirring the pot?
Have you even hunted over bait or seen some one hunt over bait that makes you think it's a shooting gallery????
Post by: zike on December 20, 2015, 03:49:50 PM
Post by: Curly on December 20, 2015, 03:55:31 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on December 20, 2015, 03:59:29 PM
TV is not reality. It's called editing.
I'm so disappointed. :bash:
Post by: emac on December 20, 2015, 04:06:20 PM
Baiting isn't hunting. It’s a carnival shooting gallery."With this comment it shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. This hear was the first year I ever baited. I spent countless hrs and money doing this. I had some nice bucks coming in on trail cam. Once archery season started i spent countless hrs in my blind and tree stand. Did any of these bucks show up....no. So your idea of a shooting gallery are false. I have a buddy that has been baiting for 5 years and this year was his first time getting a deer over bait. We around dumping truck loads of bait. We use 50lb bags of grain because are sites aren't accessible by vehicle. Even though I didn't get one of the bucks I was hoping to get i had the best hunting season ever. I spent far more time in the woods this year than ever before. And that is what I enjoyed more than anything.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on December 20, 2015, 04:14:28 PM
I've seen a bunch of hunts on TV, them deer come running in like bees to honey. If it wasn't easy and didn't work, how do the guides advertise what 99% success ratio. And you guys would fight so hard to save it.You've got to be joking. I really hope you are not serious. Those hunting shows are absolutely not reality. If you weren't joking then I don't think there is any reason to debate you any more. It would be a lesson in futility and I would probably be looked down upon for taking advantage of a defenseless person.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: jasnt on December 20, 2015, 04:14:43 PM
I've seen a bunch of hunts on TV, them deer come running in like bees to honey. If it wasn't easy and didn't work, how do the guides advertise what 99% success ratio. And you guys would fight so hard to save it.sounds like coyote hunting. You just play some distress sounds and they come charging in lmao. That is not the reality! I would fight just as hard to keep any hunting opertunety!!! Dosent matter what it is or if I use it. Your posts crack me up!
Those guides are selling hunts. They have been doing it for years and have learned just how to hunt bait. If it was as easy as you say why would anyone pay a guide to do it????
Post by: SeaRun1 on December 20, 2015, 04:17:56 PM
It is hunters dogging on hunters that fuels this whole thing. If you don't use bait then continue to avoid it and stay on your high horse. Your awesome, we got it.
Let the other guys hunt how they choose which is LEGAL by the way. Why do some of you guys need to be such phallic symbols? Hunt how you want to and let others do the same.
These guys "preaching" how they feel about baiting are no different then people preaching about how they want guns removed from society. It's YOUR opinion about something that is currently legal.
Shut up already.
SR1
Post by: YJ Guide Service on December 20, 2015, 04:24:05 PM
Post by: AntlerHound on December 20, 2015, 04:30:09 PM
Post by: creature522 on December 20, 2015, 07:28:15 PM
Haha his reasoning is selfish! Aren't we all making our arguments for selfish reasons? Especially if we benefit financially from the subject. Also his article is based on his location and his perceptions and it may not pertain to every state and every situation. Ignorant?Nope. I do not believe I'm standing up for baiting for selfish reasons seeing as how I've never hunted over bait. I'm just trying to stand up for my fellow hunter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm standing up for my fellow hunter as well. The ones who don't want to hunt public land and see bait piles, carpet, tarps, Apple bins, blinds. Some of em are there all year long. If u stumble upon one hunting you are in "their spot". It's public land. The only argument I get from anyone for baiting is that we are losing our right to hunt. I guess I haven't seen any of that yet. We can use illuminocks and expandables now. So each side thinks they are right. Maybe we are both right and both wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on December 20, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
Haha his reasoning is selfish! Aren't we all making our arguments for selfish reasons? Especially if we benefit financially from the subject. Also his article is based on his location and his perceptions and it may not pertain to every state and every situation. Ignorant?Nope. I do not believe I'm standing up for baiting for selfish reasons seeing as how I've never hunted over bait. I'm just trying to stand up for my fellow hunter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm standing up for my fellow hunter as well. The ones who don't want to hunt public land and see bait piles, carpet, tarps, Apple bins, blinds. Some of em are there all year long. If u stumble upon one hunting you are in "their spot". It's public land. The only argument I get from anyone for baiting is that we are losing our right to hunt. I guess I haven't seen any of that yet. We can use illuminocks and expandables now. So each side thinks they are right. Maybe we are both right and both wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What you are describing is already illegal. It's called littering. We don't need another law.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 20, 2015, 07:46:10 PM
So, it seems the proper response is to punish or restrict everyone?
Sounds like Washington D.C. talking/thinking there....
Post by: lokidog on December 20, 2015, 08:06:59 PM
I've seen a bunch of hunts on TV, them deer come running in like bees to honey. If it wasn't easy and didn't work, how do the guides advertise what 99% success ratio. And you guys would fight so hard to save it.You've got to be joking. I really hope you are not serious. Those hunting shows are absolutely not reality. If you weren't joking then I don't think there is any reason to debate you any more. It would be a lesson in futility and I would probably be looked down upon for taking advantage of a defenseless person.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, he's not kidding. You know, every time I see them rattle on TV, a big buck comes running in, we'd better ban rattling..... What an ignorant thing to say! :bash:
Post by: Hunting7mm on December 20, 2015, 08:20:44 PM
For those of you that are against deer/elk baiting. How do you feel about bear baiting (where legal)or coyote baiting? How bout bait for fishing, or crab pots? Sure there are other ways to hunt bear or coyote, artificial lures or artificial "baits" for fishing and crabing. How is deer and elk any diffrent? I just don't understand how or why any one would want to limit our vanishing opertunetys for sportsman!:yeah: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: creature522 on December 20, 2015, 08:27:11 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jasnt on December 20, 2015, 09:24:32 PM
When it gets to a point where something needs done, then yes. It's at the point where I live. Have u not read my other posts? How did we get bag limits or antler restrictions? People can be trusted. You guys are talking from your point of view where you live and hunt. I'm talking from mine.i understand the dumping of truck loads of bait is causing this fuss. So regulate the area not the whole state. Most people I see don't use a ton of bait at once. Regulate the amount or just the problem area. It's always a few jerks ruining it for everyone. Most baiters are not causing any troubles. I don't have a problem with regulating the amount of bait till the other side is not willing to compromise and wants an out right ban on baiting like was stated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: creature522 on December 20, 2015, 09:27:19 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 20, 2015, 10:46:28 PM
When it gets to a point where something needs done, then yes. It's at the point where I live. Have u not read my other posts? How did we get bag limits or antler restrictions? People can be trusted. You guys are talking from your point of view where you live and hunt. I'm talking from mine.i understand the dumping of truck loads of bait is causing this fuss. So regulate the area not the whole state. Most people I see don't use a ton of bait at once. Regulate the amount or just the problem area. It's always a few jerks ruining it for everyone. Most baiters are not causing any troubles. I don't have a problem with regulating the amount of bait till the other side is not willing to compromise and wants an out right ban on baiting like was stated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:yeah:
If you don't exercise some basic common sense and reasonable compromise, then the give & take process becomes just a take, and we never win in that scenario!
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2015, 06:13:34 AM
Post by: YJ Guide Service on December 21, 2015, 07:21:49 AM
Post by: bhawley76 on December 21, 2015, 07:44:02 AM
Post by: Special T on December 21, 2015, 08:05:26 AM
I've never seen a baiting site with "truckloads" of bait being dumped. Maybe a box of apples or a couple of salt blocks. Is this a common occurrence?Not common at all however it appears that this one or 2 instances is what the anti hunters have seized onto.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 21, 2015, 08:11:17 AM
:yeah:I've never seen a baiting site with "truckloads" of bait being dumped. Maybe a box of apples or a couple of salt blocks. Is this a common occurrence?Not common at all however it appears that this one or 2 instances is what the anti hunters have seized onto.
And not just anti's, there are quite a few hunter's on board with banning it statewide because of these limited instances.
In my letter to the commission I asked them to look at the big picture, I am sure there is a way to deal with these isolated issues versus limiting everyone.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 08:49:35 AM
I guess I don't understand the amount issue. What's that got to do with anything? So you should only be able to call ducks and geese so many times before shooting them or you can only rattle three times every hour. Doesn't make sense really does it. If you can afford to dump a truckload of food then so what and more power to you, I cant but im not against it either. Its like saying your a loud to call coyotes but I cant afford an electric call so I want to have them band for that reason, doesn't make sense again does it. Stay the course fellow hunters and stay united...
You can call once or a hundred times in an hour, rattle for 15 seconds or 45 minutes straight. When you are done, there isn't a huge pile of rotting, smelly, decaying fruit left behind.
Now, if you are dumping a truckload, but going back in and cleaning up and hauling it away, that may be different.
Post by: bhawley76 on December 21, 2015, 08:57:32 AM
Just playing the devils advocate, and i'm not trying to be a jerk but if its your property should it matter?I guess I don't understand the amount issue. What's that got to do with anything? So you should only be able to call ducks and geese so many times before shooting them or you can only rattle three times every hour. Doesn't make sense really does it. If you can afford to dump a truckload of food then so what and more power to you, I cant but im not against it either. Its like saying your a loud to call coyotes but I cant afford an electric call so I want to have them band for that reason, doesn't make sense again does it. Stay the course fellow hunters and stay united...
You can call once or a hundred times in an hour, rattle for 15 seconds or 45 minutes straight. When you are done, there isn't a huge pile of rotting, smelly, decaying fruit left behind.
Now, if you are dumping a truckload, but going back in and cleaning up and hauling it away, that may be different.
Post by: Bob33 on December 21, 2015, 09:19:25 AM
I've never seen a baiting site with "truckloads" of bait being dumped. Maybe a box of apples or a couple of salt blocks. Is this a common occurrence?There are unconfirmed stories of a few outfitters using bait in voluminous amounts to lure deer onto private property for the sake of paying clients. Lots of bait and limited hunting pressure can create a sanctuary for the animals. Some perceive this as an unfair disadvantage for public land hunters.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 09:30:16 AM
Just playing the devils advocate, and i'm not trying to be a jerk but if its your property should it matter?I guess I don't understand the amount issue. What's that got to do with anything? So you should only be able to call ducks and geese so many times before shooting them or you can only rattle three times every hour. Doesn't make sense really does it. If you can afford to dump a truckload of food then so what and more power to you, I cant but im not against it either. Its like saying your a loud to call coyotes but I cant afford an electric call so I want to have them band for that reason, doesn't make sense again does it. Stay the course fellow hunters and stay united...
You can call once or a hundred times in an hour, rattle for 15 seconds or 45 minutes straight. When you are done, there isn't a huge pile of rotting, smelly, decaying fruit left behind.
Now, if you are dumping a truckload, but going back in and cleaning up and hauling it away, that may be different.
What if you live downwind of that truck load of rotting & decaying fruit and do not appreciate the smell?
The bottom line is, to some people, both hunters and anti-hunters, it does, regardless of where it occurs and that is the problem that needs addressed and a reasonable solution found.
One example that is often debated is road hunters vs boot hunters.
Both are legal, but yet some just can't stand the thought of a road hunter, don't consider it hunting by their personal definition, and see no reason for it.
How is that been addressed?
As a solution to try and find a mid-point for the different user groups, there are areas that are restricted to no vehicle traffic. Now doesn't that seem like a more logical approach?
If not, it will likely be eliminated on all scales, and the end result is another method taken away, never to come back, and then on to the next issue to chip away at hunting in general.
Post by: jasnt on December 21, 2015, 10:51:30 AM
Post by: westsidehntr on December 21, 2015, 11:03:37 AM
Just playing the devils advocate, and i'm not trying to be a jerk but if its your property should it matter?I guess I don't understand the amount issue. What's that got to do with anything? So you should only be able to call ducks and geese so many times before shooting them or you can only rattle three times every hour. Doesn't make sense really does it. If you can afford to dump a truckload of food then so what and more power to you, I cant but im not against it either. Its like saying your a loud to call coyotes but I cant afford an electric call so I want to have them band for that reason, doesn't make sense again does it. Stay the course fellow hunters and stay united...
You can call once or a hundred times in an hour, rattle for 15 seconds or 45 minutes straight. When you are done, there isn't a huge pile of rotting, smelly, decaying fruit left behind.
Now, if you are dumping a truckload, but going back in and cleaning up and hauling it away, that may be different.
What if you live downwind of that truck load of rotting & decaying fruit and do not appreciate the smell?
The bottom line is, to some people, both hunters and anti-hunters, it does, regardless of where it occurs and that is the problem that needs addressed and a reasonable solution found.
One example that is often debated is road hunters vs boot hunters.
Both are legal, but yet some just can't stand the thought of a road hunter, don't consider it hunting by their personal definition, and see no reason for it.
How is that been addressed?
As a solution to try and find a mid-point for the different user groups, there are areas that are restricted to no vehicle traffic. Now doesn't that seem like a more logical approach?
If not, it will likely be eliminated on all scales, and the end result is another method taken away, never to come back, and then on to the next issue to chip away at hunting in general.
YOU, sir, are the one chipping away at hunting! If we as hunters support ANY restrictions on ANY way of hunting, we are contributing to the anti's cause.
Are antis going to be satisfied with restrictions on baiting? NOPE!! There will always be some way of hunting they want to take away. Chipping away as you say. Unless we as hunters unify and say ALL ways of hunting should remain legal, we will continue to lose rights. This was the way of hound hunting, baiting bears, etc. Its the same as the gun control issue. Any restrictions are sliding further down that slippery slope. So YOU are part of the problem, not the solution, IMHO.
Post by: Bob33 on December 21, 2015, 11:17:23 AM
I expect to see more and more initiatives on the issues of gun control and hunting.
Post by: westsidehntr on December 21, 2015, 11:21:49 AM
When it gets to a point where something needs done, then yes. It's at the point where I live. Have u not read my other posts? How did we get bag limits or antler restrictions? People can be trusted. You guys are talking from your point of view where you live and hunt. I'm talking from mine.i understand the dumping of truck loads of bait is causing this fuss. So regulate the area not the whole state. Most people I see don't use a ton of bait at once. Regulate the amount or just the problem area. It's always a few jerks ruining it for everyone. Most baiters are not causing any troubles. I don't have a problem with regulating the amount of bait till the other side is not willing to compromise and wants an out right ban on baiting like was stated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:yeah:
If you don't exercise some basic common sense and reasonable compromise, then the give & take process becomes just a take, and we never win in that scenario!
BS!! If you give at all, its always a give, never a take. When was the last time we were "given" something by the antis?
Post by: Curly on December 21, 2015, 11:26:06 AM
The antis are getting smarter, and are going directly to voters more often for changes. As an example, on the issue of gun control attempts to implement federal restrictions have been largely unsuccessful due to a variety of reasons. The solution? Go to the voters via initiative. The result: I-594. You no longer have to deal with representatives worried about their constituents getting angry over a bill you support or don’t support. An initiative made bear baiting illegal.
I expect to see more and more initiatives on the issues of gun control and hunting.
:yeah:
I would expect some initiatives on the ballot in the future banning such things as bear hunting, coyote hunting, and cougar hunting.
As we witnessed with the Cecil the lion outrage earlier this year, "trophy" hunting is frowned upon by the general public. They generally are accepting of hunters killing deer and elk for food but a large percentage of them don't think we eat bear or cougar. And most of us don't eat coyotes. Does anyone believe that a voter initiative for banning bear hunting, coyote hunting, and cougar hunting would not pass in this state? The writing is on the wall. :(
Post by: bhawley76 on December 21, 2015, 11:31:47 AM
Post by: westsidehntr on December 21, 2015, 11:33:44 AM
The antis are getting smarter, and are going directly to voters more often for changes. As an example, on the issue of gun control attempts to implement federal restrictions have been largely unsuccessful due to a variety of reasons. The solution? Go to the voters via initiative. The result: I-594. You no longer have to deal with representatives worried about their constituents getting angry over a bill you support or don’t support. An initiative made bear baiting illegal.
I expect to see more and more initiatives on the issues of gun control and hunting.
:yeah:
I would expect some initiatives on the ballot in the future banning such things as bear hunting, coyote hunting, and cougar hunting.
As we witnessed with the Cecil the lion outrage earlier this year, "trophy" hunting is frowned upon by the general public. They generally are accepting of hunters killing deer and elk for food but a large percentage of them don't think we eat bear or cougar. And most of us don't eat coyotes. Does anyone believe that a voter initiative for banning bear hunting, coyote hunting, and cougar hunting would not pass in this state? The writing is on the wall. :(
We need an initiative to ban initiatives.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2015, 11:38:55 AM
It is a proven fact the second you start to give they will only want more.
Background checks are a great example. In CA, they then banned high capacity mags, require ammo registration, you need bullet releases on semi-autos. Since it still hasn't stop gun murders, I see gun bans as being the next logical step.
Post by: bobcat on December 21, 2015, 11:40:05 AM
Yes, there is no doubt that anti-hunting groups would support a ban on baiting deer and elk. Most non-hunters probably would as well, just because to someone who is not educated on the subject, it seems to be unethical.
The only issue seems to be in Okanogan county during the late archery season when mule deer are concentrated on winter range. It would be great if some regulations could be written to simply address this particular problem.
Baiting is an important hunting tactic for small parcels of land in developed areas. This is where deer numbers are often highest and where hunting can be a very important way of keeping populations in check. Baiting may be the only practical way to hunt a 5 acre parcel of land, and it may also be the safest.
Post by: Bob33 on December 21, 2015, 11:44:55 AM
Thank you for taking the time to email your comments to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. Each commissioner will receive a copy.
Opinions and comments such as yours provide the Commission with valuable insight into fish and wildlife issues of concern to communities throughout our state. The Commission relies on public testimony, email, and correspondence to help determine what is working well and what requires more concentrated efforts.
Thank you for your interest in the conservation and management of the state’s precious fish and wildlife resources.
Post by: grundy53 on December 21, 2015, 11:47:55 AM
FYI I did receive a reply to my email.I received the same email.
Thank you for taking the time to email your comments to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. Each commissioner will receive a copy.
Opinions and comments such as yours provide the Commission with valuable insight into fish and wildlife issues of concern to communities throughout our state. The Commission relies on public testimony, email, and correspondence to help determine what is working well and what requires more concentrated efforts.
Thank you for your interest in the conservation and management of the state’s precious fish and wildlife resources.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2015, 11:49:44 AM
This has been pointed out before, but again, this particular issue, was not something that the anti-hunting types are pushing for. This was an issue brought to the attention of the WDFW by HUNTERS.
Yes, there is no doubt that anti-hunting groups would support a ban on baiting deer and elk. Most non-hunters probably would as well, just because to someone who is not educated on the subject, it seems to be unethical.
The only issue seems to be in Okanogan county during the late archery season when mule deer are concentrated on winter range. It would be great if some regulations could be written to simply address this particular problem.
Baiting is an important hunting tactic for small parcels of land in developed areas. This is where deer numbers are often highest and where hunting can be a very important way of keeping populations in check. Baiting may be the only practical way to hunt a 5 acre parcel of land, and it may also be the safest.
It may have been started by hunters (I'd like to see the proof on that, though), but it's certainly heavily supported by anti-hunting groups. Any aspect of hunting they can chip away at they will.
Post by: bobcat on December 21, 2015, 11:59:56 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F12%2F21%2F483388804b09e1ca57f96a90236d9d94.jpg&hash=63bace7f57211002d77e481c3c9a309d8d5b150f)
If you'd like to see the entire document:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_16_summary.pdf
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 12:13:29 PM
Just playing the devils advocate, and i'm not trying to be a jerk but if its your property should it matter?I guess I don't understand the amount issue. What's that got to do with anything? So you should only be able to call ducks and geese so many times before shooting them or you can only rattle three times every hour. Doesn't make sense really does it. If you can afford to dump a truckload of food then so what and more power to you, I cant but im not against it either. Its like saying your a loud to call coyotes but I cant afford an electric call so I want to have them band for that reason, doesn't make sense again does it. Stay the course fellow hunters and stay united...
You can call once or a hundred times in an hour, rattle for 15 seconds or 45 minutes straight. When you are done, there isn't a huge pile of rotting, smelly, decaying fruit left behind.
Now, if you are dumping a truckload, but going back in and cleaning up and hauling it away, that may be different.
What if you live downwind of that truck load of rotting & decaying fruit and do not appreciate the smell?
The bottom line is, to some people, both hunters and anti-hunters, it does, regardless of where it occurs and that is the problem that needs addressed and a reasonable solution found.
One example that is often debated is road hunters vs boot hunters.
Both are legal, but yet some just can't stand the thought of a road hunter, don't consider it hunting by their personal definition, and see no reason for it.
How is that been addressed?
As a solution to try and find a mid-point for the different user groups, there are areas that are restricted to no vehicle traffic. Now doesn't that seem like a more logical approach?
If not, it will likely be eliminated on all scales, and the end result is another method taken away, never to come back, and then on to the next issue to chip away at hunting in general.
YOU, sir, are the one chipping away at hunting! If we as hunters support ANY restrictions on ANY way of hunting, we are contributing to the anti's cause.
Are antis going to be satisfied with restrictions on baiting? NOPE!! There will always be some way of hunting they want to take away. Chipping away as you say. Unless we as hunters unify and say ALL ways of hunting should remain legal, we will continue to lose rights. This was the way of hound hunting, baiting bears, etc. Its the same as the gun control issue. Any restrictions are sliding further down that slippery slope. So YOU are part of the problem, not the solution, IMHO.
Not sure where you get that I am the enemy??
I take it that you are saying take a stand, all or none and hope that you pick correctly???
Tell me how well that worked with bait and hounds for bear??
Incase you are not aware, I spent many months contacting agencies, WDFW, Senators and Representatives trying to get legislation passed on the spring damage bears hunts and the use of bait.
So, no Sir, I am not what I consider part of the problem! If you cannot look past your own stubborness or ignorance and see that the more likely out come of a bullheaded, all or none approach such as yours to not likely be favorable for everyone, then good luck to you!
Post by: singleshot12 on December 21, 2015, 12:48:47 PM
Sure nobody wants more laws,but maybe this is a good thing. Deer and elk may once again spread out and forage naturally,giving everyone fair opportunity.
I know my area would improve 100% if 90% of the deer were not locked up and concentrated on someone elses property"bait pile".
It should be the same as the waterfowl baiting laws, which everyone has accepted btw.
But I guess keep it legal for now, to not be accused of being an anti-hunter Until baiting is proven or not to be detrimental to the herds.
Post by: singleshot12 on December 21, 2015, 12:59:14 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 12:59:28 PM
I'm having a hard time digesting if your not for baiting then you must be one of them attitude.
Sure nobody wants more laws,but maybe this is a good thing. Deer and elk may once again spread out and forage naturally,giving everyone fair opportunity.
I know my area would improve 100% if 90% of the deer were not locked up and concentrated on someone elses property"bait pile".
It should be the same as the waterfowl baiting laws, which everyone has accepted btw.
But I guess keep it legal to not be accused of being an anti-hunter.Until baiting is proven to detrimental to the herds
Well stated!
And honestly, it sounds like there are truly only a small amount of what I would call industrial level baiting any way, so I really cannot see the harm that saying 500 pounds of apples isn't okay, but 50 pounds is.
Just means a person has to put a little bit more effort in. But maybe that is it, the lazy factor...that is it is hard work to run a bait site when you can't just dump 500 or a 1000 pounds in one shot and call it good.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2015, 01:01:39 PM
Not sure if this is enough proof, but here's a statement by the WDFW from the meeting in Olympia in April 2015 (which I attended):
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F12%2F21%2F483388804b09e1ca57f96a90236d9d94.jpg&hash=63bace7f57211002d77e481c3c9a309d8d5b150f)
If you'd like to see the entire document:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_16_summary.pdf
Hunters and landowners - additional input. Like I said, It wasn't only hunters and there are a lot of others outside hunting having input.
Post by: jasnt on December 21, 2015, 01:03:04 PM
I'm having a hard time digesting if your not for baiting then you must be one of them attitude.how do you know 90% of the deer are on some one else's property?
Sure nobody wants more laws,but maybe this is a good thing. Deer and elk may once again spread out and forage naturally,giving everyone fair opportunity.
I know my area would improve 100% if 90% of the deer were not locked up and concentrated on someone elses property"bait pile".
It should be the same as the waterfowl baiting laws, which everyone has accepted btw.
But I guess keep it legal for now, to not be accused of being an anti-hunter Until baiting is proven or not to be detrimental to the herds.
Post by: singleshot12 on December 21, 2015, 01:05:42 PM
I'm having a hard time digesting if your not for baiting then you must be one of them attitude.how do you know 90% of the deer are on some one else's property?
Sure nobody wants more laws,but maybe this is a good thing. Deer and elk may once again spread out and forage naturally,giving everyone fair opportunity.
I know my area would improve 100% if 90% of the deer were not locked up and concentrated on someone elses property"bait pile".
It should be the same as the waterfowl baiting laws, which everyone has accepted btw.
But I guess keep it legal for now, to not be accused of being an anti-hunter Until baiting is proven or not to be detrimental to the herds.
Observation :dunno:
Post by: Curly on December 21, 2015, 01:13:47 PM
Most non-hunters already assume baiting is illegal. Lots of hunters even think it's illegal. Hunters bring up the issue with WDFW and the next thing you know anti-hunters have picked up on the issue and of course they're all over it. Anything they can take away they will.
Post by: westsidehntr on December 21, 2015, 01:15:03 PM
Just playing the devils advocate, and i'm not trying to be a jerk but if its your property should it matter?I guess I don't understand the amount issue. What's that got to do with anything? So you should only be able to call ducks and geese so many times before shooting them or you can only rattle three times every hour. Doesn't make sense really does it. If you can afford to dump a truckload of food then so what and more power to you, I cant but im not against it either. Its like saying your a loud to call coyotes but I cant afford an electric call so I want to have them band for that reason, doesn't make sense again does it. Stay the course fellow hunters and stay united...
You can call once or a hundred times in an hour, rattle for 15 seconds or 45 minutes straight. When you are done, there isn't a huge pile of rotting, smelly, decaying fruit left behind.
Now, if you are dumping a truckload, but going back in and cleaning up and hauling it away, that may be different.
What if you live downwind of that truck load of rotting & decaying fruit and do not appreciate the smell?
The bottom line is, to some people, both hunters and anti-hunters, it does, regardless of where it occurs and that is the problem that needs addressed and a reasonable solution found.
One example that is often debated is road hunters vs boot hunters.
Both are legal, but yet some just can't stand the thought of a road hunter, don't consider it hunting by their personal definition, and see no reason for it.
How is that been addressed?
As a solution to try and find a mid-point for the different user groups, there are areas that are restricted to no vehicle traffic. Now doesn't that seem like a more logical approach?
If not, it will likely be eliminated on all scales, and the end result is another method taken away, never to come back, and then on to the next issue to chip away at hunting in general.
YOU, sir, are the one chipping away at hunting! If we as hunters support ANY restrictions on ANY way of hunting, we are contributing to the anti's cause.
Are antis going to be satisfied with restrictions on baiting? NOPE!! There will always be some way of hunting they want to take away. Chipping away as you say. Unless we as hunters unify and say ALL ways of hunting should remain legal, we will continue to lose rights. This was the way of hound hunting, baiting bears, etc. Its the same as the gun control issue. Any restrictions are sliding further down that slippery slope. So YOU are part of the problem, not the solution, IMHO.
Not sure where you get that I am the enemy??
I take it that you are saying take a stand, all or none and hope that you pick correctly???
Tell me how well that worked with bait and hounds for bear??
Incase you are not aware, I spent many months contacting agencies, WDFW, Senators and Representatives trying to get legislation passed on the spring damage bears hunts and the use of bait.
So, no Sir, I am not what I consider part of the problem! If you cannot look past your own stubborness or ignorance and see that the more likely out come of a bullheaded, all or none approach such as yours to not likely be favorable for everyone, then good luck to you!
I think you are the enemy because you support helping the antis erode our rights. Interesting that you ask how well bear baiting and hound hunting, as the banning of these helps prove my point. Did the antis stop once these were banned? Nope. Will they stop when restrictions are placed on baiting? Nope! Next, will be a total ban on baiting. Your kind will say, we should ban baiting so the antis won't totally ban all hunting.
We could call them "common sense baiting restrictions." Sound familiar?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 01:32:10 PM
I am also of the opinion that the baiting issue started with hunters having issues with baiting.
Most non-hunters already assume baiting is illegal. Lots of hunters even think it's illegal. Hunters bring up the issue with WDFW and the next thing you know anti-hunters have picked up on the issue and of course they're all over it. Anything they can take away they will.
Good points!
Post by: westsidehntr on December 21, 2015, 01:34:49 PM
I am also of the opinion that the baiting issue started with hunters having issues with baiting.
Most non-hunters already assume baiting is illegal. Lots of hunters even think it's illegal. Hunters bring up the issue with WDFW and the next thing you know anti-hunters have picked up on the issue and of course they're all over it. Anything they can take away they will.
Good points!
Maybe I'm confused. Do you think restrictions should be placed on baiting?
Post by: Bango skank on December 21, 2015, 01:38:17 PM
Post by: Curly on December 21, 2015, 01:49:48 PM
I am also of the opinion that the baiting issue started with hunters having issues with baiting.
Most non-hunters already assume baiting is illegal. Lots of hunters even think it's illegal. Hunters bring up the issue with WDFW and the next thing you know anti-hunters have picked up on the issue and of course they're all over it. Anything they can take away they will.
Good points!
Maybe I'm confused. Do you think restrictions should be placed on baiting?
Me? No i'm not in favor of restrictions. I'm not in favor of hunters trying to restrict other hunters of rights.
If there is a study that proves the need for some restrictions then I'd listen, but until then they shouldn't ban baiting..........I don't think it would be the end of the world if they made a restriction on the amount of bait someone could place though if that caused most of the complaints to go away. (Maybe that would look like they did something).
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 01:52:44 PM
Just playing the devils advocate, and i'm not trying to be a jerk but if its your property should it matter?I guess I don't understand the amount issue. What's that got to do with anything? So you should only be able to call ducks and geese so many times before shooting them or you can only rattle three times every hour. Doesn't make sense really does it. If you can afford to dump a truckload of food then so what and more power to you, I cant but im not against it either. Its like saying your a loud to call coyotes but I cant afford an electric call so I want to have them band for that reason, doesn't make sense again does it. Stay the course fellow hunters and stay united...
You can call once or a hundred times in an hour, rattle for 15 seconds or 45 minutes straight. When you are done, there isn't a huge pile of rotting, smelly, decaying fruit left behind.
Now, if you are dumping a truckload, but going back in and cleaning up and hauling it away, that may be different.
What if you live downwind of that truck load of rotting & decaying fruit and do not appreciate the smell?
The bottom line is, to some people, both hunters and anti-hunters, it does, regardless of where it occurs and that is the problem that needs addressed and a reasonable solution found.
One example that is often debated is road hunters vs boot hunters.
Both are legal, but yet some just can't stand the thought of a road hunter, don't consider it hunting by their personal definition, and see no reason for it.
How is that been addressed?
As a solution to try and find a mid-point for the different user groups, there are areas that are restricted to no vehicle traffic. Now doesn't that seem like a more logical approach?
If not, it will likely be eliminated on all scales, and the end result is another method taken away, never to come back, and then on to the next issue to chip away at hunting in general.
YOU, sir, are the one chipping away at hunting! If we as hunters support ANY restrictions on ANY way of hunting, we are contributing to the anti's cause.
Are antis going to be satisfied with restrictions on baiting? NOPE!! There will always be some way of hunting they want to take away. Chipping away as you say. Unless we as hunters unify and say ALL ways of hunting should remain legal, we will continue to lose rights. This was the way of hound hunting, baiting bears, etc. Its the same as the gun control issue. Any restrictions are sliding further down that slippery slope. So YOU are part of the problem, not the solution, IMHO.
Not sure where you get that I am the enemy??
I take it that you are saying take a stand, all or none and hope that you pick correctly???
Tell me how well that worked with bait and hounds for bear??
Incase you are not aware, I spent many months contacting agencies, WDFW, Senators and Representatives trying to get legislation passed on the spring damage bears hunts and the use of bait.
So, no Sir, I am not what I consider part of the problem! If you cannot look past your own stubborness or ignorance and see that the more likely out come of a bullheaded, all or none approach such as yours to not likely be favorable for everyone, then good luck to you!
I think you are the enemy because you support helping the antis erode our rights. Interesting that you ask how well bear baiting and hound hunting, as the banning of these helps prove my point. Did the antis stop once these were banned? Nope. Will they stop when restrictions are placed on baiting? Nope! Next, will be a total ban on baiting. Your kind will say, we should ban baiting so the antis won't totally ban all hunting.
We could call them "common sense baiting restrictions." Sound familiar?
Okay then!
I Guess if you think I am am the enemy and are going to repeatly call me one, maybe that is where you would like I direct my efforts??
Because I guarantee you, I have the time and ability to put forth a very strong, articulate and convincing arguement that more than likely would be a successful effort to stop it all together!
Is that what it would take to make you happy?? Then you could say you were right??
But that isn't my goal. I do not hunt deer over bait, I really don't ever intend to. But I would hate to see it completly taken away without some effort on our part to try and put something in place that might work and allow it to stay.
Will it stop the anti's...no, not likely.
But at least as far as everything presented on here, it was initiated by HUNTERS, or have you not picked-up on that part yet??
You are welcome to your opinion, as am I and everyone else on here.
You can cross your arms, stomp your feet, hold your breath and demand it be your way or highway if that is how you wish to direct your energy and maybe you will succeed.
Emotions seem to win out over logic more often than not, so good luck!
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 01:56:39 PM
I am also of the opinion that the baiting issue started with hunters having issues with baiting.
Most non-hunters already assume baiting is illegal. Lots of hunters even think it's illegal. Hunters bring up the issue with WDFW and the next thing you know anti-hunters have picked up on the issue and of course they're all over it. Anything they can take away they will.
Good points!
Maybe I'm confused. Do you think restrictions should be placed on baiting?
Well said!
Me? No i'm not in favor of restrictions. I'm not in favor of hunters trying to restrict other hunters of rights.
If there is a study that proves the need for some restrictions then I'd listen, but until then they shouldn't ban baiting..........I don't think it would be the end of the world if they made a restriction on the amount of bait someone could place though if that caused most of the complaints to go away. (Maybe that would look like they did something).
Post by: YJ Guide Service on December 21, 2015, 03:21:07 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2015, 03:23:34 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 03:30:32 PM
I believe more are saying that baiting on private land is pulling opportunity out of public land, regardless of the bait used. I'm unsure I see that problem, but... :dunno:
I think that is probably the most accurate summary as of now.
Hard to get at the core :chuckle: of it because of all the emotions, and frankly, the more discussion, the more it risks blowing into a bigger issue than it might need to be.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2015, 03:42:45 PM
Support Changes and How many tags went unfilled over the last five years.
Against Changes and how many tags went unfilled over the last 5 years.
Or
Support Changes and think Outfitters suck and get all my game
Against changes -Are an outfitter and are taking all their game
Or
Support Changes on Ethical Grounds. My ethics are right and you shouldn't bait
Supports Changes on Religious Grounds. Supports Using only Halal bait in case ungulates are Muslim oriented
Against Changes on Ethical grounds. My ethics get me more deer and elk
Against Changes on Religious grounds. Ship all them Muslim Ungulates back to CA and leave the damned baiting laws alone laws alone!!!
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 03:47:21 PM
Post by: jasnt on December 21, 2015, 03:53:35 PM
So I see some say why not use alfalfa instead of smelly apples. So is that ok to dump 2 tons of alfalfa on the ground then since it doesn't smell. If someone dumps apples do you think in a couple weeks that is still going to be there after the season is done. I guess the question is, is it amount were talking or type of bait now. Seems like the people saying some outfitters are using to many apples but then goes on to say why not use alfalfa since it doesn't stink im confused by that comment.i said that. When the baiting ban first was brought up one of the arguments was apples are poor nutrition for deer. Also they draw more than just deer and elk,like bear and coyotes. Then someone brought up the smell of rotting apples. You can buy these bait apples very cheap so truck loads is cheap enough to put out way more than will be eaten. Alfalfa not so cheap, won't attract so many non target sp. I was also specifically asking who these guides where and why are they not helping to resolve this issue and if they are what is the plan because this is how all this started to begin with
I wonder how many bear show up to those giant piles of apples? You would think that that alone would be grounds to stop them from doing it. I'm curious what guide service is doing this truck load of apples and what they have to say about it. Do they understand what they maybe end up taking from all of use? Why not use alfalfa? During that later seasons when bait can be most productive deer will take alfalfa just as readily as apples and would get more benefit out of it it wouldn't get so smelly and gross and much less likely to attract bears.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 21, 2015, 04:14:40 PM
Dear WDFW Commission:
I support continuing to allow hunters in Washington State to hunt over bait for deer and elk. I also support simple, common-sense regulations to alleviate concerns in a portion of the state where extraordinary volumes of bait are being placed and creating some conflict. I believe there are several extremely important reasons to continue to allow hunting over bait for deer and elk in Washington State.
1. It provides equal access to wildlife, a major tenant of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, for many youth, senior, disabled, and new hunters – which are primarily women and minorities.
Many youth, senior, disabled or new hunters lack the physical abilities and experience to effectively hunt deer and elk on a regular basis. Placing bait in locations where ADA compliant blinds or hunters lacking superior physical abilities can access bait sites helps increase those hunters access to the wildlife we all own. I take several young, new, or disabled hunters out deer hunting every year on my small farm. Their harvest rates would be extremely small if baiting were outlawed, essentially denying them access to the wildlife they own because they lack the physical capabilities of hunters like myself.
2. Baiting provides a safe way to hunt small parcels of private land or areas near more urban environments.
Baiting allows a hunter to create a hunting environment that increases the ability to hunt small parcels of land safely and effectively. In many small hunting areas or those near urban areas there are places and directions that are simply unsafe to shoot – even short range weapons. Creating an attraction (such as bait) allows the hunter to control the safety aspect of the hunt and still be effective. Being able to effectively hunt small parcels of land (especially those near urban areas) also likely reduces deer/vehicle collisions which would increase if hunting over bait were not allowed.
3. Baiting is an ethical, fair-chase method of hunting
Nothing about placing bait reduces the ability of deer or elk to detect hunters and evade them. If wind directions shift unfavorably, if the hunter is seen or heard, or is in any way detected there is nothing about bait that will overcome the animal’s ability to detect and avoid predators – including humans. Baiting, much like the use of calls or attractant scents, must be used in areas already inhabited by deer and elk and the setup must effectively conceal the hunter. Contrary to some perceptions, game animals tend to be very wary about approaching bait and are usually at a much greater level of alertness in approaching baits relative to other periods of movement. The one advantage to baiting is that it allows some influence on where the animal will stop, which can create a more ethical (and safe) shot to insure a quick and humane harvest.
4. There are no negative impacts to wildlife populations
WDFW professional staff have reiterated multiple times there are no biological concerns with baiting deer and elk in Washington State. If anything, I suspect a number of non-target animals benefit from supplemental nutrition. At minimum, there are no negative biological effects.
5. Baiting is a critical tool to improve hunter recruitment and retention
Baiting, in allowing a more controlled and safe environment to ethically harvest an animal, moderately increases harvest success for youth, senior, disabled, and new hunters relative to not being able to hunt over bait. As many outdoor writers have noted, hunter’s progress through various stages as they mature –the first stage is simply being successful in harvesting game. The more early successes new and young hunters have, the more likely we are to recruit them to becoming life-long hunters who buy licenses and tags every year. Additionally, baiting provides similar advantages to senior and disabled hunters by prolonging their ability to successfully hunt. Those senior and disabled hunters who normally might quit hunting as physical abilities diminish can still have a method that fits their physical abilities and allows them to hunt far longer than if baiting were not available.
While I fully support maintaining hunting over bait for deer and elk I also support common-sense regulations for baiting. I believe we are allowing perfect to be the enemy of good with respect to finding a reasonable solution to the expressed concerns over bait quantity. I suggest we establish a threshold high enough to not effect most of the hunters in Washington who carry in small quantities of bait, but low enough to prevent those who are placing truck-loads of apples in one site. Bait quantity is the primary reason this issue is being debated and so I urge you to only consider quantity for future regulations. Proposals and ideas concerning public vs. private lands, automatic feeders, baiting dates, baiting permits or any others should not be considered at this time as they do not address any substantive issue like the concerns over bait quantity.
Most importantly, let’s put this regular discussion of a baiting ban behind us, and move forward in solving the many more serious issues important to protecting and perpetuating the fish and wildlife of this State.
Post by: jasnt on December 21, 2015, 04:35:07 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on December 21, 2015, 04:58:51 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 21, 2015, 05:11:15 PM
Post by: lokidog on December 21, 2015, 07:52:26 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 21, 2015, 08:22:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 23, 2015, 05:09:30 AM
Post by: Bango skank on December 29, 2015, 06:58:47 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2015, 07:03:42 PM
I have recieved no email about this, and the wdfw website has no news release on it, so when it happens, cant we have it overturned like the cougar harvest increase, since there was no period of public input?It's been mentioned in several places. Give your input.
wdfw.wa.gov/news/aug1314c/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/aug1314c/)
Post by: Bango skank on December 29, 2015, 07:09:03 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2015, 07:18:15 PM
Oh i gave my input. But what you linked was for 2015-17. So pre 2015 season was the time they sought public input, and restricting baiting was voted down. So now theyre putting it back on trial without reannouncing it. Something stinksI'm not aware of a new formal proposal to ban baiting at this time. The Commission is free to discuss topics of interest as they choose. Hunters should give their input to the Commission any time they wish.
Post by: Bango skank on December 29, 2015, 07:23:59 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on December 29, 2015, 07:28:23 PM
Baiting wasn't voted down by the commission, they put the decision on hold until they could get more information and asked the Game Management Advisory Council to look into possible options so that they could make a better informed decision. As far as I know the Game Commission will not make a decision until the meeting in Moses Lake and I think that happens in February or March.
Post by: csaaphill on December 29, 2015, 07:39:07 PM
Baiting::yeah:
1. Bring back the ability to bait bear.
2. Deer and Elk Baiting: Leave it alone, we don't need more rules / laws. How does it affect anything??? We are still only allowd to harvest one animal per year. What is next.....you are not allowed to hunt orchards because the deer are coming to bait, corn fields, alfalfa, wheat, etc. etc. etc. What is next you can't wear camoflauge because it give the hunter another advantage?? Where does all this insanity end??
Preference points: Not sure what you mean by this? If you mean the draw system, I would like to see where a person can only draw one "draw" per animal per year. Keep all the Catagories but if a person draws "quality" they cannot draw "buck" "doe" "second deer", etc. Start the draw with the quality and go down from there. This would prevent a person from drawing two tags and only being able to harvest one animal. :twocents:
I will say I don't bait though other than hunting near an orchard or wheat field if possible.
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2015, 07:53:29 PM
Post by: stw on February 17, 2016, 05:53:58 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 17, 2016, 06:22:35 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/hunting_regulations/
I think baiting deer and elk will either be banned, or there will be a limit to how much bait can be used.
Post by: stw on February 17, 2016, 06:55:05 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 17, 2016, 09:36:51 AM
Quote
In the last three years the Department has been approached by hunters and landowners that do not approve of the practice of baiting for the purposes of hunting deer or elk. Additional input was received as part of the 3-year hunting season package, public process in 2015. The non-random input the Department received via the website during the 3-year package process indicated that 23% of hunters wanted a ban on baiting with an exception for food plots and agricultural operations. Fourteen percent (14%) of hunters wanted to disallow the use of bait by hunting guides and restrict the manner and volume of baiting by hunters not using guides. A 63% majority of the hunters commenting wanted no change to the rules pertaining to baiting deer and elk. In a random telephone survey of deer hunters conducted as part of the 2015-17 3-year package, 59% either opposed or strongly opposed baiting for deer. Deer hunters that supported or strongly supported baiting for deer made up 21% of the respondents. Eleven percent (11%) of those surveyed were neutral and 9% didn’t know. In the same random telephone survey, 68% of elk hunters either opposed or strongly opposed baiting for elk. Elk hunters that supported or strongly supported using bait to hunt elk were 14%. Eleven percent (11%) of those surveyed were neutral and 8% didn’t know. Although some potential exists, the Department has no data at this time to suggest that the practice of baiting for deer and elk hunting has a negative population or natural resource effect. The Fish and Wildlife Commission discussed this issue in March and April 2015 and decided to not make changes to the existing rule (baiting for deer and elk hunting is allowed). Since then, the Department has facilitated further discussion with a group of hunters interested in the issue. That group met several times over the past year. Through that process, and input received from the Game Management Advisory Council in 2015, it is clear that there is no consensus on this issue other than scents and natural agricultural practices should not be considered baiting. Members expressed several points of view ranging from banning all baiting for deer and elk hunting to retaining the ability to bait using any quantity. The committee discussed alternatives to the “all or none” scenario, which resulted in several options that will be presented to the Commission for discussion and possible decision. The Commission will consider options that range from banning all baiting to retaining all baiting, including two specific options that consider a volume limit on the amount of bait allowed.
Post by: lokidog on February 17, 2016, 09:51:13 AM
In my response, I quoted this sentence "A 63% majority of the hunters commenting wanted no change to the rules pertaining to baiting deer and elk." as it is the majority that feels strongly enough about the issue to go out of their way to make comments about it.
Even if a person feels there should be a limit to the quantity, the third proposal includes a minimum distance of 200 yards between bait sites. I'd have a hard time placing two effective bait sites on my 5 acre property that were that far apart.
Post by: Axle on February 20, 2016, 07:47:37 AM
:tup:
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 01, 2016, 10:07:48 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 01, 2016, 10:27:24 AM
Anyone know when the decisions are supposed to be made?
I believe it will happen at the March 18-19 meeting in Moses Lake.
Post by: steeleywhopper on March 01, 2016, 10:41:51 AM
This is just one more law to make a honest guy an outlaw, If you don't like baiting then don't. how Hard is that? Just one more regulation we don't need. I have never heard of a bow hunter that has said lets get rid of scopes or ban long range guns. What's next you can only have 6 decoys while duck hunting, The list could go on and on.
I agree!
Post by: Rainier10 on March 03, 2016, 08:17:05 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 03, 2016, 10:39:04 AM
I don't. If the regulations are changed, I'll follow them whether I like it or not and I have a choice not to hunt in WA. But, there's no fine line between poaching and not. If you take an animal through illegal means, you're a poacher. Anti-hunters love it when hunters advocate poaching. It's very easy to convince the general public to restrict the activities of those they feel are operating "above the law". This isn't the 2nd Amendment. This is a privilege.This is just one more law to make a honest guy an outlaw, If you don't like baiting then don't. how Hard is that? Just one more regulation we don't need. I have never heard of a bow hunter that has said lets get rid of scopes or ban long range guns. What's next you can only have 6 decoys while duck hunting, The list could go on and on.
I agree!
I'll continue to fight against regulation changes for baiting even though I don't bait. But I won't be an "outlaw" and purposely break the law or ignore regulations. We have no moral high ground from which to do so.
Post by: smalldog on March 03, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on March 06, 2016, 09:29:43 AM
Some of this is unfortunate....QuoteIn the last three years the Department has been approached by hunters and landowners that do not approve of the practice of baiting for the purposes of hunting deer or elk. Additional input was received as part of the 3-year hunting season package, public process in 2015. The non-random input the Department received via the website during the 3-year package process indicated that 23% of hunters wanted a ban on baiting with an exception for food plots and agricultural operations. Fourteen percent (14%) of hunters wanted to disallow the use of bait by hunting guides and restrict the manner and volume of baiting by hunters not using guides. A 63% majority of the hunters commenting wanted no change to the rules pertaining to baiting deer and elk. In a random telephone survey of deer hunters conducted as part of the 2015-17 3-year package, 59% either opposed or strongly opposed baiting for deer. Deer hunters that supported or strongly supported baiting for deer made up 21% of the respondents. Eleven percent (11%) of those surveyed were neutral and 9% didn’t know. In the same random telephone survey, 68% of elk hunters either opposed or strongly opposed baiting for elk. Elk hunters that supported or strongly supported using bait to hunt elk were 14%. Eleven percent (11%) of those surveyed were neutral and 8% didn’t know. Although some potential exists, the Department has no data at this time to suggest that the practice of baiting for deer and elk hunting has a negative population or natural resource effect. The Fish and Wildlife Commission discussed this issue in March and April 2015 and decided to not make changes to the existing rule (baiting for deer and elk hunting is allowed). Since then, the Department has facilitated further discussion with a group of hunters interested in the issue. That group met several times over the past year. Through that process, and input received from the Game Management Advisory Council in 2015, it is clear that there is no consensus on this issue other than scents and natural agricultural practices should not be considered baiting. Members expressed several points of view ranging from banning all baiting for deer and elk hunting to retaining the ability to bait using any quantity. The committee discussed alternatives to the “all or none” scenario, which resulted in several options that will be presented to the Commission for discussion and possible decision. The Commission will consider options that range from banning all baiting to retaining all baiting, including two specific options that consider a volume limit on the amount of bait allowed.
A lot of us question the legitimacy of a random survey by an outside agency on this for many reasons.
Post by: jackelope on March 06, 2016, 09:35:13 AM
Some of this is unfortunate....QuoteIn the last three years the Department has been approached by hunters and landowners that do not approve of the practice of baiting for the purposes of hunting deer or elk. Additional input was received as part of the 3-year hunting season package, public process in 2015. The non-random input the Department received via the website during the 3-year package process indicated that 23% of hunters wanted a ban on baiting with an exception for food plots and agricultural operations. Fourteen percent (14%) of hunters wanted to disallow the use of bait by hunting guides and restrict the manner and volume of baiting by hunters not using guides. A 63% majority of the hunters commenting wanted no change to the rules pertaining to baiting deer and elk. In a random telephone survey of deer hunters conducted as part of the 2015-17 3-year package, 59% either opposed or strongly opposed baiting for deer. Deer hunters that supported or strongly supported baiting for deer made up 21% of the respondents. Eleven percent (11%) of those surveyed were neutral and 9% didn’t know. In the same random telephone survey, 68% of elk hunters either opposed or strongly opposed baiting for elk. Elk hunters that supported or strongly supported using bait to hunt elk were 14%. Eleven percent (11%) of those surveyed were neutral and 8% didn’t know. Although some potential exists, the Department has no data at this time to suggest that the practice of baiting for deer and elk hunting has a negative population or natural resource effect. The Fish and Wildlife Commission discussed this issue in March and April 2015 and decided to not make changes to the existing rule (baiting for deer and elk hunting is allowed). Since then, the Department has facilitated further discussion with a group of hunters interested in the issue. That group met several times over the past year. Through that process, and input received from the Game Management Advisory Council in 2015, it is clear that there is no consensus on this issue other than scents and natural agricultural practices should not be considered baiting. Members expressed several points of view ranging from banning all baiting for deer and elk hunting to retaining the ability to bait using any quantity. The committee discussed alternatives to the “all or none” scenario, which resulted in several options that will be presented to the Commission for discussion and possible decision. The Commission will consider options that range from banning all baiting to retaining all baiting, including two specific options that consider a volume limit on the amount of bait allowed.
A lot of us question the legitimacy of a random survey by an outside agency on this for many reasons.
Agreed. I was more referring to the "less informed" folks who will read this and paint their own picture based on the results of a potentially bunk survey.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 06, 2016, 09:45:08 AM
Post by: jasnt on March 06, 2016, 09:46:12 AM
I never got surveyed. Anyone here?not me
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 06, 2016, 12:10:56 PM
I never got surveyed. Anyone here?
What survey?
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 06, 2016, 12:14:06 PM
I never got surveyed. Anyone here?
What survey?
I'm guessing one concerning baiting :chuckle:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 06, 2016, 12:20:55 PM
I never got surveyed. Anyone here?
What survey?
Nope never saw it. Just take it all away and be done with it. Then im not sure what I will do?
I'm guessing one concerning baiting :chuckle:
Post by: 724wd on March 07, 2016, 07:53:54 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on March 10, 2016, 11:31:50 AM
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 14, 2016, 11:43:15 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on March 14, 2016, 02:30:31 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/03/agenda_mar1816.html
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 14, 2016, 02:38:41 PM
Post by: et1702 on March 14, 2016, 02:46:48 PM
Of coarse the surveys are bunk. If you want to keep baiting legal then your pockets need to be deeper than the ones pushing to ban it :dunno:
This is my biggest question regarding the issue....who's backing it or requesting it and why did it come up again this year, especially after they had overwhelming response last year to leave it alone! Last year they said it was large land owners that were backing it, but the proposed language last year exempted large land owners from the limitations proposed? This year, they say it's an unresolved issue due to the conflicting surveys. Well the random phone survey is useless and appears to be biased (i.e., not enough respondents, or respondents from the various hunter user groups). I didn't get a call? Again, Hunters who responded to the issue last year and showed up at last years WDFW meeting said "leave it alone" loud and clear! So, again, I am at a loss as to why it's back again this year.
ET
Post by: bobcat on March 14, 2016, 02:58:41 PM
They simply weren't ready yet to make a decision. The commissioners, if I remember correctly, were about evenly split on whether any restrictions were necessary.
You have to remember, this isn't something the WDFW is pushing, it's hunters that asked for a ban on baiting deer and elk, and it's mostly due to the baiting that happens in Okanogan county.
Post by: et1702 on March 14, 2016, 03:12:25 PM
Thanks, I didn't recall that they tabled it. But, I still say LEAVE IT ALONE! We don't need more useless regulations.
I also don't buy that it was "hunters" asking for the ban. If so, that's ridiculous and we need more education within our own ranks.
ET
Post by: Lucky1 on March 14, 2016, 03:28:25 PM
I've gone to the meetings to comment on the proposed baiting changes the last couple years, but am not sure I can get time off for this one. Also it seems like a waste of time anymore. If it's just going to keep showing up each year... :bash:I think you are correct. Many in the WDFW leadership want baiting to be illegal and will keep working to ban it. They will keep it up until they wear out the people who want to keep baiting as a hunting and game management tool.
Post by: cboom on March 15, 2016, 01:50:55 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on March 15, 2016, 01:57:07 PM
Has there been any talk of limiting bait to private property?Yes. One of the proposals is to ban it completely. The other proposals limit the amount of bait allowed anywhere.
If you are against banning baiting, go to the WDFW website and comment on the baiting proposals.
I think the ultimate goal of the WDFW is to ban baiting all together.
Post by: bobcat on March 15, 2016, 02:14:34 PM
Has there been any talk of limiting bait to private property?
There are three options in the proposals, and none of them say anything about only allowing baiting on private property.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F16%2F03%2F15%2F00a8398f11c1c000bbcaec6185fd2351.jpg&hash=2b49e08d183315febd022cde56c0767132cafab7)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F16%2F03%2F15%2Ff1079ff2bdf89cccce04add04b824bc7.jpg&hash=b3c4729935cd85fa7af97aba98c322d58ff72715)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F16%2F03%2F15%2F15a9e28c3b329336c1af2a97ccc02c24.jpg&hash=e59f43d009fa3d050f2a2c431f1c91c47d064b42)
Post by: JDHasty on March 15, 2016, 02:58:50 PM
Post by: Bango skank on March 15, 2016, 03:03:08 PM
There are locations where individuals have placed way more than 10 gallons of salt over many years/decades and created salt licks that deer and elk visit regularly. So can these locations not be hunted in perpetuity?
One more reason why i feel that salt / minerals need to be clearly left out of the definition of bait. I mean really, mineral sites have nowhere near the draw in the fall that a pile of alfslfa apples and corn has. If somebody was hunting over a salt lick in november id say they are wasting their time.
Post by: JDHasty on March 15, 2016, 03:04:28 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 15, 2016, 03:12:19 PM
Fwiw I think the baiting laws should be left completely alone. :twocents:
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 15, 2016, 03:19:33 PM
Fwiw I think the baiting laws should be left completely alone. :twocents:
:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 15, 2016, 03:24:41 PM
Don't hunt deer/elk over bait. Just curious. I have seen places where the deer/elk have eaten the dirt down three feet to get at salt soaked soil that a couple of individuals saturated w/salt decades ago and the deer and elk still visit it.
The question isn't whether you do it. I don't either. But I don't support the WDFW changing the rules on it.
Post by: JDHasty on March 15, 2016, 03:41:51 PM
Don't hunt deer/elk over bait. Just curious. I have seen places where the deer/elk have eaten the dirt down three feet to get at salt soaked soil that a couple of individuals saturated w/salt decades ago and the deer and elk still visit it.
The question isn't whether you do it. I don't either. But I don't support the WDFW changing the rules on it.
I'm with you. I don't have a problem with people hunting bait piles. What I don't want to be up against is shooting a deer that is near a salt block or minerals or even more a location that was used by a rancher in the past and is no longer used that I did not put there or may not even be aware was there in the first place.
Post by: steeleywhopper on March 15, 2016, 05:07:15 PM
Post by: fastdam on March 15, 2016, 05:28:30 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 15, 2016, 05:49:05 PM
As a hunter I would never support taking away opportunity from another hunting group. We need to stick together, once it's gone we never get it back.
Exactly! We hunters are such a small minority, to fraction us only leads to our demise. Ethics of hunting is subject to ones social and cultural upbringing, while we can have a general idea of what is right and wrong, there is many historical and cultural hunting methods that can be implemented without detrimentaly hurting our resources and we should not pass judgment on them. Sound science and historical significance should lead our ideas.
Post by: buglebrush on March 16, 2016, 01:07:25 PM
As a hunter I would never support taking away opportunity from another hunting group. We need to stick together, once it's gone we never get it back.
:yeah:
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2016, 06:12:03 PM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: skeeter 20i on March 18, 2016, 07:40:38 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on March 18, 2016, 07:55:29 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on March 18, 2016, 08:04:16 PM
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2016, 08:06:35 PM
Thanks for giving us an update. :tup::yeah: thank you.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 18, 2016, 08:46:06 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 18, 2016, 09:00:10 PM
Post by: JDHasty on March 18, 2016, 10:47:03 PM
What's the difference between hunting over an apple orchard and throwing apples out? We shouldn't be banning baiting for deer and elk we should be bringing back baiting for bears. Think how many sows people take that might have Cubs. Baiting gives us time to take mature males. This has been brought up repeatedly though wasting my breath.
I hunted behind hounds and baited bear when I was "a kid" and when the "ban" came along I had bigger fish to fry. If there are fingers to point, point them at people like me. I dunno what else to say except that what comes around goes around when it comes to legislation that is pointed at the people who enjoy the opportunity you enjoy today. It takes a combined effort to combat Seattleites taking every opportunity to decide that our kids are their kids to shape as they see fit. In that, and in other ways, blame me.
Post by: JDHasty on March 18, 2016, 10:58:07 PM
The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.
Mick Cope is not Dave Ware. Thank God. I think Mick has me on his "block this call" list, but all kidding aside, he is "human" and will actually engage you if you reach out to him and impresses me as being interested in expending whatever political capital he has built up representing our concerns upstream. I get a good feel is what I am saying and think that reasoned and respectful contact with him is not an effort in futility
Post by: Bango skank on March 18, 2016, 11:21:17 PM
Any updates? Was anyone able to attend the meeting?
I had good intentions, but somehow ended up hiking in the mountains instead. :dunno:
Post by: Wacenturion on March 20, 2016, 03:34:04 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on March 21, 2016, 04:33:51 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on March 21, 2016, 08:08:28 AM
The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.So from what I am reading above, out of the 25-30 people who testified, only a few said no change and the majority said to ban it completely? Just trying to get a feel for what your opinion of the percentages was. You description goes from few to some and then many. It sounds like you are saying the majority when you say many and I just wanted to confirm that is what you meant or at least what your opinion of the meeting was.
Post by: grundy53 on March 21, 2016, 08:17:49 AM
A small majority would mean over half. So at least 13-16 wanted no change.The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.So from what I am reading above, out of the 25-30 people who testified, only a few said no change and the majority said to ban it completely? Just trying to get a feel for what your opinion of the percentages was. You description goes from few to some and then many. It sounds like you are saying the majority when you say many and I just wanted to confirm that is what you meant or at least what your opinion of the meeting was.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Rainier10 on March 21, 2016, 09:10:25 AM
Doh?! I missed the small "majority", reading on my phone I thought it said small "amount".A small majority would mean over half. So at least 13-16 wanted no change.The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.So from what I am reading above, out of the 25-30 people who testified, only a few said no change and the majority said to ban it completely? Just trying to get a feel for what your opinion of the percentages was. You description goes from few to some and then many. It sounds like you are saying the majority when you say many and I just wanted to confirm that is what you meant or at least what your opinion of the meeting was.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Hopefully the majority, however small it was, will prevail. Getting it back once it is gone will be a real struggle.
I have options as a landowner, I already have improved the habitat on my land and can plant food plots and provide a water source to draw the deer to a certain path. I just feel for the people that don't have that option.
I understand they are trying to get a few people to quit dumping truckloads of apples but if they have the means and time to dump truck loads of apples on private property they will for sure have the time to plant food plots or even apple trees to achieve the same thing. If it really is a guide service dumping these apples it is because there is money to made and they will just figure out a way to include the food plot or apple tree cost into the hunt price. This rule isn't going to stop them it is just going to make them get more creative.
Post by: Rainier10 on March 21, 2016, 09:13:47 AM
Post by: grundy53 on March 21, 2016, 09:38:16 AM
Agreed.Doh?! I missed the small "majority", reading on my phone I thought it said small "amount".A small majority would mean over half. So at least 13-16 wanted no change.The game commission did not make decision today, they heard a report by game manager Mick Cope, and listened to testimony from between 25-30 people. The comments were varied pretty much like the issue has been, a small majority wanted no changes, some were for changing the amount of bait that could be used, (10) gallons, and many wanted it banned completely. The three guides that commented were of the opinion that any limit on the amount of bait was totally stupid. The WDFW did ad a forth point to the last three options to the effect that they could allow baiting for management purposes on a case by case basis, but only for management purposes. The Game Commission will make public it's decision at the April commission meeting. I was only there for the part of the meeting that dealt with baiting.So from what I am reading above, out of the 25-30 people who testified, only a few said no change and the majority said to ban it completely? Just trying to get a feel for what your opinion of the percentages was. You description goes from few to some and then many. It sounds like you are saying the majority when you say many and I just wanted to confirm that is what you meant or at least what your opinion of the meeting was.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Hopefully the majority, however small it was, will prevail. Getting it back once it is gone will be a real struggle.
I have options as a landowner, I already have improved the habitat on my land and can plant food plots and provide a water source to draw the deer to a certain path. I just feel for the people that don't have that option.
I understand they are trying to get a few people to quit dumping truckloads of apples but if they have the means and time to dump truck loads of apples on private property they will for sure have the time to plant food plots or even apple trees to achieve the same thing. If it really is a guide service dumping these apples it is because there is money to made and they will just figure out a way to include the food plot or apple tree cost into the hunt price. This rule isn't going to stop them it is just going to make them get more creative.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on March 21, 2016, 09:48:57 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on March 21, 2016, 10:19:00 AM
Apples are cheap in Okanogan county, and very likely they get them for free. To take a truckload of free apples and dump them, on public or private land, is not even close to what it would take to put in a food plot. Especially with as dry as it is over there, some sort of irrigation system would be necessary. They're using the apples because it's cheap and easy. So I do think a total ban on baiting would have a big impact on the outfitters who are using this method. The limit on the amount of bait that can be used would affect the outfitters as well, but I'm not sure by how much. It seems it would be much more difficult to enforce than a total ban, but it does seem like a reasonable solution to the problem.
Why would it be much more difficult? Apparently folks that have a problem with the excessive baiting have made it known. Why would it be any less difficult to expose. In fact, restrictions in excessive amounts for those guides might be just as easy as they would be watched closer.
With that being said, I'm opposed to restrictions on baiting, with the possible exception of amounts if indeed reasonable.
Post by: bobcat on March 21, 2016, 10:44:53 AM
Apples are cheap in Okanogan county, and very likely they get them for free. To take a truckload of free apples and dump them, on public or private land, is not even close to what it would take to put in a food plot. Especially with as dry as it is over there, some sort of irrigation system would be necessary. They're using the apples because it's cheap and easy. So I do think a total ban on baiting would have a big impact on the outfitters who are using this method. The limit on the amount of bait that can be used would affect the outfitters as well, but I'm not sure by how much. It seems it would be much more difficult to enforce than a total ban, but it does seem like a reasonable solution to the problem.
Why would it be much more difficult? Apparently folks that have a problem with the excessive baiting have made it known. Why would it be any less difficult to expose. In fact, restrictions in excessive amounts for those guides might be just as easy as they would be watched closer.
With that being said, I'm opposed to restrictions on baiting, with the possible exception of amounts if indeed reasonable.
Why would a 10 gallon limit be more difficult to enforce than a total ban on baiting? Because, if there's any bait out there, it's an obvious violation. With the 10 gallon limit, someone who sees a pile of apples isn't necessarily going to call it in, but with a total ban on baiting it seems it would be much more likely for someone to report the violation. With the 10 gallon limit, who would really know if they're looking at 10 gallons on the ground, or 15 gallons? Someone would need to come out and determine the amount of bait on the ground. Isn't that more difficult than only having to determine if there's bait or no bait?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 21, 2016, 10:49:48 AM
It's a shame that a very small percentage of individuals can cause such a knee jerk reaction with consequences across the state.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 21, 2016, 11:14:31 AM
Apples are cheap in Okanogan county, and very likely they get them for free. To take a truckload of free apples and dump them, on public or private land, is not even close to what it would take to put in a food plot. Especially with as dry as it is over there, some sort of irrigation system would be necessary. They're using the apples because it's cheap and easy. So I do think a total ban on baiting would have a big impact on the outfitters who are using this method. The limit on the amount of bait that can be used would affect the outfitters as well, but I'm not sure by how much. It seems it would be much more difficult to enforce than a total ban, but it does seem like a reasonable solution to the problem.
Why would it be much more difficult? Apparently folks that have a problem with the excessive baiting have made it known. Why would it be any less difficult to expose. In fact, restrictions in excessive amounts for those guides might be just as easy as they would be watched closer.
With that being said, I'm opposed to restrictions on baiting, with the possible exception of amounts if indeed reasonable.
Why would a 10 gallon limit be more difficult to enforce than a total ban on baiting? Because, if there's any bait out there, it's an obvious violation. With the 10 gallon limit, someone who sees a pile of apples isn't necessarily going to call it in, but with a total ban on baiting it seems it would be much more likely for someone to report the violation. With the 10 gallon limit, who would really know if they're looking at 10 gallons on the ground, or 15 gallons? Someone would need to come out and determine the amount of bait on the ground. Isn't that more difficult than only having to determine if there's bait or no bait?
When I say reasonable, I mean what is obviously way too much material on the ground...i.e truck loads of apples vs. a couple piles of apples or other, such as alfalfa. Most electronic feeders as an example hold a certain amount of feed...i.e. 55 gallon barrel or 200 lbs. of say corn. Not an expert on what started the complaints against the guides, but truck loads of material laying on the ground, with a lot of it rotting, in my mind would obviously be a red flag in determining what is excessive.
Post by: Bango skank on March 21, 2016, 11:14:52 AM
Imo the 10 gallon limit would be unenforceable except for gross violations. I'll use the example of a compressed alfalfa bail. It will almost fit into a 5 gallon bucket when all compressed and banded. But as soon as you cut the bands that thing gets big and can spread out over a 6-7 foot area and seem a foot deep. I doubt it would fit back into 10 gallons at that point.
It's a shame that a very small percentage of individuals can cause such a knee jerk reaction with consequences across the state.
Another good point regarding alfalfa is that even after a bail is all played out there is still a pile of stemmy crap left that is no longer food, its now just a mess. So a guy would gave to pack that out before putting down a new bale. What this means is that a 10gal limit would just make alfalfa unfeasible as a bait, and people would stick with things like apples and corn. Less nutritious things. This is not beneficial to the deer.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 21, 2016, 11:15:19 AM
Imo the 10 gallon limit would be unenforceable except for gross violations. I'll use the example of a compressed alfalfa bail. It will almost fit into a 5 gallon bucket when all compressed and banded. But as soon as you cut the bands that thing gets big and can spread out over a 6-7 foot area and seem a foot deep. I doubt it would fit back into 10 gallons at that point.
It's a shame that a very small percentage of individuals can cause such a knee jerk reaction with consequences across the state.
Could not agree more. :tup:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 21, 2016, 11:23:52 AM
That's a very good point also.Imo the 10 gallon limit would be unenforceable except for gross violations. I'll use the example of a compressed alfalfa bail. It will almost fit into a 5 gallon bucket when all compressed and banded. But as soon as you cut the bands that thing gets big and can spread out over a 6-7 foot area and seem a foot deep. I doubt it would fit back into 10 gallons at that point.
It's a shame that a very small percentage of individuals can cause such a knee jerk reaction with consequences across the state.
Another good point regarding alfalfa is that even after a bail is all played out there is still a pile of stemmy crap left that is no longer food, its now just a mess. So a guy would gave to pack that out before putting down a new bale. What this means is that a 10gal limit would just make alfalfa unfeasible as a bait, and people would stick with things like apples and corn. Less nutritious things. This is not beneficial to the deer.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 21, 2016, 11:35:24 AM
Imo the 10 gallon limit would be unenforceable except for gross violations. I'll use the example of a compressed alfalfa bail. It will almost fit into a 5 gallon bucket when all compressed and banded. But as soon as you cut the bands that thing gets big and can spread out over a 6-7 foot area and seem a foot deep. I doubt it would fit back into 10 gallons at that point.
It's a shame that a very small percentage of individuals can cause such a knee jerk reaction with consequences across the state.
Could not agree more. :tup:
There are other interests at work on this, too. Anti-hunters will chip away at our privileges one piece at a time. They are involved in this.
Post by: KFhunter on March 21, 2016, 11:43:27 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 21, 2016, 11:46:28 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 21, 2016, 11:50:46 AM
Results of low harvest percentages. Resources get scarce and you have to fight others to get 'yours'.
That, but hunters are also very happy to condemn everyone who doesn't hunt just like they do :twocents:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 21, 2016, 12:17:48 PM
Unfortunately this is very true. And is evident on huntwa frequentlyResults of low harvest percentages. Resources get scarce and you have to fight others to get 'yours'.
That, but hunters are also very happy to condemn everyone who doesn't hunt just like they do :twocents:
Post by: Katmai Guy on March 21, 2016, 01:04:39 PM
Post by: Bango skank on March 21, 2016, 01:29:22 PM
Next it will be trail cams being outlawed.
SHHH! :nono:
Post by: tjthebest on March 21, 2016, 02:04:42 PM
Next it will be trail cams being outlawed.
You mean there is a way to have photographic evidence of deer activity 24/7 without the need to actually be present? that seems totally unfair and should be outlawed immediately!
:DOH: :dunno: :yike:
Post by: Dan-o on March 21, 2016, 02:14:58 PM
I do both, primarily as a hobby.
I don't even bait or use trail cams in the GMU's I primarily hunt.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 21, 2016, 02:18:01 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 21, 2016, 02:20:22 PM
Maybe not such a bad thing? Hunting should stay as it has always been for thousands of years. Back to the basics of actual hunting with stick and string. Getting hunting back closer to the way it was may be a good for the natural scheme of things. :twocents:Or further back then that when you would light the forest on fire and chase herds off cliffs. Spears and atlatls are where it's at.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 21, 2016, 02:22:56 PM
Maybe we can live in caves and hunt mastodons while we're at it. Will one of us maybe even invent a wheel? :chuckle:Maybe not such a bad thing? Hunting should stay as it has always been for thousands of years. Back to the basics of actual hunting with stick and string. Getting hunting back closer to the way it was may be a good for the natural scheme of things. :twocents:Or further back then that when you would light the forest on fire and chase herds off cliffs. Spears and atlatls are where it's at.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 21, 2016, 02:24:26 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on March 21, 2016, 02:33:55 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on March 21, 2016, 02:38:07 PM
Limit it even further and they will just put in a food plot, sure it is more money and more work but they will just charge more for the hunt.
You don't impose a statewide rule to try to get a few individuals to act the way you want them to. They are going to find a way to get around the rules.
Post by: Rainier10 on March 21, 2016, 02:41:45 PM
Whoever said in the other thread that only 5 people wanted things changed that testified at the commission meeting either weren't paying attention or have a great set of rose colored glasses. About 35-40% wanted no change and about 35% wanted limits on the amount of bait, (or were ok with it), and the rest wanted to ban baiting all together.Well they say if you have three different witnesses each one is going to see it differently. That is why I was asking what your opinion of the percentages was. People hear and see what they want to hear sometimes.
I am wondering what the commission took away from the meeting and what they heard.
Post by: cboom on March 21, 2016, 05:31:06 PM
The only way that you are going to stop these outfitters is close the GMU down that they are hunting and keep closing GMU's as they move to one that is open, which is exactly what the anti hunters want. If you limit baiting to 10 gallons, they are going to divide up those cheap truckloads of apples and put 10 gallons every 200 yards or feet or whatever the distance is that they said you had to be away from one bait site to another. You can still have a truckload of apples spread out over 2 or 3 acres, you don't think that is still going to draw deer?
Limit it even further and they will just put in a food plot, sure it is more money and more work but they will just charge more for the hunt.
You don't impose a statewide rule to try to get a few individuals to act the way you want them to. They are going to find a way to get around the rules.
I may be way off but seems to me the easiest solution to this would just outlaw baiting for commercial hunts/outfitter hunts? I have been on several guided hunts and none involved bait. I would never dream of paying money to go hunt over a bait pile, but would have no problem hunting over bait I put out.
Post by: Bango skank on March 21, 2016, 05:33:23 PM
The only way that you are going to stop these outfitters is close the GMU down that they are hunting and keep closing GMU's as they move to one that is open, which is exactly what the anti hunters want. If you limit baiting to 10 gallons, they are going to divide up those cheap truckloads of apples and put 10 gallons every 200 yards or feet or whatever the distance is that they said you had to be away from one bait site to another. You can still have a truckload of apples spread out over 2 or 3 acres, you don't think that is still going to draw deer?
Limit it even further and they will just put in a food plot, sure it is more money and more work but they will just charge more for the hunt.
You don't impose a statewide rule to try to get a few individuals to act the way you want them to. They are going to find a way to get around the rules.
I may be way off but seems to me the easiest solution to this would just outlaw baiting for commercial hunts/outfitter hunts? I have been on several guided hunts and none involved bait. I would never dream of paying money to go hunt over a bait pile, but would have no problem hunting over bait I put out.
Never happen, thats too logical
Post by: Hunting7mm on March 21, 2016, 06:08:32 PM
Well to be fair they called hunters and got a lot saying to ban it, more than 50% for deer and higher for Elk.
I never got a call....
Post by: Bango skank on March 21, 2016, 06:19:52 PM
Well to be fair they called hunters and got a lot saying to ban it, more than 50% for deer and higher for Elk.
I never got a call....
I did not get called, nobody i know got called, and i havent seen anybody on this forum say they got called
Post by: buckfvr on March 21, 2016, 06:23:53 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 21, 2016, 07:04:36 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_16_summary.pdf
You'll notice the proposed WAC that placed a limit on the amount of bait had a limit of 30 gallons. It had previously been 10 gallons, but they revised it to 30 gallons due to input received at the March meeting, which was in Moses Lake, just as it is was this year.
I'm wondering why they didn't keep it at 30 gallons? Since they changed it back to the originally proposed 10 gallons, does that mean this is the option they're going to pick?
Also of interest might be the presentation from last year's meeting:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_16_presentation.pdf
Post by: Rainier10 on March 22, 2016, 11:47:08 AM
Post by: predatorpro on March 22, 2016, 11:52:54 AM
Post by: bear hunter on March 22, 2016, 11:59:03 AM
Why don't we just make hunting illegal in one go instead of doing it slowly?
Post by: emac on March 22, 2016, 12:10:57 PM
Why don't we just make hunting illegal in one go instead of doing it slowly?Because the anti's wouldn't have anything to do. They want to just keep chipping away so it's a slow painful death.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 22, 2016, 12:13:56 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 22, 2016, 12:17:57 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 22, 2016, 12:19:11 PM
Why don't we just make hunting illegal in one go instead of doing it slowly?Because the anti's wouldn't have anything to do. They want to just keep chipping away so it's a slow painful death.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
The state barely gives us enough of a season to keep buying tags. I almost wish I wouldn't have started buying special permits, might opt out this year and cut my losses.
Post by: Rainier10 on March 22, 2016, 12:22:58 PM
Why don't we just make hunting illegal in one go instead of doing it slowly?Because this is way more fun, it is like a game of Jenga where you keep pulling out a piece at a time and see if stays standing.
Or even better yet, it reminds me of office space where all the guy wants is his red stapler but his cubicle just keeps getting smaller and smaller until he snaps and somehow the office catches on fire.
Post by: grundy53 on March 22, 2016, 01:53:20 PM
No one called me or anyone I know or anyone they know...............Same here
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on March 23, 2016, 10:54:54 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/03/audio_mar1816.html
Post by: Rainier10 on March 23, 2016, 11:05:15 AM
Audio transcripts are now available from the March 18th Moses Lake meeting:Wow, biggest file on there is for the baiting section. I will have to listen to it when I get home tonight.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/03/audio_mar1816.html
Thanks for posting the link. :tup:
Post by: Bushcraft on March 23, 2016, 01:10:39 PM
Audio transcripts are now available from the March 18th Moses Lake meeting:Wow, biggest file on there is for the baiting section. I will have to listen to it when I get home tonight.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/03/audio_mar1816.html
Thanks for posting the link. :tup:
Ditto...thanks! I don't get to make it to all the meetings.
Post by: Rainier10 on March 31, 2016, 12:24:20 PM
I know this has once again been a debated topic. As you approach the final meeting and make your decision for this upcoming year I want to restate my position that I think there is a place for baiting and none of the options on the table are as viable as waiting one more year to come up with a plan to focus on the one or two problem areas versus making a broad ruling that affects all hunters and GMU's statewide.
As a hunter education instructor I see that there is a place and time to use this tool for new hunters. As a master hunter I see this as a great tool to position animals away from sensitive property owners and still harvest the animal so that there isn't a surplus of animals thus creating a better habitat for those that remain.
I understand that there is an issue that you are receiving complaints about but to ban baiting or restrict it statewide seems like going after a mouse with an elephant gun.
I would think a plan for next year could be to restrict baiting in the one or two GMU's that are receiving the complaints during the late season only. Kind of like a firearm restriction area.
Thanks for your time,
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 31, 2016, 12:37:34 PM
Why don't we just make hunting illegal in one go instead of doing it slowly?
That's why we have the wolves. It'll be banned soon enough.
Post by: WARHORSE on March 31, 2016, 12:47:10 PM
Just sent this to the commission. They are meeting next weekend to make their final decisions. I will be replanting trees in the Snag Canyon burn area and won't be able to attend the meeting.
I know this has once again been a debated topic. As you approach the final meeting and make your decision for this upcoming year I want to restate my position that I think there is a place for baiting and none of the options on the table are as viable as waiting one more year to come up with a plan to focus on the one or two problem areas versus making a broad ruling that affects all hunters and GMU's statewide.
As a hunter education instructor I see that there is a place and time to use this tool for new hunters. As a master hunter I see this as a great tool to position animals away from sensitive property owners and still harvest the animal so that there isn't a surplus of animals thus creating a better habitat for those that remain.
I understand that there is an issue that you are receiving complaints about but to ban baiting or restrict it statewide seems like going after a mouse with an elephant gun.
I would think a plan for next year could be to restrict baiting in the one or two GMU's that are receiving the complaints during the late season only. Kind of like a firearm restriction area.
Thanks for your time,
[/quo
Iam glad you can admit that baiting does draw animals off other property that maybe someone can hunt. Just because you cant hunt it doesnt mean others cant. Lots of people cant admit that.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 31, 2016, 12:58:36 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 31, 2016, 01:03:00 PM
Post by: WARHORSE on March 31, 2016, 01:08:37 PM
Post by: Curly on March 31, 2016, 01:14:33 PM
I could be completely wrong though. Just what I've always figured. :twocents:
Post by: LabChamp on March 31, 2016, 01:17:17 PM
THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS ABOUT BAITING COME FROM ROAD HUNTERS NOT WILLING TO GET AWAY FROM THE CROWDS AND JEALOUS OF PRIVATE LAND BEING TIED UP BY GUIDES OR LEASES PERIOD.
They see all the deer on private property, Aand get jealous. And of course they were hunting ethically on public ground, and not trespassing LOL how else would they know where the bait piles were and how many animals were on it?
Our grandfathers would kick our ass for being such a whiney group of outdoorsman and ashamed we are taking our own rights away to hunt one at a time. How pissed off would you be if some guy hunting in your area wanted to outlaw the way your grandfather tought you how to hunt on your own land? With the only reasoning just bc he was jealous of the animals on your property? This gets much too far into the my way is much better than yours and you should have to do it like me or Im gonna go pout until I get some sympathy. Whatever happened to strapping up, putting in your big boy shorts, realize that there are many more people just like you that have to work harder every year to keep on good animals, and start getting to work on a plan to make YOUR OWN hunting area just as successful as the ones you're complaining about. My good god people these days think that everyone else's business is their own and it's their right to tell others how they should live on a daily basis and call the cops/government about it if they don't get their way. Truly sad Era we are moving into...ENTITLEMENT
Post by: predatorpro on March 31, 2016, 01:59:44 PM
This last comment gets me. "Well he baits on that property and draws all the animals off of where I hunt. Cry me a river and either start DOING something about or quit whinning.:yeah: I agree....Its amazing to watch hunters dig their own holes...we should be fighting to have baiting bears come back and hounds allowed again...not taking more hunting away...
THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS ABOUT BAITING COME FROM ROAD HUNTERS NOT WILLING TO GET AWAY FROM THE CROWDS AND JEALOUS OF PRIVATE LAND BEING TIED UP BY GUIDES OR LEASES PERIOD.
They see all the deer on private property, Aand get jealous. And of course they were hunting ethically on public ground, and not trespassing LOL how else would they know where the bait piles were and how many animals were on it?
Our grandfathers would kick our ass for being such a whiney group of outdoorsman and ashamed we are taking our own rights away to hunt one at a time. How pissed off would you be if some guy hunting in your area wanted to outlaw the way your grandfather tought you how to hunt on your own land? With the only reasoning just bc he was jealous of the animals on your property? This gets much too far into the my way is much better than yours and you should have to do it like me or Im gonna go pout until I get some sympathy. Whatever happened to strapping up, putting in your big boy shorts, realize that there are many more people just like you that have to work harder every year to keep on good animals, and start getting to work on a plan to make YOUR OWN hunting area just as successful as the ones you're complaining about. My good god people these days think that everyone else's business is their own and it's their right to tell others how they should live on a daily basis and call the cops/government about it if they don't get their way. Truly sad Era we are moving into...ENTITLEMENT
Post by: emac on March 31, 2016, 02:32:34 PM
This last comment gets me. "Well he baits on that property and draws all the animals off of where I hunt. Cry me a river and either start DOING something about or quit whinning.Well said know if everyone could have common sense we would be much better off.
THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS ABOUT BAITING COME FROM ROAD HUNTERS NOT WILLING TO GET AWAY FROM THE CROWDS AND JEALOUS OF PRIVATE LAND BEING TIED UP BY GUIDES OR LEASES PERIOD.
They see all the deer on private property, Aand get jealous. And of course they were hunting ethically on public ground, and not trespassing LOL how else would they know where the bait piles were and how many animals were on it?
Our grandfathers would kick our ass for being such a whiney group of outdoorsman and ashamed we are taking our own rights away to hunt one at a time. How pissed off would you be if some guy hunting in your area wanted to outlaw the way your grandfather tought you how to hunt on your own land? With the only reasoning just bc he was jealous of the animals on your property? This gets much too far into the my way is much better than yours and you should have to do it like me or Im gonna go pout until I get some sympathy. Whatever happened to strapping up, putting in your big boy shorts, realize that there are many more people just like you that have to work harder every year to keep on good animals, and start getting to work on a plan to make YOUR OWN hunting area just as successful as the ones you're complaining about. My good god people these days think that everyone else's business is their own and it's their right to tell others how they should live on a daily basis and call the cops/government about it if they don't get their way. Truly sad Era we are moving into...ENTITLEMENT
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: WARHORSE on March 31, 2016, 03:16:56 PM
This last comment gets me. "Well he baits on that property and draws all the animals off of where I hunt. Cry me a river and either start DOING something about or quit whinning.Well said know if everyone could have common sense we would be much better off.
THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS ABOUT BAITING COME FROM ROAD HUNTERS NOT WILLING TO GET AWAY FROM THE CROWDS AND JEALOUS OF PRIVATE LAND BEING TIED UP BY GUIDES OR LEASES PERIOD.
They see all the deer on private property, Aand get jealous. And of course they were hunting ethically on public ground, and not trespassing LOL how else would they know where the bait piles were and how many animals were on it?
Our grandfathers would kick our ass for being such a whiney group of outdoorsman and ashamed we are taking our own rights away to hunt one at a time. How pissed off would you be if some guy hunting in your area wanted to outlaw the way your grandfather tought you how to hunt on your own land? With the only reasoning just bc he was jealous of the animals on your property? This gets much too far into the my way is much better than yours and you should have to do it like me or Im gonna go pout until I get some sympathy. Whatever happened to strapping up, putting in your big boy shorts, realize that there are many more people just like you that have to work harder every year to keep on good animals, and start getting to work on a plan to make YOUR OWN hunting area just as successful as the ones you're complaining about. My good god people these days think that everyone else's business is their own and it's their right to tell others how they should live on a daily basis and call the cops/government about it if they don't get their way. Truly sad Era we are moving into...ENTITLEMENT
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Are you f*&%&N kidding me??? Common sense tells me that Baiting is killing 75-100 of our mature bucks in November in two small GMUs. Thats just the guides. That doesn't include the bucks killed off bait by the average joe that dumps bin upon bin of apples or the guys road hunting or the guys spot and stalking. you can not tell me that is healthy for our herd. Iam a hunter just like you but I want to have something to hunt for years to come. I want my kids to have something to hunt. The three point or better law is awesome and has done wonders for the mature buck numbers. Baiting is just killing them off. I can promise you that many bucks would not be killed in November archery seasons if it wasn't for baiting. No iam not jealous of the guy that kills a 200 incher over bait. Bait hunting is not my thing.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 31, 2016, 03:40:47 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on March 31, 2016, 04:00:02 PM
I did quick search of the latest harvest reports and found four GMU's with 100 or more total archery buck kills. 101 had 168 archery kills all year and 549 modern, 117 had 127 archery kills and 760 modern, 121 had 112 archery and 1189 modern and 124 had 459 archery and 1991 modern. Looks like modern are taking way more deer than archery and the success rate seems to be similar per hunter if not tipped in the favor of modern.
I am just not seeing the record to prove that an overwhelming amount of deer are being taken with archery equipment in any unit compared to the other methods.
Normally if there is they adjust season dates.
Since I haven't seen a major reduction in hunting dates or permits my guess is those two units that have lost that many deer have a surplus of bucks for some reason and can sustain that many deer being taken.
Let me know which two in particular that we are talking about and I will look over harvest rates and see if there was a big jump in that unit.
Post by: bobcat on March 31, 2016, 04:01:41 PM
Post by: zike on March 31, 2016, 05:02:42 PM
Post by: Eric M on March 31, 2016, 06:00:31 PM
Post by: Brad Harshman on March 31, 2016, 07:07:32 PM
1. The bait being used (apples) is not healthy for the mule deer in the winter. They equate apples to snicker bars. Would you let your child eat candy bars all winter long???
2. The mass baiting (semi truck loads of apples) is potentially changing migration routes of the mule deer. Now, no research has been conducted yet - because it's time consuming and expensive. But if it is changing migration routes, and it's if that's bad thing, what should WDFW do?
Believe it or not - I am pro baiting. And like EVERYONE else I'm against mismanagement of our natural resources.
What options, suggestions do any of you have that would be inexpensive and easily enforceable to resolve the two issues listed above?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 31, 2016, 07:17:38 PM
I think too many on here are missing the point! It's not about rights. It's about herd management. Professionals are concerned for two reasons:if those issues are actually issues it needs to be shown on a biological level. If that is shown then I wouldn't have any issue with enacting rules to limit the damage. But a knee jerk reaction on people's opinions and crying is not the right answer. It can be as simple as limiting bait in areas of mule deer migration after November 15. Doesn't need to be a statewide deal. :twocents:
1. The bait being used (apples) is not healthy for the mule deer in the winter. They equate apples to snicker bars. Would you let your child eat candy bars all winter long???
2. The mass baiting (semi truck loads of apples) is potentially changing migration routes of the mule deer. Now, no research has been conducted yet - because it's time consuming and expensive. But if it is changing migration routes, and it's if that's bad thing, what should WDFW do?
Believe it or not - I am pro baiting. And like EVERYONE else I'm against mismanagement of our natural resources.
What options, suggestions do any of you have that would be inexpensive and easily enforceable to resolve the two issues listed above?
Post by: Eric M on March 31, 2016, 07:19:43 PM
I think too many on here are missing the point! It's not about rights. It's about herd management. Professionals are concerned for two reasons:I can't speak for everyone, but personally I am for herd management. I think most hunters want the species to continue to thrive and live on for their kids etc.. I didn't read this as just mule deer. I thought it was for deer and elk. I thought my earlier suggestion, where you limit it by GMU or horn size or something like what they already do for GMU's. And maybe mule deer shouldn't be baited. I'm not a biologist. But to say it's not about rights? I think it absolutely is.
1. The bait being used (apples) is not healthy for the mule deer in the winter. They equate apples to snicker bars. Would you let your child eat candy bars all winter long???
2. The mass baiting (semi truck loads of apples) is potentially changing migration routes of the mule deer. Now, no research has been conducted yet - because it's time consuming and expensive. But if it is changing migration routes, and it's if that's bad thing, what should WDFW do?
Believe it or not - I am pro baiting. And like EVERYONE else I'm against mismanagement of our natural resources.
What options, suggestions do any of you have that would be inexpensive and easily enforceable to resolve the two issues listed above?
Post by: emac on March 31, 2016, 08:59:53 PM
Common sense "in the sense of supporting all methods of hunting" which clearly you don't do and you would rather draw the line in the sand because your way is probably the right way. I support all hunters no matter what there desired way of hunting is as long as it is legal and ethical. Which baiting is. It might not be for you but you should support it as a hunter.This last comment gets me. "Well he baits on that property and draws all the animals off of where I hunt. Cry me a river and either start DOING something about or quit whinning.Well said know if everyone could have common sense we would be much better off.
THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS ABOUT BAITING COME FROM ROAD HUNTERS NOT WILLING TO GET AWAY FROM THE CROWDS AND JEALOUS OF PRIVATE LAND BEING TIED UP BY GUIDES OR LEASES PERIOD.
They see all the deer on private property, Aand get jealous. And of course they were hunting ethically on public ground, and not trespassing LOL how else would they know where the bait piles were and how many animals were on it?
Our grandfathers would kick our ass for being such a whiney group of outdoorsman and ashamed we are taking our own rights away to hunt one at a time. How pissed off would you be if some guy hunting in your area wanted to outlaw the way your grandfather tought you how to hunt on your own land? With the only reasoning just bc he was jealous of the animals on your property? This gets much too far into the my way is much better than yours and you should have to do it like me or Im gonna go pout until I get some sympathy. Whatever happened to strapping up, putting in your big boy shorts, realize that there are many more people just like you that have to work harder every year to keep on good animals, and start getting to work on a plan to make YOUR OWN hunting area just as successful as the ones you're complaining about. My good god people these days think that everyone else's business is their own and it's their right to tell others how they should live on a daily basis and call the cops/government about it if they don't get their way. Truly sad Era we are moving into...ENTITLEMENT
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Are you f*&%&N kidding me??? Common sense tells me that Baiting is killing 75-100 of our mature bucks in November in two small GMUs. Thats just the guides. That doesn't include the bucks killed off bait by the average joe that dumps bin upon bin of apples or the guys road hunting or the guys spot and stalking. you can not tell me that is healthy for our herd. Iam a hunter just like you but I want to have something to hunt for years to come. I want my kids to have something to hunt. The three point or better law is awesome and has done wonders for the mature buck numbers. Baiting is just killing them off. I can promise you that many bucks would not be killed in November archery seasons if it wasn't for baiting. No iam not jealous of the guy that kills a 200 incher over bait. Bait hunting is not my thing.
Baiting isn't as easy as people think or want you to believe. Last year I had my first opportunity to bait. I started baiting in June, had 11 trail cameras up hoping I would catch a good buck for my first archery deer. I spent countless hours hiking to those cams with 50 lbs of grain on my back. Finally I got two bucks on my hit list. I picked the bigger one set up a ground blind a month before the season. Opening day comes go to the blind see him walk by at 150 yards and that was the last time to see him during daylight. I got plenty of pics of him at night but not during the day. I spent 20+ days in that blind hoping. So it's not as easy as people think.
The buck I ended up getting on opening day of Muzzy season we had on cam but had disappeared for a month and a half. I spotted him opening morning watched him on a hillside all day finally made a 2 mile stock on him and shot him at 15 yards with my Muzzy. It was awesome.
But I still enjoyed baiting and all the time and effort I put into it. Even though I didn't get the buck I was initially after it felt like I was hunting 3 months before the season ever started.
So have some "common sense" and think about all hunters not just the way you think it should be done.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: WARHORSE on March 31, 2016, 09:26:05 PM
Post by: predatorpro on March 31, 2016, 09:40:13 PM
Post by: emac on March 31, 2016, 09:53:05 PM
Well I think compound bows are too advanced now and seasons are too long...modern rifles shoot too far and arent fair to animals and muzzleloaders should only be able to shoot roundballs...I also think that if you see an animal from the road you have to wait 24 hours before pursuing it...I see some has the "common sense".
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: emac on March 31, 2016, 09:57:33 PM
as stated I am thinking of all hunters and especially the future of hunting. I could care less about baiting in September its not that effective. I could care less about baiting black tail or white tail its not that effective. I do care about the mule deer herds and the effect baiting is having on them. If its not black and white in the rules how will it ever be enforced? Common sense :tup:So you wanna get rid of baiting all together for one species at one time of year. So punish all hunters for the select few. I keep hearing that this is an issue because of outfitters in the okanagoon/methow areas. Well maybe they should address that issue instead of going after all hunters
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: predatorpro on March 31, 2016, 10:16:24 PM
I hoped you sensed the sarcasm! Lol...Im curious to see what will be next...I bet it's hunting coyotes at night or with electronic calls...Well I think compound bows are too advanced now and seasons are too long...modern rifles shoot too far and arent fair to animals and muzzleloaders should only be able to shoot roundballs...I also think that if you see an animal from the road you have to wait 24 hours before pursuing it...I see some has the "common sense".
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: Britt-dog on March 31, 2016, 10:17:05 PM
Can someone give me the GMU numbers that we are talking about.
I did quick search of the latest harvest reports and found four GMU's with 100 or more total archery buck kills. 101 had 168 archery kills all year and 549 modern, 117 had 127 archery kills and 760 modern, 121 had 112 archery and 1189 modern and 124 had 459 archery and 1991 modern. Looks like modern are taking way more deer than archery and the success rate seems to be similar per hunter if not tipped in the favor of modern.
I am just not seeing the record to prove that an overwhelming amount of deer are being taken with archery equipment in any unit compared to the other methods.
Normally if there is they adjust season dates.
Since I haven't seen a major reduction in hunting dates or permits my guess is those two units that have lost that many deer have a surplus of bucks for some reason and can sustain that many deer being taken.
Let me know which two in particular that we are talking about and I will look over harvest rates and see if there was a big jump in that unit.
Get out of here with your facts and logic. We are being told that common sense (speculation) tells us that all the mature deer are being killed over bait during the late archery season. are you not listening?
Post by: jasnt on March 31, 2016, 10:19:47 PM
:yeah:as stated I am thinking of all hunters and especially the future of hunting. I could care less about baiting in September its not that effective. I could care less about baiting black tail or white tail its not that effective. I do care about the mule deer herds and the effect baiting is having on them. If its not black and white in the rules how will it ever be enforced? Common sense :tup:So you wanna get rid of baiting all together for one species at one time of year. So punish all hunters for the select few. I keep hearing that this is an issue because of outfitters in the okanagoon/methow areas. Well maybe they should address that issue instead of going after all hunters
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Address the issue at its root. Why not restrict commercial baiting in those gmu' during that time frame. Why does it always have to be a few that ruin it for many?
Post by: predatorpro on March 31, 2016, 10:23:57 PM
:chuckle:Can someone give me the GMU numbers that we are talking about.
I did quick search of the latest harvest reports and found four GMU's with 100 or more total archery buck kills. 101 had 168 archery kills all year and 549 modern, 117 had 127 archery kills and 760 modern, 121 had 112 archery and 1189 modern and 124 had 459 archery and 1991 modern. Looks like modern are taking way more deer than archery and the success rate seems to be similar per hunter if not tipped in the favor of modern.
I am just not seeing the record to prove that an overwhelming amount of deer are being taken with archery equipment in any unit compared to the other methods.
Normally if there is they adjust season dates.
Since I haven't seen a major reduction in hunting dates or permits my guess is those two units that have lost that many deer have a surplus of bucks for some reason and can sustain that many deer being taken.
Let me know which two in particular that we are talking about and I will look over harvest rates and see if there was a big jump in that unit.
Get out of here with your facts and logic. We are being told that common sense (speculation) tells us that all the mature deer are being killed over bait during the late archery season. are you not listening?
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 05:48:55 AM
This last comment gets me. "Well he baits on that property and draws all the animals off of where I hunt. Cry me a river and either start DOING something about or quit whinning.Well said know if everyone could have common sense we would be much better off.
THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS ABOUT BAITING COME FROM ROAD HUNTERS NOT WILLING TO GET AWAY FROM THE CROWDS AND JEALOUS OF PRIVATE LAND BEING TIED UP BY GUIDES OR LEASES PERIOD.
They see all the deer on private property, Aand get jealous. And of course they were hunting ethically on public ground, and not trespassing LOL how else would they know where the bait piles were and how many animals were on it?
Our grandfathers would kick our ass for being such a whiney group of outdoorsman and ashamed we are taking our own rights away to hunt one at a time. How pissed off would you be if some guy hunting in your area wanted to outlaw the way your grandfather tought you how to hunt on your own land? With the only reasoning just bc he was jealous of the animals on your property? This gets much too far into the my way is much better than yours and you should have to do it like me or Im gonna go pout until I get some sympathy. Whatever happened to strapping up, putting in your big boy shorts, realize that there are many more people just like you that have to work harder every year to keep on good animals, and start getting to work on a plan to make YOUR OWN hunting area just as successful as the ones you're complaining about. My good god people these days think that everyone else's business is their own and it's their right to tell others how they should live on a daily basis and call the cops/government about it if they don't get their way. Truly sad Era we are moving into...ENTITLEMENT
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Are you f*&%&N kidding me??? Common sense tells me that Baiting is killing 75-100 of our mature bucks in November in two small GMUs. Thats just the guides. That doesn't include the bucks killed off bait by the average joe that dumps bin upon bin of apples or the guys road hunting or the guys spot and stalking. you can not tell me that is healthy for our herd. Iam a hunter just like you but I want to have something to hunt for years to come. I want my kids to have something to hunt. The three point or better law is awesome and has done wonders for the mature buck numbers. Baiting is just killing them off. I can promise you that many bucks would not be killed in November archery seasons if it wasn't for baiting. No iam not jealous of the guy that kills a 200 incher over bait. Bait hunting is not my thing.
If you can provide a reliable source that put together statistical analysis and proof that this statement is FACT I'll listen. BUT, the real FACT is that there are NOT any facts involved to back up your statement. Just a self perceived guess with no data to back it up. THIS IS THE PROBLEM People making up their minds on important issues based on their "feelings" instead of game management FACTS.
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 06:11:17 AM
I think too many on here are missing the point! It's not about rights. It's about herd management. Professionals are concerned for two reasons:
1. The bait being used (apples) is not healthy for the mule deer in the winter. They equate apples to snicker bars. Would you let your child eat candy bars all winter long???
2. The mass baiting (semi truck loads of apples) is potentially changing migration routes of the mule deer. Now, no research has been conducted yet - because it's time consuming and expensive. But if it is changing migration routes, and it's if that's bad thing, what should WDFW do?
Believe it or not - I am pro baiting. And like EVERYONE else I'm against mismanagement of our natural resources.
What options, suggestions do any of you have that would be inexpensive and easily enforceable to resolve the two issues listed above?
I can see a good point in not feeding them "candy bars" aka apples all winter long for health reason. However, even your statement here is faulty. Baiting with apples isn't continued all winter long. It's normally done after November unless some one wants photo ops.
In all actuality the early, before December, sugar (carbohydrates) intake can help animals put on fat/weight faster in addition to their normal diet. It's not like all they eat is apples even if they are close to a bait pile.
BTW if this is targeting just apple use as bait, check out these FACTS I dug up from Pennsylvania Game Commission studies:
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 06:18:28 AM
I think too many on here are missing the point! It's not about rights. It's about herd management. Professionals are concerned for two reasons:I can't speak for everyone, but personally I am for herd management. I think most hunters want the species to continue to thrive and live on for their kids etc.. I didn't read this as just mule deer. I thought it was for deer and elk. I thought my earlier suggestion, where you limit it by GMU or horn size or something like what they already do for GMU's. And maybe mule deer shouldn't be baited. I'm not a biologist. But to say it's not about rights? I think it absolutely is.
1. The bait being used (apples) is not healthy for the mule deer in the winter. They equate apples to snicker bars. Would you let your child eat candy bars all winter long???
2. The mass baiting (semi truck loads of apples) is potentially changing migration routes of the mule deer. Now, no research has been conducted yet - because it's time consuming and expensive. But if it is changing migration routes, and it's if that's bad thing, what should WDFW do?
Believe it or not - I am pro baiting. And like EVERYONE else I'm against mismanagement of our natural resources.
What options, suggestions do any of you have that would be inexpensive and easily enforceable to resolve the two issues listed above?
It has been repeated by many wildlife officials that horn size does not dictate the population, health, or longevity of a deer heard. Offspring from spike bucks are just as healthy as offspring from "mature" deer. Fact is hunters want as many mature deer as possible to shoot. Sure I know that's not what everyone wants to hear BUT the real numbers that matter are the buck to doe RATIOS not the antler gear they carry on their head. This reflects nothing more than the nutritional intake during their antler growning season for that specific year.
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 06:22:30 AM
as stated I am thinking of all hunters and especially the future of hunting. I could care less about baiting in September its not that effective. I could care less about baiting black tail or white tail its not that effective. I do care about the mule deer herds and the effect baiting is having on them. If its not black and white in the rules how will it ever be enforced? Common sense :tup:
Then please by all means show us FACTUAL data supporting your claim in a state that has recently banned baiting so we can all have an accurate model to base our opinions off of. Anything else is just fluffing pillows to make yourself sleep better while taking away hunting privileges from others
Post by: Eric M on April 01, 2016, 06:46:02 AM
[/quote]
You quoted my post, maybe because I mentioned the 3 point or better thing. I was only using that as an example of what is already in the regs and I was just trying to say something along tose lines could just as easily be written into the regs each year for baiting. I can only say that while baiting MIGHT be better regulated, I am against taking anything away from hunters. If the science is there, and I don't know that it is, then someone smarter than me could look at an area and say baiting won't cause a problem in GMU (fill in blank) but in this GMU it's causing problems because of reason X. The same as is already done. The herds are being managed now. How well is another debate, but making it illegal to bait? Where does it end? If I set up where apples have fallen from a tree is that going to be illegal? Deer eat apples. Other deer hang around farm fields. Will it be illegal to shoot a deer coming or leaving from a field? While I think everyone on here is well intentioned, I don't think outlawing all baiting for all deer and elk is the answer. Maybe it is adversely affecting one species. So the answer is to outlaw all baiting? Regulation /management is one thing-but an outright ban? And once it's gone, in this state it's gone for good.
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 07:11:22 AM
Post by: WARHORSE on April 01, 2016, 07:31:24 AM
as stated I am thinking of all hunters and especially the future of hunting. I could care less about baiting in September its not that effective. I could care less about baiting black tail or white tail its not that effective. I do care about the mule deer herds and the effect baiting is having on them. If its not black and white in the rules how will it ever be enforced? Common sense :tup:
Then please by all means show us FACTUAL data supporting your claim in a state that has recently banned baiting so we can all have an accurate model to base our opinions off of. Anything else is just fluffing pillows to make yourself sleep better while taking away hunting privileges from others
Haha yea well its not my job to gather numbers and data from other states. Thats the problem with this state we all depend on numbers and data collected by someone who really has no clue but can crunch numbers. Take a look at the guides websites and the guality of the bucks and tell me they arnt changing things in these areas
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 07:37:48 AM
Haha yea well its not my job to gather numbers and data from other states. Thats the problem with this state we all depend on numbers and data collected by someone who really has no clue but can crunch numbers. Take a look at the guides websites and the guality of the bucks and tell me they arnt changing things in these areas
Your duck and weave approach to providing facts is laughable. Your laziness in WANTING to find facts is just another showing of WHY we shouldn't be allowing this to happen. We know we are all in trouble when people want to make law based off their thoughts and feelings instead of cold hard fact
Post by: buglebrush on April 01, 2016, 07:44:46 AM
as stated I am thinking of all hunters and especially the future of hunting. I could care less about baiting in September its not that effective. I could care less about baiting black tail or white tail its not that effective. I do care about the mule deer herds and the effect baiting is having on them. If its not black and white in the rules how will it ever be enforced? Common sense :tup:
Then please by all means show us FACTUAL data supporting your claim in a state that has recently banned baiting so we can all have an accurate model to base our opinions off of. Anything else is just fluffing pillows to make yourself sleep better while taking away hunting privileges from others
Haha yea well its not my job to gather numbers and data from other states. Thats the problem with this state we all depend on numbers and data collected by someone who really has no clue but can crunch numbers. Take a look at the guides websites and the guality of the bucks and tell me they arnt changing things in these areas
Jealous? :dunno:
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 07:51:40 AM
as stated I am thinking of all hunters and especially the future of hunting. I could care less about baiting in September its not that effective. I could care less about baiting black tail or white tail its not that effective. I do care about the mule deer herds and the effect baiting is having on them. If its not black and white in the rules how will it ever be enforced? Common sense :tup:
Then please by all means show us FACTUAL data supporting your claim in a state that has recently banned baiting so we can all have an accurate model to base our opinions off of. Anything else is just fluffing pillows to make yourself sleep better while taking away hunting privileges from others
Haha yea well its not my job to gather numbers and data from other states. Thats the problem with this state we all depend on numbers and data collected by someone who really has no clue but can crunch numbers. Take a look at the guides websites and the guality of the bucks and tell me they arnt changing things in these areas
Jealous? :dunno:
He sure is transparent about wanting big deer but I haven't seen him post about how hard he works to get into his hunting spot, or trail cams he set up, or scouting he did while death marching 5 miles off the road lol
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 07:57:20 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on April 01, 2016, 08:40:21 AM
Post by: WARHORSE on April 01, 2016, 08:59:48 AM
as stated I am thinking of all hunters and especially the future of hunting. I could care less about baiting in September its not that effective. I could care less about baiting black tail or white tail its not that effective. I do care about the mule deer herds and the effect baiting is having on them. If its not black and white in the rules how will it ever be enforced? Common sense :tup:
Then please by all means show us FACTUAL data supporting your claim in a state that has recently banned baiting so we can all have an accurate model to base our opinions off of. Anything else is just fluffing pillows to make yourself sleep better while taking away hunting privileges from others
Haha yea well its not my job to gather numbers and data from other states. Thats the problem with this state we all depend on numbers and data collected by someone who really has no clue but can crunch numbers. Take a look at the guides websites and the guality of the bucks and tell me they arnt changing things in these areas
Jealous? :dunno:
Jealous?? Absolutly not! But hell you guys are right i dont know anything because i dont spend all my time behind a desk producing miles of paperwork to show the effects of baiting on our deer herds in my local areas. Speaking of which iam done with this. You go sit on your bait piles i will go bust my ass and enjoy the outdoors.
Gone camping
Post by: bobcat on April 01, 2016, 09:13:51 AM
Take the hoof rot issue with elk, they received a lot of criticism for not addressing the issue soon enough, well deserved criticism, IMO. Now this baiting issue was brought to their attention (by hunters) and people are griping because they're actually addressing the issue and trying to find a solution? Next week when the fish and wildlife commission makes their decision, you can blame the commissioners if you don't agree with the way they vote.
Also, remember, there are many states where baiting is illegal, I believe it's illegal in more states than not. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are a few of those states. And also realize, that a ban on baiting, just like many of the other hunting regulations we have, are not based on science.
I'm hoping they go with the 10 gallon limit, because I do enjoy baiting, even if it's just to get animals in front of my cameras. The 10 gallon limit won't affect me, and it shouldn't affect the majority of the people who hunt deer and elk with the use of bait.
Post by: LabChamp on April 01, 2016, 09:22:11 AM
Lab - you want the factual data, info, or other concerns, then you should attend the meetings that are open to the public. There's been some big concerns and the issues were presented. No sense bitching at guys on here. You should be spending your time writing letters to WDFW or attending meetings like I have. It seems quite a few locals here have really noticed some problems and issues concerning our muley herd and we've expressed our concerns to help our herd. Nobody I associate with has supported an outright ban or any statewide baiting restrictions.
I'm not a big meeting guy to be honest. My time has been spent well on this issue. I for one, my wife as well, have sent multiple letters, called the WDFW and even spoke in person with Biologists, along with seeing the first hand effects of baiting vs non baiting on the land we hunt. Honestly, since we have started managing our land for better deer habit, we have seen more and better deer every year in the area we are hunting which is open to the late archery hunt as well. During this time we have seen a HUGE explosion of hunters taking interest in the late season archery mule deer hunt and the number increases every year. You can't expect to have more people and less public land and expect better or even the same hunting. Land can only support so many deer per square acre, period. The WDFW has chosen only these select units for us to utilize and for that I'm great full for any at all. We do hunt on private land and we have so many people hunting around our land the deer naturally get pushed into us with or without bait. Our deer management practices over the last few years have helped keep more deer on the property permanently bc of providing more and better deer habitat and food sources. None of this came without lots of hard work by the landowners and years of doing so. I will add that our area has also seen a huge jump in poaching. We have found multiple deer we have on cam with heads cut off in ditches on our property during summer months and after season. I'm sorry but I don't think that's from coasties coming over and popping bucks for euro mounts. I'm also sorry to point this out but I think there is a much bigger problem with locals in our area poaching than the ones trying to point out or notice. I've just noticed this and the increase of trespassing on our property on a much more normal basis than let's say even 10 years back.
Post by: Wacenturion on April 01, 2016, 09:58:25 AM
I dont think dwfw knows why they do most things how am i supposed to know why they do things. :dunno:
You're probably more right than wrong. WDFW has a history of management by influences rather than based on science and management principals. In fact in many cases there is a lack of management outside of the phoney planning process, which in most cases never gets implemented.
Post by: tonymiller7 on April 08, 2016, 06:58:26 AM
Post by: predatorpro on April 08, 2016, 07:15:42 AM
Post by: tonymiller7 on April 08, 2016, 08:05:47 AM
Post by: et1702 on April 08, 2016, 08:17:29 AM
We do...the WDFW
:yeah:
Post by: predatorpro on April 08, 2016, 08:27:02 AM
We do...the WDFW:chuckle: good point!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 08, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on April 08, 2016, 10:35:33 PM
We do...the WDFW
:chuckle: :bash:
Post by: huntingfool7 on April 09, 2016, 05:11:30 AM
:yeah: That and they are hard wired to constantly dink with the rules. Too many paper pushers sitting in too many meetings looking at each other.I dont think dwfw knows why they do most things how am i supposed to know why they do things. :dunno:
You're probably more right than wrong. WDFW has a history of management by influences rather than based on science and management principals. In fact in many cases there is a lack of management outside of the phoney planning process, which in most cases never gets implemented.
There is no good reason to make rule changes every year. If they need to do so for job security, their jobs shouldn't be secure.
Post by: Axle on April 09, 2016, 06:55:54 AM
Looks like they limited baiting to 10 gallons and allowed for the pick up and use of road kill deer and elk.
So - can they be picked up out of season and without a tag now?
A young woman hit one in front of me a few months back (doe actually ran into the side of her car). I stopped to help her out and look at her car. The doe bought the farm in the middle of the road after kicking for a while.
The young woman begged me to put the deer down but that's not quite legal in town.
Sure was tempting to haul it home but I couldn't. I drug it off to the side.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on April 09, 2016, 08:11:10 AM
Looks like they limited baiting to 10 gallons and allowed for the pick up and use of road kill deer and elk.
So - can they be picked up out of season and without a tag now?
A young woman hit one in front of me a few months back (doe actually ran into the side of her car). I stopped to help her out and look at her car. The doe bought the farm in the middle of the road after kicking for a while.
The young woman begged me to put the deer down but that's not quite legal in town.
Sure was tempting to haul it home but I couldn't. I drug it off to the side.
Ya that's a tough one when your watching something suffer and can't do anything. Should be able to Rambo them with a knife at least
Post by: 4fletch on April 09, 2016, 08:55:51 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 09, 2016, 02:46:20 PM
Post by: lokidog on April 09, 2016, 09:41:23 PM
If you ever have to dispatch a wounded wild game animal. Don't let anybody see you. They may conviscate you gun for out of season kill , shooting from a road and whatever else they can get on you
With this new law, they will have to come up with some guidelines for finishing an animal off and reporting criteria. This is probably why it will not be implemented right away. Hopefully they don't do the usual and try to come up with some whacked out scheme on their own. There are plenty of other states where they have successfully implemented this type of thing decades ago, WDFW, should look at these.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 10, 2016, 03:53:55 AM
If you ever have to dispatch a wounded wild game animal. Don't let anybody see you. They may conviscate you gun for out of season kill , shooting from a road and whatever else they can get on you
With this new law, they will have to come up with some guidelines for finishing an animal off and reporting criteria. This is probably why it will not be implemented right away. Hopefully they don't do the usual and try to come up with some whacked out scheme on their own. There are plenty of other states where they have successfully implemented this type of thing decades ago, WDFW, should look at these.
In Alaska, it's normal to have to call in law enforcement to finish off wounded moose in their road kill program. Problems could arise when shooting along roads and within city limits. It can be very frustrating waiting for someone to show up when an animal is suffering.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 06, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on June 06, 2016, 02:09:40 PM
Seems the new rule change for baiting will not make any differance anyways. Deer will still concentrate on private property.Ten gallons of apples or what ever is a quite a bit. If you have private property and want to put out a bunch of bait it just has to be 200yards apart. You can get a lot of bait out if you do a grid of 10 gallon dumps every 600feet.
I think you are right, I am pretty sure this rule isn't going to change anything.