Post by: coyotemadness on April 07, 2009, 12:58:05 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=apr0609b (http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=apr0609b)
Post by: Crunchy on April 07, 2009, 06:11:05 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 07, 2009, 06:14:49 AM
Post by: stumprat on April 07, 2009, 06:17:12 AM
Hmmmmmmmm. That Archery Cougar season still cracks me up. oh yeah and the muzzelloader one.
:lol4: I love it. And these people have college degrees. :chuckle:
Post by: oneezreiter on April 07, 2009, 06:26:10 AM
Post by: ThePascoKid on April 07, 2009, 07:43:34 AM
Post by: CP on April 07, 2009, 07:47:06 AM
Post by: MHWASH on April 07, 2009, 08:03:57 AM
I can't understand why anybody that owns guns would not have a CWP
Post by: ThePascoKid on April 07, 2009, 09:27:51 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 07, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Post by: JoshT on April 07, 2009, 09:46:15 AM
I can't understand why anybody that owns guns would not have a CWP
I agree.... I don't know that everyone should be packing, leave that to the guys who know how to handle a pistol in 'situation'. But... if everyone who was a gun owner had a CPL... that would show the legeslature and the citizens of WA how much clout we really have. Armed citizens are the best prevention against crime... period.
Post by: CP on April 07, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
Post by: hogsniper on April 07, 2009, 09:50:36 AM
Post by: stumprat on April 07, 2009, 09:53:51 AM
Post by: JoshT on April 07, 2009, 09:54:34 AM
At least that's my take on the rule change.... does that make any sense?
Post by: CP on April 07, 2009, 10:04:31 AM
Post by: stumprat on April 07, 2009, 10:06:49 AM
So if I’m fishing, hiking, horseback ridding, duck hunting, modern deer hunting, etc I can carry without a CPL, but as soon as I pickup a muzzleloader or a bow I have to another license? Senseless BS. :tdown:
Pretty smart eh.
Post by: RailRob on April 07, 2009, 10:09:48 AM
So if I’m fishing, hiking, horseback ridding, duck hunting, modern deer hunting, etc I can carry without a CPL, but as soon as I pickup a muzzleloader or a bow I have to another license? Senseless BS. :tdown:
yep..basically!
Post by: JoshT on April 07, 2009, 10:10:53 AM
If the tag in your pocket allows for the harvest of a game animal via BOW or MUZZLELOADER... then yes... you should. None of the activities you mentioned place any restriction on the use of a firearm... having a MZ or Bow tag does place a limit on the use (or access to) a firearm. Hence my interpretation of the law's intention. I could be way off base... but that seems like a reasonable (at least as reasonable as you can get in WA) explination.
Don't get me wrong... I don't think you should have to have any kind of license to pack a gun... if you can buy one, you should be able to carry one. I'm just trying to see the other side of the coin here.
Post by: boneaddict on April 07, 2009, 10:13:02 AM
Quote
see the other side of the coin here.
Goodluck with that. :chuckle:
Post by: CP on April 07, 2009, 10:17:44 AM
None of the activities you mentioned place any restriction on the use of a firearm... having a MZ or Bow tag does place a limit on the use (or access to) a firearm.
So if I'm fishing for humpies on the Sky is it OK to shoot them with my sidearm?
Post by: JoshT on April 07, 2009, 10:27:57 AM
Quotesee the other side of the coin here.
Goodluck with that. :chuckle:
Hey man... at least I'm trying...
None of the activities you mentioned place any restriction on the use of a firearm... having a MZ or Bow tag does place a limit on the use (or access to) a firearm.
So if I'm fishing for humpies on the Sky is it OK to shoot them with my sidearm?
Not ok to shoot them... but ok to have access to a firearm. A fishing license doesn't place restrictions on the use of a firearm... an Archery tag DOES... a Muzzleloader tag DOES. By purchasing one of those two tags you limit yourself to access to the firearm if you're in an area where that particular season is open... it's part of the reason for the season so to speak. If you don't have a bow tag... and you want to hike, camp, fish for Humpies, etc... and it's in an area that's open for bowhunting... then pack away. But if you have a bow tag, in an area that's open to archery... then I don't see why you feel the need to pack a 7" barreled .357... afterall, you're hunting with your bow... remember?
Let me ask you this... why do you need a sidearm durring bow season?
If the answer is because I want one... then get a CPL.
If the answer is because I never know when I'll run into a ner-do-well crackhead... then get a CPL.
If you just want to bitch about the policy... then proceed.
Post by: boneaddict on April 07, 2009, 10:48:32 AM
Post by: stumprat on April 07, 2009, 10:53:08 AM
When fishing for catch and release selected waters is it ok to have barbed hooks in your box?
Only with a permit my man. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on April 07, 2009, 10:53:45 AM
Post by: stumprat on April 07, 2009, 10:55:04 AM
Post by: MHWASH on April 07, 2009, 10:57:05 AM
I think the point of the law is being missed... my understanding is: Folks were worried about personal safety while in the woods with a bow... not safety from critters... but safety from Tweekers and other unruley types. The point is to allow them to be armed in the same manner as me while I'm in the South Center Mall... not to allow them to pack their .45 LC for shooting the occasional grouse. As the original law was stated... you basically were in violation of the big game statute... even if you're sole purpose for having the sidearm was because you never know who you'll run into breaking into your car while it's parked in Capitol Forrest... now at least that right has been granted (even though it should NOT BE INFRINGED).
At least that's my take on the rule change.... does that make any sense?
+1
I could not have said it any better.
I also believe if you own a gun, any gun, You should be a member of the NRA. Is it required, no, but it makes a whole lot of sence.
Post by: boneaddict on April 07, 2009, 11:01:04 AM
By the way, stairing at a button attached to my monitor..."I'm the NRA and I VOTE"
Post by: boneaddict on April 07, 2009, 11:01:43 AM
Post by: JoshT on April 07, 2009, 12:12:39 PM
That is a good point Josh, but I would think that it wouldn't be necessary in a game law. You should have to practice what current CW laws there are on the books. I can have a hand gun with me and still be within state guidelines.
I agree... it shouldn't be in a game law. But again... I think the CPL part of it is an attempt to protect the integrity of the Archery and Muzzleloader seasons... that's all. I think the law was made this way to discourage the carrying of "hunting" type pistols... and still apease the wishes of those who'd like to carry a "defense" type pistol. Thereby discouraging folks from hammering a whitetail with a 240 grain SJHP... then saying it was a Zwickey. I know my 9mm is inferior to both a bow and a muzzleloader in the killing and accuracy department, can't say the same for a big ass .44 revolver.
I know... I know... that's catering to the 1%... but what else would you expect from the WDFW? We all know those two definitions ("hunting" type and "defense" type) are quite vague... but my guess is that's the only way the lawmakers could address both sides of the issue. I know you don't need a CPL for open carry in WA... but I think we're getting into a spirit of the law vs. letter of the law thing here.
Post by: bearmanric on April 07, 2009, 12:39:50 PM
Post by: Intruder on April 07, 2009, 01:05:14 PM
Post by: CP on April 07, 2009, 01:40:34 PM
I don’t buy into the argument that we shouldn’t be allowed to carry equipment that we might use to committee a violation. Like I posted earlier, I hold a CPL and this ruling will not affect me at all, but I will continue to write the WDFW for changing it because the rule is wrong and it should be opposed.
Post by: bbarnes on April 07, 2009, 08:31:16 PM
Post by: stumprat on April 07, 2009, 08:39:03 PM
You guys don't get it well let me let you in on a little secret .There trying to catch all the felon's that are buying the tag's illegally.Talk about revenue for the state just get wrapped up in the court system.
How does this rule expose felons? You don't have to show your permit to buy a tag & license.
Post by: bbarnes on April 07, 2009, 08:43:04 PM
Post by: bbarnes on April 07, 2009, 08:46:24 PM
Post by: stumprat on April 07, 2009, 08:52:52 PM
Point # 2 is why all the extra opportunity's for the muzzle loader guy's?There not a primitive weapon any more.Can someone explain this to me,because i have hunted each method and harvested game with each weapon and it seem the rifle guy is taken in the rear here.Please give me some insight here thanks B Barnes.
Still primitive in my opinion. Open sights, exposed cap, limited range,single shot then pour powder or pellets and ram bullet. So whats changed other than the look of the gun.
Post by: Machias on April 07, 2009, 08:53:36 PM
But when you try to get your CW permit you have to show your drivers licence.Then when the WDFW officers see you in the wood, now they can really check you.
It changes nothing except making honest guys jump through more hoops and spend more money. Guys have been packing heat concealed for years and if they were already packing this changes nothing for felons, they were already not allowed to carry. If they make hikers, bikers and fishermen get CWPs then maybe. If your not carrying concealed you should not have to get a CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT!
Post by: CP on April 08, 2009, 06:46:18 AM
Point # 2 is why all the extra opportunity's for the muzzle loader guy's?There not a primitive weapon any more.Can someone explain this to me,because i have hunted each method and harvested game with each weapon and it seem the rifle guy is taken in the rear here.Please give me some insight here thanks B Barnes.
What extra opportunity? ML tag holders are still getting the short end of the stick with less GMUs and less draw tags than modern rifle.
If you think ML hunting opportunities are so great, you are free to get whatever tag you want.
Post by: JoshT on April 08, 2009, 07:15:06 AM
If they make hikers, bikers and fishermen get CWPs then maybe. If your not carrying concealed you should not have to get a CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT!
You don't have to get a CPL to open carry... unless it's in an archery unit, durring archery season, and you have an archery permit. Same goes for MZ. The reason the hikers, bikers and fishermen don't have to have a CPL to OPEN CARRY (they still need the CPL to carry concealed)... is because they didn't agree to self imposed limits to firearms durring big game seasons... someone who buys an archery or MZ tag DOES AGREE TO LIMITED FIREARM ACCESS. When you agree to that... you get what you get. Would you rather they go back to the old law where you couldn't have a firearm on your person... or even in your truck?
Again, don't get me wrong here... I don't think any law-abiding citizen should be subject to any kind of firearm restrictions... or permit application processes. But, at least this is a start in the right direction... more opportunity, not less.
Post by: Ray on April 08, 2009, 07:16:47 AM
Quote
If you think ML hunting opportunities are so great, you are free to get whatever tag you want.
I think that's the way it's supposed to work. :hello: More often than not I believe the system is fairly even as far as opportunities in most cases.
Post by: Kain on April 08, 2009, 10:09:37 AM
If they make hikers, bikers and fishermen get CWPs then maybe. If your not carrying concealed you should not have to get a CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT!
You don't have to get a CPL to open carry... unless it's in an archery unit, durring archery season, and you have an archery permit. Same goes for MZ. The reason the hikers, bikers and fishermen don't have to have a CPL to OPEN CARRY (they still need the CPL to carry concealed)... is because they didn't agree to self imposed limits to firearms durring big game seasons... someone who buys an archery or MZ tag DOES AGREE TO LIMITED FIREARM ACCESS. When you agree to that... you get what you get. Would you rather they go back to the old law where you couldn't have a firearm on your person... or even in your truck?
Again, don't get me wrong here... I don't think any law-abiding citizen should be subject to any kind of firearm restrictions... or permit application processes. But, at least this is a start in the right direction... more opportunity, not less.
You are wrong here. A hiker, biker, modern firearms hunter, fisherman or anyone engaging in a lawful outdoor activity is NOT required to have a CWP to carry open or concealed. That is the problem with this new rule. It unfairly targets a minority of outdoorsman for no reason at all. There is already a rule that say you cannot shoot an animal with a firearm that is not on your tag even to dispatch wounded game. Your whole idea that we should have to give up our rights just because we want to hunt with a certain weapon for a particular animal is just wrong. We are forced to agree or not hunt the way we want. The rule will not stop criminals or make anyone safer.
RCW 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: ThePascoKid on April 08, 2009, 10:13:30 AM
Post by: Sneaky on April 08, 2009, 10:32:27 AM
Post by: JoshT on April 08, 2009, 11:17:21 AM
If you have a pistol concealed... you better have a CPL in this state. Hiker, biker, fisherman, waitress at Sonic, longshoreman, construction worker, census taker... it doesn't matter... a concealed pistol requires a license.
RCW 9.41.060 (as you quoted it) assumes the person carrying concealed would have the appropriate license... it does not grant them amnesty from the existing laws regarding the carrying of a concealed pistol. It mearly does not place a restriction on the carrying of the concealed pistol... like the proposed Mayor Nicols Seattle parks laws.
Open carry is always legal... provided your carry method fits the discription of "open carry"... unless it's durring bow/mz season... and you have a bow/mz tag... and you're in an area open to bw/mz hunting.
Not right... just how it is.
Post by: Kain on April 08, 2009, 11:40:41 AM
I concur... they could.
If you have a pistol concealed... you better have a CPL in this state. Hiker, biker, fisherman, waitress at Sonic, longshoreman, construction worker, census taker... it doesn't matter... a concealed pistol requires a license.
RCW 9.41.060 (as you quoted it) assumes the person carrying concealed would have the appropriate license... it does not grant them amnesty from the existing laws regarding the carrying of a concealed pistol. It mearly does not place a restriction on the carrying of the concealed pistol... like the proposed Mayor Nicols Seattle parks laws.
Open carry is always legal... provided your carry method fits the discription of "open carry"... unless it's durring bow/mz season... and you have a bow/mz tag... and you're in an area open to bw/mz hunting.
Not right... just how it is.
Actually it does.
"RCW 9.41.060
Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.
The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:"
If you read it does provide exceptions to the 9.41.050 laws. This includes "(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol."
Obviously you cant carry a firearm anywhere it would be restricted but you can carry concealed without a CWP. As long as you are going to, or from, or engaging in, a legal outdoor activity the 9.41.050 "shall not apply to" you.
So technically the hunting license itself IS your CWP already (while hunting).
Post by: Machias on April 08, 2009, 12:51:36 PM
I concur... they could.
If you have a pistol concealed... you better have a CPL in this state. Hiker, biker, fisherman, waitress at Sonic, longshoreman, construction worker, census taker... it doesn't matter... a concealed pistol requires a license.
RCW 9.41.060 (as you quoted it) assumes the person carrying concealed would have the appropriate license... it does not grant them amnesty from the existing laws regarding the carrying of a concealed pistol. It mearly does not place a restriction on the carrying of the concealed pistol... like the proposed Mayor Nicols Seattle parks laws.
Open carry is always legal... provided your carry method fits the discription of "open carry"... unless it's durring bow/mz season... and you have a bow/mz tag... and you're in an area open to bw/mz hunting.
Not right... just how it is.
WRONG, if you are engaged in an outdoor activity you are allowed to carry concealed WITHOUT a conealed carry permit. THAT is why it is asinine to force bowhunters to have a CWP while carrying openly or concealed, but escpecially openly!!!!!
Post by: JoshT on April 08, 2009, 01:28:51 PM
Sweet... I stand corrected. SO... how can a big game statute be in direct violation of a state law? Now I see what all the fuss is about.
Post by: Kain on April 08, 2009, 01:35:42 PM
Ok I think we are all on the same page about the law. I already have a CWP so this for me is just principle and wont really effect me. I have already sent letters to the commission before and after the meeting on April 4th. I was not able to make it to the meeting and I guess no one else that had a problem with this new rule did either. I guess we are stuck with it unless someone wants to take legal action. Dont know if that would be productive or worth it. But if you guys want to write a nice letter letting them know how you feel about this, it might make a difference for next year.
commission@dfw.wa.gov
I havent seen anyone on here that really likes the law. I see the guys that are guessing the reason behind it but even they seem to think its not a great idea. I could be wrong on that. Please send in your letters and then we can move on.
Happy hunting guys.
Post by: Machias on April 08, 2009, 01:37:28 PM
Post by: boneaddict on April 08, 2009, 01:42:01 PM
Post by: lamar_hunter on April 08, 2009, 01:42:55 PM
Post by: JoshT on April 08, 2009, 01:43:05 PM
Post by: boneaddict on April 08, 2009, 01:44:33 PM
Post by: Kain on April 08, 2009, 01:47:42 PM
so are you allowed to dispatch wounded game if u have ur CWP? or just carry a gun.
No, that is what makes the rule so ridiculous. There is already a rule against dispatching game with the wrong weapon. You can dispatch wounded animals with a black powder pistol if you have a Mzl license though, as long as it meets all the requirements for muzzle load firearms.
Post by: Kain on April 08, 2009, 01:54:10 PM
Four folks out enjoying the woods on 1 Sept. They meet at a trail crossing. One guy is just hiking, he has a loaded handgun in his backpack, one guy is riding his mule and has a loaded handgun in a saddle bag, one guy was fishing a mountain lake and has a loaded handgun concealed by his jacket and one guy is bowhunting and had his handgun in a holster in plain view. None of them have a CWP. Only one will be in violation? The bowhunter. Makes NO sense what so ever.
Lol just sent another letter to the commission. All it had was this in it. Thanks that is perfect for getting at the point of my problems with this.
Copy of letter
"
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,24629.45.html
"Four folks out enjoying the woods on 1 Sept. They meet at a trail crossing. One guy is just hiking, he has a loaded handgun in his backpack, one guy is riding his mule and has a loaded handgun in a saddle bag, one guy was fishing a mountain lake and has a loaded handgun concealed by his jacket and one guy is bowhunting and had his handgun in a holster in plain view. None of them have a CWP. Only one will be in violation? The bowhunter. Makes NO sense what so ever."
Hope there is still time for you to reconsider the ridiculous rule."
Post by: Kain on April 08, 2009, 02:04:43 PM
Post by: lamar_hunter on April 09, 2009, 09:28:04 AM
Post by: Ray on April 09, 2009, 09:42:23 AM
Post by: ThePascoKid on April 09, 2009, 09:54:26 AM
Post by: Kain on April 09, 2009, 09:57:09 AM
They have to draw the line in the sand with regards to hunting weaponry. I agree with the rule of not permitting people to "finish off" critters with a weapon that is not legal for the season at hand. In this case something like a pistol in the archery season for example. It would otherwise leave the playing field open for abusing the system and poaching out of season to spread.+1 on that. To much room for abuse, but I guess that is why they dont want us to have a handgun in the first place. Just practice as much as you can to make sure there is very little chance of wounding an animal in the first place. If you can finish it off with a pistol you can do it with a bow.
Post by: cascademountainhunter on April 09, 2009, 10:10:42 AM
Post by: shanevg on April 09, 2009, 01:14:06 PM
commission@dfw.wa.gov, <wildthing@dfw.wa.gov>, director@dfw.wa.gov, turcocmt@dfw.wa.gov, TeamSpokane@dfw.wa.gov, TeamEphrata@dfw.wa.gov , TeamYakima@dfw.wa.gov, TeamMillCreek@dfw.wa.gov , TeamVancouver@dfw.wa.gov, TeamMontesano@dfw.wa.gov
I was reading through the recent press release regarding the rule changes to carrying a handgun during archery and muzzleloader season. According to the news release:
"Hunting equipment: Hunters using muzzleloaders or archery equipment will be allowed to carry a handgun for personal protection if they have a concealed pistol permit. Hunters may also use black powder pistols to hunt during muzzleloader seasons."
This new rule is in direct violation to the Washington State law established by the state Legislature RCW 9.41.060 which provides exceptions to Washington State law 9.41.050 (carrying firearms restrictions). RCW 9.41.050 states that:
"(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol."
RCW 9.41.060 provides the exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms. Specifically it says that:
"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."
I do not understand how WDFW can enact a hunting regulation that directly contradicts the laws established by the Washington State Legislature. To demonstrate what this new regulation enables imagine the following scenario: Four folks out enjoying the woods on 1 Sept. They meet at a trail crossing. One guy is just hiking, he has a loaded handgun in his backpack, one guy is riding his mule and has a loaded handgun in a saddle bag, one guy was fishing a mountain lake and has a loaded handgun concealed by his jacket and one guy is bowhunting and had his handgun in a holster in plain view. None of them have a CWP. Only one will be in violation? The bowhunter.
Obviously, the new regulation put in place by the WDFW is either misinformed or misguided in its purpose. No rights need to be offered to muzzleloaders or archery hunters to "allow" them to carry handguns by the WDFW since those rights are already given by the State of Washington. Furthermore, WDFW's "granted rights" in fact put limitations on the ability for a hunter to carry a firearm by requiring them to obtain a concealed pistol permit.
Please reconsider the establishment of this regulation and remove it from the forthcoming hunting regulations. If it is too late for that to happen (as the regulations are to be released by April 20) please send out an email to all hunters that inform them of the change of such a rule.
Post by: Bofire on April 09, 2009, 02:03:56 PM
All laws are subject to a criteria. Because there so many situations to try to cover in a real life, so the default is: The most "specific" law to any situation and the most "restrictive" law. So in general you must have a permit to carry a loaded handgun concealed but in the specific case of "outdoor activities"etc, you can carry one.
There are many laws like this.
I am taking no side in this debate about archery or muzzle loader hunting. just trying to help you understand.
Post by: Machias on April 09, 2009, 02:31:56 PM
:)There is no contradiction, the law covers two different situations, "carrying concealed, while camping etc"
All laws are subject to a criteria. Because there so many situations to try to cover in a real life, so the default is: The most "specific" law to any situation and the most "restrictive" law. So in general you must have a permit to carry a loaded handgun concealed but in the specific case of "outdoor activities"etc, you can carry one.
There are many laws like this.
I am taking no side in this debate about archery or muzzle loader hunting. just trying to help you understand.
How about if your openly carrying, not concealed???? That is the part that is wrong.
Post by: Kain on April 09, 2009, 02:48:55 PM
Bofire and everyone else that hasnt decided, you have the right to not take a side on this and you dont have to explain yourself to me or anybody. But I would ask that you consider siding against more restrictions against any hunter group. If this restriction/requirement was against all hunter groups I think many more people would be upset about it. It is important to make sure WDFW knows that creating regulations that have nothing to do with game management or hunter and public safety will not be taken lightly. I can see exceptions to this in regards to things like broad head design, arrow weight, bullet caliber, and so on. But to require archers and MZL hunters to have a CWP to even carry openly, when no other hunter group or even outdoor user group, is required to is not one of them.
Post by: Kain on April 09, 2009, 03:28:02 PM
The duck hunter asks “why do you need to see that?”
The warden replies “for the pistol at your side.”
“But it is not concealed.”
“Hunting regulations require you to have a CWP to carry a handgun” says the officer.
The hunter who knows the state law replies “I am not required to have a CWP to carry openly and state law also allows me to carry concealed while hunting.”
The warden says “WDFW can make any rule they want, regardless of the state legislature or the US constitution. I’m going to have to write you a ticket.”
“Well I’m going to have to get a lawyer.” Says the hunter and takes his ticket.
Post by: ThePascoKid on April 09, 2009, 03:28:51 PM
Just a thought.
Post by: Kain on April 09, 2009, 03:36:19 PM
1. Modern Firearm Regulations
R ifles: Big game, except cougar, must be
hunted with a minimum of 24 caliber (6mm)
centerfire rifle. Cougar may be hunted with
22 caliber centerfire rifle. Rimfire rifles are
not legal for big game.
Handguns: Big game, except cougar, may
be hunted with handguns with a minimum
barrel length of 4 inches per manufacturers
specification, and fire a minimum 24 caliber
centerfire cartridge. Cougar may be hunted
with 22 caliber centerfire handgun. Rimfire
handguns are not legal for big game.
Shotguns: Deer, bear, and cougar may be
hunted with 20 gauge to 10 gauge shotguns
shooting slugs or #1 or larger buckshot.
Other big game may be hunted with a 10 or
12 gauge shotgun using slugs.
Page 68 of the regs has all the restricted hunting methods. It has no restrictions on carrying any handguns.
Post by: Bofire on April 09, 2009, 06:41:59 PM
Kinda like overloaded trucks are illegal, except with an overload permit! or its illegal to shoot cow elk, except with a permit, "most specific". or its illegal to shoot a liberal, unless they attack you! :chuckle:
I dont think a permit of any kind should be required to carry in any manner, is my opinion. Too bad my opinion dont mean squat.
Carl
Post by: billythekidrock on April 09, 2009, 06:49:03 PM
Post by: stumprat on April 09, 2009, 06:51:08 PM
Four folks out enjoying the woods on 1 Sept. They meet at a trail crossing. One guy is just hiking, he has a loaded handgun in his backpack, one guy is riding his mule and has a loaded handgun in a saddle bag, one guy was fishing a mountain lake and has a loaded handgun concealed by his jacket and one guy is bowhunting and had his handgun in a holster in plain view. None of them have a CWP. Only one will be in violation? The bowhunter. Makes NO sense what so ever.
This is how I see it.
Post by: Kain on April 09, 2009, 07:01:22 PM
:)Kain, I did not say that I didn't have an opinion, what I meant was, I am not entering into this argument in this location. Machias, I was not debating right or wrong. I was trying to explain a often misunderstood "way" of law.
Kinda like overloaded trucks are illegal, except with an overload permit! or its illegal to shoot cow elk, except with a permit, "most specific". or its illegal to shoot a liberal, unless they attack you! :chuckle:
I dont think a permit of any kind should be required to carry in any manner, is my opinion. Too bad my opinion dont mean squat.
Carl
Just a friendly plea from me I dont want to argue with anyone. :P
Post by: Machias on April 09, 2009, 08:48:24 PM
This came up in the last commission meeting and essentially it boils down to this: by purchasing a hunting license you agree to follow the game laws. If the game laws state you need a CWP during hunting season then you "agreed" to that by purchasing a hunting license.
And that along with a few other reasons is why I am done buying a hunting license in WA. I imagine eventually I will run out of places to run to....hopefully by then I'll be too old to care anymore.
Post by: lamar_hunter on April 09, 2009, 09:23:46 PM
They have to draw the line in the sand with regards to hunting weaponry. I agree with the rule of not permitting people to "finish off" critters with a weapon that is not legal for the season at hand. In this case something like a pistol in the archery season for example. It would otherwise leave the playing field open for abusing the system and poaching out of season to spread.
ya that is true. it just sucks that people have to ruin it for us.
Post by: bearhunter59 on April 22, 2009, 04:17:37 PM
Post by: Kain on April 22, 2009, 06:47:24 PM
Post by: Kain on April 22, 2009, 06:51:06 PM
My house has never burned down so I dont need smoke detectors.
My kid has never been kidnapped so I dont need to tell her about strangers.
My dog has never had rabies so he doesnt need shots.
And no archery or MZL hunter has ever been attacked, that bearhunter59 has ever read about, so they dont need handguns.
Post by: Machias on April 22, 2009, 08:38:44 PM
Hmmm, I read the paper alot, and watch the news alot, and I don't recall any articles or stories of a bowhunter or muzzleloader hunter that was attacked by an animal while hunting. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any stories about any of them getting attacked or mugged by tweekers while out in the woods either. So your basic argument for the need to carry while your out there hunting seems pretty weak.
Another guy who does neither telling us how we should take care of ourselves. Bearhunter49, you just like going back and forth trying to start a fight? So my friend why does "arrow flingers" carrying a sidearm chap your ass so much? Why do you even give a rats ass?
Post by: bearhunter59 on April 23, 2009, 02:14:42 PM
Quote
Another guy who does neither telling us how we should take care of ourselves. Bearhunter49, you just like going back and forth trying to start a fight? So my friend why does "arrow flingers" carrying a sidearm chap your ass so much? Why do you even give a rats ass?First off, I'm not trying to "start a fight". I just don't agree with bowhunters(excuse me if your offended by being referred to as an arrow flicker), or muzzleloaders (excuse me if you were offended by being referred to as a smokepole hunter, even though I hear many of you refer to each other that way) being allowed to carry a sidearm while out hunting. So, I guess there are alot of people on here trying to start fights, including you, since not everyone agrees with everyone elses opinion, huh?
Secondly, I don't like the idea of letting you guys care sidearms, because I beleive there are many that given the first opportunity to use it to harvest or dispatch a wounded animal, will do just that.
And finally, as I said previously, this argument that you need it for protection is a big steaming pile of bull. If your really that worried about being attacked by some tweeker or someone else while out there, then maybe you should take up knitting and stay at home.
I have nothing against bowhunters, and I have nothing against muzzleloader hunters. I just beleive there are too many unethical ones out there that can't be trusted to play by the rules. This just makes it too easy for them to get away with it. I'm not saying you are one of them, so relax a little.
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 02:29:56 PM
I would like to know if you think there are more unethical hunter in general or just in the MZL archery crowd?
"I have nothing against bowhunters, and I have nothing against muzzleloader hunters. I just beleive there are too many unethical ones out there that can't be trusted to play by the rules."
Post by: boneaddict on April 23, 2009, 02:33:20 PM
Post by: 300rum on April 23, 2009, 02:39:51 PM
Hmmm, I read the paper alot, and watch the news alot, and I don't recall any articles or stories of a bowhunter or muzzleloader hunter that was attacked by an animal while hunting. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any stories about any of them getting attacked or mugged by tweekers while out in the woods either. So your basic argument for the need to carry while your out there hunting seems pretty weak.
Post by: Machias on April 23, 2009, 02:41:11 PM
Hey if I'm at home knitting do you mind if I have a sidearm for protection? Or are you like the rest of the anti-gun crowd and want to disarm me there as well?
Post by: Ray on April 23, 2009, 02:44:07 PM
Quote
And finally, as I said previously, this argument that you need it for protection is a big steaming pile of bull
That's an opinion.
I believe it is a little bit arrogant to tell someone else how they should be able to defend themselves or that they are never in unsafe situations in the outdoors based upon your own experiences. I don't carry firearms when out during archery season for deer and elk. At the same time - I don't believe that there is a jutified necessity with any moral grounds regarding hunting or otherwise which should restrict my abilities to carry a handgun for personal reasons (whether I carry for personal protection or just to look cute).
From my perspective I would agree that most any animal except for a very large and angry bear would be defensible with a bow and arrows or other means. The principle of the matter is not to defend against the game animals. Onto the "unethical ones". Now it is my understanding and experience that there is an even spread of unethical hunters in any group of hunters. Whether that is rifles, bows or smoke poles. Why it has to even be called out or singled out like that is a little strange. That combined with the choice of language which were used I believe stirred the pot enough to get a rise out of people. It looks a little funny to say relax at this point.
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 02:50:24 PM
Post by: bearhunter59 on April 23, 2009, 02:52:01 PM
Quote
Keeping guns out of law abiding citizens hands because someone may use thiers to commit a crime? Well that is exactly what the anti-gun crowd is trying to do to the whole country. But I guess it is OK with you if it just a small minority of us. *sigh* I will still be behind you when it happens to you though.
I would like to know if you think there are more unethical hunter in general or just in the MZL archery crowd?
I think there are a lot of unethical hunters out there...bow...muzzle...and modern. Difference is a handgun is or can be, depending on the caliber, a legal weapon for a modern firearms hunter to hunt and dispatch game with.
As for "keeping guns out of law-abiding citizens hands...", it happens all the time. Can you walk into a bar or government building with your gun strapped to your side, or even concealed? NO! So what's the diff? Fact is, you are more likely to need to use it at one of those locations, than out in the woods.
Fact is, a sidearm on a bowhunter or muzzleloader has more likelyhood of being used illegally by the unethical hunter, than ever being needed for "protection" by the ethical hunter. WDFW could provide many, many incidents of a firearm being used illegally by a bowhunter or muzzleloader, but not one person has yet to provide even once incident where a bowhunter or muzzleloader hunter not carrying a sidearm was harmed by an animal or person while out hunting. So as has been said on here many times before, it's the few bad apples that have ruined it for you guys. So, don't blame the modern firearms guys...blame your own group. That's where the fault and blame lies...
Post by: Intruder on April 23, 2009, 02:55:12 PM
Hmmm, I read the paper alot, and watch the news alot, and I don't recall any articles or stories of a bowhunter or muzzleloader hunter that was attacked by an animal while hunting. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any stories about any of them getting attacked or mugged by tweekers while out in the woods either. So your basic argument for the need to carry while your out there hunting seems pretty weak.
How bout this story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300513,00.html
Kinda makes your argument seem pretty weak.
Post by: Bob33 on April 23, 2009, 02:57:54 PM
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum34/18220.html
I'm OK with anyone that has a legal right to carry a handgun, having one. If it is used for an illegal purpose, the law should provide appropriate consequences.
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 02:58:39 PM
Post by: 300rum on April 23, 2009, 02:58:57 PM
One other thing, I think that it will be fun to thin out a few coyotes in the late season. Once I watched as a coyote stalked, snuck up and chased a doe for about a quarter mile, I won't mind evening things up a bit. :chuckle:
Post by: 300rum on April 23, 2009, 03:01:06 PM
Hmmm, I read the paper alot, and watch the news alot, and I don't recall any articles or stories of a bowhunter or muzzleloader hunter that was attacked by an animal while hunting. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any stories about any of them getting attacked or mugged by tweekers while out in the woods either. So your basic argument for the need to carry while your out there hunting seems pretty weak.
Post by: bearhunter59 on April 23, 2009, 03:26:03 PM
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 03:28:51 PM
Not that I think it should matter but here you go.
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 03:33:15 PM
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles03/cougar_attacks_pregnant_mare.htm
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 03:34:06 PM
http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks2.htm
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 03:34:59 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=aug2599c
http://www.kingsoutdoorworld.com/feature/cougar-attack03.shtml
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/cougar_attacks_increasing.html
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 03:41:48 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=93314&page=1
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 03:51:04 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/living/moose.htm
People and Moose
Most people seem to like moose because they're so different. They don't spook or shy away from us as readily as deer, appearing more docile or even curious. But something to remember about moose is that anything that big can be potentially dangerous.
Actually moose, like any wild animal, can feel threatened by and fearful of people. Although with their long legs they could outrun us, they are not built for speed like deer and will often choose "fight" over "flight" to escape a situation. A charging moose often kicks forward with its front feet, knocking down the threat, then stomping and kicking with all four feet. Antlered bulls can use their racks just as lethally.
Moose can be aggressive any time, but at these times in particular:
In late spring, early summer when a cow feels her very young calf is in danger
In the fall when a breeding bull is competitive and agitated
In the winter when they are hungry and tired from walking in deep snow
Anytime dogs chase or just bark at them
Anytime people approach them too closely
Since that nearly covers the calendar year and more, what do you do when you see a moose?
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 03:52:48 PM
Post by: Machias on April 23, 2009, 03:57:47 PM
http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks_nonca.html
Post by: Machias on April 23, 2009, 04:02:51 PM
Post by: Machias on April 23, 2009, 04:25:42 PM
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 04:27:06 PM
If you dont like it either please just send a letter. :tup:
Post by: Ray on April 23, 2009, 05:00:30 PM
Quote
Fact is, a sidearm on a bowhunter or muzzleloader has more likelyhood of being used illegally by the unethical hunter, than ever being needed for "protection" by the ethical hunter
Not a fact. Maybe a perception. I could easily say that most poachers use rifles. We should then outlaw rifle hunting because they might be used illegally.
Post by: Bob33 on April 24, 2009, 01:37:12 PM