Post by: TriggerMike on June 01, 2018, 09:24:21 AM
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 09:27:42 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 09:42:14 AM
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Washington#Single-subject_rule
Single-subject rules require that an initiative contain only one issue or subject. Certain states also have single-subject rules for bills passed by the legislature. This page concerns single-subject rules for citizen initiatives, not legislative bills. Another type of rule that is related but different than a single-subject rule is the separate vote requirement, which most often applies to constitutional amendments and requires that only one article or section of law be changed per measure. Since the ultimate intention and outcome of single-subject rules is similar to that of separate-vote requirements, this page covers both rules.
There are 26 states with a process for initiatives, referendums, or both. Of those, 15 have a single-subject rule or separate-vote requirement provisions.
this is the process
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/initiative%20and%20referenda%20handbook%202017%20.pdf
baiting bears is one issue, running hounds on bears, cats and other species is a separate issue = illegal initiative
Post by: vandeman17 on June 01, 2018, 09:48:33 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 01, 2018, 09:50:00 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 09:51:39 AM
I almost posted the same question on the other thread but didn't want to derail it. I would be interested in doing something to potentially get the reversal on the ballot, even though I highly doubt the liberal majority would allow it.
the liberal majority, if this were challenged in court properly, would have no choice. They would have to make a new initiative/s and vote on each item by itself.
Then we'd loose it all over again :bash:
Post by: vandeman17 on June 01, 2018, 09:55:13 AM
I almost posted the same question on the other thread but didn't want to derail it. I would be interested in doing something to potentially get the reversal on the ballot, even though I highly doubt the liberal majority would allow it.
the liberal majority, if this were challenged in court properly, would have no choice. They would have to make a new initiative/s and vote on each item by itself.
Then we'd loose it all over again :bash:
Roger that, I didn't know how the process would fully work but I was thinking it would be basically an initiative to reverse the existing one... Shows how much I know :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 09:59:17 AM
"Shall it be a gross misdemeanor to capture an animal with certain body-gripping traps, or to poison an animal with sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide?"
Poison and Traps = two issues
Post by: TriggerMike on June 01, 2018, 10:16:55 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on June 01, 2018, 10:24:07 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on June 01, 2018, 10:30:24 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 01, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
If people on the Eastside showed up to vote, we could get this reversed. Most counties on the eastside only get 50% voter turnout. We could start by getting the needed signatures there before asking people on the westside. Out front of Cabelas, Sportsmans Warehouse, etc.
They showed up the last time. Same with many of us on the wet side. King and Pierce Co.s still swung the vote with misinformation campaigns and not corrections from the DFW. Our political climate is far worse now than in 1996. We might get a temporary reprieve through the courts. But the resulting initiatives would likely contain stronger anti-hunting language, possibly even some firearm limits. Be careful for what you wish.
Post by: vandeman17 on June 01, 2018, 10:34:21 AM
It seems to me the best avenue would be a legal challenge to the original initiative. going that route you are dealing with the courts not the general public. doing and initiative and voting is a long shot IMO.
legal challenge would entail legal counsel and thus $$$ correct?
Post by: B4noon on June 01, 2018, 10:37:29 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 01, 2018, 10:45:38 AM
It may actually be the perfect time to propose a new revised initiative especially as WDFW is starting to meddle in grizzly rehab would make perfect sense to bait and get a positive ID on a bear before shooting and the anti's and the liberals might meet in the middle if they were educated about harvest of bears is going to happen regardless so let's compromise and allow baiting so that there is selective harvest instead of accidently shooting Boo boos mom
It makes sense to you and I. It would never fly with animal rights groups. They'd come back with a proposal to end all bear hunting to keep the grizzlies safe.
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 10:50:13 AM
*If* they (we) ever vote in a good conservative governor then I'll have hope for game management rules. :twocents:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 01, 2018, 10:53:31 AM
If people on the Eastside showed up to vote, we could get this reversed.
I don't think that the demographics support your basic thesis
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 01, 2018, 10:57:44 AM
It seems to me the best avenue would be a legal challenge to the original initiative. going that route you are dealing with the courts not the general public. doing and initiative and voting is a long shot IMO.
legal challenge would entail legal counsel and thus $$$ correct?
Already been done and lost. Long read, but the result is at the very bottom of the article, and I believe that is where it stopped:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1091801.html
Also found this:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1077412.html
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 01, 2018, 11:04:03 AM
To be honest, fighting the law and/or timber companies is an expensive exercise in frustration.
It is clear, people will pay for access, just look at the fight to get a Vail permit!
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 01, 2018, 11:04:20 AM
I think the west side has to stew in their own juices for a while longer.
*If* they (we) ever vote in a good conservative governor then I'll have hope for game management rules. :twocents:
They like their own juices. It's free juice for many of them. The Ds are growing their voter base with freebies and fairy tales of Utopia and rainbow-colored puppies. These are the same people that will march to the drumbeat of the oppressive government our forefathers warned us about. If you think voting on this now would turn out better than it did 22 years ago, you haven't been paying attention to the northbound CA license plates and spike in patchouli sales. The increase in people who are really ignorant about scientific wildlife management (including in our own DFW) is shocking.
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 11:14:06 AM
I think the west side has to stew in their own juices for a while longer.
*If* they (we) ever vote in a good conservative governor then I'll have hope for game management rules. :twocents:
They like their own juices. It's free juice for many of them. The Ds are growing their voter base with freebies and fairy tales of Utopia and rainbow-colored puppies. These are the same people that will march to the drumbeat of the oppressive government our forefathers warned us about. If you think voting on this now would turn out better than it did 22 years ago, you haven't been paying attention to the northbound CA license plates and spike in patchouli sales. The increase in people who are really ignorant about scientific wildlife management (including in our own DFW) is shocking.
Agree, but somewhere down the road there will be pain. The grasshoppers haven't felt winters chill yet.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 01, 2018, 11:16:50 AM
It may actually be the perfect time to propose a new revised initiative especially as WDFW is starting to meddle in grizzly rehab would make perfect sense to bait and get a positive ID on a bear before shooting and the anti's and the liberals might meet in the middle if they were educated about harvest of bears is going to happen regardless so let's compromise and allow baiting so that there is selective harvest instead of accidently shooting Boo boos mom
It makes sense to you and I. It would never fly with animal rights groups. They'd come back with a proposal to end all bear hunting to keep the grizzlies safe.
Bottom line would be that the shooter is responsible, no matter what the method/circumstances were, to be certain of the target or not shoot.
While it may not result in all bear hunting stopped in general, it could certainly stop it in areas "identified" as grizzly zones...
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 11:17:49 AM
or is it? try to get a spring bear tag for 113 Selkirk....
Look at what WDFW did to night hunting bobcats in lynx recovery zones :bash:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 01, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
lunacy!
or is it? spring bear is already prohibited in grizzly areas...
Correct, but it could be easily be extended to fall season is what I was saying...
And then, have factor in the mindset of the people who are defining grizzly zones and it could impact a lot of areas even if there are not currently any grizzlies there yet, but could/might be.
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 11:26:21 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 01, 2018, 11:26:51 AM
lunacy!
or is it? try to get a spring bear tag for 113 Selkirk....
Look at what WDFW did to night hunting bobcats in lynx recovery zones :bash:
My point exactly...
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 01, 2018, 11:28:11 AM
I don't think it'll go that far, if you remember the latest proposals it included a grizzly identification test but no reduction in black bear hunts or hints of reducing hunt opportunities in grizzly zones.
For now, or until the first grizzly gets shot....
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 11:33:10 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on June 01, 2018, 11:36:56 AM
all bets are off, supposedly one lynx got shot at night, so we get a new rule prohibiting night hunting for bobcat
Sounds about right to me, especially over the last while :bdid:
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 11:57:49 AM
Post by: Curly on June 01, 2018, 12:15:28 PM
Your disdain for western Wa gets old. Sad you hate a whole group of people because they have a large population of people living near them that vote and think wrong.I think the west side has to stew in their own juices for a while longer.
*If* they (we) ever vote in a good conservative governor then I'll have hope for game management rules. :twocents:
They like their own juices. It's free juice for many of them. The Ds are growing their voter base with freebies and fairy tales of Utopia and rainbow-colored puppies. These are the same people that will march to the drumbeat of the oppressive government our forefathers warned us about. If you think voting on this now would turn out better than it did 22 years ago, you haven't been paying attention to the northbound CA license plates and spike in patchouli sales. The increase in people who are really ignorant about scientific wildlife management (including in our own DFW) is shocking.
Agree, but somewhere down the road there will be pain. The grasshoppers haven't felt winters chill yet.
There are plenty of fine conservative minded people living in western Washington. Just wanted to remind you of that. Carry on. :salute:
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 12:51:36 PM
Your disdain for western Wa gets old. Sad you hate a whole group of people because they have a large population of people living near them that vote and think wrong.
There are plenty of fine conservative minded people living in western Washington. Just wanted to remind you of that. Carry on. :salute:
I don't hate anyone, I hate how they vote. Don't personalize something that wasn't personal.
Post by: Curly on June 01, 2018, 01:15:50 PM
I'm guilty of complaining about the people of Seattle or Olympia (or San Francisco) in the past, but I do try hard lately not to anymore. In part because of websites like this where I get to read and discuss issues with like minded people who just happen to live in some liberal dominated cities.
One year when I was back in Wyoming and a rancher asked where we were from, I could see the contempt on his face and in his voice when he found out we were from WA state. I got the feeling he has contempt for the whole state because he feels like WA voters are a bunch of idiots for always voting for the like of Obama and Clinton. My point is even you being in E WA can get looked down upon by because you are from WA.
It is frustrating that voters of King County dominate the votes and a lot of them are in the big cities like Seattle and that is how we end up with things I655 passing, but there are also lots of voters in those areas that voted against that. Oregon has the same issue with being ruled by Portland, CA has similar issues with being ruled by LA..........it sucks but I just think it better not to lump entire groups of people together. :twocents:
Anyway, back to the topic........sorry for the threadjack.
Isn't there some rule/law about a voter initiative only being valid for 2 years. I can't remember exactly what that deals with or the specifics? Maybe it has something to do with the legislature has the right change the law after 2 years?
Post by: Rainier10 on June 01, 2018, 01:22:59 PM
Isn't there some rule/law about a voter initiative only being valid for 2 years. I can't remember exactly what that deals with or the specifics? Maybe it has something to do with the legislature has the right change the law after 2 years?
I think that is true. Reading the link that BlacktailSniper posted early and reposted below, the initiative was passed in 1996 and revised in 2000 by the legislature. If that is the case they could revise it to allow baiting only buy permit/buy a permit to bait thus raising revenue. They could also revise it to allow the use if dogs with a licensed guide, again generating revenue.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1091801.html
Post by: TriggerMike on June 01, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
My point is that if you look at the results for the last several elections, less than 50 percent of Eastside voters in each county returned ballots. And there are several counties where it's less than 40 percent. The first time I made this observation was when I-594 was passed by a relatively narrow margin. If every conservative in the state actually voted, then a lot of these laws wouldn't pass. But in the same regard, if every single registered voter in the state actually voted, then yes, there are more registered democrats. In reality though, it doesn't really matter but one can't help but be optimistic.If people on the Eastside showed up to vote, we could get this reversed.
I don't think that the demographics support your basic thesis
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 01, 2018, 02:43:09 PM
Quote
In the 2010 census, Western Washington had a population of 5,229,486 out of the 6,724,540 in the entire state of Washington.
Source: Wiki, but easily verified from the US Census. And the numbers quoted are from 2010, so the delta is even greater now
Post by: bigtex on June 01, 2018, 05:49:59 PM
If the legislature allows baiting I see it being regulated. Baiting permits, only certain amounts of bait sites, bait size restrictions, etc. Quite honestly, this is what's done in many states currently. I actually think allowing baiting may happen eventually
I think cougar hound hunting as we knew it is gone forever. I think there's just too many anti's with "gruesome" looking videos out there to sway voters/politicians.
I may be completely wrong, but that's my :twocents:
Post by: TriggerMike on June 02, 2018, 12:02:48 AM
Here's my thoughts:Even that would be a huge win. IMO though, cougars have had the biggest impact on our herds. More so than bears and wolves combined. So getting hounds back would be the crucial piece of this whole thing. If there was a way, at least.
If the legislature allows baiting I see it being regulated. Baiting permits, only certain amounts of bait sites, bait size restrictions, etc. Quite honestly, this is what's done in many states currently. I actually think allowing baiting may happen eventually
I think cougar hound hunting as we knew it is gone forever. I think there's just too many anti's with "gruesome" looking videos out there to sway voters/politicians.
I may be completely wrong, but that's my :twocents:
Post by: TriggerMike on June 02, 2018, 12:10:36 AM
Eastern Washington has a population of about 1.5 million. That is less people in that entire side of the state than live in King County.QuoteIn the 2010 census, Western Washington had a population of 5,229,486 out of the 6,724,540 in the entire state of Washington.
Source: Wiki, but easily verified from the US Census. And the numbers quoted are from 2010, so the delta is even greater now
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 02, 2018, 06:57:36 AM
And only half of them vote, that's my point. Look at how many registered voters there are and how many people return ballots per county. The opportunity for an upset to Seattle isn't impossible is what I'm getting at. Wishful thinking? Probably. Long shot? Yes. But not impossible. This really doesn't matter though and is taking away from the thread, I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. We need a lot bigger and more precise plans to be put in place to get this law changed.Eastern Washington has a population of about 1.5 million. That is less people in that entire side of the state than live in King County.QuoteIn the 2010 census, Western Washington had a population of 5,229,486 out of the 6,724,540 in the entire state of Washington.
Source: Wiki, but easily verified from the US Census. And the numbers quoted are from 2010, so the delta is even greater now
No look at the numbers. There are less registered voters in Eastern Washington than in King County. Take out Spokane and Walla Walla counties, and every single man, woman, child in Eastern Washington could vote regardless of legal status, and they would not have as many voters as King and Snohomish counties. Add to the fact that the entire I-5 Canada to Olympia, plus Kitsap, plus every island is one big voting block, and your theory has no foundation.
It's simple demographics based on the simple fact that the population of Eastern Washington is small in comparison to that of the Puget Trough. Add that to the fact that say in the case of overturning the 1996 initiatives that the support of Spokane, Benton, Walla Walla, Kittitas, Yakima, and Chelan would be uncertain. Numerically, who cares if it would garner 100% of the vote in Wahkiakum, Garfield, Ferry and Columbia Counties. Those votes would be totally offset by a building or two in Seattle.
Post by: Timberstalker on June 02, 2018, 07:05:53 AM
And only half of them vote, that's my point. Look at how many registered voters there are and how many people return ballots per county. The opportunity for an upset to Seattle isn't impossible is what I'm getting at. Wishful thinking? Probably. Long shot? Yes. But not impossible. This really doesn't matter though and is taking away from the thread, I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. We need a lot bigger and more precise plans to be put in place to get this law changed.Eastern Washington has a population of about 1.5 million. That is less people in that entire side of the state than live in King County.QuoteIn the 2010 census, Western Washington had a population of 5,229,486 out of the 6,724,540 in the entire state of Washington.
Source: Wiki, but easily verified from the US Census. And the numbers quoted are from 2010, so the delta is even greater now
No look at the numbers. There are less registered voters in Eastern Washington than in King County. Take out Spokane and Walla Walla counties, and every single man, woman, child in Eastern Washington could vote regardless of legal status, and they would not have as many voters as King and Snohomish counties. Add to the fact that the entire I-5 Canada to Olympia, plus Kitsap, plus every island is one big voting block, and your theory has no foundation.
It's simple demographics based on the simple fact that the population of Eastern Washington is small in comparison to that of the Puget Trough. Add that to the fact that say in the case of overturning the 1996 initiatives that the support of Spokane, Benton, Walla Walla, Kittitas, Yakima, and Chelan would be uncertain. Numerically, who cares if it would garner 100% of the vote in Wahkiakum, Garfield, Ferry and Columbia Counties. Those votes would be totally offset by a building or two in Seattle.
Correct. That’s why we need to split the state up. Draw a line at about Thorp.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 02, 2018, 07:09:41 AM
And only half of them vote, that's my point. Look at how many registered voters there are and how many people return ballots per county. The opportunity for an upset to Seattle isn't impossible is what I'm getting at. Wishful thinking? Probably. Long shot? Yes. But not impossible. This really doesn't matter though and is taking away from the thread, I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. We need a lot bigger and more precise plans to be put in place to get this law changed.Eastern Washington has a population of about 1.5 million. That is less people in that entire side of the state than live in King County.QuoteIn the 2010 census, Western Washington had a population of 5,229,486 out of the 6,724,540 in the entire state of Washington.
Source: Wiki, but easily verified from the US Census. And the numbers quoted are from 2010, so the delta is even greater now
No look at the numbers. There are less registered voters in Eastern Washington than in King County. Take out Spokane and Walla Walla counties, and every single man, woman, child in Eastern Washington could vote regardless of legal status, and they would not have as many voters as King and Snohomish counties. Add to the fact that the entire I-5 Canada to Olympia, plus Kitsap, plus every island is one big voting block, and your theory has no foundation.
It's simple demographics based on the simple fact that the population of Eastern Washington is small in comparison to that of the Puget Trough. Add that to the fact that say in the case of overturning the 1996 initiatives that the support of Spokane, Benton, Walla Walla, Kittitas, Yakima, and Chelan would be uncertain. Numerically, who cares if it would garner 100% of the vote in Wahkiakum, Garfield, Ferry and Columbia Counties. Those votes would be totally offset by a building or two in Seattle.
Correct. That’s why we need to split the state up. Draw a line at about Thorp.
Then the complaints about the liberal sheeple in Ellensburg, Spokane, Yakima, and Wenatchee would become deafening. After that backfired you'd want a new state centered on Othello as the largest population center.
Post by: Timberstalker on June 02, 2018, 07:15:36 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on June 02, 2018, 07:16:13 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on June 02, 2018, 07:30:20 AM
Here's my thoughts:
If the legislature allows baiting I see it being regulated. Baiting permits, only certain amounts of bait sites, bait size restrictions, etc. Quite honestly, this is what's done in many states currently. I actually think allowing baiting may happen eventually
I think cougar hound hunting as we knew it is gone forever. I think there's just too many anti's with "gruesome" looking videos out there to sway voters/politicians.
I may be completely wrong, but that's my :twocents:
The wdfw will never allow baiting. They are trying their hardest to ban all baiting for all animals because they feel it is unethical. It’s a real shame to because if they did allow baiting for bears by permit they could control exactly where baiting takes place and baiting is something that all hunters can participate in as most hunters will never own hounds.
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2018, 11:12:21 AM
At least that's what I gathered off HW during the bait debates a few year back.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 02, 2018, 09:02:21 PM
And only half of them vote, that's my point. Look at how many registered voters there are and how many people return ballots per county. The opportunity for an upset to Seattle isn't impossible is what I'm getting at. Wishful thinking? Probably. Long shot? Yes. But not impossible. This really doesn't matter though and is taking away from the thread, I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. We need a lot bigger and more precise plans to be put in place to get this law changed.Eastern Washington has a population of about 1.5 million. That is less people in that entire side of the state than live in King County.QuoteIn the 2010 census, Western Washington had a population of 5,229,486 out of the 6,724,540 in the entire state of Washington.
Source: Wiki, but easily verified from the US Census. And the numbers quoted are from 2010, so the delta is even greater now
No look at the numbers. There are less registered voters in Eastern Washington than in King County. Take out Spokane and Walla Walla counties, and every single man, woman, child in Eastern Washington could vote regardless of legal status, and they would not have as many voters as King and Snohomish counties. Add to the fact that the entire I-5 Canada to Olympia, plus Kitsap, plus every island is one big voting block, and your theory has no foundation.
It's simple demographics based on the simple fact that the population of Eastern Washington is small in comparison to that of the Puget Trough. Add that to the fact that say in the case of overturning the 1996 initiatives that the support of Spokane, Benton, Walla Walla, Kittitas, Yakima, and Chelan would be uncertain. Numerically, who cares if it would garner 100% of the vote in Wahkiakum, Garfield, Ferry and Columbia Counties. Those votes would be totally offset by a building or two in Seattle.
Correct. That’s why we need to split the state up. Draw a line at about Thorp.
If you do the math from this site
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/research/county-registration-counts.aspx
You would see that Eastern Washington has about 860,000 registered voters. King county has almost 1 1/2 times as many at 1.266 million registered voters. Thurston, Pierce, King and Snohomish counties combined almost triple Eastern Washington with 2.377 million voters. Then the rest of the Puget Trough north to Canada must be added in.
As far as a seperate state for eastern Washington, I'd actually like to see a vote. I think the eastern Washington population centers of Wenatchee, Spokane, The Tri-Cities, Ellensbug and Yakima would overwhelmingly reject the proposal and the measure would fail on the order of 65% against.
Then we would be free of hearing such ideas for a decade or two.
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2018, 09:09:36 PM
But since you like to hear about it so much I'll do my best to keep it forefront in everyone's thoughts :chuckle:
Go LIBERTY!
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgemstatepatriot.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F04%2Fliberty-flag.jpg&hash=36951415ab65a2264db41b6b963e2dd5a30361b4)
“The flag design is made up of three stars that represent opportunity, resiliency, and the rule of law. The wheat sheaves are a nod to our agricultural traditions, the broken sword is a nod to the sacrifice to the people that have been bringing this issue for literally decades to try to make happen. The broken shackles symbolizes that we don’t want any more of the yoke to the tyranny of downtown Seattle. The blue in the background is really truth and loyalty and of course you have the very centerpiece of the entire flag which is the Osprey, a symbol of freedom really indigenous to our area as well and I think one of the great designs that I’ve ever seen in people of really love that design. It’s really been well received.
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2018, 09:16:04 PM
Post by: konradcountry on June 02, 2018, 09:38:37 PM
The initiative should be illegal as it contained multiple issues on one initiative, I've heard of people using this defense but it seems to be hush hush :-X and tossed out of court but I don't know for sure :dunno:
They've only used that defense to toss initiatives that liberals oppose. No way they would reverse hound hunting on that basis.
It's just an excuse to rule against the will of the people. Look at what they did to the safe site ban initiative:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/initiative-to-ban-safe-injection-sites-in-king-county-knocked-down-by-judge/
Post by: winshooter88 on June 03, 2018, 02:41:46 AM
Post by: bigtex on June 03, 2018, 09:38:58 AM
The change in deer baiting rules came about because of at least one outfitter dumping truck loads of apples in Okanogan county to keep deer on his leased land and off of nearby public land, and by complaints by parts of the hunting community who complained that baiting wasn't ethical, it was not initiated by WDFW, it was started by hunters.:yeah:
And I think the rules will help us in the long run. Now we have regulated baiting whereas before it wasn't regulated and could've been more easily attacked by the anti's.
Also need to remember many states (blue & red) ban baiting all together.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 03, 2018, 10:34:18 AM
The initiative should be illegal as it contained multiple issues on one initiative, I've heard of people using this defense but it seems to be hush hush :-X and tossed out of court but I don't know for sure :dunno:
They've only used that defense to toss initiatives that liberals oppose. No way they would reverse hound hunting on that basis.
It's just an excuse to rule against the will of the people. Look at what they did to the safe site ban initiative:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/initiative-to-ban-safe-injection-sites-in-king-county-knocked-down-by-judge/
It seems to me the best avenue would be a legal challenge to the original initiative. going that route you are dealing with the courts not the general public. doing and initiative and voting is a long shot IMO.
legal challenge would entail legal counsel and thus $$$ correct?
Already been done and lost. Long read, but the result is at the very bottom of the article, and I believe that is where it stopped:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1091801.html
Also found this:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1077412.html
Post by: growler on June 04, 2018, 09:44:02 AM
Post by: wheels on June 04, 2018, 07:10:33 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on June 04, 2018, 08:01:34 PM
Would love to see things overturned somehow. 1996 by county numbers show 31 out of 39 voted for the ban. Only 8 out of 20 counties in eastern WA voted against it. Wonder how a similar vote would go now???
If the RCW got opened for change I bet that there would be many who would try to include racoon and bird hunting! It is always a role of the dice.
Post by: konradcountry on June 09, 2018, 08:44:42 AM
Would love to see things overturned somehow. 1996 by county numbers show 31 out of 39 voted for the ban. Only 8 out of 20 counties in eastern WA voted against it. Wonder how a similar vote would go now???
Would easily pass because the King/Thurston/Whatcom/Jefferson counties have enough liberal voters with a Disney view of animals.
In fact it would pass even easier with all the Californians that have moved here from their Socialist Utopia.
Another problem is that the typical hunter doesn't care about bear or cougar hunting. So even if you started a recall you wouldn't get as many volunteers or donations as the opposition.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
The change in deer baiting rules came about because of at least one outfitter dumping truck loads of apples in Okanogan county to keep deer on his leased land and off of nearby public land, and by complaints by parts of the hunting community who complained that baiting wasn't ethical, it was not initiated by WDFW, it was started by hunters.
The WDFW has been asking questions about baiting for years. Hunters opining that baiting is unethical just gave them the excuse to start moving away from it. They'd have found another reason to limit and eventually ban baiting deer and elk.
Post by: 520backyard on June 09, 2018, 12:23:04 PM
http://www.ptleader.com/news/county-judge-finds-bear-baiting-initiative-unconstitutional/article_adb78810-d9b0-52f4-9589-dbc0c659255f.html
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 09, 2018, 01:12:47 PM
So at the very least I would say precedent has been set by that Jefferson superior court judge's ruling.
You would be wrong
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1091801.html
Post by: 520backyard on June 09, 2018, 01:38:03 PM
I stand corrected.So at the very least I would say precedent has been set by that Jefferson superior court judge's ruling.
You would be wrong
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1091801.html
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 09, 2018, 02:22:28 PM
The initiative should be illegal as it contained multiple issues on one initiative, I've heard of people using this defense but it seems to be hush hush :-X and tossed out of court but I don't know for sure :dunno:
As per the Court of Appeals finding linked above, there was only one issue, namely the taking of certain animals. The CoA also explains how this differs from several of Eyman’s initiaves which demonstrably do contain multiple issues.
Post by: Humptulips on June 09, 2018, 03:48:54 PM
I was a party to the suit to overturn I-713. As has been posted we lost. I-655 and I-713 are similar in that one might think they both would be found unconstitutional based on the two subject rule. Actually I-713 had three subjects one of which was not expressed in the title. Seemed like a slam dunk.
The Court however categorizes subjects in Initiatives as General and Restrictive. Basically if the Court see Rational Unity between the subjects in a title it is General and legal. If the subjects cannot be connected via the rational Unity argument it is restrictive and unconstitutional.
Both of the Initiatives are General in the eyes of the court and so constitutional.
It seems to be some very convoluted reasoning to reach that conclusion but nether will ever be overturned through the court system.
You can read about the I-713 case here https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2003/72186-6-1.html
Either could be changed by a simple majority vote of the Legislature. This did happen with I-713 but Governor Locke vetoed the bill. IMO it is unlikely any changes for the positive will happen with the current make up of the Legislature. Also one has to be sure of an outcome before going down that road as any bill can be amended and end up being more restrictive. We had that happen while trying to pass a repeal of I-713 but were able to kill the bill.
A few words on cost. We spent right about $100,000 on legal bills challenging I-713 about 15 years ago. Costs would be much higher now.
When we defended against the Initiative we were told we needed to raise $850,000 to have a chance of defeating it. HSUS threw $2,000,000 into the campaign. To stand a chance at passing a repeal of either via the Initiative route now would require several million dollars at a minimum.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on June 09, 2018, 04:20:38 PM