Post by: fairchaser on January 22, 2008, 06:07:11 PM
Post by: Ray on January 22, 2008, 06:11:25 PM
Should we add a poll to this discussion?
Post by: robodad on January 22, 2008, 07:58:32 PM
When the folks that we are reenacting went hunting they did not have access to firearms or they would have used them instead of the bow, and so they had to use their skills to protect them in the woods instead of firearms.
If you need more protection in the woods while bow hunting then pick up some better skills or pepper spray.
That's what I think !! :chuckle:
Post by: Ray on January 22, 2008, 07:59:37 PM
Now as far as the re-enactment discussion is concerned... I am not re-enacting anything. I also don't believe that someone else with a compound bow is either.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 22, 2008, 08:08:41 PM
Post by: Ray on January 22, 2008, 08:12:17 PM
I think the important distinction is whether or not you are hunting with that firearm.
Post by: saylean on January 22, 2008, 08:28:11 PM
Saylean
Post by: wastickslinger on January 22, 2008, 08:34:22 PM
Post by: robodad on January 22, 2008, 08:36:56 PM
There is little or no enforcement the way it is and with everyone packing a gun the odds are that more and more "idiots" will get away with shooting their critter with their "protection" and not their bow.
I totally agree that we are not reenacting anything but the state has set it up to where we are only allowed to use "traditional" equipment. Traditional equipment may be a bad choice of words but there are restrictions on our equipment for a reason.
You and I and all the good ethical hunters on this board are NOT the only folks in the woods. If allowed to carry guns during archery seasons everyone would be there. It is just a bad idea.
If you need to carry a gun in the woods, hunt during the modern season !!
Post by: Ray on January 22, 2008, 08:42:47 PM
I hear your argument but I figured we should rehash it with the actual reasons why it was put in place. It's not far off from your mindset as far as I can tell. You are entitled to your opinion that I will never agree with. Your reasoning seems to center around the idea that people will harvest many of their animals with their pistols.
It's not hard to tell if someone killed their animal with a bow or a rifle. The problem with that mindset you have from my point of view is that it leaves no room for personal safety from the two legged critters. I don't think you or anyone else has the right to tell me I cannot carry while the 2nd Amendment is still intact and crooks are on the loose unchecked. Personal safety trumps any silly bow hunting regulation put in place for the reason to regulate how people harvest animals or even how tough guys think they might be because they did it with sticks and stones only and no backup. Simply stating that more needs to be done about the meth and pot heads growing is really not much of practical response.
Times change and I don't believe they had the same problems back in the 70s as we do today.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,1345.msg13264.html#msg13264
Quote
This law was enacted back in the early '70's through the efforts of a very active WSAA Bowhunting VP and his bowhunting commitee who disliked watching bowhunters walking around with side arms on their hips. At that time it was not so much a matter of them being used illegally, but rather a matter of appearance. That, and the idea that if you had a bow, why did you need a gun? Against an animal, you probably don't.
However, I totally agree with what transpired in Oregon on this issue. The issue is maintaining one's ability to defend oneself in a life threatening situation.
I believe that it should be illegal to use a firearm in the harvest of game while bowhunting in a bow unit during bow season. But I also firmly believe there to be no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm during bow season.
Simply carrying a firearm during bowseason should not be equated with using that firearm illegally. Using such logic it could then be assumed that no one should allowed carry a firearm anywhere because they "might" use it illegally.
Carrying a firearm in the woods has to do with maintaining one's ability to protect oneself and family in a remote setting. That is a priviledge and a right which should be allowed
Post by: wastickslinger on January 22, 2008, 08:54:13 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 22, 2008, 09:10:08 PM
I think that concerns about dirtbag archers shooting game can be addressed with a truly scary penalty for illegally taking game with a firearm during a primitive weapons hunt - say, automatic loss of 5 years' hunting AND fishing privileges, and a prohibition against associating with anyone in the act of hunting or fishing during that time.
And, on the bright side, any archery season hunter bold enough to poach an animal with a firearm, will have to consider the 20,000 or so other camoed and silent archery hunters, out there in the good ol' crowded game fields of Washington, toting digital cameras and cell phones, all vying for the chance to get 10 big game points for turning that sorry POS in to those sucky game wardens!
Post by: robodad on January 22, 2008, 09:27:41 PM
I have hunted public land all my life and have never had a need for a sidearm for protection, I have always had to walk and talk my way out of any conflict. In fact I don't know anyone personally that would have shot someone if they had "protection". No one I know has said "Man if I had a gun I would have shot that sob" It is ridiculous,
I guess if it makes you feel bigger then perhaps you need one !!
Quote
These laws only make good guys bad
And bad guys worse !!
Post by: Ray on January 22, 2008, 09:39:53 PM
Quote
I guess if it makes you feel bigger then perhaps you need one !!
Well there are plenty of people that would fall for the trap you are trying to set but I'm not even smart and will bypass it.
It's not about feeling bigger or better. I know people that have lived their entire lives without incidents where they had to protect themselves from a physical scuffle. Whether that be in a bar, alley or school. Good for them. However I believe that people do in fact encounter other crafty folks and have the right. You're basically speaking with a forked tongue here as far as I can tell.
Quote
I have absolutely no problem with the constitution and no problem with anyones right to protect themselves and their property
Quote
I have hunted public land all my life and have never had a need for a sidearm for protection
Post by: robodad on January 22, 2008, 09:54:50 PM
These comments are by no means directed at you personally Huntwa I just think it is a bad idea and hope they are not allowed that's all.
Just because I believe in the constitution and have no problem with it does not mean I have to carry a gun, What are you talking about "forked tongue" :dunno:
Our opinions clearly differ in this case which is fine that is what discussions are about !! :chuckle:
Post by: wastickslinger on January 22, 2008, 09:57:18 PM
Post by: Ray on January 22, 2008, 10:01:53 PM
Quote
Just because I believe in the constitution and have no problem with it does not mean I have to carry a gun, What are you talking about "forked tongue"
The forked tongue comment was about the one remark which stated you believed in the 2nd amendment and then to come out later and say "but" not here.
From where I stand over here the series of quotes and responses seems to paint a mosaic which states that the whoever opposes the right to carry while bowhunting is in fact the "bigger" or better person. That may very well be true and striking such a regulation from the books would not remove that feeling of accomplishment for those that prefer not to carry a sidearm. They can simply continue to hunt without one as they desire. I admit that I am a wimp and posses the feeling that I would like to exercise my right to carry while out in the woods on logging roads. A place where the law is usually so far away there might as well be no law. Others might not call me a wimp but intelligent. There are places out there where it is notorious for people to suddenly show up and try to take other people's animal just because there are more of them and/or that they are armed.
Post by: wastickslinger on January 22, 2008, 10:03:41 PM
Post by: bankwalker on January 22, 2008, 10:11:02 PM
Well the way I see it is archery is not much more then reenacting a traditional hunt using traditional/modern equipment and the use of a firearm would defeat the purpose.
When the folks that we are reenacting went hunting they did not have access to firearms or they would have used them instead of the bow, and so they had to use their skills to protect them in the woods instead of firearms.
If you need more protection in the woods while bow hunting then pick up some better skills or pepper spray.
That's what I think !! :chuckle:
they didnt have compounds shooting 300fps+ either...but yet we are allowed to use compounds.
to me yes we should be allowed to carry a sidearm while archery hunting...it is just plain stupid that we cant. we have our 2nd amendment rights for a reason...and its stupid that the state can sit and make a law that goes against my rights as an american.
Post by: Opportunist on January 22, 2008, 10:23:43 PM
Post by: robodad on January 22, 2008, 11:11:03 PM
I just hope if it were to pass that the poaching does not increase because of it and also I hope that those that are packing don't try to intimidate me or my boys with their guns, I think it would be a real sad day to have to arm my boys with pistols so they can go archery hunting. :bash:
Quote
they didn't have compounds shooting 300fps+ either...but yet we are allowed to use compounds.
(I guess I should have wrote Modern/Traditional so you could understand)
If it passes, maybe they will let us carry them into the airport or court house or football stadium wouldn't that be nice !! :chuckle:
Post by: wastickslinger on January 22, 2008, 11:24:05 PM
Post by: robodad on January 23, 2008, 08:02:24 AM
I appreciate all your points of view and hope you or I never need a pistol in the archery woods weather it passes or not. :archer:
Post by: wastickslinger on January 23, 2008, 08:06:56 AM
Post by: Intruder on January 23, 2008, 01:53:53 PM
1. It "diminishes the traditional spirit" point of view
2. It "will lead to more poaching" point of view
IMO:
1. No ones saying any individual has to carry a sidearm. If a person wants to preserve and experience the tradition w/out a sidearm..... knock yourself out. There are plenty of people walking around the woods with guns during many bow seasons. Grouse, bear, etc., often coincide w/ archery season. So, I don't think the perspective that others carrying a gun can somehow ruin for someone who isn't is gonna fly... cuz that's the case today.
2. See point 1 above. Also, poachers will poach regardless of the law. I don't believe it is just to penalize the masses for fear that few may take advantage of the situation.
Also, people seem to be focusing alot on sidearms being needed for people. While I agree, I also thing they are needed for animals. Where I hunt grizzlies are a real concern. Cougars and even black bears can also pose real risks. Between people and dangerous animals it seems like sidearms are pretty justifiable.
Post by: bankwalker on January 23, 2008, 02:30:25 PM
The whole argument against being able to carry a sidearm seems to be 2-fold:
1. It "diminishes the traditional spirit" point of view
2. It "will lead to more poaching" point of view
IMO:
1. No ones saying any individual has to carry a sidearm. If a person wants to preserve and experience the tradition w/out a sidearm..... knock yourself out. There are plenty of people walking around the woods with guns during many bow seasons. Grouse, bear, etc., often coincide w/ archery season. So, I don't think the perspective that others carrying a gun can somehow ruin for someone who isn't is gonna fly... cuz that's the case today.
2. See point 1 above. Also, poachers will poach regardless of the law. I don't believe it is just to penalize the masses for fear that few may take advantage of the situation.
Also, people seem to be focusing alot on sidearms being needed for people. While I agree, I also thing they are needed for animals. Where I hunt grizzlies are a real concern. Cougars and even black bears can also pose real risks. Between people and dangerous animals it seems like sidearms are pretty justifiable.
exactly...im not worried about ay person while hunting. though the time may accur when a sidearm is needed against someone while hunting. most people will stray away from that kinda of contact while hunting. cause hey we are hunting and people hunting have some form of weapon, weather it be bow, muzzleloader, or modern firearm like rifle or handgun.
my concern is against cougars, bears, and with all the talk of wolves they are always on the back of my mind as well...
i have had 3 very close encounters with cougars over the last 5 years, and 2 of said encounters being the last 2 years. one time having been during archery season. and it would be really nice to have better protection then my compound and a hunting knife...
its our right as americans to carry a firearm...NOT every person has to carry one. but those taht want to should be able to.
there is nothing traditional about the modern day archery hunter, carbon arrows, blazing fast bows, huge cams, tiny blazer vanes or fobs...
i archery hunt for elk in some very remote areas, where im hiking 5+ miles one way. and when its getting late at night on the long walks back to camp or the truck. things can get really interesting REALLY FAST.
right now i wont break that no carry law while archery hunting...but i can tell you the first time i do need it will be the day i start breaking that law.
like stated above, there are plenty of people with firearms in the woods while archery season is going on. and the poachers are gonna poach regaurdless of the law...thats why they are poachers.
and its dumb to penalize us law abiding citizens for paochers.
Post by: saylean on January 23, 2008, 02:51:49 PM
Post by: MuleySniper on January 23, 2008, 06:32:31 PM
More needs to be done about the Meth and pot growers then, keep the guns out of the archery woods. you think poaching is bad now, holy crap just wait till archery guys get to carry guns too :guns:
There is little or no enforcement the way it is and with everyone packing a gun the odds are that more and more "idiots" will get away with shooting their critter with their "protection" and not their bow.
I totally agree that we are not reenacting anything but the state has set it up to where we are only allowed to use "traditional" equipment. Traditional equipment may be a bad choice of words but there are restrictions on our equipment for a reason.
You and I and all the good ethical hunters on this board are NOT the only folks in the woods. If allowed to carry guns during archery seasons everyone would be there. It is just a bad idea.
If you need to carry a gun in the woods, hunt during the modern season !!
I think if someone was stupid enough to poach, carrying a gun during the archery season would seem minimal to me. A poacher will poach no matter how they kill an animal, regardless of season, laws and so on. I pack during archery season. I keep it concealed and I have a permit. When I'm in the woods and I run into someone I dont go "Oh, by the way, Im packing" Legitimate people will keep it to themselves. I feel they dont need to make it legal to carry during archery season, but if you want to and it makes you feel safer, I say do it. I feel it is my right, but I use it for what handguns are intended for, protection and concealment. I'm also curious to where I can find statistics on how many game animals are illegally taken with their "protection" each year. To me, that statement sounds more like an opinion, but Im not at all saying that it doesnt happen.
Post by: cohoho on January 24, 2008, 09:46:50 AM
The second part to this is: Can you tell if an animal has been hit by bullet versus arrow, absolutely. Blunt trauma comes from a projectile, lots of bloody, mashed meat, arrow cuts nicely bleed allot but doesn't blow meat in impact area... Poachers are going to poach...
Post by: GoldTip on January 24, 2008, 11:04:23 AM
Post by: robodad on January 24, 2008, 03:00:23 PM
Poachers are gonna poach no matter what that is a given. What bothers me is that more of the poachers will move to the archery season because it will be legal for them to carry a gun.
I know that a bullet makes a different hole in an animal then an arrow but if you use the right gun and place your shot correctly it can be undetectable, I have seen it done. I have also seen a guy quarter up an elk he killed with a .38 (during archery season) and just cut the wound tract away and and left it in the woods. It was 20 or so years ago and I didn't turn him in :bash: but I should have.
I am not saying that the guns are gonna turn good law abiding people into poachers, all I am saying is there will be more poachers in the archery woods and I would rather see it happen.
Post by: Bscman on January 24, 2008, 04:12:01 PM
I completely agree with carrying a sidearm while bow hunting.
I never have myself, but I have been in a few situations where it would have been nice!!!
(<30yards from cougar, <50yds for LARGE black bear, hiking back to the truck to find a few sketchy thugs with beer in their hands circling the truck, etc).
I believe that sidearms SHOULD be allowed...
I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM if the laws also included that one MUST hold a permit for concealed carry (and follow those laws as well). As long as it is accessible in the need arises, great.
This would take care of several problems.
You wouldn't have to worry about the "image" of bowhunters with guns on their hips. You wouldn't have to worry (as much) about the poaching issue--though I think the "issue" is minimal anyway. The majority of conceald carry weapons are close-range weapons anyway...small, short barrels, etc. This pretty much limits any possible "poaching" to close-range....within the relative distance a bow would be just as effective.
Bottom line--
Poachers will poach regardless of laws.
Cats are stealthy, powerful critters than can sneak up on you faster than you can knock and loose an arrow.
Bears are big...even bigger when they're coming at you.
Johhny law isn't close by to protect you when you're 20 miles from civilization.
Post by: cohoho on January 24, 2008, 09:26:04 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 24, 2008, 10:16:24 PM
Robodad, are you serious? You actually believe archery hunters that are allowed to carry a weapon will cause poaching to increase? LOL :chuckle: I dont think you have thought the whole situation through before making your statements. First of all, I carry a handgun with me at all times, its my constitutional right to do so and I dont care what anyone else thinks about me for doing it. Secondly, poachers obviously have no regard for rules, they are going to poach regarless whether or not a arhcery hunter is packing. Third, have you never read the regs before? maybe you should check out the bear and cougar seasons. They are in the woods the same time archery hunters are, however they can carry any weapon they want, and your worried about some archery elk hunter packing his 9mm semi auto. Seems to me a bear hunter with a 300 win mag would be a bigger threat to a bull elk than a guy with a 9mm, give us all a break.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 24, 2008, 10:35:28 PM
The only thing bowhunters do in the woods that really pisses me off is shooting all those trophies before I get a chance at them during modern rifle. Damn archers! :chuckle:
Post by: robodad on January 25, 2008, 12:18:59 AM
Thing is, I have read the regs and I know the seasons overlap and I know there are cougar and bear hunters out there I am not an idiot like you say.
How many times have you been elk hunting and seen another bowhunter ?? now how many times have you seen his buddy packing a rifle and said "I am just bear hunting" You know as well as I do that half of the time it's *censored* and they are really with them to kill their elk. Now if you let the same bow hunter pack a firearm he will just do it himself and won't even need his buddy there.
Where do you draw the line between what size of "sidearm" you can carry and if you are "packing" and happen to kill a bear or cougar you have to have a "lawful big game modern firearm" or you are the one that is going to get a ticket for poaching and for using illegal equipment. I know I know you can use anything on people but not on animals.
This argument is not personal, nor do I want anyone mad at me for bringing up these points, I am just bringing a different perspective to the board for the sake of conversation. It appears you all think I want to take away the constitution and you are wrong, I support it 100% If I felt I were in danger I may pack a sidearm as well but I don't and haven't yet so I won't.
I'm sorry if I gave any of you the impression that I think you are poachers because I don't, I just think that the laws as they are are keeping some of the poachers out of the archery woods.
I am really having a hard time getting my point across and I think I am brushing the dog from the tail up.
Maybe it is a dumb law and maybe I am completely off the deep end but then again maybe not !! :dunno:
Post by: bankwalker on January 25, 2008, 12:31:01 AM
if you are in range to kill an elk or deer or w/e it is you are poacing with your handgun...you are obviously with in range to kill said animal with your bow aswell...
what others do with the sidearms while they are archery hunting is there buisness not mine. and i think it is stupid to say i cant carry my sidearm with me for protection against what ever i feel i need to protect myself again. because some
a-hole MIGHT poach and animal with his sidearm...
thats stupid...and what ever happened to states not being able to make laws that go against our constitutional rights as americans?...i was told that by a couple gamies i know personaly that its a bogus law and 90% of the gamies wouldnt even bother with that paper work to write up a ticket
even though they said that i still wont carry...im not one to break law no matter how stupid and pointless they are.
but its plain stupid...and everyone knows it. weather you are against it or not. its still stupid.
if its legal doesnt mean everyone is gonna start packing...look at how many people carry a sidearm during modern firearm season...i hunt vail one of the highest trafficed hunting areas. and i see maybe 3 sidearms the whole season...
and if needed a sidearm is alot easier to protect yourself with then a big hard to handle rifle...specially at close range.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 25, 2008, 05:56:47 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on January 25, 2008, 06:26:42 AM
Post by: Crunchy on January 25, 2008, 06:57:16 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 25, 2008, 10:13:39 AM
I never called you an idiot, nor would I ever for speaking your mind. All I said was I didnt think you thought things through before making your statement.
"I am saying that you will see more poachers take up archery and be in the woods with us during archery seasons "
I dont believe that would be the case. Why would they choose a archery tag to be in the woods in September when all they have to do is purchase a bear tag and they can be in there even if they have a modern elk tag? Remember, poachers have no regard for the law, they are going to be in the woods with bad intent anyway, regarless of the seasons. The fact that I carry a 9mm with me is for personel protection only, always have carried one and always will, I could care less what the fine is.
I seriously doubt I will ever run into another archery hunter that is packing around his gear, bow and a 300 win mag. If I do he is in far better shape than I and thats saying something.
Anyway, go back and read my post, I never called you any names. This forum is for all of us to post our thoughts. We can all agree to disagree at times, no need to make it personal.
Post by: bankwalker on January 27, 2008, 02:09:11 AM
I counted atleast 5 "stupids" used there. Hey everyone has a right to their opinion and not worth calling them names.
exactly and in my opinion its STUPID! plain and simple. thats MY opinion and im sticking to it. its just a word and if it offends you then close your eyes...if its not worth calling the name then it sure isnt worth getting offended by...hmmm
i wont break that its not worth it to me to deal with all the problems that fallow getting caught. but its a stupid law, and it punishes people who fallow the laws.
after a bowhunter gets killed by a bear, or cougar then maybe that law will change. but if thats what it takes to get it changed...its already to late.
once again thats my opinion...
Post by: billythekidrock on January 27, 2008, 04:53:54 AM
Quote
after a bowhunter gets killed by a bear, or cougar then maybe that law will change. but if thats what it takes to get it changed...its already to late.
..and you don't think that rifle hunters have been attacked and killed by bears or cougars? That's the wrong argument for your your cause. Now if you are worried about illegal grow operations or meth addicts, that is a different story.
Post by: Ironhead on January 27, 2008, 02:02:30 PM
Post by: Slider on January 27, 2008, 07:35:59 PM
Post by: Bookworm on January 27, 2008, 11:01:56 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on February 01, 2008, 02:14:34 AM
House Bill 2956
____________ _________ _________ _________ ______
State of Washington 60th Legislature 2008 Regular Session
By Haler, Hailey, Crouse, Campbell, and VanDeWege
1 AN ACT Relating to firearm possession while hunting; and adding a
2 new section to chapter 77.12 RCW.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 77.12 RCW
5 to read as follows:
6 A person who is otherwise qualified by law to carry a firearm may
7 carry or have in h is or her possession such a firearm, including a
8 muzzle loader, while in the field archery hunting during an archery
9 season specified for a designated area or while in the field hunting
10 during muzzle loading season.
Post by: Machias on February 01, 2008, 10:31:53 AM
Post by: Slider on February 01, 2008, 06:38:03 PM
Post by: Ray on February 01, 2008, 07:41:18 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 01, 2008, 10:37:25 PM
Post by: bankwalker on February 02, 2008, 12:03:10 AM
My read is; if you are not disqualified from possessing firearms...than ok to carry when bow hunting.... (Ie; Felons, Domestic Violence, illegal aliens, been committed, etc...
thats the way it should be
Post by: Gamblin Guy on February 02, 2008, 08:15:00 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 02, 2008, 06:36:03 PM
... Poachers and law breakers are going to do what they do regardless of the rules in place.The problem is; that many a good man, has decided to break this "law" for his personal protection. We do not need laws in place that turn good guys into lawbreakers, guys having to second guess what they do. We should not be inconvenienced by stupid laws which pose a risk to us getting cited, just to protect ourselves while in the out of doors. This is probably the only law most guys purposely break while in the woods. Shouldn't put them in that position.
Post by: Gamblin Guy on February 03, 2008, 08:45:10 AM
You said it well and I completely agree with you. Think about the LE guys who are "encouraged" to carry off duty or in some cases required to carry off duty and the position it puts them in. They can't do a day trip with a side arm unless they violate policy or violate this WAC, how screwed up is that??
Also, I think the argument could be made, and perhaps should be made, that the commission exceeded the scope of their authority when then passed the restrictions on carrying sidearms.
Post by: MIKEXRAY on February 03, 2008, 01:27:10 PM
Post by: sisu on February 03, 2008, 08:01:25 PM
How many rapes, assaults etc. have occurred in and around the Cascades?
I do know there are "backpackers" bringing drug shipments in from Canada through the back country. What do you do if you meet them? How about cookers and growers use areas that we use for hunting, fishing, shed hunting rock hounding, mushroom hunting etc?
This new bill is a good one and I for one hope it passes. If you believe that carrying a hand gun is unethical don't but don't tell me that I am not being trad by doing so. I'm doing it for a two legged reason not a 4 legged one.
Post by: DBake on February 04, 2008, 02:21:20 PM
Not being able to carry a hand gun during archery season because "we" are going to use it for game violations is a lame argument. The fact that the states, not just Washington, have failed to see a growing infection of criminals in urban and rural areas doing illegal activities is putting law abiding folks at risk. Just take a look at Mt. Pilchuck...how many murders have been completed there in the past 10 years? I believe it is up to 4 currently.
How many rapes, assaults etc. have occurred in and around the Cascades?
I do know there are "backpackers" bringing drug shipments in from Canada through the back country. What do you do if you meet them? How about cookers and growers use areas that we use for hunting, fishing, shed hunting rock hounding, mushroom hunting etc?
This new bill is a good one and I for one hope it passes. If you believe that carrying a hand gun is unethical don't but don't tell me that I am not being trad by doing so. I'm doing it for a two legged reason not a 4 legged one.
+1 very good post!
Post by: SHANE(WA) on February 05, 2008, 12:05:59 AM
Post by: hogsniper on February 05, 2008, 11:30:50 AM
Post by: sisu on February 05, 2008, 07:31:56 PM
Who cares, people who are willing to shoot a deer or elk with a pistol while bowhunting are gonna do it no matter what. i personally would like to carry one,with the growing grizz problem up north. And with some of the wackos that live in the woods these days too.Hate to pop your bubble but if you pull a hand gun on a "Grizz" you better be damn lucky or save the last round for yourself. There is a reason the Fish and Game people in Alaska carry a 12 ga with a short barrell. BTW the arrangement that the F & G use is in this order buck shot, buck shot, slug, slug, buck shot. This is Fish and Game not the Fish and Wildlife guys(they are really not called that any longer after King Murkowski decided to do away with the Brown Shirts.
Post by: cohoho on February 05, 2008, 11:57:34 PM
Post by: sisu on February 06, 2008, 06:19:08 PM
Post by: cohoho on February 06, 2008, 10:09:00 PM
Post by: Opportunist on February 20, 2008, 05:57:11 AM
I got sidetracked! I vote firearms carry in accordance with the Second ammendment rights!
Poachers Poach! What's that got to do with whether or not I pack a pistol while bowhunting. I understand the weak arguement about the enticement to shoot with a rifle and shove an arrow in the hole but don't buy it. I'm surprized this hasn't been changed by the game commission since it is clearly a violation of our rights. So it looks like the state legislature will finally do something about it. Whether or not Gregoire will sign it is another question.
:guns::beatdeadhorse:
Post by: ICEMAN on February 20, 2008, 06:37:56 AM
Alaska's Governor needs to let her hair down and ditch the glasses. She'd be smokin' in a black neglige'!
Schwing! :drool:
Post by: spike on March 04, 2008, 10:41:56 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on March 05, 2008, 06:34:12 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 05, 2008, 06:43:39 AM
Post by: bankwalker on March 05, 2008, 12:02:10 PM
Someone carrying a gun crouches to look into my tent in the middle of the night aint going to see another sunrise.
basicly...if i had a gun that is.
but during archery season...im just gonna keep my mouth shut lol. im not that dumb to take on a guy with a gun when all i have is a bow.
Post by: MountainWalk on March 10, 2008, 11:01:21 AM
Post by: Missing on March 16, 2008, 09:56:59 PM
Post by: Red Dawg on March 16, 2008, 09:59:18 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on March 17, 2008, 05:38:33 AM
Post by: DeKuma on March 17, 2008, 05:52:51 AM
Would have liked to put an arrow through that cat too though!
Post by: bankwalker on March 17, 2008, 01:52:51 PM
About 8 years ago I was elk hunting in the Yakima unit in about 2 1/2 feet of snow and about 2 miles from the truck, while I was heading back to the truck I found a large blood spray in the snow on the road and when I looked over the bank I was about 25' from a very irritated cat in the brush standing on what appeared to be a dead dear, the cat was screaming and hissing at me. I don't know how many of you have walked backwards in deep snow for 2 miles but it can be done, at that point I had been bowhunting for 12 years and had never considered packing a side arm since that day I have not hunted a single day with out one. I have not again felt I needed it, but I think about that day and if it were to occur again I would hate to not make it home because my 41 is hanging in the gun room. That's my story and my reason not that its right or wrong, but it is my decision.
had the same thing basicly happen right out of north bend 2 year ago while archery hunting. cat jumped out into the trail looked and my and screamed. i about pissed my pants and then the cat just walked off into the brush.
then had a close encounter in colockum with a BIG tom i wounded, so close i could hear the blood pumping through its vains :o
Post by: headshot5 on March 22, 2008, 12:14:11 PM
In my opinion it should be the hunters choice to carry. After all self-preservation is everyones right. I know there are a few situations in which a handgun would make me feel a little safer in the woods. As for poaching, nothing is going to change, the ones that like to poach will, and the ones who find it morally wrong won't, regardless of if bowhunters are packing. I do think it should be limited to a handgun though. Not becuase rifles are bad, but because rifles are heavy and thus not practilcal to be packed while bowhunting. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but its my opinion.
Post by: yajsab on March 31, 2008, 12:27:35 PM
My friends down in CA told me that at one time some people got killed during hunting because they stumbled upon some crack fields.
Post by: ICEMAN on March 31, 2008, 10:16:28 PM
Post by: yajsab on April 01, 2008, 11:19:17 AM
Post by: Opportunist on April 06, 2008, 11:29:36 PM
Post by: rewent12003 on May 06, 2008, 04:04:56 PM
Post by: gfaherty3 on May 28, 2008, 08:41:02 PM
Post by: bankwalker on May 28, 2008, 10:52:41 PM
I am new here, as i stated in another post. What is the penalty if you get caught packing? Another question for those who pack, where do you pack it? I would think that if you have your pistol stashed in a pack that you can't get to it fast enough for some of the situations that I have read (walking up on a cougar), running into a group of druggies etc. I might be showing my ignorance but I would think that you would need to pack it in a holster, or under a jacket or something but am curious.
yeah thats kind of a problem. if i did pack i wouldnt pack it open for anyone to see. but then whats the point in packing if its not easy to access. i wouldnt want it in the open incase mr warden is off glassing and notices it on me.
Post by: gfaherty3 on May 29, 2008, 10:35:51 AM
Post by: CP on May 29, 2008, 11:12:10 AM
where do you pack it? .
In the waist band, at about 4:00
Post by: MIKEXRAY on May 29, 2008, 12:33:22 PM
Post by: snohohunter on May 29, 2008, 12:50:37 PM
Post by: bankwalker on May 29, 2008, 02:42:47 PM
I walk in the dark to my hunting area ( 1 hour hike ) and have it belted on my right hip ready to go. Once I'm at the area at first light, I put it in my back pack. I barely have the balls to hike by myself in the dark for an hour while packing, wouldn't consider it naked. My :twocents:
thats how i would do it
Post by: viper55 on May 30, 2008, 10:12:32 PM
Post by: bankwalker on May 30, 2008, 10:47:53 PM
Down in Oregon we are allowed to carry a side arm. And I do just for the fact that the damn cougars in a lot of areas down there are thick. Once they got rid of hunting them with dogs the population just exploded.....
the population has exploded everywhere here in washington...
Post by: KillBilly on October 13, 2008, 03:59:37 PM
Post by: Machias on October 13, 2008, 05:56:51 PM
Post by: Blacktail killer on October 13, 2008, 06:00:35 PM
Post by: 300rum on October 13, 2008, 09:09:02 PM
1. I am not scarred of a cougar or bear jumping from behind a bush. I guess I kind of think of it as the fun part of bowhunting. It was weird the first time I went into the woods without a gun though.
2. The part that kind of freaks me out though is the early season stuff and the accounts of the Mexican national drug cartels setting up shop in the forest. I probably would carry in the early season for this reason only.
In the late hunt it is hand to claw, Hugh Glass style, unless I can grab an arrow out of the quiver. :chuckle:
Post by: blessed on October 13, 2008, 11:02:01 PM
It's stupid to think an archer is going to poach an animal with a pistol. That's a poacher not an archer!
Post by: bow4elk on October 13, 2008, 11:27:30 PM
It's stupid to think an archer is going to poach an animal with a pistol. That's a poacher not an archer!
Ditto!! I remember talking to Annette about that cat at a NBEF class years ago. Personally, I'm more concerned about Meth addicts and pot growers than cats, but I know the feeling of a screaming cat nearby. I had this happen on an elk hunt in New Mexico and the only way down this rocky terrain was through a chute that was VERY close to a cat that was growing over a deer kill (I'm guessing) for several hours. I was coming out at low light in the evening and was pretty much on edge all the way down to the truck. I'll never forget that sound.
Post by: blessed on October 14, 2008, 09:30:39 AM
Post by: bowsandhose on October 14, 2008, 09:33:16 AM
Post by: blessed on October 14, 2008, 09:44:09 AM
Post by: 300rum on October 14, 2008, 09:49:34 AM
( how do you pull your bow with a cougar on you?) It's stupid to think an archer is going to poach an animal with a pistol. That's a poacher not an archer!
I never said I was going to draw with a cougar headed my way. I just said I hope I can get an arrow out of the quiver. :chuckle:
I agree with your second sentence but I think that there are a few people who, when wounding an animal, would consider and maybe use a sidearm to finish an animal and justify it to themselves by thinking that it is better than loosing an animal. Myself, I wouldn't consider these people poachers, law breakers but not poachers. I don't think that too many guys are going to go out in archery tackle with the intent of popping one with their pistol. I think that the wounding/finishing thing is more likely.
I myself won't carry bowhunting even if legal, I think that it is kind of fun not having a gun. But, like I said, this drug thing is getting pretty big, I have found a grow operation in the woods myself. You just might be able to sway me into carrying a sidearm in September, especially when I take my daughter.
As far as anyone else carrying, do what you want, I don't have a problem with it.
Post by: burnhamrandr on October 22, 2008, 08:13:08 AM
Post by: 12Gauge on October 22, 2008, 08:44:08 AM
I carry my 1911 in .38 super when bow hunting, for protection from any one who wants to harm me and partners. In the past I have ran across anti-hunters out in the filed around Mt St. Helen's area (Mosquito meadow) while bow hunting, the whole situation was defused when they realized that I was packing heat.
Post by: mlgunkel on October 22, 2008, 09:09:26 AM
Post by: SCRUBS on October 22, 2008, 09:19:59 AM
I've never felt a need to pack while bowhunting. Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
If used in defense only, then no, it doesn`t defeat the purpose.JMHO
Post by: EastWaViking on October 22, 2008, 09:27:18 AM
Post by: skynyr on October 24, 2008, 10:59:46 PM
(.pdf)
Quote
Ron amazingly came through with non life threatening injuries.
Ron, who is an experienced hunter and used to be a guide, was calling an elk for his dad, who was down hill 40 yards. The elk suddenly spooked and then Ron heard a noise behind him. He turned around and a grizzly was 15 feet behind him. He tried to shoo it away but it proceeded toward him. He went behind a tree and the bear kept coming, so he took off on his "death run" down hill towards his dad. With the grizzly just feet behind his son, and running full speed, Ron's dad shot one arrow. Ron saw the arrow fly by his leg, unsure of whether it hit the bear, and within a few more steps, Ron was on his back with the grizzly on top of him. With is arms shielding his head, Ron kicked and punched the bear with all he had. Ron said it all went too fast and he was so full of adrenaline, he could not feel any pain at the time of the attack. When the bear continued to attack, Ron's dad, could see that the bear was bleeding badly from the arrow, and he went over and started beating on the bear with his bow(You can not carry guns during bow hunting, so he had nothing to shoot it). The bear continued to attack Ron, biting clear through his left hand and glove, and down to the bone of his right arm just below the elbow. Then the bear, stopped, looking at Ron's dad, walked away several yards, and rolled over dead.
The bear was autopsied and showed that it was well over 500 lbs(the grizzlies in that area average 350lbs) and 11 years old(which is in it's prime). Following the path of the arrow, the autopsy showed that the arrow went in, hit a main artery, then bent, and hit the heart!
A one in a thousand shot they said.
Another important fact to mention and that gave me chills is that Ron's dad had had surgery on his arm, because he had injured his arm and was not even able to pull the bow last season. This was to be his big hunt, and before the day of the attack, he had already missed two elk that were standing still. The morning of the attack, Ron's dad (also named Ron), prayed "God please guide my arrow today".
Little did Ron Sr. and Ron know how God would guide his arrow that day!
Post by: deaddog on October 29, 2008, 08:25:36 AM
Post by: Curly on October 29, 2008, 08:41:53 AM
Ron Sr. had some big balls to make that shot at a charging bear. (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fbowing%2F1.gif&hash=50971d82822e618820a8075b58a6dfdda73394fb)
Post by: jae on November 03, 2008, 08:19:33 PM
Skynyr - amazing story. Thanks for posting it......and those pics are awesome too.
Ron Sr. had some big balls to make that shot at a charging bear. (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fbowing%2F1.gif&hash=50971d82822e618820a8075b58a6dfdda73394fb)
+1
Post by: Palmer on November 07, 2008, 05:21:16 PM
Protection is the reason. I don't see why any bowhunter would us a sidearm for target shooting at midday or anything like that.
Post by: rasbo on November 07, 2008, 05:29:18 PM
Post by: Palmer on November 07, 2008, 11:00:57 PM
BIG TICKET. I always had a small 357 with me,
I would think that someone could take that "BIG TICKET" all the way to the supreme court one of these days. "RASBO VS THE STATE OF WASHINGTON"
Post by: rasbo on November 08, 2008, 06:25:24 AM
I have a cwp dont bow hunt nomore,it would be intresting to find out. I would still pack thoughBIG TICKET. I always had a small 357 with me,
I would think that someone could take that "BIG TICKET" all the way to the supreme court one of these days. "RASBO VS THE STATE OF WASHINGTON"
Post by: Cylvertip on November 11, 2008, 09:33:01 AM
Mine is buried in my fanny pack, so it's not like I'm going to whip it out and shoot that big bull with it instead of the bow........
I've seen some where that a gentleman in Oregon was cited a couple of years ago for carrying during bow season down there, He took it to court and won.
I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Post by: Antlershed on November 11, 2008, 09:39:50 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on November 11, 2008, 11:02:06 AM
I carry anytime I'm in the woods, even during bow season. I have a CWP, but that technically does not cover you while bow hunting. I carry for multiple reasons: a) bears and cats, b) two legged critters -
Mine is buried in my fanny pack, so it's not like I'm going to whip it out and shoot that big bull with it instead of the bow........
Buried in your pack is not going to help in an emergency.
Post by: jae on November 16, 2008, 10:40:55 AM
I say carry the gun. I personally have found a pot grow operation during modern rifle season, and had I been hunting bow, I would have been facing off with drug growers. I would carry. Some laws are made to be broken (never thought i would hear myself say that :dunno: ) but your personal defense trumps state law in my opinion...
Ice you are 100% right on the money, (I carry).
Post by: bankwalker on November 18, 2008, 01:21:09 PM
hunting is not a right its a privalige. and its the same as us not being able to carry in schools, courts, etc. etc. i could argue that there are court deputies that could suddenly snap and go on a shooting rampage therefore i should be able to carry a firearm in a court house for my own protection. :chuckle:
i still feel we should be able to carry if we want to while archery and muzzleloader hunting.
think about all the hikers who are out with thier sidearms, they could just as easily poach an animal. same goes for guys during modern firearm season with a semi auto on their hip...those are not legal weapons for hunting therefore they could just as easily poach an animal at close range with that aswell. though it may be a legal caliber it is still poaching if they kill thier animal with a semiauto handgun.
Post by: CP on November 18, 2008, 01:55:24 PM
Post by: cabin308 on November 18, 2008, 02:02:35 PM
Post by: bankwalker on November 18, 2008, 02:03:44 PM
There is no restriction on using semi-auto handguns for hunting in modern season.
hmmm thats not what i was told by 2 game wardens last season and when i called olympia that night to check.
all 3 that i talked to said that only revolver style handguns are legal to hunt with. i made the arguement that its not listed in the regs and they still said that its not legal.
??? well thats a good example of the laws saying one thing and the wardens and crap making their own rules as they go.
Post by: bankwalker on November 18, 2008, 02:04:40 PM
CP is right, also the barrel must be minimum of four inches and 24 cal or larger centerfire during modern season.
yeah i just looked and it says nothing about semi autos or revolvers...
i just love our wdfw and what they say is or isnt legal. idk the point in even having a regs book anymore :chuckle:
Post by: CP on November 18, 2008, 02:09:31 PM
Post by: cabin308 on November 18, 2008, 02:10:07 PM
Post by: bankwalker on November 18, 2008, 02:13:38 PM
Post by: Palmer on November 19, 2008, 05:40:02 AM
However, having said that, the state shall make no law that contradicts the constitution. The trouble with that is you have to challenge the law of no sidearms during archery season. Good luck on spending all your resources taking this law all the way to the supreme court although you would have your name on it, "Palmer vs. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON."
Post by: bankwalker on November 19, 2008, 07:32:20 PM
The regs do not have all of the laws in them and state that you need to look up the wac and educate yourself on the law without exception.
However, having said that, the state shall make no law that contradicts the constitution. The trouble with that is you have to challenge the law of no sidearms during archery season. Good luck on spending all your resources taking this law all the way to the supreme court although you would have your name on it, "Palmer vs. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON."
the reason the state can make that no sidearm law is due to hunting not being a right. though its tough law to enforce. thats according to my buddies dad (laywer) who has faught a couple cases like that i guess.
my one and ONLY reason for not having a sidearm with me is due to the hassle. and im poor and couldnt afford to fight it in court.
Post by: heavy hauler on November 19, 2008, 08:07:19 PM
Post by: Palmer on November 19, 2008, 09:09:16 PM
During muzzy or Archery season it is, in my opinion, unconstitutional for the state to declare no sidearms while hunting during Archery or muzzy if it that is in the regs as well. But of course only the supreme court has the ultimate decision on such matters.
Post by: River on January 11, 2009, 02:41:41 AM
Post by: rasbo on January 11, 2009, 05:19:56 AM
Post by: dbllunger on January 11, 2009, 12:39:40 PM
Post by: jae on January 13, 2009, 08:18:41 PM
I say carry the gun. I personally have found a pot grow operation during modern rifle season, and had I been hunting bow, I would have been facing off with drug growers. I would carry. Some laws are made to be broken (never thought i would hear myself say that :dunno: ) but your personal defense trumps state law in my opinion...
+1
Post by: bankwalker on January 19, 2009, 12:41:59 PM
i told him the 3 very close cougar encounters ive had during archery season. and he just laughed it off. and said that its gonna take more then complaining to change said law. its gonna take a death and still that is not enough...that he has been trying to get that law changed ever sence he started on the force and has gotten no farther then any of us have on this subject.
we need to get people in charge that actually hunt, and want to make a difference for the hunter and the animals.
its to easy for companies or organizations to pay off the wdfw to get laws the way they are. and guess what we still buy our tags every year and put up with the *censored*...
we need to boycot hunting and fishing. plain and simple.
Post by: Machias on January 21, 2009, 08:36:25 PM
i was talking to a buddie warden about this subject as well the other day. he told me we have a better chance getting the indians to stop hunting "public" land then to get a law passed to carry a sidearm during archery season.
i told him the 3 very close cougar encounters ive had during archery season. and he just laughed it off. and said that its gonna take more then complaining to change said law. its gonna take a death and still that is not enough...that he has been trying to get that law changed ever sence he started on the force and has gotten no farther then any of us have on this subject.
we need to get people in charge that actually hunt, and want to make a difference for the hunter and the animals.
its to easy for companies or organizations to pay off the wdfw to get laws the way they are. and guess what we still buy our tags every year and put up with the *censored*...
we need to boycot hunting and fishing. plain and simple.
Looks like your buddie warden will be a little suprised.
Post by: 300rum on January 21, 2009, 08:56:20 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on January 23, 2009, 10:03:34 AM
... I'm gonna carry. Like was posted earlier; "I don't think any of us that are carrying a compound bow are re-enacting anything". I know a lot of guys that were carrying already anyway. Now they don't have to hide them in their daypacks.
Post by: Elkslayer on January 24, 2009, 12:19:24 AM
Post by: KillBilly on January 27, 2009, 10:47:32 AM
Post by: bowhuntin on January 27, 2009, 10:51:04 AM
That's funny, I have never carried or worried about carrying while archery hunting. Do you have any statistics on the number of Archers that have been attacked and or chewed on by a bear or cat? Probably about as many as the number of Hikers that have gotten shot. I guess some folks are way more nervous than others... :dunno:
Thats a good point. I have never carried while archery hunting either, but I do think you should have the choice to make that decision for yourself.
Post by: Machias on January 27, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
That's funny, I have never carried or worried about carrying while archery hunting. Do you have any statistics on the number of Archers that have been attacked and or chewed on by a bear or cat? Probably about as many as the number of Hikers that have gotten shot. I guess some folks are way more nervous than others... :dunno:
How many times have you been lost in the woods and needed your survival blanket? Compass? Firestarter? But you still carry those items, or at least you should, because the one time you need them and they are in your truck, guess what they won't do you much good there. I will post you a link tonight that shows dozens of documented lion and bear attacks on folks in the past 25 years. I can also post some links to attacks by two legged predators as well. It's not about being nervous in the woods, it's about being prepared and having the choice to carry another piece of survival equipment, that's all a sidearm is another piece of survival gear you should be allowed to carry IF you choose.
Post by: EastWaViking on January 27, 2009, 11:59:17 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 27, 2009, 12:15:08 PM
Post by: Curly on January 27, 2009, 01:05:44 PM
Machias, ask Killbilly about carrying heavy duty tire chains...... :chuckle:
Good point. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on January 27, 2009, 01:13:07 PM
I do civil engineering work, and many times I wish I would have had my .357 on me when I'm out checking out some property or walking a downstream drainage course.
If I were an archery hunter, I'd like to have the choice of carrying a handgun too.
Post by: Antlershed on January 27, 2009, 01:14:57 PM
Post by: Curly on January 27, 2009, 01:16:36 PM
Curly, you can open carry in the woods without having the CPL. :twocents:
Yeah, I know, but I'd rather just conceal it anyway. Usually I'm wearing a raincoat or poncho, so my handgun would be concealed if I've got it in a holster on my hip......it would easier to carry in a shoulder holster.
Post by: Machias on January 27, 2009, 10:28:03 PM
http://www.topangaonline.com/nature/lionatk.html
These are quotes or summaries from various sources that have given numbers on the total number of attacks within a given period.
In California, after fatal attacks on humans in 1890 and 1909, there were no further verified attacks until March, 1986. From then until July, 1995, there have been 10 verified attacks on humans in California. (OC)
Nationwide, attacks averaged about three per year until 1970 when the rate jumped to 14 attacks per year which continued throughout the 1990s. (Also see chart in source). (Term Paper On Mountain Lions)
A scientific review of records on attacks by cougars on humans in the United States and Canada from 1890 through 1990 indicated there were 53 cougar attacks on humans during this period. There were nine attacks that resulted in 10 human deaths, and 44 non-fatal attacks.
Since that report was published in 1991 (by Professor Paul Beier, a wildlife ecologist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, formerly of University of California, Berkeley), there have been three documented fatal human attacks in the United States, one in Colorado and two in California. (OC, in 1995)
The California Department of Fish and Game has carefully documented cougar-human incidents which result in injuries to people. Verifiable records of human beings injured by mountain lions in California document only 12 such incidents. (OC)
Mountain lion sightings reported to the California Department of Fish and Game have increased from 59 in 1991 to over 300 in 1994. However, caution must be used in interpreting reports from the public involving mountain lions. Many reports are difficult, if not impossible, to verify based on limited information provided by members of the public who are unfamiliar with the appearance and habits of mountain lions. (OC)
There were 322 confirmed incidents of mountain lion damage to pets and livestock and 121 mountain lions killed on depredation permits in 1994. This compares with five to 10 confirmed incidents of damage and one to five lions killed annually in the early 1970s. (OC)
Since 1986, there have been nine human injuries in California and two deaths. The injuries were mostly to children visiting parks. Two adult women were killed and partly consumed, two in 1994. (OC, in 1995)
There have been 10 fatal cougar attacks since 1890 in the U.S., half in the past 10 years. (SDUT 8/16/98)
There have been only two deaths ever in Colorado from lion attacks: a 10-year-old Lakewood boy during a hike in 1997 in Rocky Mountain National Park and an 18-year-old man in 1991 who was jogging near Idaho Springs. There have been only five previously recorded attacks in the state, according to the division of wildlife. (Denver Post, 5/1/98, B-01)
Post by: Machias on January 27, 2009, 10:44:48 PM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A01E3DD103DF931A15755C0A962958260
Post by: Mike450r on January 28, 2009, 10:57:53 AM
Curly, you can open carry in the woods without having the CPL. :twocents:
Actually you can concealed carry when hunting or fishing without a concealed carry permit. Likewise in your home or place of business if allowed by your employer of course. A permit is just too inexpensive and easy to get to not have one in my opinion but if you are only going to carry when hunting, fishing, horseback riding or other outdoor activity you don't need one. I would always be concerned about the law enforcement officer that is ignorant of the RCW though.
Post by: Curly on January 28, 2009, 11:16:48 AM
Post by: bankwalker on January 28, 2009, 12:05:26 PM
Curly, you can open carry in the woods without having the CPL. :twocents:
Actually you can concealed carry when hunting or fishing without a concealed carry permit. Likewise in your home or place of business if allowed by your employer of course. A permit is just too inexpensive and easy to get to not have one in my opinion but if you are only going to carry when hunting, fishing, horseback riding or other outdoor activity you don't need one. I would always be concerned about the law enforcement officer that is ignorant of the RCW though.
really? i almost for a ticket for concealed carry while fishing...
actually i had just remember i didnt have my cpl when i seen the warden. so i walked over to my truck to grab it and i had pulled my gun out of my waders chest pocker and had it laying on the seat of the truck when the warden came up. we talked for a couple minutes and he asked me why i rushed over to the truck when i seen him. i told him exactly why and he said good thing i did. cause i would have gotten a ticket for it had i not had my cpl on me at the time. and that they were actually checking for such things.
this was on the nisqually after the drama with the indians went down. with some of the nasties finest fisherman were supposedly throwing rocks and such at the indians one day....
Post by: Mike450r on January 28, 2009, 01:04:11 PM
The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:
(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;
Cops are not lawyers (neither am I but interpreting RCW and WAC is what I do for a large part of every workday) so they know a person must have a permit to carry but a lot of times are not aware of the exemptions or subsections of RCW's. Subsection 8 of RCW 9.41.060 would be something you should have in your wallet if you plan to carry in this situation because a F&W agent could very likely ticket you and you will have to get the ticket thrown out at your time and expense.
Post by: Antlershed on January 28, 2009, 01:08:11 PM
Post by: Mike450r on January 28, 2009, 01:22:00 PM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on January 28, 2009, 07:14:06 PM
Post by: buckbrush on February 04, 2009, 08:52:49 PM
Post by: Cylvertip on April 24, 2009, 07:35:29 AM
About time
Post by: matlockmike on April 24, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Post by: GigPig on April 27, 2009, 11:04:36 AM
Post by: Coasthunterjay on April 27, 2009, 11:40:19 AM
:guns: At least I'll be "legal" now :whoo:
NOW? ............Funny.... :chuckle:
Post by: calawahsteelie on May 03, 2009, 11:11:27 PM
Post by: 7mag. on May 03, 2009, 11:53:36 PM
I've always carried. I'm a die hard bow hunter and have been hunting the 101 for a long time. If you didn't carry then you where crazy. I personally have walked up on 3 cat kills with the cat not wanting to leave. I have have never had to use my side arm but I'm glad I had it. If you have ever been 15ft away from a angry couger you would know what I mean. If any bow hunter wants to use his side arm to kill, well then he don't belong in our bunch and I hope he gets what he deservers.
:yeah: I've never walked up on an angry cougar, but there have been a few times that just having a sidearm made me feel a whole lot better. I'm glad to see that the game dept. is starting to seperate concealed carry and hunting. They are not connected, at all. I carry all year long, hunting or not.
Post by: Cylvertip on May 07, 2009, 05:39:38 PM
Convicted felons aren't allowed to have firearms - guess which season they hunt???
And like I've said before, no-body's going to hear three arrows fired into the air in distress.
Post by: ratherhunt on May 10, 2009, 05:44:08 PM
Post by: AKBowman on May 17, 2009, 10:38:09 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on May 18, 2009, 08:29:53 AM
I've read a couple of comments about people worried about getting attacked by Wolves...seriously? No seriously? Wolves? Come on...no one has ever gotten attacked by a wolf in the wild, ever. Cougars and bears are another story...last year I couldnt pack my entire dear out in in one trip and had to come back the next morning. I really wished I had some greater protection than my bow. Back in AK I never would archery hunt without a .44 its just not worth the risk and there are many of the same critters here in WA. In fact, I would rather be faced with a grizzly than a Lion any day. Bottom line is there is such a false sense of security we as Archery hunters have when in the woods, especially when we hunt alone and the situation can turn from hunting to survival in no time. I dont feel its worth gambling on something never happening to me. I would feel more comfortable being able to carry a pistol, not to mention it is my right.
actually people have got attacked by wolves, google it and im sure you'll find the story im thinking of. but by all means your right i think wolves shouldnt be a problem
i've never carried during bow season cause it hasnt been legal since i started, but i def wouldnt mind packing a small pistol
Post by: Kain on May 18, 2009, 09:53:25 AM
I've read a couple of comments about people worried about getting attacked by Wolves...seriously? No seriously? Wolves? Come on...no one has ever gotten attacked by a wolf in the wild, ever.
Sorry but that statement is wrong.
Wolves have attacked people. People get the information confused when they are told that "wolves have never killed a human in North America" and it gets changed to "wolves have never attacked a human in North America". It is very rare but with more and more wolves the chances get higher. These are only the attacks that could be verified. There are many attacks reported that are dismissed due to lack of evidence. That doesnt mean they were not wolves it just means that who ever investigated couldnt/wouldnt confirm it was a wolf.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID1CNsdw4NA[/youtube]
http://www.wildsentry.org/WolfAttack.html
"Recent Attacks in North America
In Ontario, Canada where thousands of people visit Algonquin Provincial Park-and many of them come to see or hear wolves-five people have been bit in the past twelve years. During August 1996, a wolf dragged 12-year-old Zachariah Delventhal from his sleeping bag. This particular wolf, prior to attacking Zachariah, had entered campsites and taken things such as a backpack, tennis shoe and other human items. As we've been in contact with the Delventhal family, we can let Zachariah describe what happened. He wrote the following in November 1996:
"The scariest night of my life… was the last night of a terrific 10-day camping trip at Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. We were exhausted and wanted to get out the next morning quickly so we decided to sleep under the stars. I remember dreaming that me, my mom, and my dad were walking through the woods. Then I felt pressure on my head and the woods started flying past. I awoke and still felt the pressure, but there was a new feeling of pain. I screamed, immediately the pressure released and the pain lessened. I opened my eyes-nothing but dark forest. I had been dragged six feet and I knew it was an animal mouth that did it. I yelled, 'Something bit me!' My mother came and held my sleeping bag to my face. Then my dad got up and started yelling. I got scared as he disappeared into the underbrush but he came back. I asked, 'What was it?' Then came two terrifying words, 'A wolf.' I immediately started to pull away from where I was dragged, I freaked. It was so scary and confusing at the same time. I didn't want to get eaten by such a strong animal. As for confusing, think about this-I had been told wolves don't attack people and here I was practically killed by one. My list of wounds is extensive. I had over 80 stitches to close the many cuts, my nose was broken in five places, I am missing a piece of my ear, my gums, and my tearduct and cheekbone were punctured. After all this, don't be scared to go in the woods, don't think of wolves as killers. The chances of getting attacked are so slim; I can't get a hold of the fact that I was attacked. My parents were wrong when they said wolves don't attack people, but wolves almost never do."
Two years later, on September 25, 1998, another Algonquin wolf circled a little girl and despite blasts of pepper spray, didn't leave until the child entered a trailer. Two days after that, a nineteen-month-old boy sat playing in the middle of camp, with his parents twenty feet away. The father thought he saw a dog emerge from the brush. He turned away for a moment and when he looked back, he saw his son in the jaws of a wolf. The wolf held the boy for a moment and then tossed him three feet. A local newspaper quoted the parents, "It wasn't hit and run. He hit him [the infant] and then it was wait and see. He [the wolf] circled the picnic table a number of times before he was scared off enough to leave." The infant received two stitches for minor injuries.
Misinformation
At the end of one of the articles about the Yakutat incident, reporters Elizabeth Manning and Craig Medred wrote, "In Canada, at least one person has been killed by wolves in the past 50 years. A 24-year-old woman was attacked by a pack of five at the Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve in Ontario in 1996." Had we not known about this incident, we would've come away believing that wild wolves killed the woman when in fact it was a captive pack. This is but one example among many, of how misinformation begets misperceptions that give rise to disproportionate fears.
On April 26, 2000, a six and nine year old boy cut down small trees as they played at being loggers on the outskirts of a logging camp near Yakutat in southeastern Alaska.
Upon seeing a wolf, the children fled. The wolf took down six-year-old John Stenglein and bit him on the back, legs and buttocks. A neighbor's golden retriever rushed to the rescue but the wolf drove the dog back and then set upon John again. The boy's cries brought adults who drove the wolf away. John received seven stitches and five surgical closure staples.
During the evening of July 1, 2000, on the shores of Vargas Island, British Columbia, a wolf entered the campsite of a kayaking group. They chased the wolf away. Members of the group also spotted another wolf that apparently hung back from the bolder wolf. At 2 a.m., 23-year-old Scott Langevin awoke with a small dark wolf tugging on his sleeping bag. "I yelled to try to spook it off, and I kicked at it," Scott said. "It backed up a bit, but then it just lunged on top of me, and it started biting away through my sleeping bag."
He rolled in an effort to situate the fire between him and the wolf, but the animal jumped on his back and bit him about the head. The noise woke his friends and they drove the wolf away. The wounds to Scott's head required 50 stitches.
In all of the previous incidents, the offending wolves were killed. Autopsies indicated healthy animals."
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=825_1198391329
Then there are those attacks that could be wolves that are blamed on bears or cats. We will never know but those "wolf experts" are not trustworthy IMO because most of them are wolf conservationists that dont want any bad wolf press.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/315/16084
And just wait until they close down your favorite area because wolves might attack. Lame!
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10258162
Post by: Kain on May 18, 2009, 10:36:07 AM
Post by: rasbo on May 18, 2009, 02:48:28 PM
Post by: denali on May 18, 2009, 07:04:23 PM
wolf attacks... man worked him over good
as wolf no# increase it will become more common, but the puppy lovers will do all they can to deny the facts :bash:
Post by: DWP on May 27, 2009, 09:50:23 PM