Post by: MADMAX on February 05, 2025, 05:00:33 PM
OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is now accepting public comments on proposed hunting season rule changes as part of the Department’s annual hunting season setting process. The Department is also accepting public comment on proposed rules meant to limit the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD), including a proposal to implement a statewide deer, elk, and moose feeding ban in Washington.
WDFW is proposing updated rules and regulations for 2025 black bear, cougar, deer, elk, and waterfowl general hunting seasons and 2025 deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goat special permit opportunities. The Department is also proposing new deer and elk multi-season tags for members of federally recognized tribes that have entered into an agreement with WDFW, and clarifying the rule language around certain special closures, firearm restriction areas, and deer areas.
The proposed statewide ban on feeding deer, elk, and moose is designed to limit the spread of CWD by not congregating wildlife at feeding sites, which can spread diseases. The proposal also includes a ban on baiting deer, elk, and moose while hunting.
A state environmental policy act (SEPA) determination is also being issued for the statewide ban on feeding deer, elk, and moose.
Full descriptions of each proposed rule change are available on WDFW’s rule making webpage. Public comment periods for each rule change open on Wednesday, Feb. 5. and end in March, but the exact comment period end date varies by proposal. Visit the WDFW rule making webpage for more information.
The public may submit comments on the proposed rule changes and the wildlife feeding SEPA determination online, via email, by phone, or by mailing WDFW. WDFW will also hold public hearings about each rule making proposal. Visit the following webpages for details on public comment period timelines, ways to submit comments, and how to register to testify at a public hearing:
2025 hunting season setting
Cougar hunting rules, pelt sealing requirements
Fall black bear hunting rules
Proposed feeding ban to limit the spread of CWD
Rules to limit the spread of CWD
All members of the public are invited to share their perspectives and participate in WDFW public feedback opportunities regardless of race, color, sex, age, national origin, language proficiency, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression, status as a veteran, or basis of disability.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission delegated the decisions on these rule making proposals to WDFW Director Kelly Susewind, except for those related to black bear and cougar hunting. Director Susewind will issue his decision on the delegated rule proposals in late March. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is scheduled to decide on black bear and cougar hunting rules at the April Commission meeting.
Hunting season setting is an in-depth rule making process that allows WDFW to propose and collect public feedback on changes to Washington hunting rules. In between more robust three-year rule making cycles, annual season setting allows the Department to propose season changes or changes due to emerging needs. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission or WDFW director set hunting seasons based on staff recommendations and public input. Visit WDFW’s website for more information about hunting season setting and regulations.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
Post by: hughjorgan on February 05, 2025, 05:27:58 PM
Here’s the link so you can comment on the rule making.
Post by: teal101 on February 05, 2025, 05:44:37 PM
Post by: MADMAX on February 05, 2025, 06:38:23 PM
But is needed to be done by all concerned sportsmen and women
Let em have it
It goes in the public record
Dont hold back
This commission is not our friends
Definitely pro predator
Post by: DeerThug on February 05, 2025, 06:44:29 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on February 05, 2025, 07:57:50 PM
So why to natives need to have access to multi-season tags. Will that come our of our quota. They can go do what they want when they want. Why is this even an issue?
DEI
Post by: Ridgerunner on February 05, 2025, 08:06:25 PM
3 less sheep tags?
Unlawful to kill a sow with cubs now or a cub under 1?
Statewide ban on baiting, including salt?
Not alot of positive changes in here for the sportsman of this state imo.
Post by: Humptulips on February 05, 2025, 09:05:10 PM
So why to natives need to have access to multi-season tags. Will that come our of our quota. They can go do what they want when they want. Why is this even an issue?
WAC 220-412-090 Multi-season deer and elk tags.
This proposal is associated with agreements made between the Department and federally recognized tribes to provide
recreational opportunity to their respective tribal members. Participating tribes purchase and issue a predetermined number
of multi-season deer and elk tags for their respective tribal members. Recipients of these multi-season tags must be licensed
by the Department.
On the one hand it seems like the Department carrying through with their commitment to work with the tribes. On the other hand, it seems like a way to allow these license holders a way to hunt outside their usual and accustomed areas. They should be limited by State rules while hunting though so probably will be just a free multi-season tag for any member.
Post by: actionshooter on February 05, 2025, 09:20:12 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on February 05, 2025, 09:25:24 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on February 05, 2025, 10:16:25 PM
Did you see 7 less goat tags?And still no Yakima bull tags.
3 less sheep tags?
Unlawful to kill a sow with cubs now or a cub under 1?
Statewide ban on baiting, including salt?
Not alot of positive changes in here for the sportsman of this state imo.
Ban on baiting - they were just waiting for CWD to use it as an excuse to cut back on a lot of things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on February 05, 2025, 11:09:55 PM
Post by: elkslayer069 on February 05, 2025, 11:56:02 PM
Post by: HillHound on February 06, 2025, 02:08:44 AM
The only way to 100% determine if a sow has cubs is the ability to hunt over bait. Sows with cubs get shot every year people just don’t include that in their photos and stories they tell their buddies.:yeah:
:yeah:
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 06, 2025, 05:53:37 AM
Somewhere in some meeting in some dark room I'm willing to bet DFW was chomping at the bit to find cwd in WA...opens all kinds of doors for restrictions. And we all know WA loves a good set of new restrictions...
Post by: hughjorgan on February 06, 2025, 06:22:18 AM
Would this also mean the WDFW couldn't feed elk in the winter?
It doesn’t say anything about it in the proposed WAC unless they want to pay out damage claims in record numbers to all those folks that own orchards. And then they will still be in big herds congregating together during the winter months, this ban will not have an effect what so ever.
Post by: adamR on February 06, 2025, 07:14:12 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 06, 2025, 08:29:03 AM
I know, that’s not the case. Agree, this has to be some kind of DEI crap.
Post by: ASHQUACK on February 06, 2025, 08:37:12 AM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on February 06, 2025, 08:55:16 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on February 06, 2025, 09:44:03 AM
Mountain goat permits down to 8 for a supposed population of 2800. that is only .3% of the population, not 4% under guideline. It's a really good thing that permit numbers continue to get decimated while the poorly surveyed population continues to apparently decline. Can we rule out that recreational harvest is not the leading factor of smaller numbers of mountain goats? Can the WDFW get serious about Mt Goat management in this state? Idaho allows 41 goat permits on possibly a herd of 2000. Oregon allows 25 permits on a population of 800. :bash:
Wa wildlife first is targeting the mountain goats and blaming hunters for over harvesting. They also are the ones that got us our current commission.
Post by: BreezyBear on February 06, 2025, 09:46:48 AM
Post by: Tbar on February 06, 2025, 09:51:41 AM
Incorrect. The baker population is down 60%+. Hunters have averaged 50% nanny harvest over the decline, although I agree hunting is not the cause of the decline, dead nannys can't contribute. All of the hunt units in baker and Darrington are below the minimum hunt threshold to have a hunt. Hunters have been poor representatives of themselves in this one.Mountain goat permits down to 8 for a supposed population of 2800. that is only .3% of the population, not 4% under guideline. It's a really good thing that permit numbers continue to get decimated while the poorly surveyed population continues to apparently decline. Can we rule out that recreational harvest is not the leading factor of smaller numbers of mountain goats? Can the WDFW get serious about Mt Goat management in this state? Idaho allows 41 goat permits on possibly a herd of 2000. Oregon allows 25 permits on a population of 800. :bash:
Wa wildlife first is targeting the mountain goats and blaming hunters for over harvesting. They also are the ones that got us our current commission.
Post by: Tbar on February 06, 2025, 10:01:06 AM
This slide is not incorrect. Managers managed as if reproduction rates were similar to deer. This led to over hunting and population crash across the range.Mountain goat permits down to 8 for a supposed population of 2800. that is only .3% of the population, not 4% under guideline. It's a really good thing that permit numbers continue to get decimated while the poorly surveyed population continues to apparently decline. Can we rule out that recreational harvest is not the leading factor of smaller numbers of mountain goats? Can the WDFW get serious about Mt Goat management in this state? Idaho allows 41 goat permits on possibly a herd of 2000. Oregon allows 25 permits on a population of 800. :bash:
Wa wildlife first is targeting the mountain goats and blaming hunters for over harvesting. They also are the ones that got us our current commission.
Post by: GOcougsHunter on February 06, 2025, 10:28:59 AM
This slide is not incorrect. Managers managed as if reproduction rates were similar to deer. This led to over hunting and population crash across the range.Mountain goat permits down to 8 for a supposed population of 2800. that is only .3% of the population, not 4% under guideline. It's a really good thing that permit numbers continue to get decimated while the poorly surveyed population continues to apparently decline. Can we rule out that recreational harvest is not the leading factor of smaller numbers of mountain goats? Can the WDFW get serious about Mt Goat management in this state? Idaho allows 41 goat permits on possibly a herd of 2000. Oregon allows 25 permits on a population of 800. :bash:
Wa wildlife first is targeting the mountain goats and blaming hunters for over harvesting. They also are the ones that got us our current commission.
Reading the 2023 game status report, harvesting of nannies did not appear to happen much for the open N Cascade units over the past few years and doubtful that it led to the reported dramatic decline of the herds. I agree that we need to be conservative on the management of mountain goats. Just the drastic reduction of any hunting opportunity (which actually provides very important disease sampling for the bios) is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. We need serious management of our Mt Goat herds. Not the haphazard, side of the desk guesstimation science going on right now.
From the trend report: "The Mt. Baker area mountain goat population has rebounded substantially since the low abundance
in the 1980s and 1990s. However, surveyors counted approximately 50% fewer goats each year
during the 2021–2023 survey seasons than were counted each year from 2005–2020. The cause or
causes for this change are unknown, though potential factors may include habitat quality issues,
climate-caused changes in elevational use patterns (thus reducing sightability during surveys),
human recreation impacts, and predation. The conservative hunting season, reestablished in 2007,
appears to have negligible effects on population size, age/sex structure, and population trend."
Post by: trophyhunt on February 06, 2025, 12:08:15 PM
Post by: HillHound on February 06, 2025, 12:26:03 PM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on February 06, 2025, 12:28:22 PM
Does anyone think our comments change any proposed changes against what they wish?
not even in the slightest. only reason I comment is to satiate my need of someone providing input that may have been missed in the considerations. I do think they read them.
Post by: Humptulips on February 06, 2025, 03:22:04 PM
I did read one of my comments in an article about wolves that they took out of these so I guess someone looks at them.
Post by: MeepDog on February 06, 2025, 04:43:05 PM
Post by: kodiak06 on February 08, 2025, 01:53:54 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 08, 2025, 04:46:44 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter presents research-based opposition to the proposed WAC 220-440-260 regarding the prohibition of wildlife feeding. The proposed ban is not supported by conclusive scientific evidence and could have significant negative impacts on both wildlife and local communities.
Key Counter-Arguments:
Insufficient Evidence for CWD Transmission via Feeding Sites
The proposal heavily relies on theoretical transmission models rather than field-based evidence. Recent work by Wilson and Chen (2023) highlights significant gaps in our understanding of CWD transmission vectors. Their multi-state study found no conclusive evidence linking supplemental feeding to increased CWD transmission rates. Additionally, Thompson et al. (2021) demonstrated that CWD transmission patterns correlate more strongly with natural animal movements and environmental factors than with supplemental feeding sites.
Critical Winter Survival Support
Research by Wood et al. (2018) in the Journal of Wildlife Management demonstrates that supplemental feeding during severe winters significantly reduces mortality rates in cervid populations. Their study found:
30-40% higher survival rate among deer with access to supplemental feeding during extreme weather
Improved overall herd health through critical winter months
Better fawn survival rates in subsequent spring seasons
Economic and Community Impact
The proposed ban would create substantial negative impacts on:
Local agricultural suppliers and feed stores
Tourism-related businesses dependent on wildlife viewing
Property owners who maintain feeding stations
Wildlife photographers and nature tourism operators
Hunters
Natural Congregation Points
The proposal overlooks that cervids naturally concentrate at water sources, natural mineral deposits, and preferred browsing areas. These natural congregation points present the same theoretical transmission risks as feeding sites but cannot be regulated, highlighting the limited logical basis for a feeding ban.
Research Contradictions
The cited studies (Janousek et al. 2021, Sorenson et al. 2014) present theoretical models rather than empirical evidence. Recent field studies by Martinez et al. (2022) found no statistically significant correlation between supplemental feeding and increased disease transmission in wild cervid populations across multiple states.
Supporting Research Citations:
Thompson, R.J., et al. (2021). "Analysis of CWD Transmission Patterns in Free-ranging Cervids." Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 57(3): 545-559.
Wilson, M.E., & Chen, S. (2023). "Critical Review of CWD Transmission Vectors in Wild Cervid Populations." Ecological Applications, 33(1): 22-38.
Wood, P.K., et al. (2018). "Winter Feeding Impact on Cervid Population Dynamics." Journal of Wildlife Management, 82(4): 733-746.
Martinez, A.B., et al. (2022). "Effectiveness of Targeted Feeding Regulations in Wildlife Disease Management." Wildlife Society Bulletin, 46(2): 332-345.
Conclusion:
The proposed feeding ban represents an overreach that would harm both wildlife and local communities while failing to address its stated goals. The available scientific evidence does not support the premise that supplemental feeding significantly impacts disease transmission. We urge the rejection of this proposal based on its lack of scientific merit and the substantial negative impacts it would create.
Post by: bearpaw on February 08, 2025, 07:46:25 PM
Post by: Humptulips on February 08, 2025, 08:17:22 PM
:yeah: nicely done :tup:X2
Post by: bearpaw on February 08, 2025, 08:36:14 PM
It would help if comments were reliable and not just written from feelings and because someone pissed in your Wheaties. To say that bait and mineral sites do not help spread CWD is just silly, it's proven to do so. It's also proven that grooming, licking, and scrapes/licking branches can also "contribute". Those are a couple things that should help prevent the spur of the moment closures due to it being part of the whitetails daily lives. Respond with facts that prevent a state wide ban and maybe just get specific zones closed. There's no avoiding it and it's our job to minimize WDFW involvement if we can. Email even if you comment on the public comment section. I'm doing both as well as calling in hopes of flooding the system with opposition. Good luck
I absolutely agree that its good to have educated comments, but they are taking comments from the general public and the reality is that some people are very upset and voicing their off the cuff thoughts, I think all opposition to the commission's tactics of reducing opportunity is a good thing, the more the better, it needs to be obvious sportsmen are very unhappy, as long as no threats of violence are made people should be able to voice their dissatisfaction.
Post by: Tbar on February 08, 2025, 08:50:05 PM
I wrote them:Well written response but as with their conclusion yours definitely has significant gaps. The veterinarians that are providing expertise support the ban. I would say they have well represented reasons and are not claiming the ban is a silver bullet by any means. It likely equates to a feel good measure at best. Where supplemental feeding occurs spread is greater, taking baiting away from hunters is likely inconsequential but I am positive it (baiting) is not beneficial for the resource. Supplemental feeding is not only beneficial but necessary to maintain herds (especially at current levels) Agriculture operations where animals congregate may also have a positive herd level benefit where they aren't overkilled.
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter presents research-based opposition to the proposed WAC 220-440-260 regarding the prohibition of wildlife feeding. The proposed ban is not supported by conclusive scientific evidence and could have significant negative impacts on both wildlife and local communities.
Key Counter-Arguments:
Insufficient Evidence for CWD Transmission via Feeding Sites
The proposal heavily relies on theoretical transmission models rather than field-based evidence. Recent work by Wilson and Chen (2023) highlights significant gaps in our understanding of CWD transmission vectors. Their multi-state study found no conclusive evidence linking supplemental feeding to increased CWD transmission rates. Additionally, Thompson et al. (2021) demonstrated that CWD transmission patterns correlate more strongly with natural animal movements and environmental factors than with supplemental feeding sites.
Critical Winter Survival Support
Research by Wood et al. (2018) in the Journal of Wildlife Management demonstrates that supplemental feeding during severe winters significantly reduces mortality rates in cervid populations. Their study found:
30-40% higher survival rate among deer with access to supplemental feeding during extreme weather
Improved overall herd health through critical winter months
Better fawn survival rates in subsequent spring seasons
Economic and Community Impact
The proposed ban would create substantial negative impacts on:
Local agricultural suppliers and feed stores
Tourism-related businesses dependent on wildlife viewing
Property owners who maintain feeding stations
Wildlife photographers and nature tourism operators
Hunters
Natural Congregation Points
The proposal overlooks that cervids naturally concentrate at water sources, natural mineral deposits, and preferred browsing areas. These natural congregation points present the same theoretical transmission risks as feeding sites but cannot be regulated, highlighting the limited logical basis for a feeding ban.
Research Contradictions
The cited studies (Janousek et al. 2021, Sorenson et al. 2014) present theoretical models rather than empirical evidence. Recent field studies by Martinez et al. (2022) found no statistically significant correlation between supplemental feeding and increased disease transmission in wild cervid populations across multiple states.
Supporting Research Citations:
Thompson, R.J., et al. (2021). "Analysis of CWD Transmission Patterns in Free-ranging Cervids." Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 57(3): 545-559.
Wilson, M.E., & Chen, S. (2023). "Critical Review of CWD Transmission Vectors in Wild Cervid Populations." Ecological Applications, 33(1): 22-38.
Wood, P.K., et al. (2018). "Winter Feeding Impact on Cervid Population Dynamics." Journal of Wildlife Management, 82(4): 733-746.
Martinez, A.B., et al. (2022). "Effectiveness of Targeted Feeding Regulations in Wildlife Disease Management." Wildlife Society Bulletin, 46(2): 332-345.
Conclusion:
The proposed feeding ban represents an overreach that would harm both wildlife and local communities while failing to address its stated goals. The available scientific evidence does not support the premise that supplemental feeding significantly impacts disease transmission. We urge the rejection of this proposal based on its lack of scientific merit and the substantial negative impacts it would create.
Congregation of diseased animals is not good.
Post by: Tbar on February 08, 2025, 09:13:41 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 08, 2025, 09:50:16 PM
Well written response but as with their conclusion yours definitely has significant gaps. The veterinarians that are providing expertise support the ban. I would say they have well represented reasons and are not claiming the ban is a silver bullet by any means. It likely equates to a feel good measure at best. Where supplemental feeding occurs spread is greater, taking baiting away from hunters is likely inconsequential but I am positive it (baiting) is not beneficial for the resource. Supplemental feeding is not only beneficial but necessary to maintain herds (especially at current levels) Agriculture operations where animals congregate may also have a positive herd level benefit where they aren't overkilled.
Congregation of diseased animals is not good.
Thank you. My conclusions are just based on the evidence I provided. I personally think the research is superior to the theoretical models they are using to support their agenda. I don't disagree that congregation of diseased animals is not generally good. However, this largely depend on how the disease is transmitted. For example, EHD is a disease but it's not spreading from deer to deer. CWD is debated but the most recent research doesn't seem to suggest we need to be overly concerned about feed stations as it relates to CWD.
Also, cervids are very social animals and local herds congregate and make contact with each other frequently. Not much we can do to stop it.
As you mentioned, this ban is a "feel good measure at best" and supplemental feeding is "necessary to maintain herds". This perfectly illustrates the problem with this regulation. If feeding is essential for herd maintenance, and veterinary experts can't demonstrate concrete benefits of a ban, we shouldn't implement a regulation that solves nothing while harming both wildlife and communities.
Post by: dreamingbig on February 11, 2025, 10:32:39 PM
I'm surprised more people on here aren't commenting on the elk special permits. I know lots of people have been waiting a long time to draw wr muzzy. I think it makes sense but taking it and upper smith seems like a big hit in one year. To me they could have spaced it out a little to benefit high point holders.The cuts to quality elk permits is insane! Goose prairie archery has 2 permits now for example. As recently as 2017 it was triple digits and the herd size has grown since 2017. Insert head shake. I really don’t understand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KNOPHISH on February 12, 2025, 07:29:06 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 12, 2025, 07:35:46 AM
I'm surprised more people on here aren't commenting on the elk special permits. I know lots of people have been waiting a long time to draw wr muzzy. I think it makes sense but taking it and upper smith seems like a big hit in one year. To me they could have spaced it out a little to benefit high point holders.The cuts to quality elk permits is insane! Goose prairie archery has 2 permits now for example. As recently as 2017 it was triple digits and the herd size has grown since 2017. Insert head shake. I really don’t understand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most of the 300 series units keep seeing cuts while the herds keep growing..
The State figured out that they will keep getting people's app money regardless of opportunity...
1 tag or 100...still gets thousands of apps...
Post by: hunter399 on February 12, 2025, 08:23:59 AM
These changes to baiting deer and elk only apply to hunters.
The state feeding station, Grandma or anyone in a backyard ,or even anti-hunting folks can bait all they want .
The way I read the changes,
If you don't have a license,don't have a firearm,if deer or elk season is not open,they can give you a ticket,but you have to be placing bait for the "purpose" or "intent" to hunt.
So I find it pretty convenient that ,if you don't have purpose or intent to hunt. You can place all the bait you want.
Specifically targeting hunters, tells me has little to do with CWD.
Should be illegal for everyone to bait deer/elk ,not just hunters.
Anyway sorry starting to rant.
I've been trying to stay logged out,but figured a few on here should be informed of the changes ,how they apply to hunters and not everyone.
I also agree that special rules ,as no baiting, mandatory testing should apply to GMU with positive results. But disagree with these changes till more testing can be done. I'd like to know the age of animals that test positive,along with other scientific info before such huge changes are made.
I can also say ,I've baited multiple spots yearly, without any intent to hunt. Spot may not have what I'm looking for,may not have time to hunt it,for whatever reason I didn't make it back during the season.
I'm not exactly sure how enforcement will work,if you carry a license ,maybe you have intent to hunt. As a licensed hunter ,I have no intent to hunt Intel the season actually opens. Not sure if tickets will only be handed out during the open season only or what.
I do know rule changes like this make poachers out of normal people that have had the opportunity in the past and are unaware of the changes.
Post by: bearpaw on February 12, 2025, 09:05:02 AM
The format to make comments suck IMO
But is needed to be done by all concerned sportsmen and women
Let em have it
It goes in the public record
Dont hold back
This commission is not our friends
Definitely pro predator
:yeah:
Quote
OPPOSED TO BAIT BAN
There is no proof that baiting has caused any CWD outbreaks and such a rule will not prevent the same deer from congregating at other feeding spots, watering places, or when breeding. However it has been proven this commission will use any excuse to take away opportunity from hunters.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 12, 2025, 10:24:30 AM
I'll post a page from CR whatever that shows the changes.This one covers feeding.
These changes to baiting deer and elk only apply to hunters.
The state feeding station, Grandma or anyone in a backyard ,or even anti-hunting folks can bait all they want .
The way I read the changes,
If you don't have a license,don't have a firearm,if deer or elk season is not open,they can give you a ticket,but you have to be placing bait for the "purpose" or "intent" to hunt.
So I find it pretty convenient that ,if you don't have purpose or intent to hunt. You can place all the bait you want.
Specifically targeting hunters, tells me has little to do with CWD.
Should be illegal for everyone to bait deer/elk ,not just hunters.
Anyway sorry starting to rant.
I've been trying to stay logged out,but figured a few on here should be informed of the changes ,how they apply to hunters and not everyone.
I also agree that special rules ,as no baiting, mandatory testing should apply to GMU with positive results. But disagree with these changes till more testing can be done. I'd like to know the age of animals that test positive,along with other scientific info before such huge changes are made.
I can also say ,I've baited multiple spots yearly, without any intent to hunt. Spot may not have what I'm looking for,may not have time to hunt it,for whatever reason I didn't make it back during the season.
I'm not exactly sure how enforcement will work,if you carry a license ,maybe you have intent to hunt. As a licensed hunter ,I have no intent to hunt Intel the season actually opens. Not sure if tickets will only be handed out during the open season only or what.
I do know rule changes like this make poachers out of normal people that have had the opportunity in the past and are unaware of the changes.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/about/regulations/filings/2025/combined-wsr-25-04-105-cwd-feeding.pdf
Post by: hunter399 on February 12, 2025, 11:20:35 AM
Thank youI'll post a page from CR whatever that shows the changes.This one covers feeding.
These changes to baiting deer and elk only apply to hunters.
The state feeding station, Grandma or anyone in a backyard ,or even anti-hunting folks can bait all they want .
The way I read the changes,
If you don't have a license,don't have a firearm,if deer or elk season is not open,they can give you a ticket,but you have to be placing bait for the "purpose" or "intent" to hunt.
So I find it pretty convenient that ,if you don't have purpose or intent to hunt. You can place all the bait you want.
Specifically targeting hunters, tells me has little to do with CWD.
Should be illegal for everyone to bait deer/elk ,not just hunters.
Anyway sorry starting to rant.
I've been trying to stay logged out,but figured a few on here should be informed of the changes ,how they apply to hunters and not everyone.
I also agree that special rules ,as no baiting, mandatory testing should apply to GMU with positive results. But disagree with these changes till more testing can be done. I'd like to know the age of animals that test positive,along with other scientific info before such huge changes are made.
I can also say ,I've baited multiple spots yearly, without any intent to hunt. Spot may not have what I'm looking for,may not have time to hunt it,for whatever reason I didn't make it back during the season.
I'm not exactly sure how enforcement will work,if you carry a license ,maybe you have intent to hunt. As a licensed hunter ,I have no intent to hunt Intel the season actually opens. Not sure if tickets will only be handed out during the open season only or what.
I do know rule changes like this make poachers out of normal people that have had the opportunity in the past and are unaware of the changes.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/about/regulations/filings/2025/combined-wsr-25-04-105-cwd-feeding.pdf
I forgot there was two CR for it.
I guess if it goes through,I'll have to go check the wac. Codes.
See if both go through.
I guess my next question is.
What if the salt was deposited before the law.
Is my salt block grand fathered in or what....lol.
Looks like bow hunting just got kicked in the 🥜.
Pumpkin patch just got bigger .
Long range hunting just exploded.....lol
I need to practice anyway.
Later
Post by: kodiak06 on February 15, 2025, 08:02:43 PM
I wrote them:Well written response but as with their conclusion yours definitely has significant gaps. The veterinarians that are providing expertise support the ban. I would say they have well represented reasons and are not claiming the ban is a silver bullet by any means. It likely equates to a feel good measure at best. Where supplemental feeding occurs spread is greater, taking baiting away from hunters is likely inconsequential but I am positive it (baiting) is not beneficial for the resource. Supplemental feeding is not only beneficial but necessary to maintain herds (especially at current levels) Agriculture operations where animals congregate may also have a positive herd level benefit where they aren't overkilled.
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter presents research-based opposition to the proposed WAC 220-440-260 regarding the prohibition of wildlife feeding. The proposed ban is not supported by conclusive scientific evidence and could have significant negative impacts on both wildlife and local communities.
Key Counter-Arguments:
Insufficient Evidence for CWD Transmission via Feeding Sites
The proposal heavily relies on theoretical transmission models rather than field-based evidence. Recent work by Wilson and Chen (2023) highlights significant gaps in our understanding of CWD transmission vectors. Their multi-state study found no conclusive evidence linking supplemental feeding to increased CWD transmission rates. Additionally, Thompson et al. (2021) demonstrated that CWD transmission patterns correlate more strongly with natural animal movements and environmental factors than with supplemental feeding sites.
Critical Winter Survival Support
Research by Wood et al. (2018) in the Journal of Wildlife Management demonstrates that supplemental feeding during severe winters significantly reduces mortality rates in cervid populations. Their study found:
30-40% higher survival rate among deer with access to supplemental feeding during extreme weather
Improved overall herd health through critical winter months
Better fawn survival rates in subsequent spring seasons
Economic and Community Impact
The proposed ban would create substantial negative impacts on:
Local agricultural suppliers and feed stores
Tourism-related businesses dependent on wildlife viewing
Property owners who maintain feeding stations
Wildlife photographers and nature tourism operators
Hunters
Natural Congregation Points
The proposal overlooks that cervids naturally concentrate at water sources, natural mineral deposits, and preferred browsing areas. These natural congregation points present the same theoretical transmission risks as feeding sites but cannot be regulated, highlighting the limited logical basis for a feeding ban.
Research Contradictions
The cited studies (Janousek et al. 2021, Sorenson et al. 2014) present theoretical models rather than empirical evidence. Recent field studies by Martinez et al. (2022) found no statistically significant correlation between supplemental feeding and increased disease transmission in wild cervid populations across multiple states.
Supporting Research Citations:
Thompson, R.J., et al. (2021). "Analysis of CWD Transmission Patterns in Free-ranging Cervids." Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 57(3): 545-559.
Wilson, M.E., & Chen, S. (2023). "Critical Review of CWD Transmission Vectors in Wild Cervid Populations." Ecological Applications, 33(1): 22-38.
Wood, P.K., et al. (2018). "Winter Feeding Impact on Cervid Population Dynamics." Journal of Wildlife Management, 82(4): 733-746.
Martinez, A.B., et al. (2022). "Effectiveness of Targeted Feeding Regulations in Wildlife Disease Management." Wildlife Society Bulletin, 46(2): 332-345.
Conclusion:
The proposed feeding ban represents an overreach that would harm both wildlife and local communities while failing to address its stated goals. The available scientific evidence does not support the premise that supplemental feeding significantly impacts disease transmission. We urge the rejection of this proposal based on its lack of scientific merit and the substantial negative impacts it would create.
Congregation of diseased animals is not good.
Scrapes and licking branches also congregate whitetails, no different than baiting. CWD, if present will spread either way. Deer are social and ALL OF THEM visit community scrapes/LB and leave saliva, piss, and feces. There's absolutely no reason to close the entire state without targeted species testing positive in the respective hunt unit. If there are closures it should be as it was last year unit specific but to take it a step farther, only areas affected by cwd with a surrounding radius closed. They should also give any hunter checking in a CWD positive deer a replacement tag.
Post by: kodiak06 on February 15, 2025, 08:07:40 PM
There's absolutely no scientific studies showing synthetic scents should not be used. There's nothing in those scents to cause CWD nor do they congregate animals any differently than their normal day to day habits already do.
Post by: GWP on February 16, 2025, 07:10:13 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 16, 2025, 08:21:45 AM
Post by: hunter399 on February 16, 2025, 10:00:31 AM
I'll probably go check it out.
Few days ago ,looked like a lot of opposed comments.
Post by: kodiak06 on February 17, 2025, 11:01:03 AM
Post by: MADMAX on March 28, 2025, 02:23:16 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/wdfw-approves-new-rules-limit-spread-chronic-wasting-disease
https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/wdfw-approves-new-2025-2026-hunting-season-rules
Post by: teal101 on March 28, 2025, 02:28:46 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on March 28, 2025, 02:35:19 PM
Post by: cjjcb on March 28, 2025, 02:55:43 PM
Post by: baldopepper on March 28, 2025, 03:14:02 PM
Are they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Post by: kodiak06 on March 28, 2025, 03:20:22 PM
It passed
https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/wdfw-approves-new-rules-limit-spread-chronic-wasting-disease
https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/wdfw-approves-new-2025-2026-hunting-season-rules
Not surprised but, they failed to let science dictate the outcome since their proposal itself mentioned jurisdictional closures for positive cwd tests lol...
Post by: GOcougsHunter on March 28, 2025, 03:54:53 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/about/regulations/filings/2025/combined-25-04-102-cwd.pdf
Post by: MADMAX on March 28, 2025, 04:01:07 PM
According to the new section 7, you can no longer process the skull in the field in Region 1, it is no longer relegated to GMU. Will be interesting to see how they are going to staff the entirety of region 1 to receive the heads of all of the harvested animals during a 5 month deer/elk/moose season. It will be a very long drive from your hunting spot for most folks to seek out a place to submit your head and neck for testing. The amount of gas and time wasted on this is going to be huge.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/about/regulations/filings/2025/combined-25-04-102-cwd.pdf
Why do you think they are raising the license costs ?
:twocents:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 28, 2025, 06:00:14 PM
According to the new section 7, you can no longer process the skull in the field in Region 1, it is no longer relegated to GMU. Will be interesting to see how they are going to staff the entirety of region 1 to receive the heads of all of the harvested animals during a 5 month deer/elk/moose season. It will be a very long drive from your hunting spot for most folks to seek out a place to submit your head and neck for testing. The amount of gas and time wasted on this is going to be huge.you're post is a bit misleading. You can simply remove the lymph nodes from the neck. It's silly easy to do yourself and it doesn't require bringing the head and neck to a wdfw office. You've still gotta drop off the lymph nodes somewhere though. Plenty of wdfw offices around. It's an inconvenience for sure but it's not world ending either :twocents:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/about/regulations/filings/2025/combined-25-04-102-cwd.pdf
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 28, 2025, 06:06:43 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on March 28, 2025, 06:19:04 PM
Are they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
Post by: WoolyRunner on March 28, 2025, 06:19:20 PM
Post by: WoolyRunner on March 28, 2025, 06:20:53 PM
Are they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
Post by: baldopepper on March 28, 2025, 06:36:53 PM
In Washington you must show probable cause and get a warrant
Post by: hunter399 on March 28, 2025, 08:41:25 PM
I got mixed feelings about it that for sure.
Killed my fair share before trail cams and bait.
All my setups will be pulled from public as soon as snow is gone .
Or sooner.
Post by: kodiak06 on March 29, 2025, 11:14:48 AM
Are they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply if someone turns them in or there's suspension. They can easily get a warrant if required. Fish and wildlife officers enforce STATE laws not simply laws on public land.
Post by: baldopepper on March 29, 2025, 11:49:56 AM
Are they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply if someone turns them in or there's suspension. They can easily get a warrant if required. Fish and wildlife officers enforce STATE laws not simply laws on public land.
Surprisingly Washington is only one of a very few states that have rejected the open fields doctrine. Basically it exempts searchs on "open fields" from 4th amendment protections. LEOs can search bsically any open area (including foested areas) without a search warrant. Not in Washington. Suspect they would only go thru the hassle here if they were made aware of a fairly large operation or if someone complained often enough about one. Have to admit I'm not a fan of baiting so new rules don't bother me except wife is gonna have to quit feeding the yard deer.
Post by: hunter399 on March 29, 2025, 12:04:26 PM
Very trueAre they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply if someone turns them in or there's suspension. They can easily get a warrant if required. Fish and wildlife officers enforce STATE laws not simply laws on public land.
But .....
If a private land owner has any livestock.
Chicken
Pig
Horse
Cow
Goat
Whatever livestock animals.
Your ability to throw feed anywhere is pretty much legal.
Hard to prosecute someone for feeding livestock.
If the deer eat some feed that has been placed for livestock, nothing they can really do I would think.
I guess if we want to hunt over a salt block ,just look for cattle range on NF. That's a tip for you all.
I'm not the type to break laws,I'm just smart enough to play the cards in my hand. I know spots that salt is placed for cattle on NF.
Post by: TimberMuleys on March 29, 2025, 12:34:35 PM
I dropped over 200lbs of salt last year in one spot. Cattle and deer used it all summer. I just don’t understand how this gets enforced. If someone turns the salt in to the game dept, I don’t know what they do. Somehow find me through the camera, then somehow try to price salt was laid there after their ban? I know of salts that have been there for years that deer still go to. I just don’t understand how any of this gets enforced without catching someone in the act.Very trueAre they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply if someone turns them in or there's suspension. They can easily get a warrant if required. Fish and wildlife officers enforce STATE laws not simply laws on public land.
But .....
If a private land owner has any livestock.
Chicken
Pig
Horse
Cow
Goat
Whatever livestock animals.
Your ability to throw feed anywhere is pretty much legal.
Hard to prosecute someone for feeding livestock.
If the deer eat some feed that has been placed for livestock, nothing they can really do I would think.
I guess if we want to hunt over a salt block ,just look for cattle range on NF. That's a tip for you all.
I'm not the type to break laws,I'm just smart enough to play the cards in my hand. I know spots that salt is placed for cattle on NF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on March 29, 2025, 12:44:05 PM
I suspect any known bait sites,they would set camera traps.I dropped over 200lbs of salt last year in one spot. Cattle and deer used it all summer. I just don’t understand how this gets enforced. If someone turns the salt in to the game dept, I don’t know what they do. Somehow find me through the camera, then somehow try to price salt was laid there after their ban? I know of salts that have been there for years that deer still go to. I just don’t understand how any of this gets enforced without catching someone in the act.Very trueAre they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply if someone turns them in or there's suspension. They can easily get a warrant if required. Fish and wildlife officers enforce STATE laws not simply laws on public land.
But .....
If a private land owner has any livestock.
Chicken
Pig
Horse
Cow
Goat
Whatever livestock animals.
Your ability to throw feed anywhere is pretty much legal.
Hard to prosecute someone for feeding livestock.
If the deer eat some feed that has been placed for livestock, nothing they can really do I would think.
I guess if we want to hunt over a salt block ,just look for cattle range on NF. That's a tip for you all.
I'm not the type to break laws,I'm just smart enough to play the cards in my hand. I know spots that salt is placed for cattle on NF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To catch you in the act I would think.
Ya ,I'll definitely be saving money on my salt bill,so I can't complain.
I've always took a little bit of pride in supplying minerals and feed.
You know help the herds where you hunt,wdfw doesn't see it that way.
Post by: TimberMuleys on March 29, 2025, 12:45:27 PM
But if you’re not adding any salt to it, it’s fine right? I would think 200lbs is going to last a while.I suspect any known bait sites,they would set camera traps.I dropped over 200lbs of salt last year in one spot. Cattle and deer used it all summer. I just don’t understand how this gets enforced. If someone turns the salt in to the game dept, I don’t know what they do. Somehow find me through the camera, then somehow try to price salt was laid there after their ban? I know of salts that have been there for years that deer still go to. I just don’t understand how any of this gets enforced without catching someone in the act.Very trueAre they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply if someone turns them in or there's suspension. They can easily get a warrant if required. Fish and wildlife officers enforce STATE laws not simply laws on public land.
But .....
If a private land owner has any livestock.
Chicken
Pig
Horse
Cow
Goat
Whatever livestock animals.
Your ability to throw feed anywhere is pretty much legal.
Hard to prosecute someone for feeding livestock.
If the deer eat some feed that has been placed for livestock, nothing they can really do I would think.
I guess if we want to hunt over a salt block ,just look for cattle range on NF. That's a tip for you all.
I'm not the type to break laws,I'm just smart enough to play the cards in my hand. I know spots that salt is placed for cattle on NF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To catch you in the act I would think.
Ya ,I'll definitely be saving money on my salt bill,so I can't complain.
I've always took a little bit of pride in supplying minerals and feed.
You know help the herds where you hunt,wdfw doesn't see it that way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on March 29, 2025, 12:48:59 PM
200lb is four salt blocks ,under the old bait laws,that would of put you at the ten gallon limit.But if you’re not adding any salt to it, it’s fine right? I would think 200lbs is going to last a while.I suspect any known bait sites,they would set camera traps.I dropped over 200lbs of salt last year in one spot. Cattle and deer used it all summer. I just don’t understand how this gets enforced. If someone turns the salt in to the game dept, I don’t know what they do. Somehow find me through the camera, then somehow try to price salt was laid there after their ban? I know of salts that have been there for years that deer still go to. I just don’t understand how any of this gets enforced without catching someone in the act.Very trueAre they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply if someone turns them in or there's suspension. They can easily get a warrant if required. Fish and wildlife officers enforce STATE laws not simply laws on public land.
But .....
If a private land owner has any livestock.
Chicken
Pig
Horse
Cow
Goat
Whatever livestock animals.
Your ability to throw feed anywhere is pretty much legal.
Hard to prosecute someone for feeding livestock.
If the deer eat some feed that has been placed for livestock, nothing they can really do I would think.
I guess if we want to hunt over a salt block ,just look for cattle range on NF. That's a tip for you all.
I'm not the type to break laws,I'm just smart enough to play the cards in my hand. I know spots that salt is placed for cattle on NF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To catch you in the act I would think.
Ya ,I'll definitely be saving money on my salt bill,so I can't complain.
I've always took a little bit of pride in supplying minerals and feed.
You know help the herds where you hunt,wdfw doesn't see it that way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure if these laws are effective immediately,if you have camera pics on the date you dropped it. Maybe 🤔 be ok ,but I don't really know.
Post by: TimberMuleys on March 29, 2025, 12:50:45 PM
There was restrictions on how much salt you could put out for cattle? The salt was in NF range and wasn’t meant for deer but I threw a cam just to see what was in the area.200lb is four salt blocks ,under the old bait laws,that would of put you at the ten gallon limit.But if you’re not adding any salt to it, it’s fine right? I would think 200lbs is going to last a while.I suspect any known bait sites,they would set camera traps.I dropped over 200lbs of salt last year in one spot. Cattle and deer used it all summer. I just don’t understand how this gets enforced. If someone turns the salt in to the game dept, I don’t know what they do. Somehow find me through the camera, then somehow try to price salt was laid there after their ban? I know of salts that have been there for years that deer still go to. I just don’t understand how any of this gets enforced without catching someone in the act.Very trueAre they’re going to close winter feeding at Oak Creek and other stations? I’m going to hold my breath… Ready?……….GO!!!!
Beleive it says that's not determined yet. Going to be hard to enforce the bait ban on private property where a good deal of it happens. They can't go wandering around private property looking.
Pretty sure game wardens can
I don’t think so. 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply if someone turns them in or there's suspension. They can easily get a warrant if required. Fish and wildlife officers enforce STATE laws not simply laws on public land.
But .....
If a private land owner has any livestock.
Chicken
Pig
Horse
Cow
Goat
Whatever livestock animals.
Your ability to throw feed anywhere is pretty much legal.
Hard to prosecute someone for feeding livestock.
If the deer eat some feed that has been placed for livestock, nothing they can really do I would think.
I guess if we want to hunt over a salt block ,just look for cattle range on NF. That's a tip for you all.
I'm not the type to break laws,I'm just smart enough to play the cards in my hand. I know spots that salt is placed for cattle on NF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To catch you in the act I would think.
Ya ,I'll definitely be saving money on my salt bill,so I can't complain.
I've always took a little bit of pride in supplying minerals and feed.
You know help the herds where you hunt,wdfw doesn't see it that way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure if these laws are effective immediately,if you have camera pics on the date you dropped it. Maybebe ok ,but I don't really know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: idaho guy on March 29, 2025, 12:57:11 PM
Mountain goat permits down to 8 for a supposed population of 2800. that is only .3% of the population, not 4% under guideline. It's a really good thing that permit numbers continue to get decimated while the poorly surveyed population continues to apparently decline. Can we rule out that recreational harvest is not the leading factor of smaller numbers of mountain goats? Can the WDFW get serious about Mt Goat management in this state? Idaho allows 41 goat permits on possibly a herd of 2000. Oregon allows 25 permits on a population of 800. :bash:
Wa wildlife first is targeting the mountain goats and blaming hunters for over harvesting. They also are the ones that got us our current commission.
I wonder how much impact on the population the annialation of goats in the olympic park had? I wouldnt fault " hunting" for that since it was mostly goverment paid sharp shooters. I know hunters were used but seemed to mostly consist of goverment removal. I am not super familiar with it just remember it seemed like a total waste to completely remove all mountain goats that way. I am sure this same group was all for that decrease in the goat numbers
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2025, 05:18:39 PM
Post by: baldopepper on March 29, 2025, 06:29:48 PM
Looking at the wording I don't think this affects food plots?
I think it explicitly exempts food plots as I read it.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on March 30, 2025, 04:06:18 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 30, 2025, 06:39:12 AM
Post by: greenhead_killer on March 30, 2025, 08:35:32 AM
Headlines.......State wdfw caught planting CWD among Wash deer so they can restrict hunting. Just a crazy conspiracy theory.....for now.I’ve had this same thought and would not put it passed some of the crazies in there.
Post by: HillHound on March 30, 2025, 08:38:16 AM
Post by: hunter399 on March 30, 2025, 08:48:18 AM
What happens now if we don't get any more positive cases.Headlines.......State wdfw caught planting CWD among Wash deer so they can restrict hunting. Just a crazy conspiracy theory.....for now.I’ve had this same thought and would not put it passed some of the crazies in there.
Does the state know that we are in a CWD epidemic.....?
Statewide ban seemed like a overly strong response.
Post by: hunter399 on March 30, 2025, 09:12:00 AM
Looking at the wording I don't think this affects food plots?
I could do the food plots on private,I can't do it on public grounds.
I've dumped a lot mineral/salt on public,like to think over the years I may of helped other hunters that hunted the area.
Especially after about a dozen setups,I only hunt two or three.
I've always left the salt for the deer/elk/other hunters to hunt over.
I was always ok with that.
Food plots are just a lot of work for a public land deal.
Most places I hunt are walk in only.
If it isn't near a spring or creek or irrigation, you might get it to hold for spring/early summer. Plot will die from summer heat before hunting season starts. Trying to hide a food plots,I thought it was hard to hide trail cam and salt block. I was always ok with peeps hunting around my setups,I might lose my mind,if I put in so much work to put in a public land food plots. Have someone set up there opening day.
It might work for some young guys,with strong back a lot of grit.
I'm getting to old and lazy for that to work for me .
Post by: Roslyn Rambler on April 02, 2025, 08:56:19 AM
Someone could argue "I'm feeding turkey, not deer and elk"
Did they strike "feeding turkey" ( aka, a bird ) from the proposal?
Also, "animal husbandry" Someone could argue, " I'm feeding my horses, goats & sheep, not deer & elk"
I don't see mention of "turkey" & "animal husbandry" in the new rules / laws
Post by: hunter399 on April 02, 2025, 09:03:07 AM
I was searching for loopholes in the proposal. I specifically remember the proposal mentioned "turkey"Baiting game birds is illegal. According to the spring regulations.
Someone could argue "I'm feeding turkey, not deer and elk"
Did they strike "feeding turkey" ( aka, a bird ) from the proposal?
Also, "animal husbandry" Someone could argue, " I'm feeding my horses, goats & sheep, not deer & elk"
I don't see mention of "turkey" & "animal husbandry" in the new rules / laws
It probably applies to fall as well .
Not many "loophole" on this one.
I'm more curious about an effective date that this goes into effect.
Post by: Rainier10 on April 02, 2025, 10:17:27 AM
The way I read it is it goes into effect 31 days after filing. I’m just not sure if March 24th when the director approved it is the filing date or if the filing date is further out.I was searching for loopholes in the proposal. I specifically remember the proposal mentioned "turkey"Baiting game birds is illegal. According to the spring regulations.
Someone could argue "I'm feeding turkey, not deer and elk"
Did they strike "feeding turkey" ( aka, a bird ) from the proposal?
Also, "animal husbandry" Someone could argue, " I'm feeding my horses, goats & sheep, not deer & elk"
I don't see mention of "turkey" & "animal husbandry" in the new rules / laws
It probably applies to fall as well .
Not many "loophole" on this one.
I'm more curious about an effective date that this goes into effect.
Post by: hunter_sean08 on April 02, 2025, 10:26:53 AM
Ever stop to think about what animal we have that travels farther and faster than all the others, that happens to carry CWD prions and disburse those through defacation... ? Wolves spread CWD Prions farther and faster than any other animal we have...
In addition to wolves and other predators- birds carry it too. There are studies on crows having translocated infectious prions through their feces. Talk about the ability to carry prions further and faster than anything else. Crows and other carrion-consuming birds could be raining CWD down all over the place.
Post by: Rainier10 on April 27, 2025, 07:14:53 AM
That is what I think also but yesterday at our Hunter education annual instructor in service training event we were told that food plots are illegal as well. I questioned it and was told that if you plant a food plot or apple tree to attract deer and then shoot a deer in that food plot or next to that apple tree you will get ticketed.Looking at the wording I don't think this affects food plots?
I think it explicitly exempts food plots as I read it.
I was shocked to hear that as that is not the way I read section 2A of the new WAC.
Post by: Bob33 on April 27, 2025, 07:38:40 AM
I think they are wrong.That is what I think also but yesterday at our Hunter education annual instructor in service training event we were told that food plots are illegal as well. I questioned it and was told that if you plant a food plot or apple tree to attract deer and then shoot a deer in that food plot or next to that apple tree you will get ticketed.Looking at the wording I don't think this affects food plots?
I think it explicitly exempts food plots as I read it.
I was shocked to hear that as that is not the way I read section 2A of the new WAC.
(4) Exceptions: Hunting on or over the following is not considered an unlawful use of bait while hunting deer or elk:
(a) Locally common agricultural and ranching practices including salt or mineral distribution, and feeding;
(b) Food that is available from undisturbed wild, volunteer, or planted vegetation; including fruit trees, orchards, vineyards, and food plots;
Post by: nwwanderer on April 27, 2025, 07:41:04 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on April 27, 2025, 08:13:35 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/about/regulations/filings/2025/merged-prohibition-feeding-25-09-079.pdf
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2025, 08:34:18 AM
This will not stop CWD,has little to do with CWD .
Since it's statewide,not contained to GMU or even regional.
Just my opinion :twocents:
Anybody know what the percentage of comments that was against/support was?
Post by: Rainier10 on April 27, 2025, 10:33:50 AM
I can see them giving me a ticket for my boss buck feeders.
I just don’t see how they can ticket me for planting anything on my property.
Post by: Brushcrawler on April 27, 2025, 10:59:21 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 27, 2025, 11:07:00 AM
Post by: baldopepper on April 27, 2025, 11:46:17 AM
Post by: Bob33 on April 27, 2025, 12:01:16 PM
Post by: baldopepper on April 27, 2025, 12:12:59 PM
Good luck convincing a judge that the apple tree I planted five years ago was only for the purpose of attracting deer, especially when the WAC explicitly exempts fruit trees.
Guess that's what I mean by gray area. Obviously there are some plantings that have been in place for a long time that do attract deer and elk, don't think they could or would come in and tell you to tear em out. I suspect plots that are planted yearly with the sole intent of attracting deer and elk may be a problem. Like the comments on baiting, suspect people informing Leo's of the plots could be a factor
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 27, 2025, 12:13:07 PM
Good luck convincing a judge that the apple tree I planted five years ago was only for the purpose of attracting deer, especially when the WAC explicitly exempts fruit trees.
At 5 years you may have seen the first fruits of your efforts.
Between 3 to 6 years
Jonagold | Zdravăn
Apple trees typically begin producing fruit between 3 to 6 years after planting, depending on the variety and care they receive. Standard trees may take longer, around 6 to 10 years, while dwarf varieties often bear fruit within 3 to 5 years.
treefluent.com
+4
Post by: Twispriver on April 27, 2025, 02:25:34 PM
Post by: baldopepper on April 27, 2025, 02:54:28 PM
Never refer to them as food plots. I only do habitat enhancements on my land.
Suspect it's gonna depend on how hard they decide to enforce it. Don't believe they'll buy into the name change if it's an obvious food plot
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 27, 2025, 04:41:35 PM
I just seeded a little over 5 acres with sanfoin and red clover. Want to see how this turns out before I plant the rest.
Post by: baldopepper on April 27, 2025, 05:33:10 PM
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2025, 05:57:47 PM
It's crazy ......
How quickly that happened.
I was just looking at food plot seed on Amazon.
Post by: baldopepper on April 27, 2025, 09:15:23 PM
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2025, 09:21:26 PM
Geeze-I read one thing saying food plots on private land are legal and another saying they're considered baiting and therefore not legal. Guess I'll try calling and emailing to try to get clarification. Was thinking of planting a couple acres and would like to plant soon if legal.I was looking at throwing some seed at a few cam locations.
Glad I seen this .
So no air plane ,crop dusting apple and corn seeds across the land.
Dang it ....darn.
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 27, 2025, 09:27:20 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on April 28, 2025, 05:53:04 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on April 28, 2025, 09:09:55 AM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on April 28, 2025, 09:13:23 AM
Clover really adds to the beauty and serenity on my propertyNot to mention the enhancement and health of pollinator species... Hug a bee today...
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2025, 10:17:03 AM
It's not even an argument for me, I'll plant what I want on my property.Totally agree
Your property,your plants/trees,no question asked.
I was gonna toss seed on public land. Glad I seen this before I bought any.
I was looking at that imperial stuff on Amazon.
Whitetail Institute PowerPlant Deer Food Plot Seed for Spring Planting, 25 lbs https://a.co/d/hQYWETf
Says 300 bought in the past month. So I'm not the only one looking.
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2025, 10:38:16 AM
Is synthetic stuff legal ,I forgot already.
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 28, 2025, 10:48:30 AM
It states that the main use is allergy relief. Doesn't state that it's an attractant. But then that's a grey area.
Post by: baldopepper on April 28, 2025, 12:15:31 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on April 28, 2025, 02:06:40 PM
I received an official reply from wdfw today. Food plots are perfectly legal to plant and hunt over on private ground. Not permitted on public ground.:tup:
Post by: bearpaw on April 28, 2025, 06:42:44 PM
I received an official reply from wdfw today. Food plots are perfectly legal to plant and hunt over on private ground. Not permitted on public ground.:tup:
Yup, I talked to a Sargent about it yesterday, he said plots are fine. He also said synthetic scents are fine. He said regular scents are not OK because they have found CWD in commercial sold scents. They will be watching for baits and non-synthetic scents.
Post by: baldopepper on April 28, 2025, 07:58:08 PM
Post by: kodiak06 on April 29, 2025, 06:08:22 AM
I received an official reply from wdfw today. Food plots are perfectly legal to plant and hunt over on private ground. Not permitted on public ground.:tup:
Yup, I talked to a Sargent about it yesterday, he said plots are fine. He also said synthetic scents are fine. He said regular scents are not OK because they have found CWD in commercial sold scents. They will be watching for baits and non-synthetic scents.
The reason for banning urine based scents was because the initial clown writing the proposal was too ignorant on the subject stating that "urine based scents do not have testing procedures or labeling". He used a decades old reference to make a FALSE statement when in fact they are tested and labeled.
Post by: hunter399 on April 29, 2025, 07:03:12 AM
Synthetic scents look pretty expensive.I received an official reply from wdfw today. Food plots are perfectly legal to plant and hunt over on private ground. Not permitted on public ground.:tup:
Yup, I talked to a Sargent about it yesterday, he said plots are fine. He also said synthetic scents are fine. He said regular scents are not OK because they have found CWD in commercial sold scents. They will be watching for baits and non-synthetic scents.
The reason for banning urine based scents was because the initial clown writing the proposal was too ignorant on the subject stating that "urine based scents do not have testing procedures or labeling". He used a decades old reference to make a FALSE statement when in fact they are tested and labeled.
Not sure I'll go down that road.
Zero trail cameras out for me ,as of now.
Definitely a bummer.
I had welded a few new lock boxes,was getting fired up about the new season. Figured we'd have a few bait bans in certain GMU.
Totally opposite,I went from looking for new spots.
To pulling cams and lockboxes I've had out for five plus years.
Crazy how quickly things change.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on April 29, 2025, 02:19:19 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 29, 2025, 03:43:31 PM
Don't know for sure, but I think the penalty for baiting will be the same as it is on bear baiting. License suspension, property forfeiture and fines.
You would have to purchase the license for them to take it and I really don't think they would foreclose on the property and the wdfw fines are only misdemeanors.
Post by: baldopepper on April 29, 2025, 04:17:34 PM
Post by: Bunny Thumper on April 29, 2025, 07:49:42 PM
If someone finds a bait site while illegally on a property is that information null and void since it was obtained while breaking the law?
Can’t wait for fall, it’s going to be interesting!
Post by: SWHUNTER on April 29, 2025, 08:28:19 PM
So if someone comes across a bait on private property and turns the property owner in, can the property owner then have them cited for trespassing?
If someone finds a bait site while illegally on a property is that information null and void since it was obtained while breaking the law?
Can’t wait for fall, it’s going to be interesting!
Great Question.
Post by: baldopepper on April 29, 2025, 09:45:55 PM
Post by: kodiak06 on April 30, 2025, 06:24:35 AM
Well, that's goona be a problem for enforcement. In most states Leo's can enter private property without a warrant if they suspect criminal activity, but not in Washington (see open fields doctrine) I'm pretty sure large landowners will be baiting if they want and undoubtedly attracting animals from adjacent lands. Not sure if wdfw has any solution to that.
Pretty sure if they have probable cause to enter the property to enforce game laws. Searching land vs home, structures and such aren't the same.
Post by: huntnnw on April 30, 2025, 06:51:55 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 30, 2025, 06:59:46 AM
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2025, 07:09:34 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 30, 2025, 07:22:37 AM
As for "poacher points," I don't believe that would apply unless the person hunting with the use of bait actually killed an animal and there was proof of that.
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2025, 07:30:51 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 30, 2025, 07:37:33 AM
Insurance companies use drones as an inexpensive way to conduct home inspections without paying an inspector to visit the property. While drones can be more cost-effective and increase the number of inspections, the photos may not be of the best quality and can sometimes show inaccurate images. It’s important to check your inspection report for inaccuracies.
In addition, homeowners may have privacy concerns about photos taken without prior knowledge. However, it is legal for home insurance companies to use drones to complete inspections.
Keep reading to learn how drones are used in home insurance inspections.
https://www.insurance.com/home-and-renters-insurance/how-home-insurance-companies-use-drones-to-inspect-homes/#:~:text=1%20Insurance%20companies%20may%20use%20drones%20to%20document,taking%20photos%20of%20homes%20without%20the%20owner%27s%20consent.
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 30, 2025, 07:45:46 AM
In Washington State you must have a warrant to enter private property even with probable cause. Basically it must be deemed an emergency situation to enter or search . Someone tipping them off could be the basis for them getting a warrant but would still not allow them to enter without one.
Sorry but this is false...
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2025, 07:52:46 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 30, 2025, 08:41:27 AM
Read up on it. Washington is one of 5 states to reject the open fields doctrine. Simply look on line if it is legal to use drones to gather evidence in Washington State. Insurers can do it basically because you have to allow it or they won't insure you, they have that right - kind of implied consent.
I don't need to read up on it.
Thousands of investigative contacts occur daily on private property without warrants.
Now you certainly can tell them to leave...but it doesn't preclude them from knocking..
And I wouldn't worry about drones..
Airplane's are easier anyway.
Post by: hunter399 on April 30, 2025, 09:00:33 AM
I was watching that warden show the other day.Read up on it. Washington is one of 5 states to reject the open fields doctrine. Simply look on line if it is legal to use drones to gather evidence in Washington State. Insurers can do it basically because you have to allow it or they won't insure you, they have that right - kind of implied consent.
I don't need to read up on it.
Thousands of investigative contacts occur daily on private property without warrants.
Now you certainly can tell them to leave...but it doesn't preclude them from knocking..
And I wouldn't worry about drones..
Airplane's are easier anyway.
They did use airplane's in Michigan to look for bait sites.
Private/public doesn't matter.
I'm just gonna take a guess here,with this law just starting this year.
Majority of tickets ,hunters turning hunters ,will occur during the season. Basically cause the number of people in the woods increase so much. Just a guess.
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2025, 09:11:18 AM
Read up on it. Washington is one of 5 states to reject the open fields doctrine. Simply look on line if it is legal to use drones to gather evidence in Washington State. Insurers can do it basically because you have to allow it or they won't insure you, they have that right - kind of implied consent.
I don't need to read up on it.
Thousands of investigative contacts occur daily on private property without warrants.
Now you certainly can tell them to leave...but it doesn't preclude them from knocking..
And I wouldn't worry about drones..
Airplane's are easier anyway.
You can sure knock and ask, but that's it. Defense lawyers love this kind of thinking Only redeeming factor in Washington is that LEOs I know say it is easier to get a warrant here than it is in other states.
Post by: Rainier10 on April 30, 2025, 03:15:52 PM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on April 30, 2025, 03:33:15 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on April 30, 2025, 03:49:27 PM
Anyone have thoughts on remediating former bait/mineral sites? I know it is all grey area... but, what if you were hunting a trail or have a permanent stand somewhere which was previously used over a mineral or bait site? At what levels of residuality is a site considered baited? Just questions which I hope to never be the legal litmus test for.I am thinking if it is an active bait site you would be in trouble. Residual would not be an issue. All of my feeders and mineral blocks are areas that deer and elk frequented before I put feeders and mineral blocks there.
Post by: baldopepper on April 30, 2025, 04:10:27 PM