Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 08:37:08 AM
Please be advised that the chief of our enforcement program has no authority to mandate any hunting rules or regulations. The chief—along with all of our Fish and Wildlife Officers—is responsible for enforcing hunting laws and rules, not making them.
RCW 9.41.060(8), Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms, authorizes an exception to the restriction on carrying firearms for “…any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping….” The operative word to pay attention to is “lawful.” Bowhunters in Washington State are regulated by rules promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Those rules are specific to bowhunters who choose to purchase a Washington State license to hunt big game with archery tackle. The commission has delegated authority from the legislature to adopt rules governing the time, place and manner of lawful hunting activity. Those rules can be as restrictive or as relaxed as they deem appropriate to the species hunted.
The commission has always been concerned about the potential for individual bowhunters to use a sidearm to unlawfully kill big game. Knowing that individuals with concealed pistol licenses (CPL) are thoroughly vetted through a criminal background history check, the commission has a high level of confidence that CPL holders will not wish to jeopardize their license. There is no such assurance with the general hunter who does not possess a CPL.
You should also know that representatives of the bowhunting community—not WDFW staff—are the ones that proposed this regulation to the Fish and Wildlife Commission and they are the ones that sought to distinguish between CPL holders and non-CPL holding archers.
Mik Mikitik
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Program
Hunter Education Division
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 09:02:37 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 10, 2009, 09:05:41 AM
Post by: Gobble on April 10, 2009, 09:23:28 AM
Honestly, if you are a leader of the bowhunting community and you pushed for this because YOU believe the average bowhunter cannot be trusted to be lawful, you should resign immediately, you don't deserve to be a voice for the bowhunting community! IMO!!
+1 :yeah:
I have to say that a good portion of the "Bowhunting Community" aka special groups are a bunch of elitist a$$holes IMO and I'm not talking about people here, just some of the organizations. To think that someone is going to shoot a animal because they don't have a CWP is just plain stupid :dunno:
And I bowhunt!!!!
Post by: oneezreiter on April 10, 2009, 09:30:54 AM
Post by: rainshadow1 on April 10, 2009, 09:53:29 AM
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 10:08:18 AM
So... get a Consealed Permit... How is this a problem?
It's not a problem Steve, except no one else out in the woods at the same time is required to have one. Hikers, bikers, fishermen, berry pickers, horse and mule riders, everyone can have a loaded weapon (CONCEALED) and they do not need a CPL, but a bow hunter or muzzleloader carrying in plain view needs a CPL. This doesn't bother you?
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 10:29:24 AM
It's not a problem Steve, except no one else out in the woods at the same time is required to have one. Hikers, bikers, fishermen, berry pickers, horse and mule riders, everyone can have a loaded weapon (CONCEALED) and they do not need a CPL, but a bow hunter or muzzleloader carrying in plain view needs a CPL. This doesn't bother you?
No one else in the woods has a valid tag for the harvest of a big game animal either. Again... I guess it's a necessary compromise. Because someone has a CPL... they can't tell them where and when they can pack... so my guess is: they made an effort to appease those CPL holding bowhunters and MZ hunters... because they basically had to (public land, so you can't discriminate against the carrying of a pistol). But, they also wanted to compromise the integrety of the season for archers and MZ hunters as little as possible... hence the CPL requirement.
This is the exact thought process I originally predicted... though it is pretty lame to think that just because a person has a CPL... somehow they're of higher moral fiber than the average non-CPL holding bowhunter. I understand that this change has you befuddled... but I think it's better than a stick in the eye... if you want to carry a sidearm... get a CPL and quit bitching. If you're just looking to make a stink over the fact that you don't like the way the change is worded or explained... then you've done a pretty good job.
As for you're lovely anecdote about the biker, fisherman, berry picker, and bowhunter (on the other post about the same subject)... I've thought about that too. I've come to the conclusion that the archer gets the violation because he/she has willfully given up their right to carry a firearm and place restrictions upon themselves with the purchase of the tag... the fisherman, biker, and berry picker did not agree to these terms... so they're not held to them. All this seems like a valid compromise to me.
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 10:33:18 AM
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 10:44:41 AM
If you hunted with a MZ or bow last year... you couldn't even have a gun in the truck, let alone on your person. This is a violation of my right to carry a pistol under the conditions of my CPL... regardless of what the game rules say. So, they had to make the concession in the game regulations to CPL holders because this is a "Must Issue" state.... and they can't restrict your rights to carry in areas that are out of their control. But, they didn't have to make the same concession to other hunters who don't have a CPL, because their rights to carry aren't protected at the same level as the CPL holders... hence the way it's written.
I don't like the way the letter was worded, or the way they use the CPL checking process to assign higher morals to the CPL holder... but the regulation makes sense to me. YOU PUT THE RESTRICTIONS ON YOURSELF BY PURCHASING A BOW OR MZ TAG... YOU, NOT ANYONE ELSE.
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 10:47:18 AM
Post by: gottatree on April 10, 2009, 10:55:00 AM
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 10:57:31 AM
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 11:01:35 AM
Pretty simple if you look at it from that perspective. I don't understand what you're so worked up about... this isn't a restriction of your rights... if not for this concession, the regulation would be in violation of my rights as a CPL holder. The WDFW realized this, and made the appropriate changes... that's all. It is not an attack on bow or mz hunters... but rather a correction to the established regulation that ammends a wrong done to CPL holders (although I can see how you view it as such, particularly the way the letter from the WDFW was worded).
I'm not trying to get into a pissing match here... and I hate the fact that we have any restrictions and regulations on the possestion and carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens. I can, do, and will fight any thing that I view as an attack on those rights... but I don't see this as a violation... rather I see this as the proper ammendment to make.
Post by: whacker1 on April 10, 2009, 11:03:32 AM
Post by: Mookie on April 10, 2009, 11:04:09 AM
Quote
Hikers, bikers, fishermen, berry pickers, horse and mule riders, everyone can have a loaded weapon (CONCEALED) and they do not need a CPLA person who does not have a conceal carry permit cannot carry concealed any place with a loaded handgun except in their place of residence or work. So if the berry pickers are packing concealed without a permit they are breaking the law.
I see no reason that anyone with a carry permit should not be allowed to carry wherever they want, especially when hunting.
Post by: bobcat on April 10, 2009, 11:05:19 AM
QuoteHikers, bikers, fishermen, berry pickers, horse and mule riders, everyone can have a loaded weapon (CONCEALED) and they do not need a CPLA person who does not have a conceal carry permit cannot carry any place with a loaded handgun except in their place of residence or work.
WRONG
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 11:07:43 AM
Post by: Curly on April 10, 2009, 11:09:15 AM
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 11:09:54 AM
QuoteHikers, bikers, fishermen, berry pickers, horse and mule riders, everyone can have a loaded weapon (CONCEALED) and they do not need a CPLA person who does not have a conceal carry permit cannot carry concealed any place with a loaded handgun except in their place of residence or work. So if the berry pickers are packing concealed without a permit they are breaking the law.
I see no reason that anyone with a carry permit should not be allowed to carry wherever they want, especially when hunting.
Mookie your completely wrong on that my friend. If you are going to or from or are engaged in a outdoor activity, i.e. berry picker, fisherman, etc... you are in fact allowed to have a concealed weapon without a CPL.
Post by: jackelope on April 10, 2009, 11:11:53 AM
Post by: gottatree on April 10, 2009, 11:12:05 AM
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 11:12:46 AM
What if I'm engaged in a legal outdoor activity in downtown Seattle... like biking, or throwing crab pots off the pier, or jogging? Do I still have that right? I bet that's a pretty slippery slope... one I'd rather not try out. Better to have the CPL and not need it... than need it and not have it!
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 11:15:44 AM
No I just read the new regs. this morning and once again WDFW got into my pockets. I have a phone call into a couple of people at the department that I know, waiting for a response. I'm pretty sure I know why, once again a few of the bad ones ruining it for all!!!!!
Your gonna love this, The Department deemed coyote hunting with dogs as socially unacceptable. Their exact words.
Post by: Mookie on April 10, 2009, 11:16:07 AM
QuoteHikers, bikers, fishermen, berry pickers, horse and mule riders, everyone can have a loaded weapon (CONCEALED) and they do not need a CPLA person who does not have a conceal carry permit cannot carry any place with a loaded handgun except in their place of residence or work.
WRONG
Quote
A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his person without a license to carry a concealed weapon. A person may carry concealed without a license in his place of abode or fixed place of business.
A person at least 18 years old who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave it in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless he has a license to carry a concealed weapon and the pistol is on his person, or the person with the concealed carrying license is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or the person with the concealed carrying license is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
The prohibition against carrying concealed without a license does not apply to law enforcement personnel and prison or jail wardens or their deputies; military personnel when on duty; regularly enrolled members of any organization authorized to purchase or receive pistols from the U.S. and regularly enrolled members of target shooting or collectors’ clubs and any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity, provided such persons are at or going to or from such activities; gun dealers in the usual or ordinary course of their business; carrying unloaded and in a closed opaque case or secure wrapper; and qualified retired law enforcement officers.
Interesting. News to me. Learn something every day. Then why do we need a permit in the state parks? If that is the case, they why even bother concealing? Open carry is perfectly legal, or is it not legal in areas for hunting during hunting season.
I also appreciate the telling me how WRONG I was and not saying why I was WRONG.
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 11:41:24 AM
I was going to post the link, but you beat me to it. :chuckle:
Post by: MADMAX on April 10, 2009, 11:50:26 AM
Or must it be concealed ?
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 11:56:33 AM
Post by: MADMAX on April 10, 2009, 12:02:22 PM
It might help to weed out some of the very friendly meth heads that want to visit around camp this year seeing more sidearms
Post by: bowhuntin on April 10, 2009, 12:06:25 PM
Honestly, if you are a leader of the bowhunting community and you pushed for this because YOU believe the average bowhunter cannot be trusted to be lawful, you should resign immediately, you don't deserve to be a voice for the bowhunting community! IMO!!
+1
Post by: gottatree on April 10, 2009, 12:06:58 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 10, 2009, 12:13:59 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on April 10, 2009, 12:15:42 PM
The commission has always been concerned about the potential for individual bowhunters to use a sidearm to unlawfully kill big game. Knowing that individuals with concealed pistol licenses (CPL) are thoroughly vetted through a criminal background history check, the commission has a high level of confidence that CPL holders will not wish to jeopardize their license. There is no such assurance with the general hunter who does not possess a CPL.
:bs: if they are so concerned with the individual bowhunters to take big game unlawfully, why are they not concerned with those that are out with high powered rifle's hunting bear at the same time archers are in the woods? Or those that are out hunting dove or grouse and happen to be carrying a sidearm. Should they have to have a CPL to so we know they are far more moral than the rest of us that don't have a CPL and therefore can be trusted more? What a stupid law. Just more stupid gun control. More restraints put on the law abiding while the criminals do what ever the f*ck they please because they don't give a sh*t and never will.
Post by: bowhuntin on April 10, 2009, 12:26:19 PM
So now we manage wildlife by what is socialy unacceptable. >:( >:( If this does not just piss everybody off on this board, I do not know what will, bowhunting will be next. Can you send me the link to this statement the WDFW made. I would like to see it and confront some of them on it!!
Here is the link...
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/2009-2011_recommendations/final_2009_03_20/small_game_seasons.pdf
On the second page 3rd paragraph. The legislature brought up the issue due to social issues. They even say it isn't biologically based.
Post by: rainshadow1 on April 10, 2009, 12:27:31 PM
Still, all the more reason to maintain your concealed carry permit.
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 12:29:02 PM
To take this one step further... why shouldn't a guy with a bow tag not be allowed to carry a rifle? After all, it is also bear season... so why should we restrict their access to a .300 Win Mag?
Would it make more sense to everyone if the WDFW would havve worded it this way:
Archery and Muzzleloader hunters shall not have on their person, or immediate access to a firearm. If you have a CPL, we can do nothing about it because of constitutional rights... and the state permit which supercedes our authority... so you can carry, eventhough we'd prefer you didn't.
Post by: Kain on April 10, 2009, 12:31:03 PM
It's not BS...
If you hunted with a MZ or bow last year... you couldn't even have a gun in the truck, let alone on your person. This is a violation of my right to carry a pistol under the conditions of my CPL... regardless of what the game rules say. So, they had to make the concession in the game regulations to CPL holders because this is a "Must Issue" state.... and they can't restrict your rights to carry in areas that are out of their control. But, they didn't have to make the same concession to other hunters who don't have a CPL, because their rights to carry aren't protected at the same level as the CPL holders... hence the way it's written.
I don't like the way the letter was worded, or the way they use the CPL checking process to assign higher morals to the CPL holder... but the regulation makes sense to me. YOU PUT THE RESTRICTIONS ON YOURSELF BY PURCHASING A BOW OR MZ TAG... YOU, NOT ANYONE ELSE.
I dont understand your reasoning here. You are saying they had to let you carry because of the conditions of your CPL. We are saying they have to let us carry because we are exempt from even needing a CPL. Why are they forced to let you have your rights but it is perfectly fine to take mine away. Why is my right to carry not protected at the same level as a CPL holder? When we are hunting we are not required to have a CPL so a CPL has NO worth whatsoever. A CPL holder and a non-CPL holder have exactly the same rights while hunting. The law that requires a CPL "shall not apply to" hunters.
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 12:39:50 PM
Your right to carry as a non-CPL holder is already limited. My right to carry has been established by going through the process of obtaining a license... thereby granting me extended rights in situations like this.... or the Southcenter Mall... or my car... etc.
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 12:41:02 PM
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 12:45:17 PM
How is that different than having a hunters safety exemption for those born before 1965... or whatever year it is? Shouldn't you just be able to go buy a hunting license... after all, their the taxpayer's critters. Yet, somehow... I have to jump through a hoop... so do you... yet that hoop is ok, and this hoop isn't?
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 12:46:41 PM
Post by: Kain on April 10, 2009, 12:50:13 PM
Your not exempt from needing it... because you agree to the the limits placed on your access to a firearm by the WDFW when you purchase a bow or mz tag. Because you DON'T have a CPL... they have they DO have the authority to restrict your access to a firearm... basically for it to be a "legal outdoor activity" you have to be within the parameters set by the group that defines what's legal... in the case of hunting with a bow or mz... that would be the WDFW. If you have a CPL... you don't have to worry about the "legal outdoor activity" clause... because you've already established your right to carry when and where you please... and the WDFW can do nothing about that.
Your right to carry as a non-CPL holder is already limited. My right to carry has been established by going through the process of obtaining a license... thereby granting me extended rights in situations like this.... or the Southcenter Mall... or my car... etc.
I understand your argument. But what Im asking you is why did they have to change the law in the first place? Because (this is a quote from you) "This is a violation of my right to carry a pistol under the conditions of my CPL... regardless of what the game rules say.So, they had to make the concession in the game regulations to CPL holders because this is a "Must Issue" state.... and they can't restrict your rights to carry in areas that are out of their control."
How is the new rule any different than the last rule. If you were forced to give up your rights to carry by buying an archery or MZL tag you did the same thing last year. How did the CPL give you more rights to carry while hunting than a person without one, when a CPL is not required?
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 12:51:10 PM
Machias... I appreciate your passion here... I truly do. I'm grateful to you for serving as an LEO... that is often a thankless job. I also appreciate the fact that you were able to debate this rather heated topic without the use of personal insults (except for that one early on... but that was a minor infraction)... I've tried to do the same. I wish you luck in the coming season, and hope that someday we'll actually agree on something.
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 12:58:26 PM
How is the new rule any different than the last rule. If you were forced to give up your rights to carry by buying an archery or MZL tag you did the same thing last year. How did the CPL give you more rights to carry while hunting than a person without one, when a CPL is not required?
The rules of the WDFW cannot override the laws of the state of WA... under such law and as a CPL holder, they cannot restrict my access to a pistol. As the previous WDFW rule was written... it was in conflict with this right. As a non-CPL holder... you are subject to the "lawful outdoor activity" clause in order to carry a pistol. The WDFW gets to decide what's lawful and what's not in regards to hunting and fishing... so, they dicide it isn't lawful to carry a pistol while hunting with a bow or mz... and the state is bound to honor that in regard to the carrying of a pistol. The converse however, is not true. Because I have been granted the right to carry a pistol at all times by the STATE, through the process they require... that rule does not apply to me... therefore the WDFW cannot make it unlawful for me to be in posession of a pistol concealed or open.
The very act of carrying a pistol durring archery or mz season is unlawfull as defined by the WDFW regulations... thereby exempting you from the "lawfull outdoor activity" adendum to the CC laws... which means no CPL... no pistola. This is why the change was made and worded the way it is.
Post by: Machias on April 10, 2009, 12:59:12 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on April 10, 2009, 01:11:04 PM
This isn't more gun control... it's less. Before archery and mz hunters were not allowed to carry... now they are, don't see that as more control. It's a return to what's right.
To take this one step further... why shouldn't a guy with a bow tag not be allowed to carry a rifle? After all, it is also bear season... so why should we restrict their access to a .300 Win Mag?
Would it make more sense to everyone if the WDFW would havve worded it this way:
Archery and Muzzleloader hunters shall not have on their person, or immediate access to a firearm. If you have a CPL, we can do nothing about it because of constitutional rights... and the state permit which supercedes our authority... so you can carry, eventhough we'd prefer you didn't.
It is still gun control, but gives the archer an avenue to legally carry now.
As stated in the Washington State constitution, 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.
If an individual doesn't have a CPL and they are carrying then they are now a criminal. Requiring someone to get a permit to carry a handgun is GUN CONTROL plain and simple. Why should a law abiding hunter/citizen need a go ahead from the government to carry concealed or open carry when it states in our own states constitution and the U.S. constitution that we have the right to bear arms. I know those that intend to pray on you sure don't care if the government is going to tell them they have to jump through a hoop to do what they want, they will go ahead and do it anyways.
Post by: Kain on April 10, 2009, 01:16:36 PM
How is the new rule any different than the last rule. If you were forced to give up your rights to carry by buying an archery or MZL tag you did the same thing last year. How did the CPL give you more rights to carry while hunting than a person without one, when a CPL is not required?
The rules of the WDFW cannot override the laws of the state of WA... under such law and as a CPL holder, they cannot restrict my access to a pistol. As the previous WDFW rule was written... it was in conflict with this right. As a non-CPL holder... you are subject to the "lawful outdoor activity" clause in order to carry a pistol. The WDFW gets to decide what's lawful and what's not in regards to hunting and fishing... so, they dicide it isn't lawful to carry a pistol while hunting with a bow or mz... and the state is bound to honor that in regard to the carrying of a pistol. The converse however, is not true. Because I have been granted the right to carry a pistol at all times by the STATE, through the process they require... that rule does not apply to me... therefore the WDFW cannot make it unlawful for me to be in posession of a pistol concealed or open.
The very act of carrying a pistol durring archery or mz season is unlawfull... thereby exempting you from the "lawfull outdoor activity" exception to the CC laws... which means no CPL... no pistola. This is why the change was made and worded the way it is.
So what your saying is that the WDFW can restrict my access to a pistol? "The rules of the WDFW cannot override the laws of the state of WA" The laws of the state grant us the right to carry openly(without a CPL)...and the laws of the state exempt me from needing a CPL while hunting. How can you say they cant override the law and then say they can?
According to you they could put any kind of restriction or requirement on buying a licenses to make it a legal activity. The could require a four year degree or a million dollar home to be able buy a tag regardless if it is a law or not. <---ridiculous to the extreme I know but the point stands
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 01:24:53 PM
bowhuntin ... I agree with you 100%. There should be no restrictions on the gun rights of law abiding citizens... period. What I meant by this is less not more was, this gives the right to carry back to the lawfull CPL holder... within the already established gun control bull schitt, rather than place further restrictions upon them... as was the case for years past.
Post by: Kain on April 10, 2009, 01:29:17 PM
It's kind of a chicken before the egg scenario. What I'm saying is... if you're relying on the "legal outdoor activity" clause to allow you access to a pistol... then what's defined as legal is out of your control... in this case... carrying a pistol while hunting with a bow without a CPL is illegal, therefore... you can't carry one and say you're participating in a "legal outdoor activity". The WDFW does not get the option to define that as illegal to those who have applied for, and received a CPL. So, they had to word the change the way they did. Any restriction to the rights of the CPL holder would have to go through the State Congress... so WDFW had to defer to the CPL holder on this law.
bowhuntin ... I agree with you 100%. There should be no restrictions on the gun rights of law abiding citizens... period. What I meant by this is less not more was, this gives the right to carry back to the lawfull CPL holder... within the already established gun control bull schitt, rather than place further restrictions upon them... as was the case for years past.
The WDFW does not get the option to define that is illegal to carry a pistol to any citizen.
As stated in the Washington State constitution, 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
"carrying a pistol while hunting with a bow without a CPL is illegal, therefore... you can't carry one and say you're participating in a "legal outdoor activity"."
It is illegal because they made it illegal which according to you they have not the right.
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 01:31:29 PM
Post by: Kain on April 10, 2009, 01:34:05 PM
You're placing the restriction upon yourself by agreeing to hunt with a bow or ML, and give up your access to a firearm... the WDFW just enforces those restrictions. Your purchasing of the tag enters you into that agreement... if you don't like it... buy a rifle tag. In fact... they were violating this before... they're not now. They aren't imparing your rights... they're granting them in this case.
It is illegal because they made it illegal which according to you they have not the right. This argument does not stand because you said they had to change the rule because it contradicted the law. The new one contradicts the law.
Citizens of Washington are allowed to bear arm for protection. They need a CPL to carry concealed. The are exempt from needing a CPL while hunting.
WDFW has no authority to limit these rights in any way because they are state law. That is why they had to allow archery and MZL hunters to carry in the first place. They were told by the AG that the current law would not stand up in court and added the CPL requirement last minute without any regard to the legality.
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 01:48:03 PM
Post by: Kain on April 10, 2009, 01:50:49 PM
They didn't make it illegal... you did by agreeing to it.
Then why did the allow us to carry at all? Because the law allows us to and they cannot make rule that change that.
Post by: JoshT on April 10, 2009, 01:53:24 PM
OR...
get a f#$%ing CPL!
OR...
buy a f#$%ing rifle tag and not worry about it
I'm following Machias... I'm out....
Post by: jackelope on April 10, 2009, 01:54:29 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on April 10, 2009, 08:20:24 PM
I was at the meeting and commission member Perry questioned the addition of the CWP requirement.
Dave Ware's response was that it was a "request" from Enforcement as well as at the Legislative level.
This is not a "F&W" pushed rule. This is strong arm tactics traight from Enforcement and the Capitol.