Hunting Washington Forum
Other Hunting => Waterfowl => Topic started by: Fishnclifff on March 10, 2011, 12:22:31 PM
-
The old thread went well but long.
here is the latest from WDFW::
Dear Mr. Pepper:
Thank you for your recent emails about waterfowl possession limits. I agree that interpretation of the wording regarding waterfowl possession limits in state and federal regulations is confusing. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) federal regulations supersede state regulations for waterfowl, and USFWS has received similar comments. According to the USFWS Pacific Flyway representative, an interagency team developed by USFWS has been tasked with the charge to review possession limits and that team will make recommendations for changes. The issue identified here is one of several under consideration for clarification/possible change. Since this is a federal regulation, changes in Washington regulation really can't be made without concurrent changes in the federal regulation. I appreciate your concerns about this issue, and our agency will be providing input to USFWS regarding possession limits as their review process progresses.
Sincerely,
Don Kraege, Manager
Waterfowl Section
WDFW
-
Just watch- they'll end up doing a punchcard like I said before. It actually wouldn't be a bad idea. Is it fair that some people kill 300 ducks in a season and others only kill 5?
-
Just watch- they'll end up doing a punchcard like I said before. It actually wouldn't be a bad idea. Is it fair that some people kill 300 ducks in a season and others only kill 5?
I'm not sure "fairness" is applicable. The guys who kill 5 ducks per year are given the same opportunity as the guys who kill 300, but one could argue that the guys who are out there getting limits every weekend are using the opportunity to its full potential.
-
"Fair" was probably not the best word to use but it also seems that technically those who kill hundreds of birds each season are not folowing the possession limit laws, which only allow 14 ducks in your possession at a time. It would seem fair to me to limit the number of birds a person can kill in a season. When you get up to 300 ducks and more in a season, that seems a bit excessive to me. It's not like there's an over abundance of ducks and that their population needs to be reduced. So why not a punch card that allowed, say 50 ducks, and then when you fill that card, you can purchase another one? They do it with salmon and steelhead, why not ducks and geese?
-
50? I'd be buying a new punchcard every other week. :bash:
Bobcat-
As it is I have to buy a liscence, small game or big game (which I buy anyway), a state migratory waterfowl endorsment, and a federal stamp. I would be opposed to more fees (hassels) then I already have. I shot around 200 birds last season. Would you say I'm taking an "excessive" amount of the waterfowl? is that more than my fair share? I mostly hunt on public land which means I work hard to shoot that many birds. When you say 300 ducks seems excessive does that mean that killing a Trophy bull elk every year is excessive? I have yet to take a decent elk myself, but I know the birds I shoot equal out to quite a bit less meat in the freezer than even a good size deer. The most abundent duck around here is the Mallard which has been steadily increasing in numbers for several years. Some of the diver numbers are declining but for the most part ducks counts are increasing. Currently I do not feel that the number of ducks we can harvest in a season should be limited. Like Boots said some of us are using our opportunity to it's full potential. :twocents:
-
Well that still didnt answer any questions, all The WDFW is saying they will make "recommendations", give me a break! They're pathetic. Everyone one just needs to except the fact the other people will shoot more ducks then others will. Its ok.
-
Why does WA state need such a law at all, it is covered by federal law and the federal law is plainly written and easy to understand.
-
I don't really care what they do. It's just an idea, and one that I'm surprised "they" haven't considered. Skybuster, I'd be oppossed to any more fees also, if I were you. But I don't kill hundreds of ducks each season so a punchcard seems like a good idea to me. Seriously, at least with a punchcard they could then do away with the 14 bird possession limit. Which, if you killed 200 birds last season, you must have been in violation of the law, correct? Wouldn't you rather have a legal way to kill, and keep, all those birds?
-
Great idea on the punch cards. More revenue for the WDFW to spend elsewhere and more hoops for the average joe hunter to hop through. With the way it's been they're going to regulate this sport into the ground.
There are no studies saying harvest has anything to do with population. None. Period. They're beginning to conduct some on local woodducks in a western state (they wont say which one to not skew the numbers), to see if limits are even necessary AT ALL.
Ignorance is bliss, but when it comes to something we have to fight hard to even continue doing legally, why shoot ourselves in the foot and create more hassles and restrictions. First they'll make it 50 bird punch cards then they'll make it limit of 5 punchcards per year on down till they make it worthless to even go out. Going to punchcards is a step backwards, we need to fight to keep what liberal regulations we have already.
-
I did not read the entire original waterfowl possession thread (after it was at 5 pages I decided it was a lost cause) but I can see both sides to the argument on punch cards.
That said, in my opinion, implementing a harvest card system has a "tax the rich because they can afford it" mentality. Average Joe-Hunter who shoots 12 ducks per year will not be effected by the punchcards (just like lower income brackets would not be affected by a higher tax rate in a progressive tax system). The only hunters that would be affected are the ones who consistently shoot lots of birds.
In the same sense that lower income and higher income people don't always see eye to eye on tax issues, hunters who don't harvest as many birds will not necessarily see eye to eye with the hunters who get a lot of ducks each year.
-
I don't really care what they do. It's just an idea, and one that I'm surprised "they" haven't considered. Skybuster, I'd be oppossed to any more fees also, if I were you. But I don't kill hundreds of ducks each season so a punchcard seems like a good idea to me. Seriously, at least with a punchcard they could then do away with the 14 bird possession limit. Which, if you killed 200 birds last season, you must have been in violation of the law, correct? Wouldn't you rather have a legal way to kill, and keep, all those birds?
I was and still am "Breakin the law" 8) and now my friendly neighborhood butcher shop is breaking the law now because I just took about 20 lb's of duck breasts down there to have made into duckeroni. :drool:
Now is it still in violation of the law after it's duckeroni? or does that only count when they are in frozen duck breast form in my freezer? :dunno:
-
The punch cards are a joke. We have to do it for sea ducks, brant, snow geese. It's a pain in the a$$ especially when you forget a pen or it won't work. If you want guys to shoot less birds, then shorten the season. Plain and simple. If it's a 90 day season then it needs to be taken into consideration that there are individuals that will hunt everyday of the season. Multiply 90 times a possible 7 ducks or 4 geese in this state. That can be a sizeable portion of meat. Bag limits can vary from state and flyway. They need to keep the posession to 14 ducks / 8 geese per day. To exclude cleaned, processed, "frozen" birds. If one is willing to break the rules and double limit in a single day, that individual is putting his a$$ on the line for a healthy ticket. Most follow the rules, but just like everything else in society there are those that believe they are above the rules and let the punishment fit the crime. If the gamies wanted they probably could locate ones carcasses in the field and test to verify when they were shot depending on body temp., decomposition, etc. If you make your birds into pepperoni more than likely you bring it in by volume being 15lbs, 23lbs, 40lbs. Your not going to bring in 14 duck breasts that might amount to about 4lbs of meat to have it made up. The rule is probably as stated, so it gives the feds or gamies more leeway to go after someone if they want. They can add more items to build a stronger case. In general they know that those that hunt waterfowl will have processed and frozen legally taken waterfowl and then have it made into a variety of things. Many individuals will get out, time permitting to stock up on wild game, so they can enjoy it and make it last into the year.
-
IMHO if your eating the duck, and not just wing shooting than your numbers shouldnt be a issue. :twocents:
-
Now is it still in violation of the law after it's duckeroni? or does that only count when they are in frozen duck breast form in my freezer? :dunno:
It was alledged in a forum like this one, back in the SE, that hunters were ticketed for being over the limit in the blind, because they had dead birds and their duckaroni sticks added up to more than the daily limit. Possession ends only after it is consumed theory.
To come out and say we should not be able to harvest the limits set by the feds and the state, because some one feels it is just wingshooting, can kiss me you know where. We are hunting per the guidelines and rules set forth by the same governing body that sets the rules for your hunting preferences. These peoople can keep their :tree1: to themselves.
This effort to change the rule, is to get a clear definition of what possession means and avoid a BS conflict such as the one stated above.
There is no need to hamper duck hunters with further regulations. We have enough.
-
"Fair" was probably not the best word to use but it also seems that technically those who kill hundreds of birds each season are not folowing the possession limit laws, which only allow 14 ducks in your possession at a time. It would seem fair to me to limit the number of birds a person can kill in a season. When you get up to 300 ducks and more in a season, that seems a bit excessive to me. It's not like there's an over abundance of ducks and that their population needs to be reduced. So why not a punch card that allowed, say 50 ducks, and then when you fill that card, you can purchase another one? They do it with salmon and steelhead, why not ducks and geese?
Bobcat,
I can kill 728 ducks in a season , following the federal and state daily limits. Legally.
The Duck Commander crew set their goal at 20000 ducks for the last season. Perfectly legal, with enough hunters.
Where the rub lies, is, what is the definition of the 14 rule. When can I say i don't possess a duck anymore? There is no definition by the state.
The feds say I can give it away of gift it away. Either of those, I need tags and have to keep records.
Some say possesion ends only after it is consumed. Those words are Not written any where.
We are looking for a clear defined definition of what the term possession really means, not just someones opinion.
-
To come out and say we should not be able to harvest the limits set by the feds and the state, because some one feels it is just wingshooting, can kiss me you know where. We are hunting per the guidelines and rules set forth by the same governing body that sets the rules for your hunting preferences. These peoople can keep their :tree1: to themselves.
So you're saying you've never been in possession of more than 14 ducks at one time, including at home in your freezer?
-
"Fair" was probably not the best word to use but it also seems that technically those who kill hundreds of birds each season are not folowing the possession limit laws, which only allow 14 ducks in your possession at a time. It would seem fair to me to limit the number of birds a person can kill in a season. When you get up to 300 ducks and more in a season, that seems a bit excessive to me. It's not like there's an over abundance of ducks and that their population needs to be reduced. So why not a punch card that allowed, say 50 ducks, and then when you fill that card, you can purchase another one? They do it with salmon and steelhead, why not ducks and geese?
Bobcat,
I can kill 728 ducks in a season , following the federal and state daily limits. Legally.
The Duck Commander crew set their goal at 20000 ducks for the last season. Perfectly legal, with enough hunters.
Where the rub lies, is, what is the definition of the 14 rule. When can I say i don't possess a duck anymore? There is no definition by the state.
The feds say I can give it away of gift it away. Either of those, I need tags and have to keep records.
Some say possesion ends only after it is consumed. Those words are Not written any where.
We are looking for a clear defined definition of what the term possession really means, not just someones opinion.
The federal rule is what matters since they are a migratory species, and the feds say you cannot have more than 14 ducks in your possession. Period.
-
Your killing me bobcat. Your killing me. :beatdeadhorse: Did someone get a ticket due to what they had legally harvest and froze for later fixings? Just curious.
-
[.
[/quote]
The federal rule is what matters since they are a migratory species, and the feds say you cannot have more than 14 ducks in your possession. Period.
[/quote]
WRONG
The fed rule does not state that PERIOD.
The fed rule says what i can have IN THE FIELD, or IN TRANSIT , and that rule ends at my automobile, temp or perm abode, post office or taxidermist, PERIOD.
The fed rule also says what i can do with my ducks. BUT does not say how many or where I can possess at any time.
The stae rule says 14, but does not define anything else.
-
[quote So you're saying you've never been in possession of more than 14 ducks at one time, including at home in your freezer?
[/quote]
With the xceptiopn of what i have eaten, or given to freinds, I have all of my 74 ducks in the freezer.
Send the cops.
-
IMHO if your eating the duck, and not just wing shooting than your numbers shouldnt be a issue. :twocents:
Exactly...who cares if you get your limit everytime you go out and you shoot 300 or so birds and your eating all of them? if you only shoot 5 and I shoot 300, well, you either dont get out alot or you need to hone in on your hunting technique..my shooting the numbers of ducks that I do does not take away from you only shooting 5...adding a punchcard is just another hassle and just costs sportsman more money...if you obide by the game laws, are ethical and are a stuard of the land, then how should numbers be an issue? kill what you eat or dont kill.....nothing wrong with shooting your limit if you consume it all and nothing is wasted....
-
It would only be an issue if duck populations were plummeting due to excessive harvest.
-
WRONG
The fed rule does not state that PERIOD.
The fed rule says what i can have IN THE FIELD, or IN TRANSIT , and that rule ends at my automobile, temp or perm abode, post office or taxidermist, PERIOD.
The fed rule also says what i can do with my ducks. BUT does not say how many or where I can possess at any time.
The stae rule says 14, but does not define anything else.
OK, so I guess it's the state law that says you can't have more than 14 in your possession. Sorry I really don't pay much attention to it because it's unenforceable anyway. When I used to hunt ducks I'm sure we each almost always had more than 14 ducks at home in the freezer.
-
yeah, its pretty bogus ....but what about this scenario: My parents have 8 kids (6 boys 2 girls) so if the 6 of us that have licenses go out and have a good day getting our limit of 42 ducks, clean them and put them in the freezer, does that mean that we are breaking the law? or is it a "per hunter" total, cuz if its per household then how the heck are you supposed to make hunting a family event? we would go out once and then be breaking the law by the time we got home...? please explain
-
yeah, its pretty bogus ....but what about this scenario: My parents have 8 kids (6 boys 2 girls) so if the 6 of us that have licenses go out and have a good day getting our limit of 42 ducks, clean them and put them in the freezer, does that mean that we are breaking the law? or is it a "per hunter" total, cuz if its per household then how the heck are you supposed to make hunting a family event? we would go out once and then be breaking the law by the time we got home...? please explain
It would be per licensed hunter I am sure. So with 6 hunters you could have 84 ducks in the freezer at one time.
-
So why are you making this such a big deal then? It is what it is, everyone has there way of interpreting it.
WRONG
The fed rule does not state that PERIOD.
The fed rule says what i can have IN THE FIELD, or IN TRANSIT , and that rule ends at my automobile, temp or perm abode, post office or taxidermist, PERIOD.
The fed rule also says what i can do with my ducks. BUT does not say how many or where I can possess at any time.
The stae rule says 14, but does not define anything else.
OK, so I guess it's the state law that says you can't have more than 14 in your possession. Sorry I really don't pay much attention to it because it's unenforceable anyway. When I used to hunt ducks I'm sure we each almost always had more than 14 ducks at home in the freezer.
-
I think people really are making a lot out of nothing. The only time WDFW or USFWS will come to your house to see how many ducks you have in your freezer is if your breaking some other rules. Such as your being investigated for deer poaching, a search warrant is served, they open your freezer and holy *censored* they find 700 ducks.
It's not like they are going to look at a list of duck hunters and say "well lets go see how many ducks John Doe has in his freezer today".
-
This is why we are pursuing a rule change.
So that if you oops one day, they don't come to your house and make you a criminal for the other days you were legal.
Bobcat,
There isn't a single written rule to say where the 14 limit applies. It is all conjecture and opinion. We want to clarify that rule.
-
This is why we are pursuing a rule change.
So that if you oops one day, they don't come to your house and make you a criminal for the other days you were legal.
Well if you "oops one day" you are probably already a criminal...
Like I said, they will only be searching your house if they are there for another reason. So as long as you don't poach something else you have nothing to worry about.
-
For that 1 day you go over the limit lets say, yes you are a criminal.
But to come to your house and add all the other legally taken game to that tally is not right and has no basis under the law. There is no written law to back that action.
The current law is too vague.
-
So why are you making this such a big deal then? It is what it is, everyone has there way of interpreting it.
I didn't think it was me making a big deal out of this whole issue. I just suggested that a punchcard might be a good option and a few people freaked out. Heck have a punchcard and no daily limit. What good is a daily limit anyway when some people are killing 300 or more ducks in a season? If I only hunt ducks one day out of the 90 days, why can't I kill 25 ducks in that one day? This whole discussion is kind of pointless anyway, because as bigtex said, they won't come to your house and count the ducks in your freezer.
The one thing I would like to see changed is that if a person is camping while on a hunting trip they should not have to follow the possession limit of 14 ducks. Your camp should be treated the same as if it was your house. But what happens when you're driving home and have 49 ducks for each licensed hunter in the vehicle?
-
I think a waterfowl punchcard would be a good idea.........if it also came with a wolf punchcard :chuckle:
-
I understand both sides of the punch card and i am not in favor of it.
Bobcat,
The rules define how many ducks you can shoot in a day, and how many you can possess in the field. That is not in dispute.
Where the 2 times the daily limit rule applies is what s confusing under the state rule.
The season is 104 days. A person is allowed 7 ducks per day.
The fed rule limits you to 2 daily limits in your possession in a day.
The state rule says you can only have 14 ducks.
Where can i have these ducks?
When can i have these ducks?
When dont I have to count these ducks anymore?
None knows for sure.
This why we are trying to get something concrete established.
-
I really dont think a punch card is the way to go. If I dont send in my salmon card, I get charged like $10 the next season, if its in the computer when I buy a new license...but I still get a license. If over harvesting of ducks/geese was an issue, there would be way more enforcement of the interpretation of the possesion limit. I think they put that in place for people who travel, so that they cant go home with 50 birds in a weekend hunt without some real proof that it was a group hunt. Punch cards are a joke. Crab, salmon, steelhead, westside pheasant, etc...all you do is pay a measly fine for not turning it in. I could be wrong, but I have lived here for 16 years, and sometimes the cards get turned in, sometimes they dont because I am on deployment, but I have never been denied a license the following year...(I will mention that they dont get not turned in intentionally, there is just a lot going on prior to deployment, and punch cards arent high on the list of things to do prior to shipping out).
-
"Fair" was probably not the best word to use but it also seems that technically those who kill hundreds of birds each season are not folowing the possession limit laws, which only allow 14 ducks in your possession at a time. It would seem fair to me to limit the number of birds a person can kill in a season. When you get up to 300 ducks and more in a season, that seems a bit excessive to me. It's not like there's an over abundance of ducks and that their population needs to be reduced. So why not a punch card that allowed, say 50 ducks, and then when you fill that card, you can purchase another one? They do it with salmon and steelhead, why not ducks and geese?
Waterfowl hunters already buy two(2) punchcards or stamps to be exact. One state and one federal duck stamp. This is not counting their big/small game license. Actually we've been doing this since I was a kid. That's a lot of puch cards.
As for excessive - my own ethics tell me that when I can not or do not eat all I harvest, it is then in excess and I become very picky in the field as to what I do harvest. That's just me. When you're shootin em just to give to the neighbors cuz there's no way you can eat em, then you're going to have to ask yourself that question. But that ethics thought can certainly be applied to fising as well. I know a lot of salmon/steelhead fishermen that harvest rather than catch & release and give them away simply because their freezers are full.
-
Got a buddy who lives/hunts/guides in Maine. Their migratory regs actually define termination of possession:
http://www.maine.gov/ifw/laws_rules/hunting_trapping/mig_birdlaws.htm (http://www.maine.gov/ifw/laws_rules/hunting_trapping/mig_birdlaws.htm)
Termination of Possession
For the purposes of this part, the possession of birds legally taken by any hunter shall be deemed to have ceased when such birds have been delivered by him to another person as a gift; or have been delivered by him to a post office, a common carrier, or a commercial cold-storage or locker plant for transportation by the postal service or a common carrier to some person other than the hunter.
-
This just affirms what we are trying to resolve.
Their rule says they are in your possession unless you put them in someone elses possession.
So we all have to rent cold storage lockers to keep all of our meat to take to the butcher.
-
If you don't turn in your snow goose, sea duck, or brant card at the end of the season you are not eligible to receive it the following year. That would piss off a lot of people. I know of several local clubs that harvest totals are over 1500 birds per season. Duck hunting is high dollar, so hopefully those would fight the punch card option if it was proposed.
-
Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."
We were told that the possession limit rule was in place to prevent slob hunters/poachers from taking a limit of birds in the am and returning in the pm. It's basically an unenforceable rule as it is and realy won't be any more enforceable if we get our definition change other than the fact that a very high percentage of us waterfowlers won't be technically in violation most of the year.
This glich was found due to bs'n on this forum and a couple others. It'd be no different if we found a glich in the deer or elk regs that was similar. We'd want it changed, wouldn't we? Well, that's all Fishncliff and I are trying to do here. I'd much rather see you send you comments in support of our idea to Olympia rather than try to make it more complicated on here.
Sorry Fishincliff, This has been going on a long time and many probably don't know the time you and I have put into this. I had to voice my opinion.
-
It's all good Sako,
I quit responding because of all the blathering.
I too want all waterfowl hunters and upland game hunters to get involved.
It is being reviewed at the fed level now, so maybe there is hope.
I'm working on getting the same message to some forums in TX and ARK so maybe they can add some heat to the feds too.
Just a side note. this is the Texas definition of possession limits::
Texas defines daily bag and possesion as this:
"No person shall possess more than one daily bag limit of freshly killed birds while in the field or while returning from the field to one's hunting camp, automobile or temporary lodging facility (see General Rules - Donation or Gift). For the first day of any season the possession limit is the daily bag limit. A person may possess additional migratory birds after they leave the field, if the additional birds they possess are tagged with a wildlife resource document from the hunter who killed them. Migratory birds finally processed at the permanent address of the possessor are not considered part of the possession limit."
-
Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."
WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.
-
Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."
WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.
It doesn't just say "cleaned". It says "cleaned or processed and frozen"
The 'or' and the 'and' are important and so is they're placement in the definition.
-
Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."
WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.
It doesn't just say "cleaned". It says "cleaned or processed and frozen"
The 'or' and the 'and' are important and so is they're placement in the definition.
Ya, exactly!
They can either be cleaned, which takes a couple minutes work which WDFW/USFWS will never let happen OR processed and frozen which takes a while longer. You will have a lot less resistance with your proposal if you take out the cleaned part and just say "processed and frozen"
-
I sent the Texas definition to USFW and WDFW for their consideration.
-
Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."
WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.
It doesn't just say "cleaned". It says "cleaned or processed and frozen"
The 'or' and the 'and' are important and so is they're placement in the definition.
Ya, exactly!
They can either be cleaned, which takes a couple minutes work which WDFW/USFWS will never let happen OR processed and frozen which takes a while longer. You will have a lot less resistance with your proposal if you take out the cleaned part and just say "processed and frozen"
'Processed' has too many implications by it'self. Cleaned needs to be part of the verbage in order to cover birds that have simply been 'cleaned' and frozen. 'Processed' covers the same birds if they've been de-boned or turned into sausage etc.
-
Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."
WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.
It doesn't just say "cleaned". It says "cleaned or processed and frozen"
The 'or' and the 'and' are important and so is they're placement in the definition.
Ya, exactly!
They can either be cleaned, which takes a couple minutes work which WDFW/USFWS will never let happen OR processed and frozen which takes a while longer. You will have a lot less resistance with your proposal if you take out the cleaned part and just say "processed and frozen"
'Processed' has too many implications by it'self. Cleaned needs to be part of the verbage in order to cover birds that have simply been 'cleaned' and frozen. 'Processed' covers the same birds if they've been de-boned or turned into sausage etc.
And thats another problem. (I want to state I am not attacking you). Your definition needs further clarifying. What is "cleaned"? What is "frozen"? What is "processed"? All of these terms may mean different things to different people. For example, does it need to be "hard as a rock" frozen or just been in the freezer for a couple hours and be slightly frozen?
I'm not sure if you've contacted her but Lori Preuss with WDFW Enforcement is WDFW's rule coordinator and represents WDFW in big WDFW criminal cases. Whenever a WAC or RCW is changed she basically reviews it to make sure there will be no legal problems with it. She would be a great person to contact, I am sure she would bring up the same issues that I have. Lori.Preuss@dfw.wa.gov
-
Sent Lori an e-mail.
-
I just did also.
-
Fishncliff and I both talked and agreed with you folks' help on how to word our request for a rule definition change. It's as simple as that. " to exclude cleaned or processed and frozen birds."
WDFW or USFWS will never allow the definition to have the "cleaned" word in it. Why? Because it takes minutes to clean a bird. Many times when officers contact "two-timers" (basically hunt the morning and evening) the morning's birds are already cleaned.
It doesn't just say "cleaned". It says "cleaned or processed and frozen"
The 'or' and the 'and' are important and so is they're placement in the definition.
Ya, exactly!
They can either be cleaned, which takes a couple minutes work which WDFW/USFWS will never let happen OR processed and frozen which takes a while longer. You will have a lot less resistance with your proposal if you take out the cleaned part and just say "processed and frozen"
'Processed' has too many implications by it'self. Cleaned needs to be part of the verbage in order to cover birds that have simply been 'cleaned' and frozen. 'Processed' covers the same birds if they've been de-boned or turned into sausage etc.
And thats another problem. (I want to state I am not attacking you). Your definition needs further clarifying. What is "cleaned"? What is "frozen"? What is "processed"? All of these terms may mean different things to different people. For example, does it need to be "hard as a rock" frozen or just been in the freezer for a couple hours and be slightly frozen?
I'm not sure if you've contacted her but Lori Preuss with WDFW Enforcement is WDFW's rule coordinator and represents WDFW in big WDFW criminal cases. Whenever a WAC or RCW is changed she basically reviews it to make sure there will be no legal problems with it. She would be a great person to contact, I am sure she would bring up the same issues that I have. Lori.Preuss@dfw.wa.gov
I guess it could say " to exclude birds that have been cleaned (field dressed and plucked or skinned) or processed and frozen".
This should cover 'cleaned'.
'processed' is to cover sausage or whatever else someone does with their wild bird meat that ends up in another form than just wild game bird meat.
'frozen' is just that - frozen. I really don't care if it's half or all the way frozen. If it's in the freezer in the above stated condition, you should be able to make an intelligent decision. Whatcha think?
-
My email to Lori was forwarded to Nate Pamplin and this is his response.
Looks like the ball is rolling.
Dear Mr. Wells:
Thank you for your recent email about waterfowl possession limits. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) federal regulations supersede state regulations for waterfowl hunting and possession limits. The USFWS has received similar concerns.
According to the USFWS Pacific Flyway representative, an interagency team developed by USFWS has been tasked with reviewing possession limits and that team will make recommendations for changes. The issue identified here is one of several under consideration for clarification/possible change. We are awaiting a response from USFWS to see if the possession limit wording from Texas Parks and Wildlife could be included in our state regulations, which would read “Migratory birds finally processed at the permanent address of the possessor are not considered part of the possession limit.”
Once we receive clarification from the USFWS and/or they adopt new federal regulations, we would need to initiate rule-making as either part of our three-year hunting package review or as part of a separate rule-making action. The State of Washington currently has a rule-making moratorium, but there are some exceptions. Amending state rules to be consistent with federal regulations is exempt from the moratorium.
I appreciate your concerns about this issue, and the department is providing input to USFWS regarding possession limits as their review process progresses.
Sincerely,
Nate Pamplin,
Assistant Director Wildlife Program
-
Latest update from WDFW;;;
Dear Mr. Pepper:
I checked with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) about whether our agency could use the wording referenced below in our pamphlet. The USFWS response was that the Texas wording was “incorrect and illegal”. They will be contacting Texas Parks and Wildlife about this. As noted in a previous email, USFWS is aware of the concerns with possession limits and is considering changes through a special task force. Thanks again for your input on this regulation.
Don Kraege, Manager
Waterfowl Section
-
Sounds like we've got the ball rolling pretty good. All we gotta do is remind em once in a while now.
-
Yeh I would like to be a fly on the wall when someone in Texas gets a call about that.
Liberal WA telling Texas what to do.
Not PG rated i think.
-
Yeah. That'd be funny.
-
Cliff,
I just sent another email to our WDFW expressing the urgency of this problem since it looks like the 'Texas' rule is a no-go. Just trying to keep pressure on em. Nothing within the government happens in a timely manner so I figure that if we continue to ask questions, they won't put this on the 'back burner'.
-
Cliff and Sako,
If you guys want any chance with changing the WDFW regs you need to get some type of group involved (for example Ducks Unlimited). Politicians (which WDFW comission members are) don't listen to individuals, they listen to groups, organized groups. There have been people who tried to get regs passed for 10 years with no luck, they enlist the help of some group (DU, CCA, NWTF, etc) and the regs are changed within a year.
-
Well from what I gather, there is a whole lot of people around the states wantin some action on this.
At least we have their attention here.
-
You're exactly right bigtex. An organization definitely has a louder voice than a single person.