Post by: bigun on November 27, 2015, 08:50:26 AM
Post by: jackmaster on November 27, 2015, 09:31:01 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on November 27, 2015, 09:35:04 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 27, 2015, 10:02:47 AM
Actually, the subject title on this thread is irritating. Why is someone a poacher because uneducated people who shouldn't have anything to say about hunting practices vote with their emotions?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 27, 2015, 11:03:18 AM
The law is BS feel good for emotional voters, but unfortunately it is law. Maybe there will be something to get the case tossed (from my times on jury duty here prosecutors barely even have a pulse it seems) or they will get a lenient judge (Peninsula judges are notoriously soft on things like murder, rape, assault, etc...so possibly bear bait will get laughed out of court). Hopefully they didn't lose any family heirloom rifles over this goofy law.
Post by: BLR 243 on November 27, 2015, 11:09:12 AM
Post by: jackmaster on November 27, 2015, 11:19:32 AM
Post by: Buzz2401 on November 27, 2015, 11:29:38 AM
Post by: jackmaster on November 27, 2015, 03:01:56 PM
It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged. As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote. Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 27, 2015, 03:08:27 PM
It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged. As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote. Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??
It shouldn't be a voting matter to begin with.
Post by: jackmaster on November 27, 2015, 04:19:11 PM
:yeah:It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged. As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote. Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??
It shouldn't be a voting matter to begin with.
Post by: Turner89 on November 27, 2015, 04:27:38 PM
Stupid law.. as long as they only took their one tag worth, who really cares?? People could learn so much watching bear over bait!! No different than baiting a deer or elk is it ???? Baiting bear will also cut down on the amount of sows and cubs being killed... this law is just as dumb as no trapping or no hound hunting!! Thanks alot tree huggers.. sorry got off topic..haha, nope haven't heard a word..:yeah: but to much common sense.
Post by: bigun on November 28, 2015, 08:14:38 AM
I completely agree that going from free for all baiting and hounds to none of either is ridiculous.
As stated above, a little thought into the management of most of our wildlife resources could work wonders in our state.
I was interested to hear if anyone had heard anything of the recent bust, agree or disagree with the law.
I "know a guy that knows the guy", and "the guy" is a tool. It seems the only reason he hunts or fishes is to be able to post pictures on facebook and get "friends" to hunt with him for "trades".
Post by: grundy53 on November 28, 2015, 08:18:55 AM
It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged. As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote. Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??
Because this is America.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on November 28, 2015, 08:19:17 AM
I agreeIt may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged. As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote. Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??
It shouldn't be a voting matter to begin with.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on November 28, 2015, 09:05:27 AM
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm
Near Quinault last fall, officers raided a camp of about a dozen hunters, charging ten of them with bear baiting: Thomas Durham, James Durham, Christina Stannard, John West, Douglas Klamm, John Speleers, Burgess Drake, Craig Stevenson, Cory Johnson and Dale Steinhauer.
The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional.
"What's wrong with it is, it refers to both baiting bears, hunting bears with bait, and also tracking cougars with dogs or hunting cougars with dogs," said defense attorney Linda Callahan. "And that in itself is two subjects, so it violates the rule."
"Well, certainly in Jefferson County, I don't think the prosecutor will file any more cases," said defense attorney John Stanislay. "What it means outside of Jefferson County at this point I'm not sure."
KING 5 asked: "But if you were a defense attorney in a neighboring county with one of these cases, wouldn't you make this argument now?"
"I definitely would make the argument, but I would not advise my client to go hunting with bait," said Stanislay.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.
"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on November 28, 2015, 09:41:32 AM
Another thing is this state creates poachers ...I know some of you will disagree but when you are taking away freedom and mismanaging game , it is going to create more outlaws ..Many are fed up with how things are going ...including myself .. IF these idiots only knew how many bear they would save when baiting they may wake up ...Lots of little bears get shot over mis judging the size . When they are 20 yrds from u on a bait you can decide if its big enough or not ! That's how stupid they are !
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 28, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged. As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote. Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??
Because this is America.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
If they can vote to outlaw hunting with bait, they can vote to outlaw hunting with bows, or with guns, or altogether.
We live in a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. In theory, that protects an individual or a minority from the majority. In practice though it is up to the courts to make that interpretation.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 28, 2015, 10:05:39 AM
"There is precident for them to get away with baiting. Here is an old article:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm
The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional."
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.
"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."
The statement by Bjork is very disappointing. That would indicate that Fish and Wildlife agrees with the law and supports it even though if affects management of bears. If they were against the law in the first place, they would be happy for a court to overturn it in a test case.
To me, this means that Fish and Wildlife is more interested in writing tickets and getting convictions than having reasonable laws concerning hunting. Does Bjork and Fish and Wildlife support initiatives to create other laws concerning hunting? Say, outlawing hunting with bows?
Post by: bobcat on November 28, 2015, 10:44:00 AM
Post by: Man Tracker on November 28, 2015, 11:16:56 AM
That being said, leadership could certainly provide clear direction to field officers....
Post by: jasnt on November 28, 2015, 11:17:24 AM
With that statement it sure does make the WDFW appear to be anti-hunting, period. I agree Sitka , why would they say that? Apparently just to make themselves look good to the majority of people who are non-hunters and think baiting bears is unethical.:yeah:
Post by: bowbuild on November 28, 2015, 11:57:01 AM
There is precident for them to get away with baiting. Here is an old article:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm
Near Quinault last fall, officers raided a camp of about a dozen hunters, charging ten of them with bear baiting: Thomas Durham, James Durham, Christina Stannard, John West, Douglas Klamm, John Speleers, Burgess Drake, Craig Stevenson, Cory Johnson and Dale Steinhauer.
The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional.
"What's wrong with it is, it refers to both baiting bears, hunting bears with bait, and also tracking cougars with dogs or hunting cougars with dogs," said defense attorney Linda Callahan. "And that in itself is two subjects, so it violates the rule."
"Well, certainly in Jefferson County, I don't think the prosecutor will file any more cases," said defense attorney John Stanislay. "What it means outside of Jefferson County at this point I'm not sure."
KING 5 asked: "But if you were a defense attorney in a neighboring county with one of these cases, wouldn't you make this argument now?"
"I definitely would make the argument, but I would not advise my client to go hunting with bait," said Stanislay.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.
"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."
[/quote
They are bummed about the ruling? WTF?
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on November 28, 2015, 01:04:07 PM
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
Post by: grundy53 on November 28, 2015, 01:32:48 PM
It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged. As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote. Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??
Because this is America.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
If they can vote to outlaw hunting with bait, they can vote to outlaw hunting with bows, or with guns, or altogether.
We live in a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. In theory, that protects an individual or a minority from the majority. In practice though it is up to the courts to make that interpretation.
I agree. I hate the fact that we manage by initiative in this state. That being said this is America, and every citizen has the RIGHT to vote. So, as much as I hate the tree huggers ruining hunting I will stand up for their right to vote.
Post by: grundy53 on November 28, 2015, 01:33:50 PM
With that statement it sure does make the WDFW appear to be anti-hunting, period. I agree Sitka , why would they say that? Apparently just to make themselves look good to the majority of people who are non-hunters and think baiting bears is unethical.
:yeah: Just proves who really runs our game department...
Post by: bowbuild on November 28, 2015, 04:59:29 PM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
The law is more than flawed,.......I personally feel laws can (at times) only be challenged AFTER you break them, that is the nature of the beast on several subjects, not just this. I applaud the guy if his intent was to challenge the law....his butt, his money, his record.....call him a poacher all you want...I would gladly shake his hand.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on November 28, 2015, 06:10:35 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 28, 2015, 09:24:52 PM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
I don't support breaking the law. But some times the law is wrong and this one is. The Department was supposedly against this initiative, but now they are disappointed that a court ruled it unconstitutional? They should be jumping for joy and they should be challenging it themselves and getting a ruling for the whole state. The door was opened for that. So they should be pursuing legal remedy.
And STIKNSTRINGBOW, if you're such a law abiding guy, then you should be against this law as it was voted in illegally. That is what the judge is saying. An initiative may only deal with one subject. This one dealt with more than one subject. Just like initiative 695, the $30 license tabs for autos was overturned. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Voter_Approval_for_Tax_Increases,_Initiative_695_%281999%29
"On March 14, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court declared that Initiative 695 was invalid on single subject grounds, in the case, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington."
Post by: Humptulips on November 28, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
It may be a dumb law but it is a law and they broke it and should be charged. As far as voting goes I believe everyone should be able to vote. Many don't share our ideas of management but if we start taking away voting privelages for people we deem have no interest or knowledge of a subject that opens up a rabbit hole we may not want to see the bottom of.I agree, but if you want to vote on those issues then you should have to buy a huntn or fishn license!! Why should people get to vote on something they have NO stock in??
Because this is America.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
If they can vote to outlaw hunting with bait, they can vote to outlaw hunting with bows, or with guns, or altogether.
We live in a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. In theory, that protects an individual or a minority from the majority. In practice though it is up to the courts to make that interpretation.
I wish I could agree that we live in a Constitutional Republic. I do not. the Initiative process short circuits that concept.
I wish we did not have the Initiative process. It is clear the General Public does not take the time to study before they vote on these laws.
I think the framers of the WA State Constitution screwed up big time when they wrote that in. I also believe the way we select State Senators is flawed. It ends up giving too much power or I should say all the power to large population centers.
Supreme Court decisions on the two subject rule are schizophrenic. I think this judges ruling would be overturned for sure if appealed.
Post by: Lucky1 on November 28, 2015, 10:12:36 PM
[/quote]
I wish I could agree that we live in a Constitutional Republic. I do not. the Initiative process short circuits that concept.
I wish we did not have the Initiative process. It is clear the General Public does not take the time to study before they vote on these laws.
I think the framers of the WA State Constitution screwed up big time when they wrote that in. I also believe the way we select State Senators is flawed. It ends up giving too much power or I should say all the power to large population centers.
Supreme Court decisions on the two subject rule are schizophrenic. I think this judges ruling would be overturned for sure if appealed.
[/quote]
I agree with you that the initiative process is not a good way to make laws.
Pure democracy allows for tyranny by the majority over the minority. I think most states do not have the initiative process. I have not agreed with most of the initiatives that have been passed since I moved here in 2000. The one I did agree with was declared unconstitutional by a liberal judge. That was the requirment that there be a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes. They will probably strike down the latest variation we voted in too.
Post by: Dan-o on November 28, 2015, 10:22:53 PM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
The law is more than flawed,.......I personally feel laws can (at times) only be challenged AFTER you break them, that is the nature of the beast on several subjects, not just this. I applaud the guy if his intent was to challenge the law....his butt, his money, his record.....call him a poacher all you want...I would gladly shake his hand.
How do you decide which laws you'll follow and which ones you think are stupid and don't need to be followed?
I'm sure that there is some anti-gun nut out there who thinks that it should be legal to steal your guns and chop them up because being allowed to own guns is one of the stupid laws so he shouldn't have to follow it.
I also hate stupid laws, but if everyone picks and chooses which laws they will obey, we are screwed.
The standard for ethically violating a law is MUCH higher than that law being stupid.
Post by: Bob33 on November 28, 2015, 10:27:01 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 28, 2015, 10:30:45 PM
If every citizen decided only to obey the laws he thought were legal, fair, or just we would have complete anarchy.Kind of the case now in a sort....speed limits, no talking/texting on a cell phone, hunter orange, DUIs, marijuana, cutting the tags off mattresses, etc....
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 28, 2015, 10:36:14 PM
If every citizen decided only to obey the laws he thought were legal, fair, or just we would have complete anarchy.
You see that every day on the highway.
Post by: Bango skank on November 28, 2015, 10:40:25 PM
If every citizen decided only to obey the laws he thought were legal, fair, or just we would have complete anarchy.
You see that every day on the highway.
All vehicles keep right except to pass. Why is that so hard to understand? If i am held up by some idiot with a trailer doing 65 in the passing lane of i90 one more time, youll all be hearing about me on the news. :bash:
Post by: bowbuild on November 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
The law is more than flawed,.......I personally feel laws can (at times) only be challenged AFTER you break them, that is the nature of the beast on several subjects, not just this. I applaud the guy if his intent was to challenge the law....his butt, his money, his record.....call him a poacher all you want...I would gladly shake his hand.
How do you decide which laws you'll follow and which ones you think are stupid and don't need to be followed?
I'm sure that there is some anti-gun nut out there who thinks that it should be legal to steal your guns and chop them up because being allowed to own guns is one of the stupid laws so he shouldn't have to follow it.
I also hate stupid laws, but if everyone picks and chooses which laws they will obey, we are screwed.
The standard for ethically violating a law is MUCH higher than that law being stupid.
Ironically this country was founded on law breaking thugs.....just ask England how they felt about challenging the rule of law.
What I am saying is that a attorney if you walked into his office would tell you (I assume, and think I am right) that to persue a state law like this one would cost a TON of money, and the chances the attorney would even try is LOW.
If you feel strongly about a subject or law that does seem just, then to break that law putting yourself into a legal situation, may infact, be a gamble some will take to challenge the law as there is little you can do otherwise.
I am not saying people should ignore any law they don't like, but there are some laws that are worth the risk, and challenge to some people......If you asked our forefathers, bet they would agree from their actions back then......or do you see it different? :tup:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on November 29, 2015, 10:11:52 AM
More than likely whoever it was merely attempting to harvest a bear over bait and got caught.
And yes, I am a law abiding individual, whether I agree with the law, or not.
I was against the law, and voted against it.
But once it became a law, I chose to abide by it.
I disagree with a lot of the regulations.
But cannot decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore.
If you feel like challenging the law, make your comments http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/) and go through legal channels.
Or pm me your gps coordinates to your bait pile so I can make sure you get all the attention you deserve. ;)
Post by: bowbuild on November 29, 2015, 10:29:13 AM
I also highly doubt the "offender" was intentionally challenging the law.
More than likely whoever it was merely attempting to harvest a bear over bait and got caught.
And yes, I am a law abiding individual, whether I agree with the law, or not.
I was against the law, and voted against it.
But once it became a law, I chose to abide by it.
I disagree with a lot of the regulations.
But cannot decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore.
If you feel like challenging the law, make your comments http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/) and go through legal channels.
Or pm me your gps coordinates to your bait pile so I can make sure you get all the attention you deserve. ;)
This law was a emotional law enacted by emotional non-hunting citizens that know little of wildlife management....if it was enacted out of scientific sound management, I would dislike it, but support it.......but that is not the case.
Well if you ever attended any of those feel good gatherings, you would find this subject like many others would go nowhere, been there, done that, on this very subject.......I don't bait anymore, but I am awaiting to see where this leads, and stand by what I said. :)
Post by: bigtex on November 29, 2015, 10:35:19 AM
Bjork is long gone, someone should ask the current chief how he feels about the decision. A District Court decision is only binding in that court, not even necessarily in that county. It does not set a precedence as a Superior Court decision would. The legislature can overturn or change this law at any time, I agree that they should. Until then, officers shouldn't cherry pick the laws they choose to enforce. Like it or not, they have sworn to uphold all the laws...The old "we don't make the laws, we just enforce them" statement.
That being said, leadership could certainly provide clear direction to field officers....
This is why I disagree with people who say "well my local LEO says I can do XYZ" well that may be great, but the LEO who catches you may not be the same who told you its okay to do XYZ. Some LEOs may look the other way at some violations, but the one right down the street may not :twocents:
Post by: 6.8mmARHunter on December 04, 2015, 11:51:21 PM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
Can someone give STIKNSTRINGBOW a ladder?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 05, 2015, 06:45:53 AM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
I don't support breaking the law. But some times the law is wrong and this one is. The Department was supposedly against this initiative, but now they are disappointed that a court ruled it unconstitutional? They should be jumping for joy and they should be challenging it themselves and getting a ruling for the whole state. The door was opened for that. So they should be pursuing legal remedy.
And STIKNSTRINGBOW, if you're such a law abiding guy, then you should be against this law as it was voted in illegally. That is what the judge is saying. An initiative may only deal with one subject. This one dealt with more than one subject. Just like initiative 695, the $30 license tabs for autos was overturned. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Voter_Approval_for_Tax_Increases,_Initiative_695_%281999%29
"On March 14, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court declared that Initiative 695 was invalid on single subject grounds, in the case, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington."
First, I agree the law sucks. I think the people of WA were duped by big money anti-hunting coalitions. But having said that, which other game laws should we ignore? Which other laws should the WDFW LE choose not to enforce, as is their mandate by the State? The only reason that the judge in Jefferson County ruled the law unconstitutional was that it was actually four laws within one law, breaking the rule. If you feel strongly enough, do it the right way and put together a coalition and take the issue to the WA State Supreme Court. Have the law overturned. However, to say that a law, one not infringing on your Constitutional rights, isn't right and therefor, you're not going to follow it, is BS. I'm not going to turn someone in for bear baiting but I'm also not going to take part in it until it's legal to do. I'm not going to hide a dusky if I shoot one. And, I won't be shooting big game in the head with a .22-250, even though it's stupid that I can't. Ethical hunters follow the letter of the law and act as an example to the entire population that what we do and how we do it is right and good for wildlife.
Post by: bigun on December 05, 2015, 08:39:05 AM
As stated in my initial post, this is the type of guy that hunts for the ability to post a pic, not so much for the hunt.
Not to really get things riled up, but he's the guy that will shoot a nice tom out of the roost because he gets tired of waiting for it to fly down and for fear there's a 50/50 chance it'll walk the other direction. Sure, legal as legal can be, but "hunting"?
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 05, 2015, 01:40:43 PM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
Can someone give STIKNSTRINGBOW a ladder?
I am surprised at the reaction that I need a ladder, or have some undesirable trait...
But then, I have been called a number of things over the years.
Yes, I am an ethical hunter, who follows the rules.
I try to set a good example.
I believe that hunting is about respect.
Respect the game animals.
Respect the landowners.
Respect other hunters.
Respect non-hunters.
Respect for the laws.
If you find these character traits somehow undesirable, and find offense in my having them then you only have yourself to blame when you lose opportunity.
I am the one looking in my own mirror, if you have to violate game laws to harvest an animal, then you are a poacher.
I don't respect poachers.
And I will climb down off my high horse to turn in a poacher.
If you have a problem with that, I question the content of your character.
I am confident and proud of mine.
My father was a Seattle Police Officer for 40 years, I was raised with respect for the law.
I have 3 Children that I am teaching about the woods, we don't trespass, we don't litter, and we don't violate game regulations.
Matter of fact, I even taught my daughter that we don't shoot roosted toms during turkey season, and we don't ground sluice birds, even though it is legal.
There is a right way, and a wrong way.
So, yes I might need a ladder, because not only is my horse tall, it is also white. :tung:
Post by: bowbuild on December 05, 2015, 09:22:47 PM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
I don't support breaking the law. But some times the law is wrong and this one is. The Department was supposedly against this initiative, but now they are disappointed that a court ruled it unconstitutional? They should be jumping for joy and they should be challenging it themselves and getting a ruling for the whole state. The door was opened for that. So they should be pursuing legal remedy.
And STIKNSTRINGBOW, if you're such a law abiding guy, then you should be against this law as it was voted in illegally. That is what the judge is saying. An initiative may only deal with one subject. This one dealt with more than one subject. Just like initiative 695, the $30 license tabs for autos was overturned. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Voter_Approval_for_Tax_Increases,_Initiative_695_%281999%29
"On March 14, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court declared that Initiative 695 was invalid on single subject grounds, in the case, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington."
First, I agree the law sucks. I think the people of WA were duped by big money anti-hunting coalitions. But having said that, which other game laws should we ignore? Which other laws should the WDFW LE choose not to enforce, as is their mandate by the State? The only reason that the judge in Jefferson County ruled the law unconstitutional was that it was actually four laws within one law, breaking the rule. If you feel strongly enough, do it the right way and put together a coalition and take the issue to the WA State Supreme Court. Have the law overturned. However, to say that a law, one not infringing on your Constitutional rights, isn't right and therefor, you're not going to follow it, is BS. I'm not going to turn someone in for bear baiting but I'm also not going to take part in it until it's legal to do. I'm not going to hide a dusky if I shoot one. And, I won't be shooting big game in the head with a .22-250, even though it's stupid that I can't. Ethical hunters follow the letter of the law and act as an example to the entire population that what we do and how we do it is right and good for wildlife.
Let's back the boat up a bit....first I am not saying anyone, or everyone should go out a break ANY laws.......But sometimes certain people (not saying this fellow) will break the law to challenge it......Did we not just have a rifle rally at the capitol not so long ago, showing dismay for crap laws? Tell me the difference....
Post by: 6.8mmARHunter on December 05, 2015, 09:40:38 PM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
Can someone give STIKNSTRINGBOW a ladder?
I am surprised at the reaction that I need a ladder, or have some undesirable trait...
But then, I have been called a number of things over the years.
Yes, I am an ethical hunter, who follows the rules.
I try to set a good example.
I believe that hunting is about respect.
Respect the game animals.
Respect the landowners.
Respect other hunters.
Respect non-hunters.
Respect for the laws.
If you find these character traits somehow undesirable, and find offense in my having them then you only have yourself to blame when you lose opportunity.
I am the one looking in my own mirror, if you have to violate game laws to harvest an animal, then you are a poacher.
I don't respect poachers.
And I will climb down off my high horse to turn in a poacher.
If you have a problem with that, I question the content of your character.
I am confident and proud of mine.
My father was a Seattle Police Officer for 40 years, I was raised with respect for the law.
I have 3 Children that I am teaching about the woods, we don't trespass, we don't litter, and we don't violate game regulations.
Matter of fact, I even taught my daughter that we don't shoot roosted toms during turkey season, and we don't ground sluice birds, even though it is legal.
There is a right way, and a wrong way.
So, yes I might need a ladder, because not only is my horse tall, it is also white. :tung:
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Have you never done 56 mph in a 55 mph (breaking a law).
I just thought you came across very judgmental.
Peace out.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 06, 2015, 10:53:45 AM
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Have you never done 56 mph in a 55 mph (breaking a law).
I just thought you came across very judgmental.
Peace out.
I don't care how high his horse is, 56 MPH is unrealistic.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 06, 2015, 01:23:12 PM
Quote
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Have you never done 56 mph in a 55 mph (breaking a law).
I just thought you came across very judgmental.
Peace out.
Sure I have UNINTENTIONALLY violated speeding restrictions, have even been cited.
I explained my case, and paid my fines.
I merely am judgmental of others that commit infractions intentionally.
Baiting for bears is illegal in this state, unless you are a native.
I disagree with any blatant disregard for the law to serve a selfish purpose.
Being judgmental of INTENTIONAL violators is my right as a registered voter, and if I was on the jury they would lose hunting privileges.
Those laws are not called "suggestions"...
Poaching is poaching.
Compare it to shooting illegal animals, out of season, or over your limit.
not traffic infractions.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2015, 02:23:20 PM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
I don't support breaking the law. But some times the law is wrong and this one is. The Department was supposedly against this initiative, but now they are disappointed that a court ruled it unconstitutional? They should be jumping for joy and they should be challenging it themselves and getting a ruling for the whole state. The door was opened for that. So they should be pursuing legal remedy.
And STIKNSTRINGBOW, if you're such a law abiding guy, then you should be against this law as it was voted in illegally. That is what the judge is saying. An initiative may only deal with one subject. This one dealt with more than one subject. Just like initiative 695, the $30 license tabs for autos was overturned. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Voter_Approval_for_Tax_Increases,_Initiative_695_%281999%29
"On March 14, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court declared that Initiative 695 was invalid on single subject grounds, in the case, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington."
First, I agree the law sucks. I think the people of WA were duped by big money anti-hunting coalitions. But having said that, which other game laws should we ignore? Which other laws should the WDFW LE choose not to enforce, as is their mandate by the State? The only reason that the judge in Jefferson County ruled the law unconstitutional was that it was actually four laws within one law, breaking the rule. If you feel strongly enough, do it the right way and put together a coalition and take the issue to the WA State Supreme Court. Have the law overturned. However, to say that a law, one not infringing on your Constitutional rights, isn't right and therefor, you're not going to follow it, is BS. I'm not going to turn someone in for bear baiting but I'm also not going to take part in it until it's legal to do. I'm not going to hide a dusky if I shoot one. And, I won't be shooting big game in the head with a .22-250, even though it's stupid that I can't. Ethical hunters follow the letter of the law and act as an example to the entire population that what we do and how we do it is right and good for wildlife.
Let's back the boat up a bit....first I am not saying anyone, or everyone should go out a break ANY laws.......But sometimes certain people (not saying this fellow) will break the law to challenge it......Did we not just have a rifle rally at the capitol not so long ago, showing dismay for crap laws? Tell me the difference....
There's an enormous difference and I tried to highlight that in my comment. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right. I don't care if some politician or liberal doesn't think I should have guns. I will anyway. However, hunting isn't a right; it's a privilege until we have the state constitution changed to make it a right. If a politician or anti-hunter looks to the public to take away my hunting privileges, they can succeed. I believe we need to be the shining example of lawful and ethical hunters to convince our population otherwise the next time one of these wacky initiatives comes up.
Post by: tgomez on December 07, 2015, 09:01:19 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 07, 2015, 09:23:19 AM
Post by: bowbuild on December 15, 2015, 10:38:34 AM
What I don't understand is the number of members that seem to support the activity.
Illegal harvest of a bear over bait is poaching, period.
Regardless of personal feelings about the law, it is still a law.
:police:
I also remember one of our members that received his 10 points for turning someone in for the same activity, maybe he will chime in.
:dunno:
I miss the days when we could bait for bear, but until the regulation changes I will still consider it poaching.
I don't support breaking the law. But some times the law is wrong and this one is. The Department was supposedly against this initiative, but now they are disappointed that a court ruled it unconstitutional? They should be jumping for joy and they should be challenging it themselves and getting a ruling for the whole state. The door was opened for that. So they should be pursuing legal remedy.
And STIKNSTRINGBOW, if you're such a law abiding guy, then you should be against this law as it was voted in illegally. That is what the judge is saying. An initiative may only deal with one subject. This one dealt with more than one subject. Just like initiative 695, the $30 license tabs for autos was overturned. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Voter_Approval_for_Tax_Increases,_Initiative_695_%281999%29
"On March 14, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court declared that Initiative 695 was invalid on single subject grounds, in the case, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State of Washington."
First, I agree the law sucks. I think the people of WA were duped by big money anti-hunting coalitions. But having said that, which other game laws should we ignore? Which other laws should the WDFW LE choose not to enforce, as is their mandate by the State? The only reason that the judge in Jefferson County ruled the law unconstitutional was that it was actually four laws within one law, breaking the rule. If you feel strongly enough, do it the right way and put together a coalition and take the issue to the WA State Supreme Court. Have the law overturned. However, to say that a law, one not infringing on your Constitutional rights, isn't right and therefor, you're not going to follow it, is BS. I'm not going to turn someone in for bear baiting but I'm also not going to take part in it until it's legal to do. I'm not going to hide a dusky if I shoot one. And, I won't be shooting big game in the head with a .22-250, even though it's stupid that I can't. Ethical hunters follow the letter of the law and act as an example to the entire population that what we do and how we do it is right and good for wildlife.
Let's back the boat up a bit....first I am not saying anyone, or everyone should go out a break ANY laws.......But sometimes certain people (not saying this fellow) will break the law to challenge it......Did we not just have a rifle rally at the capitol not so long ago, showing dismay for crap laws? Tell me the difference....
There's an enormous difference and I tried to highlight that in my comment. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right. I don't care if some politician or liberal doesn't think I should have guns. I will anyway. However, hunting isn't a right; it's a privilege until we have the state constitution changed to make it a right. If a politician or anti-hunter looks to the public to take away my hunting privileges, they can succeed. I believe we need to be the shining example of lawful and ethical hunters to convince our population otherwise the next time one of these wacky initiatives comes up.
You sir, are picking and choosing now. Your Constitutional rights have been eroding for yrs, as you know. Hiding behind the Constitution as a EXCUSE to not follow state law, is no different........otherwise you are challenging the law (my very point) you think you have more standing because of your Constitutional argument.......I guarantee if they decided to prosecute, it would cost ANYONE a lot of money regardless of your constitutional rights.
"IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent) , especially if you can prove the law was unconstitutional at the very state level from which it is enacted, I give that person a big thumbs up, not because they are breaking the law, but because they hold a strong belief that the only direct way to challenge, is to put it in front of a judge. Regardless of reasoning for this case, the challenge through defense counsel was positive for those who disagree with the law. :tup:
By the way if it is so easy to challenge these laws through legal means.......why has the law not been challenged on the merits of the judges decision?? Seems pretty cut and dry to me? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 15, 2015, 11:14:52 AM
All due respects, bowbuild, that wasn't their intent. Their intent was to bait bears and hopefully not get caught. Otherwise, they'd have called the WDFW themselves. This was not some protest until they got busted and found a good lawyer. I gotta call BS on that. Sorry.
Post by: predatorpro on December 15, 2015, 11:22:44 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 15, 2015, 11:25:51 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 15, 2015, 11:26:05 AM
To be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...Washington state voters made it illegal, not WDFW.
Post by: bowbuild on December 15, 2015, 11:30:22 AM
""IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent)..."
All due respects, bowbuild, that wasn't their intent. Their intent was to bait bears and hopefully not get caught. Otherwise, they'd have called the WDFW themselves. This was not some protest until they got busted and found a good lawyer. I gotta call BS on that. Sorry.
So, if the intent was publicly stated you would be fine with it? Just curious?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 15, 2015, 11:32:29 AM
""IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent)..."
All due respects, bowbuild, that wasn't their intent. Their intent was to bait bears and hopefully not get caught. Otherwise, they'd have called the WDFW themselves. This was not some protest until they got busted and found a good lawyer. I gotta call BS on that. Sorry.
So, if the intent was publicly stated you would be fine with it? Just curious?
I don't know what "publicly stated" means. :dunno:
Post by: bowbuild on December 15, 2015, 11:33:54 AM
""IF" a person is willing to break the law to challenge it (and that was their intent)..."
All due respects, bowbuild, that wasn't their intent. Their intent was to bait bears and hopefully not get caught. Otherwise, they'd have called the WDFW themselves. This was not some protest until they got busted and found a good lawyer. I gotta call BS on that. Sorry.
So, if the intent was publicly stated you would be fine with it? Just curious?
I don't know what "publicly stated" means. :dunno:
If they would have turned themselves in?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 15, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
I'm going to attempt to make my position on bear baiting clear then I'm getting out because I don't wish to create more animosity. This is about bear baiting and breaking the law that prohibits it. I opposed the initiative to end baiting and hounding. I would support any effort to overturn the law, either on constitutional grounds or by initiative (or any other way to legally get around it). But, I won't break the law, because it makes hunters look like we think we're above the law and will cause us to lose support from non-hunters, support which has allowed us to continue to hunt. If you don't understand my point, you probably never will. But, being that we're less than 4% of the state's population, my opinion is that our profile to the rest of the population is extremely important. Flaunting lawlessness will hurt our privileges even more going forward. Done! Have a nice day.
Post by: predatorpro on December 15, 2015, 12:16:08 PM
I know...but did wdfw do anything to reverse it? I don't remember the wdfw doing anything to stop it...I know it was voted on....but a wdfw that's funded by hunters and does nothing to protect our hunting rights? Seems to me it's another way to make revenue which is more importantTo be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...Washington state voters made it illegal, not WDFW.
Post by: Bob33 on December 15, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
That wasn't your accusation. It's tough when facts get in the way of a false accusation, isn't it?I know...but did wdfw do anything to reverse it?To be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...Washington state voters made it illegal, not WDFW.
"...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasn't"
Post by: predatorpro on December 15, 2015, 12:26:43 PM
Post by: predatorpro on December 15, 2015, 12:29:38 PM
Thanks for correcting me!! I don't know what else you call the department that enforces the anti hunting communities laws forced on us...That wasn't your accusation. It's tough when facts get in the way of a false accusation, isn't it?I know...but did wdfw do anything to reverse it?To be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...Washington state voters made it illegal, not WDFW.
"...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasn't"
Post by: saylean on December 15, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
As far as these guys specifically are concerned, I would have a lot more respect for them had they signed affidavits as to their intent and sent a message to the WDFW as to the location of their bait and when they'd be there over it. That would have at least shown this was a moral fight instead of something that happened as a result of them getting caught.
I'm going to attempt to make my position on bear baiting clear then I'm getting out because I don't wish to create more animosity. This is about bear baiting and breaking the law that prohibits it. I opposed the initiative to end baiting and hounding. I would support any effort to overturn the law, either on constitutional grounds or by initiative (or any other way to legally get around it). But, I won't break the law, because it makes hunters look like we think we're above the law and will cause us to lose support from non-hunters, support which has allowed us to continue to hunt. If you don't understand my point, you probably never will. But, being that we're less than 4% of the state's population, my opinion is that our profile to the rest of the population is extremely important. Flaunting lawlessness will hurt our privileges even more going forward. Done! Have a nice day.
:yeah:
Post by: popeshawnpaul on December 15, 2015, 01:13:03 PM
There is precident for them to get away with baiting. Here is an old article:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm
Near Quinault last fall, officers raided a camp of about a dozen hunters, charging ten of them with bear baiting: Thomas Durham, James Durham, Christina Stannard, John West, Douglas Klamm, John Speleers, Burgess Drake, Craig Stevenson, Cory Johnson and Dale Steinhauer.
The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional.
"What's wrong with it is, it refers to both baiting bears, hunting bears with bait, and also tracking cougars with dogs or hunting cougars with dogs," said defense attorney Linda Callahan. "And that in itself is two subjects, so it violates the rule."
"Well, certainly in Jefferson County, I don't think the prosecutor will file any more cases," said defense attorney John Stanislay. "What it means outside of Jefferson County at this point I'm not sure."
KING 5 asked: "But if you were a defense attorney in a neighboring county with one of these cases, wouldn't you make this argument now?"
"I definitely would make the argument, but I would not advise my client to go hunting with bait," said Stanislay.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.
"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."
This case was overturned by the Court of Appeals and they were convicted in 2006...
Post by: bowbuild on December 15, 2015, 06:30:34 PM
There is precident for them to get away with baiting. Here is an old article:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm
Near Quinault last fall, officers raided a camp of about a dozen hunters, charging ten of them with bear baiting: Thomas Durham, James Durham, Christina Stannard, John West, Douglas Klamm, John Speleers, Burgess Drake, Craig Stevenson, Cory Johnson and Dale Steinhauer.
The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional.
"What's wrong with it is, it refers to both baiting bears, hunting bears with bait, and also tracking cougars with dogs or hunting cougars with dogs," said defense attorney Linda Callahan. "And that in itself is two subjects, so it violates the rule."
"Well, certainly in Jefferson County, I don't think the prosecutor will file any more cases," said defense attorney John Stanislay. "What it means outside of Jefferson County at this point I'm not sure."
KING 5 asked: "But if you were a defense attorney in a neighboring county with one of these cases, wouldn't you make this argument now?"
"I definitely would make the argument, but I would not advise my client to go hunting with bait," said Stanislay.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.
"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."
This case was overturned by the Court of Appeals and they were convicted in 2006...
What did they convict them on the "spirit" of the law?? I hate that crap.....Can you provide a link to the appeal courts decision?
By the way....yes, the game department has, and did pick sides....
"It's a fair hunt principle; baiting isn't fair play," said Craig Bartlett, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife public information officer. "The [court] decision will make enforcing the law more difficult in Jefferson County."
You have it wrong Bob.
I find baiting to be much more ethical than spot and stock, you have a chance at a bait station to ID your bear, not so at a couple of hundred yds with your rifle. Bait stations allows time to see if cubs are around.......and if you ever ran a station, you would know what I am saying is accurate. I ran multiple stations before the law changed. I would give my elk tag up to be able to bait again. It is not worth the fines even though I hate the law on this subject!!! :bash:
Post by: bigtex on December 15, 2015, 06:36:46 PM
Under state law agencies cannot chose sides in voter initiatives before and during the voting period.I know...but did wdfw do anything to reverse it? I don't remember the wdfw doing anything to stop it...I know it was voted on....but a wdfw that's funded by hunters and does nothing to protect our hunting rights? Seems to me it's another way to make revenue which is more importantTo be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...Washington state voters made it illegal, not WDFW.
You cant have WDFW commercials saying "vote no on the black bear baiting ban".
The only thing agencies in WA can do on initiatives is provide facts/data when asked for it, no opinions can be offered.
In comparison, agencies can have opinions on bills voted on in the legislature.
Post by: bowbuild on December 15, 2015, 06:45:10 PM
Under state law agencies cannot chose sides in voter initiatives before and during the voting period.I know...but did wdfw do anything to reverse it? I don't remember the wdfw doing anything to stop it...I know it was voted on....but a wdfw that's funded by hunters and does nothing to protect our hunting rights? Seems to me it's another way to make revenue which is more importantTo be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...Washington state voters made it illegal, not WDFW.
You cant have WDFW commercials saying "vote no on the black bear baiting ban".
The only thing agencies in WA can do on initiatives is provide facts/data when asked for it, no opinions can be offered.
In comparison, agencies can have opinions on bills voted on in the legislature.
Providing factual data in a positive manner is NOT choosing sides, and at several meetings which I attended, I seen NO factual evidence provided....and I asked. :bash:
Post by: MisplacedAlaskan on December 15, 2015, 08:01:35 PM
To be honest I have no problem with anyone who baits bears...if hunting was made illegal we would still all hunt and we would justify it...baiting was perfectly fine until a corrupt wdfw decided one day it wasnt..nothing changed except another page with some writing on in a boo full of other laws...
I agree with this.
I have never baited bears, and don't plan to, and I'm not advocating for people to break the law. With that being said, at what point do all of you who say once something is a law you won't willfully break it, start breaking the law? If archery hunting is made illegal would you still archery hunt? Or as predator pro said, would you give up hunting entirely if it was made illegal? Would your turn in your guns if gun ownership became a crime? If prohibition came back, would you quit drinking? At some point judgement and common sense need to be exercised.
I'm not saying the bear baiting is the issue where you decide to willfully break the law, but maybe for some people it is. I personally don't care if people do it, and I don't turn in bait stations I find.
Post by: snake on December 20, 2015, 08:08:16 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 20, 2015, 08:30:40 PM
How about if he thought people should be able to hunt on your property even if you didn't want them there?
Be as angry as you want, but direct it to the appropriate level/place...
Post by: Skillet on December 20, 2015, 08:31:05 PM
Too many boneheads trying to get free points for draws. Hunters turning others in for finding a bait station is dumb. We need to stick together. I had a WDFW Officer tell me "I will enforce any law they make" What a joke, Just another sheep in the herd...
The "stick together" argument is valid when fighting to prevent erosion of our hunting priveliges, but invalid when it comes to breaking laws. If I come across a barrel full of maple bars, I'm going to mention it when I get back. Not fair to the vast majority of true sportsmen that hunt bear in this state that somebody just decides they deserve an illegal advantage because they don't like a law. Plus, of I unknowingly kill a bear near an illegal bait station, I could get rung up for it. Do I think that us hunters sticking together means that the owner of the illegal bait station is going to fess up so I don't take the hit? Yeah, right...
And don't assume that everybody who would report blatantly illegal activity want the points or reward. Some of us have a moral compass that guides our behavior, and I enjoy not being disappointed in the man in the mirror each morning.
:twocents:
Post by: MisplacedAlaskan on December 20, 2015, 09:00:55 PM
Too many boneheads trying to get free points for draws. Hunters turning others in for finding a bait station is dumb. We need to stick together. I had a WDFW Officer tell me "I will enforce any law they make" What a joke, Just another sheep in the herd...
The "stick together" argument is valid when fighting to prevent erosion of our hunting priveliges, but invalid when it comes to breaking laws. If I come across a barrel full of maple bars, I'm going to mention it when I get back. Not fair to the vast majority of true sportsmen that hunt bear in this state that somebody just decides they deserve an illegal advantage because they don't like a law. Plus, of I unknowingly kill a bear near an illegal bait station, I could get rung up for it. Do I think that us hunters sticking together means that the owner of the illegal bait station is going to fess up so I don't take the hit? Yeah, right...
And don't assume that everybody who would report blatantly illegal activity want the points or reward. Some of us have a moral compass that guides our behavior, and I enjoy not being disappointed in the man in the mirror each morning.
:twocents:
If hunting was made illegal in this state are you going to quit doing it and report anyone you observe hunting?
Post by: Skillet on December 20, 2015, 09:23:26 PM
I posted to this thread because I thought it was interesting that snake called a bunch of hunters boneheads and then implored us to stick together and ignore illegal activity - all in the same post.
Post by: jasnt on December 20, 2015, 09:36:44 PM
Post by: MisplacedAlaskan on December 20, 2015, 09:40:40 PM
History has shown that more improbable things than hunting have been banned. I just thought it was something to think about. At some point hopefully people's moral compass's tell them to do the right thing regardless of what they are told.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Post by: Skillet on December 20, 2015, 09:43:48 PM
I my self hate this law but I obey it. I'd rather not risk my hunting rights. But I think if half of us could stand together and fight to get it back and succeeded I would bait for bear. Sadly we are so divided we won't get anything back. We will simply ban our selves out of our favorite past times. One little peace at a time wideling it down slowly so not to raise suspicion from all.
:yeah:
This is about exactly where I'm at on baiting bear.
Post by: jasnt on December 20, 2015, 10:09:57 PM
Point taken.i understand your point. I just don't think baiting bear is that line in the sand where we decide to revolt against the man. It's a BS law I agree. I'm just not willing to risk it. It's easier to just set up on a natural food source than it is to run a bait sight for eating machines! That's a lot of work!
History has shown that more improbable things than hunting have been banned. I just thought it was something to think about. At some point hopefully people's moral compass's tell them to do the right thing regardless of what they are told.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2015, 06:14:12 AM
Post by: MisplacedAlaskan on December 21, 2015, 06:24:05 AM
Regardless, my moral compass doesn't make me feel compelled to turn bait stations in and I don't have any issues being disappointed with the man in the mirror each morning.
It is a lot of work establishing and maintaining bait stations, a guy I guide for tried it one year in the spring and said it wasn't worth it. It's easier to hunt the beaches and old roads
Post by: snake on December 22, 2015, 05:32:03 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 22, 2015, 05:40:56 PM
Post by: jackmaster on December 22, 2015, 05:50:18 PM
I agree, it's not my line in the sand either, but I don't report people who's have chosen baiting as their line in the sand. Or maybe it isn't their line, and they break a lot of the rules :):yeah: Damn Skippy, I had 3 going when it was legal, most of the time I never even shot a bear, I had alot more fun watching them than killing them and it was a ton of work.. 3 times a week to bait up my stations.. loved it, especially watching cubs, if you haven't seen a couple of cubs on a bait pile you are truly missing out, one of the most hilarious things a person can see in the woods..
Regardless, my moral compass doesn't make me feel compelled to turn bait stations in and I don't have any issues being disappointed with the man in the mirror each morning.
It is a lot of work establishing and maintaining bait stations, a guy I guide for tried it one year in the spring and said it wasn't worth it. It's easier to hunt the beaches and old roads
Post by: Bofire on December 22, 2015, 06:35:55 PM
There is precident for them to get away with baiting. Here is an old article:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm
Near Quinault last fall, officers raided a camp of about a dozen hunters, charging ten of them with bear baiting: Thomas Durham, James Durham, Christina Stannard, John West, Douglas Klamm, John Speleers, Burgess Drake, Craig Stevenson, Cory Johnson and Dale Steinhauer.
The accused ring leader, Tom Durham, denied doing anything wrong, and the charges against him and the others were dropped this week after a district court judge in Jefferson County ruled the initiative to be unconstitutional.
"What's wrong with it is, it refers to both baiting bears, hunting bears with bait, and also tracking cougars with dogs or hunting cougars with dogs," said defense attorney Linda Callahan. "And that in itself is two subjects, so it violates the rule."
"Well, certainly in Jefferson County, I don't think the prosecutor will file any more cases," said defense attorney John Stanislay. "What it means outside of Jefferson County at this point I'm not sure."
KING 5 asked: "But if you were a defense attorney in a neighboring county with one of these cases, wouldn't you make this argument now?"
"I definitely would make the argument, but I would not advise my client to go hunting with bait," said Stanislay.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says it's disappointed at the ruling.
"We're going to continue to enforce it. It's a statewide law," said Chief Bruce Bjork, Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife. "This is a district court decision in Jefferson County specific, so we'll continue to enforce it statewide."
This case was overturned by the Court of Appeals and they were convicted in 2006...
I was a "subpeoned" (spelling)? in this case, I sat in a few hearings waiting to testify. Finally did for two questions. None of these guys were convicted in the end. nothing to do "unconstitional" several cases across the state were thrown out over wording in the law. The law says something like "anything that in any way attracts or lures" (that is not a quote of the law just my memory) a lady lawyer brought up, "cooking smells, unbathed hunter smells, campfire smells, time of the month smells (for ladies)" any of those could "attract" an animal. anyway, all of the guys from the Quinault deal got off and money refunded. Some of them were written because they "smelled" when they gamies approached them.
Unless something happened later????
Carl
Post by: nwwanderer on December 22, 2015, 07:05:37 PM
A good mythical story is always good at Christmas time