Post by: Kain on March 24, 2009, 10:50:03 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/index.htm#recommendations
Glad they changed bear season back to starting in August.
Post by: rosscrazyelk on March 24, 2009, 11:38:23 AM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 24, 2009, 11:48:20 AM
Michael
Post by: MichaelJ on March 24, 2009, 11:58:36 AM
They've also taken out the Sherman unit from the late special permit hunt. I don't know anything about that, but figured some here would like it mentioned.
Entiat C (ARCHERY) permits are raised from 17 to 55. And the Dates are from nov 21-30.
there's some other changes in there as well, but I felt these topics were highlighted on here...
There has been no permit only for the Colockum, no season shutting down, only the True Spike Rule has been implemented and still remains. We'll see what the season brings....
Michael
Post by: mossback91 on March 24, 2009, 12:18:29 PM
SWEET! They brought back the Swakane later archery, but the season now runs from nov 21-30 and is 3 point minimum... No more shooting of does and they shortened the season a couple days from December 5th if I remember right. Smart move on their point imho. (Remeber I know some of you disagree, and we've had that discussion many times on here. Please don't try to start arguments...)
Michael
Good cause I was thinking that you were going to kill all the does up there you doe slayer!!!
Post by: WonkyWapiti on March 24, 2009, 07:31:19 PM
Post by: 7mag. on March 24, 2009, 07:52:06 PM
Looks like they finally are letting archers carry a pistol for protection if they have a cwp.
Good, now I'll be legit.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 24, 2009, 07:54:17 PM
Post by: bearmanric on March 24, 2009, 08:00:27 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 24, 2009, 08:05:09 PM
Looks like they finally are letting archers carry a pistol for protection if they have a cwp.
I don't think you need a concealed weapons permit to carry a handgun while hunting. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: Armadillo on March 24, 2009, 08:08:33 PM
Post by: Slider on March 24, 2009, 08:27:17 PM
Looks like they finally are letting archers carry a pistol for protection if they have a cwp.
:)
Post by: bowhuntin on March 24, 2009, 08:40:46 PM
Post by: Craig on March 24, 2009, 09:37:41 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on March 24, 2009, 09:41:57 PM
Looks like they got rid of the Chiliwist late buck tag. I guess I need a new unit to put in for.
:bash: :bash:
Post by: Alpine Mojo on March 24, 2009, 09:45:27 PM
RCW 9.41.060
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060)
"The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 (carry, including concealed) shall not apply to...
...Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area"
Post by: Jerbear on March 24, 2009, 10:25:22 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on March 24, 2009, 11:24:08 PM
The way I read it, you don't need your CPL to carry concealed while your outside recreating. I let mine expire a couple of years ago for this reason. No need to shell out another $50 to renew my name in their database.
RCW 9.41.060
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060)
"The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 (carry, including concealed) shall not apply to...
...Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area"
Reading the RCW makes more sense than what they have in the final recommendations. Leave it to the WDFW to confuse people.
I think the CWP is because some folks have felony records, and they can hunt with bows, but still not allowed by law to have a firearm.
Jerbear that is also what I was thinking, but them having a gun even if they weren't hunting is breaking the law because of their felony conviction.
Post by: Kain on March 25, 2009, 12:37:40 AM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 25, 2009, 01:07:13 AM
Michael
Post by: Kain on March 25, 2009, 01:24:24 AM
Post by: Machias on March 25, 2009, 09:10:26 AM
RCW 9.41.060
Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.
The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:
(1) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of this state or another state;
(2) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves, when on duty;
(3) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed pistol;
(4) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of the person, if possessing, using, or carrying a pistol in the usual or ordinary course of the business;
(5) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the United States or from this state;
(6) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of target shooting, when those members are at or are going to or from their places of target practice;
(7) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of modern and antique firearm collecting, when those members are at or are going to or from their collector's gun shows and exhibits;
( 8 ) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;
(9) Any person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper; or
(10) Law enforcement officers retired for service or physical disabilities, except for those law enforcement officers retired because of mental or stress-related disabilities. This subsection applies only to a retired officer who has: (a) Obtained documentation from a law enforcement agency within Washington state from which he or she retired that is signed by the agency's chief law enforcement officer and that states that the retired officer was retired for service or physical disability; and (b) not been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime making him or her ineligible for a concealed pistol license.
[2005 c 453 § 3; 1998 c 253 § 2; 1996 c 295 § 5; 1995 c 392 § 1; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 406; 1961 c 124 § 5; 1935 c 172 § 6; RRS § 2516-6.]
Notes:
Severability -- 2005 c 453: See note following RCW 9.41.040.
Finding -- Intent -- Severability -- 1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
Effective date -- 1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
Post by: nw_bowhunter on March 25, 2009, 09:41:08 AM
Post by: Machias on March 25, 2009, 10:29:47 AM
The main reason for them requiring a CWP for carrying during archery seasons is their concern for people dispatching wounded game with their handgun. They don't want every joe somebody up on the mountain with a bow carrying a pistol, they wanted a way to 'try' to ensure that those carrying were going to be ethical about it. They took input from the public and decided that 'most' of those with a CWP will be ethical in how they use their pistol during archery season. Makes sense to me.
Michael
I'm not attacking you, but it makes no sense to me. How will a CWP stop someone who would use a weapon to dispatch an animal? It won't. Obtaining a CWP does not make a person more ethical then someone without a CWP.
Post by: MichaelJ on March 25, 2009, 11:07:06 AM
The main reason for them requiring a CWP for carrying during archery seasons is their concern for people dispatching wounded game with their handgun. They don't want every joe somebody up on the mountain with a bow carrying a pistol, they wanted a way to 'try' to ensure that those carrying were going to be ethical about it. They took input from the public and decided that 'most' of those with a CWP will be ethical in how they use their pistol during archery season. Makes sense to me.
Michael
I'm not attacking you, but it makes no sense to me. How will a CWP stop someone who would use a weapon to dispatch an animal? It won't. Obtaining a CWP does not make a person more ethical then someone without a CWP.
Understood... However maybe Aaron can chime in, he was at the meeting as well...
Here is how I look at it...
'Most' poachers and unethical people out there have very little regard for rules/regulations, I would be very surprised if most poachers out there had pistols that they carried with them without a CWP because they just don't care about the law. it seems to me that anybody who is willing to go through the process of getting a CWP is less likely to abuse their rights than someone who hasn't.
I know that the commissioner made a statement during the Eburg meeting much like "Now I know that I am never without my 44 mag while archery hunting in Montana. There's too many things out there that I'm scared of..." (it was a pretty funny remark, but you could tell he was for the carrying of pistols during archery seasons). They just want a way to be able to regulate it, and try to keep people from using them in ways other than intended...
Michael
Post by: Kain on March 25, 2009, 11:12:48 AM
Post by: Machias on March 25, 2009, 11:38:39 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 25, 2009, 04:56:16 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on March 25, 2009, 05:13:29 PM
Post by: Kain on March 26, 2009, 10:17:02 AM
Post by: whacker1 on March 26, 2009, 11:05:17 AM
Post by: muzzleman on March 26, 2009, 02:30:29 PM
Post by: Machias on March 26, 2009, 02:47:07 PM
We live on a open carry state, it is legal to carry a side arm in view. It is not legal to conceal a side arm without a CPL Which is a Concealed pistol licence.
Yes, we know that, but the WDFW seems to be trying to put in an RCW allowing folks to open carry while bowhunting IF they have a CWP.
Post by: muzzleman on March 26, 2009, 04:39:34 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 26, 2009, 07:30:36 PM
We live on a open carry state, it is legal to carry a side arm in view. It is not legal to conceal a side arm without a CPL Which is a Concealed pistol licence.
That is not completely true. It IS legal to "conceal a side arm without a CPL." As long as you are doing so while you are recreating in the outdoors. As was posted previously in this same thread:
Quote
"The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 (carry, including concealed) shall not apply to...
...Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area"
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 27, 2009, 08:24:41 AM
Post by: salmonkiller on March 29, 2009, 09:42:35 AM
Hunting is not defense of yourself or the state.
When I spoke with a WDFW officer about the original draft he asked me to look at the wording. It says for self protection. And only for ML or bow hunters. Because modern hunters can carry a sidearm that meets certain criteria. The public wanted to be able to carry, but the WDFW did not. And the problem was the state constitution. The WDFW can't violate that. They had just not been called to the carpet for this yet. Thus the WDFW came up with the CPL clause to get around thet. This state is an open carry state but if you do concealed a pistol and do not have a CPL you will be arested. Even if you are engaged in a lawful outdoor activity. Carry it exposed and you are OK.
Post by: bobcat on March 29, 2009, 09:47:57 AM
This state is an open carry state but if you do concealed a pistol and do not have a CPL you will be arested. Even if you are engaged in a lawful outdoor activity. Carry it exposed and you are OK.
That is not true. Did you read what I posted above?
Quote
"The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 (carry, including concealed) shall not apply to...
...Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area"
Post by: Machias on March 29, 2009, 10:38:04 AM
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Hunting is not defense of yourself or the state.
When I spoke with a WDFW officer about the original draft he asked me to look at the wording. It says for self protection. And only for ML or bow hunters. Because modern hunters can carry a sidearm that meets certain criteria. The public wanted to be able to carry, but the WDFW did not. And the problem was the state constitution. The WDFW can't violate that. They had just not been called to the carpet for this yet. Thus the WDFW came up with the CPL clause to get around thet. This state is an open carry state but if you do concealed a pistol and do not have a CPL you will be arested. Even if you are engaged in a lawful outdoor activity. Carry it exposed and you are OK.
Welcome to the site, however your first post is dead wrong. See bold section below:
RCW 9.41.060
Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.
The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:
(1) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of this state or another state;
(2) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves, when on duty;
(3) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed pistol;
(4) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of the person, if possessing, using, or carrying a pistol in the usual or ordinary course of the business;
(5) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the United States or from this state;
(6) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of target shooting, when those members are at or are going to or from their places of target practice;
(7) Regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for the purpose of modern and antique firearm collecting, when those members are at or are going to or from their collector's gun shows and exhibits;
( 8 ) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;
(9) Any person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper; or
(10) Law enforcement officers retired for service or physical disabilities, except for those law enforcement officers retired because of mental or stress-related disabilities. This subsection applies only to a retired officer who has: (a) Obtained documentation from a law enforcement agency within Washington state from which he or she retired that is signed by the agency's chief law enforcement officer and that states that the retired officer was retired for service or physical disability; and (b) not been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime making him or her ineligible for a concealed pistol license.
[2005 c 453 § 3; 1998 c 253 § 2; 1996 c 295 § 5; 1995 c 392 § 1; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 406; 1961 c 124 § 5; 1935 c 172 § 6; RRS § 2516-6.]
Notes:
Severability -- 2005 c 453: See note following RCW 9.41.040.
Finding -- Intent -- Severability -- 1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
Effective date -- 1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
Post by: InsideWDFW on March 29, 2009, 06:09:02 PM
While both the state and federal Constitutions allow you to care firearms, there are exceptions. For those with a CWP you know you can't carry in a bar, casino, schools, ect. A business can post notice that firearms are not allowed on property and this usually leaves you the choice of leaving your weapon off premise, or not gracing the establishment with your presence.
When you purchase your hunting license, you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations set forth yada yada. If the rules and regulations state that you cannot carry a firearm while hunting archery, then you can't or you don't hunt. You voluntary agree not to carry a firearm. The state does not force you to give up your right, you chose to follow all rules and regulations when you purchased the license - even to the point of not carrying a firearm.
Section 8 of RCW 9.41.060 doesn't restrict hunters, but it also doesn't automatically grant the right either. It's an exception to RCW 9.41.050. Nothing more. Other laws can (and do) restrict this section.
So why did WDFW change the regulation? Basically it's not worth the fight. According to the AG's office any court case would have gone our way. Hunting in Washington is a privilege, not a right. This is the reason why hunting privileges can be revoked without going to a court. It's just not worth the millions of dollars and time that would go into a court case.
So why only CWP holders? Safety for everyone in the woods. The last thing we want to see his a 14 year old kid running down a hillside with a glock down his pants. If a few years pass without incident, it might be revised. All depends on how smart people are about this.
Post by: Machias on March 30, 2009, 11:12:44 AM
"So why only CWP holders? Safety for everyone in the woods. The last thing we want to see his a 14 year old kid running down a hillside with a glock down his pants. If a few years pass without incident, it might be revised. All depends on how smart people are about this."
Ah it's already illegal for a 14 year old to carry or anyone under 21, correct. Dang you folks just piss me off. You all have the mentality that all hunters and fisherman are just a bunch of crooks waiting to commit a crime. Sheesh, thanks for protecting us from ourselves.
Post by: Kain on March 30, 2009, 12:05:13 PM
Post by: InsideWDFW on March 30, 2009, 07:52:50 PM
That's so nice of the Department. >:(
"So why only CWP holders? Safety for everyone in the woods. The last thing we want to see his a 14 year old kid running down a hillside with a glock down his pants. If a few years pass without incident, it might be revised. All depends on how smart people are about this."
Ah it's already illegal for a 14 year old to carry or anyone under 21, correct. Dang you folks just piss me off. You all have the mentality that all hunters and fisherman are just a bunch of crooks waiting to commit a crime. Sheesh, thanks for protecting us from ourselves.
It's illegal for those under 21 to purchase a handgun, not carry. If the age to purchase was the same age to carry you wouldn't see any modern hunters under the age of 18. Now to have a CWP is 18 (or 21, it's been a few years since I got mine).
Climbing down a hillside with a sidearm in your belt, especially if you are excited after getting that 4 point, is a bit different then walking down a side walk. The very last thing we need some newspaper writing a story about how all hunters are running around armed to the teeth in the middle of hiking season.
Post by: Machias on March 30, 2009, 07:58:11 PM
What in the wide wide world of flying F does that have to do with anything??? LOTS of hikers are already armed, your not really that much of a DUMB @$$ are you?????? You folks are not in touch with reality, my god, that statement is just amazing.
Post by: InsideWDFW on March 30, 2009, 08:08:56 PM
"Climbing down a hillside with a sidearm in your belt, especially if you are excited after getting that 4 point, is a bit different then walking down a side walk. The very last thing we need some newspaper writing a story about how all hunters are running around armed to the teeth in the middle of hiking season."
What in the wide wide world of flying F does that have to do with anything??? LOTS of hikers are already armed, your not really that much of a DUMB @$$ are you?????? You folks are not in touch with reality, my god, that statement is just amazing.
Why do I try.. yea there are hundreds of people armed in the woods, both hunters and non, but all it takes is ONE incident of a hunter messing up and the press is all over it. You do remember Sauk don't you? You don't have the faintest clue how much politicking was done by WDFW in order to keep all sorts of whacky legislation at bay including the out right banning of ALL hunting during August and September. 57 people died last year while hiking, you tell me what story the gun-hating public remembers.
Post by: Machias on March 30, 2009, 08:18:29 PM
Post by: InsideWDFW on March 30, 2009, 10:03:25 PM
THEY SHOULDN"T BE POLTICING AT ALL!!!! They should be managing wildlife through SCIENTIFIC METHODS!! That is you guys fricken problem you have LOST YOUR FOCUS and BEARING. It's frustrating, I grew up with one of the best run Fish and Game Department in Missouri, they worked with sportsmen and farmers and managed the wildlife, not the polititcians. :bash: :bash:
I agree 100% Machias. Those of us who have spent thousands of dollars on an education and and the focused our lives on wildlife want nothing more then to be left alone to do it to the best of our abilities.
In this day and age it's ALL about politics. We have to play the game if we want anything good to come from our hard work. If you want someone to be mad at, talk to your legislature and your local news organization. They ultimately have greater control over managing wildlife in Washington then the PhD living out of a tent in the field.
Post by: whacker1 on March 31, 2009, 10:02:17 AM
This sort of dialogue is good it creates transparency for many of the folks that wouldn't normally get to hear what you have to say. Again, not everybody is going to agree with you or WDFW, but it least keeps more people informed of what is going on in the inside.