Post by: Macs B on March 09, 2012, 09:59:15 AM
Post by: Bob33 on March 09, 2012, 10:01:53 AM
Post by: h20hunter on March 09, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
Post by: Machias on March 09, 2012, 11:54:39 AM
Post by: h20hunter on March 09, 2012, 12:08:42 PM
I'm kidding....don't anybody get worked up.
I think the OP sounds like a very good person to know and has a very good outlook on what he and his dogs are out to accomplish. I hope you get a call or two and somebody has a chance to recover and tag what would have otherwise been coyote food.
Post by: Houndhunter on March 09, 2012, 12:10:07 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 09, 2012, 12:24:05 PM
Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that's the current law.
Post by: Machias on March 09, 2012, 01:45:28 PM
It is not legal in Washington to use dogs in any way to hunt big game. Tracking a lost animal or wounded animal is hunting.
Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that's the current law.
That's not true, read the rules of what pursuit is and what hunting it...according to their our laws, tracking animals, on a leash and not armed is no way you can be charged...we've had this discussion several times. As the law is written it's not illegal.
Post by: Houndhunter on March 09, 2012, 01:46:27 PM
Post by: Mike450r on March 09, 2012, 01:48:02 PM
Sounds like this guy has done his homework and is offering a pretty good service.
Post by: Houndhunter on March 09, 2012, 01:48:37 PM
Post by: Machias on March 09, 2012, 01:49:17 PM
Post by: Machias on March 09, 2012, 01:52:16 PM
They took that out of this years regs, but I'm off to work and can't debate right now :chuckle:
They took out the line in this year's booklet that a dog in a vehicle or walking on a leash was not pursuit, however that doesn't change the meaning of pursuit. They can't charge anyone with pursuit if a dog is on a leash.
Post by: bearpaw on March 09, 2012, 01:53:42 PM
definitely illegal here in wa. if a game warden would write me up for running dogs that are leashed on a artificial scent trail that i layed down myself, theres no doubt he would do the same on a actual critter. its stupid but thats our state for you, they hate hounds and will write you up for damn near anything when it comes to hounds. and worst of all they consider it hunting whether or not you have any weapon on you
Is this true, did you get written for that?
Post by: bobcat on March 09, 2012, 01:54:11 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 09, 2012, 01:56:48 PM
Post by: hillbillyhunting on March 09, 2012, 02:02:56 PM
Post by: Machias on March 09, 2012, 02:11:07 PM
I am going to ask Outdoor Guardian to post about this. :tup:
He's already made it know he thinks it's illegal, I don't agree with him, at least not the way the law is written. Hopefully Macs has something that can make everyone aware it's legal if conducted properly.
Post by: TheHunt on March 09, 2012, 02:20:05 PM
Don't listen to anyone else...
Post by: Machias on March 09, 2012, 02:22:42 PM
Thanks for the post Macs B. I will keep you in my rolladeck for such a case when I hear of people having problems. Don't worry about the internet police on this site. There is one you can ask who represents the WDFW called Wildlife Gardian or something like that...
Don't listen to anyone else...
Sounds like he already has the get out of jail free card, doesn't sound like he needs to listen to anyone else. :)
Post by: Machias on March 09, 2012, 02:24:57 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 09, 2012, 02:51:19 PM
If it's legal great, if it's gray area with some LEO's then we need to get it cleared up, if it's not legal then we need to get the law changed, it's disgusting that anyone would want game to go to waste when a leashed dog could be used to recover game that would otherwise be wasted. :twocents:
Post by: h20hunter on March 09, 2012, 02:56:49 PM
This is a very interesting topic. It could lead to a whole new avenue to persue with your shed dog. If he/she can find a shed I'm sure the could track a lost animal. I look forward to following this one.
Post by: Machias on March 09, 2012, 03:20:29 PM
This is an issue that I think we need to pursue in earnest.
If it's legal great, if it's gray area with some LEO's then we need to get it cleared up, if it's not legal then we need to get the law changed, it's disgusting that anyone would want game to go to waste when a leashed dog could be used to recover game that would otherwise be wasted. :twocents:
AGREED!!!!!
Post by: buckfvr on March 09, 2012, 03:56:06 PM
Thanks for the post Macs B. I will keep you in my rolladeck for such a case when I hear of people having problems. Don't worry about the internet police on this site. There is one you can ask who represents the WDFW called Wildlife Gardian or something like that...
Don't listen to anyone else...
Hes not the only one in here, he may be the only one not hiding behind the Ray Bans.....
Post by: pjb3 on March 12, 2012, 12:18:22 PM
Post by: TheHunt on March 12, 2012, 12:53:33 PM
Where are you generally located? Seattle, Bellevue, Puyallup?
Post by: Houndhunter on March 12, 2012, 01:06:23 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 12, 2012, 01:17:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 12, 2012, 01:47:32 PM
Quote
The conditions are as follows:
1. Dog is leashed and under my control at all times
2. I am licensed to hunt the game being tracked
3. I am unarmed
4. Follow all applicable rules required to "hunt" such as time of day, hunter orange etc
5. Capable of determining a "wounded" track from a "dead" track and breaking off in the case of a wounded track.
That doesn't make sense to me. Why would you be required to be licensed to hunt the game being tracked if you are tracking it for another hunter? Also, why would you need to wear orange, since you are not actually hunting?
For you to be licensed to hunt the game being tracked, will really limit when you can utilize your dog for tracking other people's wounded game. For instance if you have a modern firearm deer tag, you would not be able to track a wounded deer during the archery season.
Am I understanding this correctly?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 12, 2012, 02:07:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 12, 2012, 02:15:43 PM
I'm not saying it's not a good idea to wear orange when you're out there during hunting season, but the state cannot require it.
Post by: Machias on March 12, 2012, 02:35:11 PM
When you are doing your recovery, will you be alone or will you be taking the hunter with you? Will the hunter be armed if coming along?
I believe the hunter would be cited for sure. If your dog is on a leash and you are not armed there is NO way it would stand up in court. But I agree with Bearpaw, there is no reason to not make it completely clear on how to conduct it and to make it clear to everyone, dog on a leash and no one armed, perfectly legal. There is no reason you would need a tag, notched or unnotched. If following a blood trail, unarmed, is actively hunting then lots of folks helping people moose hunt are in violation. If someone is out calling for moose helping you find a blood trail, etc.. they are not considered hunting, until and unless they have a weapon.
Post by: bare.hunter on March 14, 2012, 09:31:26 PM
Post by: Machias on March 14, 2012, 09:59:17 PM
Post by: bare.hunter on March 14, 2012, 10:13:25 PM
Lots of guys use dachshunds, they make great blood trailing dogs. Full Cry a magazine, which is dedicated to hounds and curs always has a section each month just on the little weiner dogs and their skills at tracking. But lots of breeds are good blood trailers. The Wirehaired Pointing Griffons is another good breed.I read fullcry for years.But quit after the ban.I sure miss the sound of good hounds working a track and then the roar of a jumped cat track.I never cared for one second about killing the cat but I sure loved them dogs.
Post by: deleted BGS on March 14, 2012, 10:20:44 PM
Post by: Machias on March 15, 2012, 08:18:34 AM
kinda tired of seeing some snappy posts by one member, good this is cleared and LEGAL.
I don't really think anyone has been snappy, I think they do not want to see anyone get ticketed and really at this point that is still up in the air.
Post by: Bob33 on March 15, 2012, 09:14:40 AM
The Legal Services Office provided a written position statement which agrees with enforcement officers. The intent of the statutes mentioned above was to define the use of dogs as an aid to actively hunting or seeking to kill game.Please scan and post this document that you received from WDFW's legal representative. Many would like to have in writing that it is legal to use dogs to track lost and wounded game. Thank you.
Post by: Machias on March 15, 2012, 01:52:48 PM
Most of my German friends hunted the various breeds of terriers. I used to refer to them as the tiny tooth pack dogs. Nothing is more fun than watching Jack Russells and Dachshunds launch on the trail of a boar. Within 5 minutes those little buggers would be hanging off of every available appendage of a big tusker. They always got to the pigs before the hounds did.
Awesome description. Do you have any photos from your hunts in Germany with the dogs? Would LOVE to see them!!!
Post by: Machias on March 15, 2012, 01:56:54 PM
Most recent update:
I have an appointment to sit down with the WDFW legal counsel at the State Office regarding a request that they produce a department opinion regarding the definition of the terms hunt and pursue. This is an official statement from the WDFW legal counsel and would therefore be binding to all WDFW enforcement personnel. As requested this action will relieve law enforcement officer from the need to interpret meaning in regulation. This is not a request made by civilians unless through a court order, but with the assistance of enforcement officers I have managed to get on the schedule of the department’s legal counsel. If all goes as intended the legal counsel’s further description of the terms hunt and pursue will be defined for enforcement officers. The formal opinion will hopefully match the informal opinion, which they have already provided. If the opinion is issued as requested and it reflects the same meaning as the informal opinion already issued it will serve as a “legal” basis to track game as I have described for all individuals.
Are you meeting with Ms. Lori Pruess? If so I don't have high regards for the outcome, she's consistently been wrong on several issues.
I'm sure you already will but please stress these two points: not armed, can't be hunting and dog on a leash cannot be pursuit. Thanks and I really look forward to the outcome of your meeting.
Post by: Bob33 on March 15, 2012, 01:59:39 PM
"I have spoken with WDFW and been provided with written documentation from the wildlife enforcement division clearly stating that the use of dogs for following up wounded/lost game is legal in the state of Washington. Once I could sit down with the WDFW and explain what I wanted to do it was understood and determined to be absolutely legal. "
Since then you've indicated that you have received conflicting opinions about the legality of it. You've indicated that you have a meeting scheduled to discuss this with a legal representative from WDFW.
It does not appear to me as if the legality of this has been fully resolved yet with WDFW.
If you have written documentation from someone representing WDFW, it can be obtained by anyone through a Freedom of Information Act request so there's really no valid reason to withhold it.
My suggestion is to either provide the documentation, or withhold stating to others that it is completely legal until you can do so. I'm sure many on here would appreciate having it confirmed in writing.
Thank you.
Post by: Machias on March 15, 2012, 02:01:59 PM
Mac B: with all due respect you posted the following earlier:
"I have spoken with WDFW and been provided with written documentation from the wildlife enforcement division clearly stating that the use of dogs for following up wounded/lost game is legal in the state of Washington. Once I could sit down with the WDFW and explain what I wanted to do it was understood and determined to be absolutely legal. "
Since then you've indicated that you have received conflicting opinions about the legality of it. You've indicated that you have a meeting scheduled to discuss this with a legal representative from WDFW.
It does not appear to me as if the legality of this has been fully resolved yet with WDFW.
If you have written documentation from someone representing WDFW, it can be obtained by anyone through a Freedom of Information Act request so there's really no valid reason to withhold it.
My suggestion is to either provide the documentation, or withhold stating to others that it is completely legal until you can do so. I'm sure many on here would appreciate having it confirmed in writing.
Thank you.
Ok now you are being snappy. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2012, 02:02:45 PM
Most recent update:
I have an appointment to sit down with the WDFW legal counsel at the State Office regarding a request that they produce a department opinion regarding the definition of the terms hunt and pursue. This is an official statement from the WDFW legal counsel and would therefore be binding to all WDFW enforcement personnel. As requested this action will relieve law enforcement officer from the need to interpret meaning in regulation. This is not a request made by civilians unless through a court order, but with the assistance of enforcement officers I have managed to get on the schedule of the department’s legal counsel. If all goes as intended the legal counsel’s further description of the terms hunt and pursue will be defined for enforcement officers. The formal opinion will hopefully match the informal opinion, which they have already provided. If the opinion is issued as requested and it reflects the same meaning as the informal opinion already issued it will serve as a “legal” basis to track game as I have described for all individuals.
Are you meeting with Ms. Lori Pruess? If so I don't have high regards for the outcome, she's consistently been wrong on several issues.
I'm sure you already will but please stress these two points: not armed, can't be hunting and dog on a leash cannot be pursuit. Thanks and I really look forward to the outcome of your meeting.
Depending on the outcome, if it is unfavorable, I think this is something that we should consider addressing with WFW?
Post by: Machias on March 15, 2012, 02:09:46 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 15, 2012, 02:24:59 PM
Sorry did not mean to be. Just trying to make sure we're all on the same page with respect to the legality of this.
Post by: Machias on March 15, 2012, 02:52:23 PM
" Ok now you are being snappy." :yike:
Sorry did not mean to be. Just trying to make sure we're all on the same page with respect to the legality of this.
I'm just messing with you!! :)
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 27, 2012, 12:33:03 PM
Post by: Lee Root on April 03, 2012, 09:11:42 PM
Bottom line is that the regulations, as the original poster has mentioned and some others have commented on, and as I have read them, are not definitive enough to risk tracking a lost animal because of the threat of getting a ticket for doing what is the one thing that each hunter should be responsible for doing...recovering lost game.
I have friends who have had their Drahthaars recover elk that were shot 18 hours before their dogs found them in both Idaho and Montana.
I would venture to add that if you have hunted in this state, you have found deer and elk that have not been recovered by hunters. Stuff happens, but if a dog can aide even one hunter to a lost animal it is a big positive.
Most states that allow this have regulations, ie. the dog must be on a tracking lead. Some, I believe require that an agent be notified that tracking and recovery is taking place. Regulations should be definitive so as to avoid problems in public perception of tracking, and to avoid abuses by the ranks of hunters who, unfortunately push the envelope on our sport.
If this state ever adopted this ability to use a tracking dog to recover game it would be nothing more than a positive. I think that a demonstration of the tracking ability of a dog on a blood trail would open a lot of eyes at a game commission meeting.
Post by: Snapshot on April 04, 2012, 07:28:23 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on September 11, 2012, 01:49:05 PM
Post by: Curly on September 11, 2012, 02:09:52 PM
So has WDFW taken a position about this and given the offical green light? It would sure be handy and benefit every one if they did.
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on September 13, 2012, 12:32:32 PM
So has WDFW taken a position about this and given the offical green light? It would sure be handy and benefit every one if they did.
:yeah:
:yeah: x 2
We need Outdoor Guardian to respond about this!
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 13, 2012, 01:35:25 PM
The "need" for a tag is in my opinion nothing more than a statement on the tracker's part that he is playing by the rules and not prohibited in any way from hunting or tracking.
I disagree with this. As posted by others up thread, from my perspective, either you are hunting (notwithstanding your personal letter of understanding) and are required to have all valid licenses and tags, or you are not, in which case nothing is required. I can understand the desire to play by most rules that you can, but the result is inconsistent and murky (can't have both archery and MF deer). The best result is the route you are going, which is to get clear guidance issued from WDFW as regulations or opinion that such tracking of down animals is not hunting or pursuing.
It is a good suggestion to take the work of the States before us to implement decent downed animal tracking regs.
I'd like to see this valid tool become legal and supported by unambiguous regs to prevent wasted game.
Things I'd like to see in any ultimate regs:
1. Tracking license purchased - waivable with purchase of big game license.
2. Follow same orange requirements as in effect for hunting season.
3. Able to carry for self-defense.
4. Notification of beginning track to WDFW enforcement; with report required within certain time. Text, email, or phone.
5. Dog leashed or otherwise restrained from freely pursuing or harassing live game.
6. Tracker retreats on discovering live game.
7. Hunter of the downed game can resume fair chase after tracker has retreated.
8. Clear guidance when this tracking becomes hunting, or illegal hunting of live game with dogs.
Post by: Bob33 on September 13, 2012, 02:17:48 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 13, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
The RCW states that dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk. What part of that needs to be clarified? :dunno:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240)
Covered up thread.
Post by: huntingfool7 on September 13, 2012, 02:42:20 PM
It should be understood, that persons rendering these type of volunteer services are putting themselves and their dog at some risk of injury or death from the deer/elk/bear that is being followed up.
As for running game with dogs. It would be simple to require that WDFW is notified that there is a tracking call.
I don't like the idea of licensing trackers. It should be a program ran by volunteers for volunteers. As a group, you can have certification standards that don't require the state to be involved with their love of paper mountains.
Post by: Curly on September 13, 2012, 03:16:06 PM
The RCW states that dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk. What part of that needs to be clarified? :dunno:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240)
Quote
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful use of dogs if the person:
(a) Negligently fails to prevent a dog under the person's control from pursuing, harassing, attacking, or killing deer, elk, moose, caribou, mountain sheep, or animals classified as endangered under this title; or
(b) Uses the dog to hunt deer or elk.
(2) For purposes of this section, a dog is "under a person's control" if the dog is owned or possessed by, or in the custody of, a person.
(3) Unlawful use of dogs is a misdemeanor.
What if a person is out for a walk with his dog on a leash. And just happens to find a deer/elk that had been shot by someone. Then they find that someone that happens to have a tag and informs them of what they found. ;) Would they be hunting? or simply out for a walk with their dog that happens to have a good nose for blood trails? :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on September 13, 2012, 03:20:16 PM
Take the other extreme: he's out "walking his dog", following an obvious blood trail, just happens to have a handgun with him, and is talking to his buddies on the walkie talkie about "getting closer to that damn deer".
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on September 13, 2012, 03:25:48 PM
The RCW states that dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk. What part of that needs to be clarified? :dunno:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.240)
I think pretty much everyone agrees, that "Hunting" with dogs, for example, pulling into the woods, turning a dog out to locate, corner or push an otherwise healthy, uninjured animal into a position to be shot is illegal. I don't believe any one with argue with that.
My question, along with what I believe to be others on here is the the Dept's opinion on using one for follow-up after a bad shot to assist in locating the down or injured animal and preventing waste of that animal if were to go undiscovered or found too late.
Alot of what if's and such have been talked about on here, with several different opinions as to the actual guidelines that could, should or might be acceptable. I am just wondering what, if anything Macs B may have found out from the Dept since he posted this in the begining. Or if he hasn't, has anyone else has approached the Dept or even Outdoor Guardian with this topic?
As it stands, it may not be okay to do according to one officer today and another officer may have no problem with it (Individual officer descreation) tomorrow. I think back to the question and resulting CHARLIE FRANK over night hunting of coyotes.
If the dept does in fact view it as illegal, regardless of the situtation, there is nothing saying that with effort, facts, and proper presentation, nothing says that the law can't be changed. Sounds like there are some great examples of how other states laws are written, take and use them as a model and present it.
Otherwise we can talk about on here till cows fly and nothing is going to change.
Post by: Bob33 on September 13, 2012, 03:30:14 PM
Quote
My question, along with what I believe to be others on here is the the Dept's opinion on using one for follow-up after a bad shot to assist in locating the down or injured animal and preventing waste of that animal if were to go undiscovered or found too late.How would tracking a live animal not be considered hunting?
Post by: 6x6in6 on September 13, 2012, 03:52:40 PM
Most recent update:
I have an appointment to sit down with the WDFW legal counsel at the State Office regarding a request that they produce a department opinion regarding the definition of the terms hunt and pursue. This is an official statement from the WDFW legal counsel and would therefore be binding to all WDFW enforcement personnel. As requested this action will relieve law enforcement officer from the need to interpret meaning in regulation. This is not a request made by civilians unless through a court order, but with the assistance of enforcement officers I have managed to get on the schedule of the department’s legal counsel. If all goes as intended the legal counsel’s further description of the terms hunt and pursue will be defined for enforcement officers. The formal opinion will hopefully match the informal opinion, which they have already provided. If the opinion is issued as requested and it reflects the same meaning as the informal opinion already issued it will serve as a “legal” basis to track game as I have described for all individuals.
So I gather that your appointment with the WDFW 6 months ago produced the legally binding statement for you to proceed with tracking game?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on September 13, 2012, 03:54:23 PM
Then if they say there is never any situation that the use of a dog would be legal, then maybe the next step is to present it as a change or addition to existing law so that it can be done. Would not happen overnight and would take time and effort.
But either way, until the Dept, not just an individual officer or two, has stated its stance on the issue, we can all offer up our interpertations, but in the end nothing will be resolved until they do or somebody gets ticketed doing it and the question works its way through the legal system.
Post by: Bob33 on September 13, 2012, 04:01:08 PM
Quote
Then if they say there is never any situation that the use of a dog would be legal, then maybe the next step is to present it as a change or addition to existing law so that it can be done. Would not happen overnight and would take time and effort.I agree with that perspective.
The way I see it, the RCW is clear: dogs cannot be used to hunt deer or elk. We don't like the answer, but that doesn't change anything.
Changing the law is the right approach. Interestingly, the law for retrieval of game animals from private property was changed in June, for the same reason: to prevent game wastage.
I think applying efforts to get the RCW changed is a more productive strategy that beating on the current one.
Post by: 6x6in6 on September 13, 2012, 04:32:19 PM
Then, based on that interpretation, determine whether or not applying efforts to revising the RCW is necessary?
Seems to me that if the WDFW can't seem to agree on the interpretation near the ground level of the chain of command then it needs to be run their flagpole. I would guess that the farther up the pole it gets the less likely someone is going to make a determination for fear of being wrong and ultimately being sent to the AG's office?
Post by: Bob33 on September 13, 2012, 04:43:33 PM
Wouldn't it be better to request that WDFW have the Attorney General's office review the present language and get an interpretation?I don't see the point. What part is not clear? What needs to be clarified?
Then, based on that interpretation, determine whether or not applying efforts to revising the RCW is necessary?
Seems to me that if the WDFW can't seem to agree on the interpretation near the ground level of the chain of command then it needs to be run their flagpole. I would guess that the farther up the pole it gets the less likely someone is going to make a determination for fear of being wrong and ultimately being sent to the AG's office?
Has someone at WDFW already issued an opinion that it's legal? If so, I would be very surprised but please post it.
Post by: 6x6in6 on September 13, 2012, 04:55:32 PM
Bob, that's your opinion based on your interpretation.Wouldn't it be better to request that WDFW have the Attorney General's office review the present language and get an interpretation?I don't see the point. What part is not clear? What needs to be clarified?
Then, based on that interpretation, determine whether or not applying efforts to revising the RCW is necessary?
Seems to me that if the WDFW can't seem to agree on the interpretation near the ground level of the chain of command then it needs to be run their flagpole. I would guess that the farther up the pole it gets the less likely someone is going to make a determination for fear of being wrong and ultimately being sent to the AG's office?
Has someone at WDFW already issued an opinion that it's legal? If so, I would be very surprised but please post it.
Others seem to think it reads differently.
As stated earlier in this thread by Macs B, the WDFW is split in their own interpretation also. This is why he was going to have the pow-wow with the WDFW legal department back in March-ish. He never did state what the outcome of that was.
Post by: Bob33 on September 13, 2012, 05:19:37 PM
Quote
This is why he was going to have the pow-wow with the WDFW legal department back in March-ish. He never did state what the outcome of that was.I rest my case.
Post by: Machias on September 13, 2012, 06:01:51 PM
Wouldn't it be better to request that WDFW have the Attorney General's office review the present language and get an interpretation?I don't see the point. What part is not clear? What needs to be clarified?
Then, based on that interpretation, determine whether or not applying efforts to revising the RCW is necessary?
Seems to me that if the WDFW can't seem to agree on the interpretation near the ground level of the chain of command then it needs to be run their flagpole. I would guess that the farther up the pole it gets the less likely someone is going to make a determination for fear of being wrong and ultimately being sent to the AG's office?
Has someone at WDFW already issued an opinion that it's legal? If so, I would be very surprised but please post it.
Because Bob according to their own regs you cannot and are not considered hunting if you are unarmed and you cannot be pursuing game if the dog is leashed, I feel the same as you, it is clear as day that it is legal. They have spelled it out in the past dogs on a leash are not considered being in pursuit, anyone not armed is not hunting. It's really not that hard to see it.
Post by: Machias on September 13, 2012, 06:16:39 PM
The bow season is just geting started and its already looking like I'll get some good work for the boys this year.
We've had a couple of fair tracks on bow shot game. Not especially difficult or old trails, more bad bush and bad shot placement. Still two found deer that would have otherwise fed the coyotes. One good follow up of over a thousand yards/two+ hours turned out to be a wounded doe. The trail was broke off once the determination was made that the deer was wounded and not lying up.
I broke with my original post and tried a known dead bear track. The reaction from the dogs on the trail was pretty much buisness as usual. Once they "found" the downed black bear things got a little odd. my dogs have never scented bear before so the reaction was pretty funny, initially pride for a successfull track followed by "what the hell is that thing!".
Good hunting!
Macs
Looks to me like he had the pow wow and got it resolved.
Post by: Machias on September 13, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
QuoteThis is why he was going to have the pow-wow with the WDFW legal department back in March-ish. He never did state what the outcome of that was.I rest my case.
See above post, you might have rested your case a tad too soon.
Post by: test on September 13, 2012, 06:21:29 PM
Post by: Curly on September 13, 2012, 07:22:06 PM
Post by: huntingfool7 on September 13, 2012, 07:48:09 PM
For anyone interested in working dogs it's an interesting read. Even if its not legal to use a dog to bloodtrail the sections on wound identification are worth the cost of the book.
http://unitedbloodtrackers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=11 (http://unitedbloodtrackers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=11) LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANCE
United bloodtrackers lists us.
Washington- No tracking allowed as of 2005.
Post by: Machias on September 13, 2012, 08:17:24 PM
I have pm'd Outdoor Guardian and asked him to comment on this issue. Hopefully he is able to get us an answer.
He gave us his reading, his thoughts are it's illegal.
Post by: Machias on September 13, 2012, 08:22:09 PM
A while back I bought the book- Tracking dogs for finding wounded deer by John Jeanneney. www.born-to-track.com/ (http://www.born-to-track.com/)
For anyone interested in working dogs it's an interesting read. Even if its not legal to use a dog to bloodtrail the sections on wound identification are worth the cost of the book.
http://unitedbloodtrackers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=11 (http://unitedbloodtrackers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=11) LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANCE
United bloodtrackers lists us.
Washington- No tracking allowed as of 2005.
I have had to contact other websites and agencies and ask them or inform them of incorrect information, such as being allowed to carry concealed in WA without a concealed lic if you're engaged in a lawful outdoor activity and the fact bowhunters and muzzleloaders can carry a sidearm while bowhunting or muzzleloading, so I never give much weight to books or websites. They generally get their information from a Law Enforcement Agency. You would think the information you get from them would be accurate, but sadly several instances they have been just plain wrong.
Post by: copasj on September 13, 2012, 09:21:09 PM
The other issue in my mind, is if you are tracking a deer that is already dead, then how can you be hunting? You can't be "hunting" if the animal has already expired. Of course you wouldn't really know for sure until you find it, but how can it be considered hunting if you don't have a weapon..........and the dog can't be harassing wildlife if he is on a leash..........
I wonder how it can be considered hunting as well. In my mind the hunting is over as soon as the blood trail is identified.
At that point it's just recovery and processing, but my opinion doesn't mean squat.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
Post by: bobcat on September 13, 2012, 09:23:00 PM
Post by: huntingfool7 on September 14, 2012, 05:38:31 AM
I counldn't agree with Machias more. I do think that if a Warden happened to find you bloodtrailing (unlikely) and he/she actually understood what you were doing (really unlikely), that officer would likely write a citation. I also believe that if I went to court over this, it would most likely be dismissed.A while back I bought the book- Tracking dogs for finding wounded deer by John Jeanneney. www.born-to-track.com/ (http://www.born-to-track.com/)
For anyone interested in working dogs it's an interesting read. Even if its not legal to use a dog to bloodtrail the sections on wound identification are worth the cost of the book.
http://unitedbloodtrackers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=11 (http://unitedbloodtrackers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=11) LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANCE
United bloodtrackers lists us.
Washington- No tracking allowed as of 2005.
I have had to contact other websites and agencies and ask them or inform them of incorrect information, such as being allowed to carry concealed in WA without a concealed lic if you're engaged in a lawful outdoor activity and the fact bowhunters and muzzleloaders can carry a sidearm while bowhunting or muzzleloading, so I never give much weight to books or websites. They generally get their information from a Law Enforcement Agency. You would think the information you get from them would be accurate, but sadly several instances they have been just plain wrong.
An officer writing a citation does not mean you are guilty of a crime.
Post by: Houndhunter on September 15, 2012, 09:37:26 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on September 15, 2012, 11:10:23 AM
You track any big game with a leash your open to a ticket, maybe they will maybe they won't. I got a ticket when just looking for tracks and my dog was leashed, and thats even when the regs said a leashed dog is not considered hunting. Your guilty till proven innocent, you may be "legal" but you may end up fighting a ticket in court.
Would you care to elaborate on the circumstances of this, final outcome, etc?
Post by: huntingfool7 on September 15, 2012, 06:27:24 PM
You track any big game with a leash your open to a ticket, maybe they will maybe they won't. I got a ticket when just looking for tracks and my dog was leashed, and thats even when the regs said a leashed dog is not considered hunting. Your guilty till proven innocent, you may be "legal" but you may end up fighting a ticket in court.Did you go to court on this?
Post by: Houndhunter on September 16, 2012, 09:12:42 AM
Post by: Snapshot on September 16, 2012, 01:46:22 PM
Post by: Machias on September 16, 2012, 06:01:52 PM
BUT it is high time that it be CUT & DRIED by the proposing and passage of a concisely written rule that defines the rules of legal bloodtrailing.
AMEN!
Post by: GrousePointer on September 19, 2012, 08:27:49 AM
Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
Post by: preacherman on October 30, 2012, 09:21:57 PM
There have been several occasions that I have all but stepped on one before we found it, and a few that just seem to vanish. There was a doe that I saw get hit this year, GOOD SHOT behind the shoulders, she ducked into the thick and we searched for three days. Raining hard the first night lost the blood trail at 50 yards but could smell her, and all I ever found was coyote scat with fur.
It is sad to see waste over a silly law, the greenies should even see that this does no good for anyone even the Game. Again I saw him shoot this was a textbook good shot, but bad circumstances. A trained dog could have retrieved her, I am sure.
Post by: RifleRidge on October 30, 2012, 09:32:40 PM
Post by: rock on November 20, 2012, 11:09:51 AM
Post by: Curly on January 09, 2013, 04:44:47 PM
Post by: Machias on January 09, 2013, 06:01:07 PM
Post by: Snapshot on January 09, 2013, 07:35:29 PM
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 10, 2013, 04:55:31 AM
Post by: hardkorrhunter on January 28, 2013, 09:49:08 PM
Post by: elk247 on March 25, 2013, 01:00:11 AM
Post by: wildweeds on March 26, 2013, 06:41:18 PM
Post by: quadrafire on September 13, 2013, 08:18:20 AM
Post by: Machias on September 13, 2013, 06:49:47 PM
Post by: DRENALINJUNKIE on September 13, 2013, 09:31:54 PM
Post by: elkboy on October 22, 2014, 09:32:19 AM
Post by: Machias on October 23, 2014, 12:30:16 PM