Proposal to Amend WDFW allowed weapons in Firearm Restriction Areas

[Chad McMullen]

Hi, All --
First-time poster to this forum.
Is anybody aware of whether the topic of rifles chambered for "pistol-caliber cartridges" or "straight-wall cartridges" - and their potential for inclusion in the list of allowable weapons in WDFW Firearm Restriction Areas - is under consideration by WDFW?  A number of states back east where 'shotgun-only' restrictions are in place have recently expanded their lists of allowable big-game weapons to include rifles chambered in .357 magnum, .44 magnum, etc. -- with the rational (apparently) being that these medium-bore, slower-moving projectiles have similar trajectories as shotgun slugs (and sabot slugs in particular).  That is, fired from the level, a shotgun with a sabot load and a rifle in - say, .357 or .44 magnum - will all hit the dirt at comparable distances to each other -- unlike a .270 or 7mm or other high-powered, multi-sonic, bottleneck cartridges. The thought is that these pistol/straight-wall have range limitations similar to shotguns/slugs and so the safety rationale behind the "shotgun-only" restriction area is maintained.

According to my internet searches, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and perhaps some others now allow rifles chambered for the pistol/straight-wall to be used in firearm restriction areas -- any idea if WDFW is considering this?  Has anyone even approached them with the idea (besides me)?

[Chad McMullen]

And if you're just dying to read what I sent WDFW (or if you need some reading to put you to sleep), I pasted the email I sent to them a few days ago:

WDFW rule-making staff --

I am a Washington State resident and hunter. I am writing this letter on my behalf and on behalf of three other Washington residents and hunters who generally prefer to hunt locally in game management units with firearm restrictions that affect considerable portions of these GMUs.
 Concerning firearm restriction areas (FRAs), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has restrictions that apply to many locations throughout the state; these areas are listed in the WDFW rules. In an FRA, firearms chambered for center-fire, high-powered modern cartridges (such as .308, .30-06, .270, 7mm magnum, and similar bottleneck, multi-sonic chamberings) are disallowed.

 We feel it is important to recognize that WDFW rules are distinct and separate from county and local restrictions on the discharge of firearms for other activities (such as target practice or sporting clays), and that with respect to hunting practice, local/county jurisdictions generally default to determinations made by WDFW with respect to safe and appropriate weapon types.  In other words, while a variety of firearm restrictions are made by local or county ordinances, many of these jurisdictions specifically provide for the use of firearms for the purpose of hunting during the Modern Firearm season and defer to the judgement of WDFW rule-makers in determining what constitutes a suitable firearm in WDFW-designated FRAs.

 In an FRA, weapon alternatives are described in the Department’s rules, which are excerpted below (page 96 WDFW 2019-2020 Big Game Hunting Pamphlet):

It is unlawful to hunt wildlife in the following firearm restriction areas with centerfire or rimfire rifles, or to fail to comply with additional firearm restrictions, except as established below. In firearm restriction areas, hunters may hunt only during the season allowed by their tag.

• Archery tag holders may only hunt during archery seasons with archery equipment.
• Muzzleloader tag holders may only hunt during muzzleloader seasons with muzzleloader or archery equipment as defined by department rule.
• Modern firearm tag holders may hunt during established modern firearm seasons with bows and arrows; crossbows; muzzleloaders; revolver-type handguns; semi-automatic handguns of .40 (10mm) caliber or larger; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules.

The Department’s rules for allowable weapons in the FRAs during the Modern Firearm season represent a compromise between:
1.    reducing the practical hunting and the lethal range of weapons in use near populated areas,
2.    maintaining reasonable harvest opportunities for the hunting public during the Modern Firearm season in FRAs, and
3.    providing weapon alternatives that allow for a reasonable expectation of humane harvest of game animals

 These are reasonable weapon limitation considerations to achieve public safety goals.

 As technology has changed, WDFW has modified their rules to accommodate development in hunting technology. Recent examples include the incorporation of 209 primers for muzzleloading, and the adoption of crossbows for use in certain circumstances. Firearm technology continues to change and there is a growing list of state wildlife agencies across the United States where straight-wall cartridges (some which are considered “pistol caliber cartridges”) fired from rifles are now legal in areas previously considered “Shotgun-Only”. These pistol caliber cartridges have been incorporated into amended game hunting rules of other game management jurisdictions for reasons similar to why shotgun restrictions were enacted in those locales in the first place: shotguns provide limited range and substantial energy “on-target”, both of which serve to retain hunting opportunities within the restriction area. States that have recently added “straight-wall” or “pistol-caliber” rifles to the list of legal weapons within shotgun only restriction areas include Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. If consideration of amending WDFW rules to include weapons chambered for such cartridges as a legal option is a conversation not already underway, we would like to start this discussion. If this discussion is already in progress, we would like to add our voice and our support for the idea.

We have surveyed the manufacturers’ published values for muzzle velocity and trajectory for a number of shotgun slugs – which we take to be the predominant shotgun ammunition being used in FRAs (though legal, few shotgun hunters are using buckshot, which has very limited application for big game hunting).  Based on manufacturer data we reviewed, the muzzle velocities of conventional foster slugs and sub-caliber sabot slugs are very similar to a variety of available straight-wall cartridges including common revolver-type cartridges such as .357 magnum, .44 magnum, and straight-wall “brush gun” cartridges such as .454 Casull.  It is also worth noting that many pistol cartridges – when chambered for a rifle – have significantly less recoil than a shotgun shooting slugs and are much more manageable for smaller-framed hunters.

.45-70 Government, .444 Marlin, and .450 Marlin are at the upper end (i.e. they are faster/flatter-shooting) of what is typically considered for straight-wall cartridges meeting shotgun area safety objectives. Some states exclude these cartridges from their firearm restriction area rules; other states include them. While we anticipate that these cartridges could be considered “overkill” by most deer hunters, they would be appropriate for taking of bear and elk in an FRA and we ask that you consider their inclusion in the amended FRA weapon exceptions suggested later in this letter. Inclusion of these cartridges could entail specifying a maximum cartridge length of 2.25 inches.  Alternatively, these cartridges would be excluded by specifying a maximum cartridge length of 2.00 inches.

The trajectories of the straight-wall cartridge ammunition choices mentioned above are quite similar and (when adjusted for similar “zero” ranges) share similar practical ranges to a shotgun slug – particularly for sabot slugs, which are a commonly selected ammunition for deer hunting within FRAs. The practical range of conventional foster slugs tends to be somewhat less – while they retain enormous downrange energy (well in excess of pistol/straight-wall cartidges) they tend to be much less accurate than the sabot slugs, and responsible hunters avoid shot opportunities where they do not have strong confidence in hitting vitals and producing a humane harvest. To make up for their relatively poor accuracy, conventional foster slugs often “anchor” an animal with the brute force of enormous downrange retained energy.

In our opinion – and apparently in the analyses of a growing number of fish and wildlife departments elsewhere in the country – rifles chambered for pistol cartridges and/or “straight wall” cartridges (within certain dimension and energy limits) offer an improvement in accuracy, retain sufficient lethality, and improve hunting opportunities and options for hunters who hunt in firearm restriction areas. We suggest the following modifications/additions (in bold text) to the WDFW FRA weapons restrictions in order to expand suitable options while retaining the safety objectives of the FRAs:

It is unlawful to hunt wildlife in the following firearm restriction areas with centerfire or rimfire rifles, or to fail to comply with additional firearm restrictions, except as established below. In firearm restriction areas, hunters may hunt only during the season allowed by their tag.

• Archery tag holders may only hunt during archery seasons with archery equipment.
• Muzzleloader tag holders may only hunt during muzzleloader seasons with muzzleloader or archery equipment as defined by department rule.
• Modern firearm tag holders may hunt during established modern firearm seasons with bows and arrows; crossbows; muzzleloaders; revolver-type handguns; semi-automatic handguns of .40 (10mm) caliber or larger; rifles chambered for straight-wall cartridges discussed below; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules. Allowable straight-wall cartridges fired from rifles shall have a minimum diameter of 0.35 inches. Legal cartridges must have a minimum case length of 1.25 inches and a maximum case length 2.25 inches. .38 special, .44 special, and similar cartridges of reduced energy are not legal for use on big game.

We view rifles chambered for straight-wall pistol and brush-gun cartridges (within specifications above) to be an appropriate addition to the list of allowable firearms in FRAs. Addition of such weapons would be a valid approach to maintaining the public safety considerations for FRAs while at the same time increasing projectile accuracy.  Accurate shot-placement is a critical aspect of ethical hunting and humane harvest.

Please consider these suggested FRA rule modifications and let us know if you have any questions or would like to pursue this discussion further. I have included (as an attachment) a PDF version of the text above in a letter format.

Chad McMullen
Kingston, WA

[Skyvalhunter]

Do you think besides you 3 guys there is more hunters wanting this restriction revised?

[hunter399]

Just wondering if hunting in firearm restricted area with a firearm would go against some county and city ordence.And make some areas really confusing on where your allowed to hunt.So you have some examples of firearm restricted areas where this is not conflicting with other ordence.

Hay great first post .
Good luck with it .I don't hunt firearm restricted areas.

[CP]

I’d like to see this change.   I put together a 450 Bushmaster pistol for firearm restricted hunting.  Seems pretty stupid that a rifle in the same caliber is illegal.

But if they made this change I’d have get another upper.

[Chad McMullen]

Do you think besides you 3 guys there is more hunters wanting this restriction revised?

I know for certain that there are more hunters interested in this.  Certainly in Kitsap County and San Juan County.  I assume there are more areas where hunters dealing with FRAs would appreciate a greater list of options. I think a pistol-caliber rifle could be an excellent option for smaller-framed hunters and teenagers, whose options are basically flinching and punishment to the shoulder (shotgun with slugs) or else somewhat esoteric options to the younger/less enthusiastic hunter: pistol hunting, muzzleloading.  While I personally am interested in those last two - and I am adequate with a zeroed-in 12 gauge - I think we should be increasing the range of options for ANY hunter in an FRA.

[Chad McMullen]

Just wondering if hunting in firearm restricted area with a firearm would go against some county and city ordence.And make some areas really confusing on where your allowed to hunt.So you have some examples of firearm restricted areas where this is not conflicting with other ordence.

Hay great first post .
Good luck with it .I don't hunt firearm restricted areas.

Oh, yes - it's certainly confusing, but in the counties I hunt where there is an FRA, the county defers to WDFW judgement/rules on what constitutes an allowable hunting weapon.  And as it stands now, you are most definitely allowed to take big game with certain revolvers, pistols, and shotguns, plus muzzies and bows.  I think for certain situations and hunters, a pistol-caliber rifle is better than any of those other options.

This doesn't mean a county couldn't say "nah, we're not going to allow that" - but that should be up to the county to figure out.  As it stands, the WDFW should allow ANY suitable hunting weapon that meets the public safety objective of the FRA rules.

[Chad McMullen]

I’d like to see this change.   I put together a 450 Bushmaster pistol for firearm restricted hunting.  Seems pretty stupid that a rifle in the same caliber is illegal.

If you like this idea then please please send an email to WDFW. It doesn't have to be long (unless you are long-winded -- like me  ).  A quick email supporting the adoption of pistol-caliber rifles into the FRA rules would suffice.  Point out the equivalent ranges, the easier shooting, improved accuracy - whatever seems most relevant to you.

I spoke with a WDFW rep. last week who said that a major factor in adopting 209 primers, other mods. to the muzzie equipment rules, and adoption of crossbows was the significant amount of public comments WDFW received.  I would LOVE to generate a similar buzz, if that helps to steer WDFW in this direction.  It is the primary reason for my original posts.

I directed my letter to these three WDFW email addresses:
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
anis.aoude@dfw.wa.gov
Eric.Gardner@dfw.wa.gov

[Bango skank]

I’d like to see this change.   I put together a 450 Bushmaster pistol for firearm restricted hunting.  Seems pretty stupid that a rifle in the same caliber is illegal.

If you like this idea then please please send an email to WDFW. It doesn't have to be long (unless you are long-winded -- like me  ).  A quick email supporting the adoption of pistol-caliber rifles into the FRA rules would suffice.  Point out the equivalent ranges, the easier shooting, improved accuracy - whatever seems most relevant to you.

I spoke with a WDFW rep. last week who said that a major factor in adopting 209 primers, other mods. to the muzzie equipment rules, and adoption of crossbows was the significant amount of public comments WDFW received.  I would LOVE to generate a similar buzz, if that helps to steer WDFW in this direction.  It is the primary reason for my original posts.

I directed my letter to these three WDFW email addresses:
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
anis.aoude@dfw.wa.gov
Eric.Gardner@dfw.wa.gov

I suggest adding commission@dfw.wa.gov to your list of email recipients.

[Chad McMullen]

Thank you, Bango Skank - I'll forward my initial email to that address too.
 -- C

[jstone]

I am glad they took the archery cows out of the early archery in the 300s

[Chad McMullen]

Well, I received some feedback from WDFW today, which is sooner than I expected...so that's good? Some copy-paste wording, but nice to know the letter is now in their rulemaking suggestions log. The timeline Mr. Hoenes describes is consistent with what I discussed on the phone a weeks or two ago...

Hey Chad,

The recommendations you propose below are something we would consider during our 3-year season setting process, which will be initiated later this summer when we request ideas from the public.  I encourage you to keep an eye out for that opportunity.  That being said, I have also documented your request on my running list of ideas I get from the public throughout the year.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me anytime.

Respectfully
Brock Hoenes, Ungulate Section Manager"

[yorketransport]

I’d like to see this change.   I put together a 450 Bushmaster pistol for firearm restricted hunting.  Seems pretty stupid that a rifle in the same caliber is illegal.

But if they made this change I’d have get another upper.

Unless something changed, that wouldn’t be legal based on my conversations with WDFW. The “revolver type handgun” wording would rule out an AR pistol. I was told (probably 10 years ago) that not even a single shot pistol like a TC Contender was legal in a FRA. I went round and round about my 44 Mag contender not being allowed, but my 45-70 revolver was.

[Bob33]

Here is the current WAC.

(d) Modern firearm tag holders may hunt during established modern firearm seasons with bows and arrows; crossbows; muzzleloaders; revolver-type handguns; semiautomatic handguns of .40 (10 mm) caliber or larger; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-413-180

[JimmyHoffa]

I think a number of Easter/Midwestern states have even moved from pistol caliber to straight walled cartridges.  That has allowed rifles in .38-55 wcf, .405 wcf, .375 Win, etc.  As a result, ammo manufacturers have tweaked loads to appeal to people looking for 'more'--velocity, energy, range.  They are basically catching up to some of the bottlenecks.

[CP]

I’d like to see this change.   I put together a 450 Bushmaster pistol for firearm restricted hunting.  Seems pretty stupid that a rifle in the same caliber is illegal.

But if they made this change I’d have get another upper.

Unless something changed, that wouldn’t be legal based on my conversations with WDFW. The “revolver type handgun” wording would rule out an AR pistol. I was told (probably 10 years ago) that not even a single shot pistol like a TC Contender was legal in a FRA. I went round and round about my 44 Mag contender not being allowed, but my 45-70 revolver was.

No, your Contender isn't legal, and it still wouldn't be legal under the changes proposed above.  But my 450 BM is a "semiautomatic handgun of .40 (10 mm) caliber or larger" and therefore legal.  I think they made that change last year.

[yorketransport]

Here is the current WAC.

(d) Modern firearm tag holders may hunt during established modern firearm seasons with bows and arrows; crossbows; muzzleloaders; revolver-type handguns; semiautomatic handguns of .40 (10 mm) caliber or larger; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-413-180

Unless something changed, that wouldn’t be legal based on my conversations with WDFW. The “revolver type handgun” wording would rule out an AR pistol. I was told (probably 10 years ago) that not even a single shot pistol like a TC Contender was legal in a FRA. I went round and round about my 44 Mag contender not being allowed, but my 45-70 revolver was.

No, your Contender isn't legal, and it still wouldn't be legal under the changes proposed above.  But my 450 BM is a "semiautomatic handgun of .40 (10 mm) caliber or larger" and therefore legal.  I think they made that change last year.
[/quote]

Well, look at that! Good to see some movement in that department.

[konradcountry]

The big difference with the Eastern states is that the restricted areas in Wa are small and mostly privately owned by non-hunters. In fact a lot of the islands have transplants that are anti-hunter.

The existing pistol regs don't make sense and they haven't changed them. Technically you can hunt elk in our state with a 38 special.

A lot of people have asked that 223 be allowed for deer and that has been ignored.

I would just build an AR pistol. They are quite controllable and you can keep them loaded in your vehicle.

[Chad McMullen]

Let's get back on topic here, gentlemen -- "pistol-cartridge" and "straight-wall cartridge" rifles in FRAs...not bottleneck .223 pistols, or the unsuitability of .38 special, or why .223/5.56 might be appropriate, or the "impossibility" of WDFW amending the current FRA firearm list because they haven't adopted some previous suggestion in the past.

Clearly they sometimes DO modify the rules when there's a sufficient argument and they hear enough voices in favor...maybe

[CP]

Okay, back on topic.  I suggest some changes to your proposed change:


rifles firearms chambered for straight-wall cartridges discussed below; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules. Allowable straight-wall cartridges fired from rifles firearms shall have a minimum diameter of 0.35 inches. Legal cartridges must have a minimum case length of 1.25 inches and a maximum case length 2.25 inches. .38 special, .44 special, and similar cartridges of reduced energy are not legal for use on big game.

[Chad McMullen]

rifles firearms chambered for straight-wall cartridges discussed below; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules. Allowable straight-wall cartridges fired from rifles firearms shall have a minimum diameter of 0.35 inches. Legal cartridges must have a minimum case length of 1.25 inches and a maximum case length 2.25 inches. .38 special, .44 special, and similar cartridges of reduced energy are not legal for use on big game.

  Hey - this makes some sense.  No arguing with the game officer whether a "carbine" counts as a "rifle", and it fixes a pointless exclusion: revolvers are allowed, and semi-auto (10mm+) pistols are allowed - but as the law is written now it excludes single-shot pistols.

[mikeybuck]

I'm all for it. I've sent emails before. Would love to use my Ruger 44 carbine.

That that said, I have no issues with my shotgun. But my wife can't handle the recoil of the shotgun with slugs. Kinda sucks cause she would like to hunt in the back yard. She has no issues shooting one of the 44 or 357 carbines.

[Chad McMullen]

I'm all for it. I've sent emails before. Would love to use my Ruger 44 carbine.

The next three-year cycle for significant rule changes starts later this year, when WDFW cracks open the treasure chest of accumulated "significant rule change" suggestions of the past three years. Adoption of a pistol-caliber/straight-wall caliber rifle/carbine rule change to FRAs could potentially hit the books for the 2021 season…but I know better than to hold my breath.

The WDFW person I spoke with (also about two weeks ago) was generally receptive but also said an important thing they take into consideration is public support, and hearing from many voices favoring any particular rule change. This played a substantial role in WDFW incorporating 209 primers and other modifications to muzzleloading equipment rules, and also the adoption of crossbows. The WDFW guy said that the muzzies and the archers are good at banding together, speaking with common goals, and getting their ideas to be heard -- but for whatever reason, the modern firearm hunters tend to be less organized...

...But my wife can't handle the recoil of the shotgun with slugs. Kinda sucks cause she would like to hunt in the back yard. She has no issues shooting one of the 44 or 357 carbines.

I'm with you there -- I can handle a mule kick to the shoulder just fine - I am 6'4" and 240lbs - but that should NOT have to be the standard, or be a barrier to entry for the harvest of big game by smaller-framed hunters.  And for what it's worth, the target practice involved with becoming proficient with a .357 mag or .44 mag (etc.) is both less intimidating, much cheaper, and far more FUN than it is with a shotgun and slugs.  Doesn't WDFW have an interest in growing the ranks of the hunting public?  Well there's an idea...

[luvmystang67]

I was thinking of picking up one of these bad boys for exactly this purpose:

https://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/henry-mares-leg-44-remington-magnum-lever-action-pistol

Part of me wishes they'd just start a running list of calibers that meet criteria for firearm restriction instead of being so vague.  With the growth in firearm restricted areas why can't they just say the following list of rounds are admissible in a firearm restricted area:

.44 Mag
.41 Mag
.357 Mag
.30-30 (maybe)
.45-70 (maybe)
etc.

These rules are in place for safety and to limit how far a projectile will fly, you cant tell me a 12 gauge sabot slug is any better/worse than a .44 mag rifle, its just he rifle should be more accurate.  They should love this compromise.  Plus it'd be FUN!  Imagine us all out there with our lever action rifles.  I  really hate shotguns for deer.  I always use my muzzy instead.

[Chad McMullen]

I was thinking of picking up one of these bad boys for exactly this purpose:

https://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/henry-mares-leg-44-remington-magnum-lever-action-pistol

Part of me wishes they'd just start a running list of calibers that meet criteria for firearm restriction instead of being so vague.  With the growth in firearm restricted areas why can't they just say the following list of rounds are admissible in a firearm restricted area:

.44 Mag
.41 Mag
.357 Mag
.30-30 (maybe)
.45-70 (maybe)
etc.

These rules are in place for safety and to limit how far a projectile will fly, you cant tell me a 12 gauge sabot slug is any better/worse than a .44 mag rifle, its just he rifle should be more accurate.  They should love this compromise.  Plus it'd be FUN!  Imagine us all out there with our lever action rifles.  I  really hate shotguns for deer.  I always use my muzzy instead.

I worked out the trajectories for 12g and 20g sabot slugs and the common lever-action revolver rounds - .357 mag, .44 mag, .45 Colt, and .454 Casull -- for all practical purposes, the flight paths for all of those are identical when they're zeroed to 100 yards.  When fired from the level at a height of 36 inches, they all hit the dirt inside of 275 yards.  .45-70 will go perhaps 25 yards farther.  Some of the newer bear cartridges, plus bottlenecks like .30-30 may go considerable further.

There is some advantage to a rule change naming specific allowed cartridges -- but then inevitably some worthy-but-obscure cartridge will be left off the list, and outrage ensues...it's also a lot for the enforcement officer to have to keep track of. By specifying min-max casing dimensions you give the EO an easy go/no-go criteria, and something that can be measured directly, and in the field.

[luvmystang67]

I missed your actual proposal.  I like it.

I was also thinking that lever guns (as they currently exist) have practical limits on the power they can accept and the types of cartridges they can use.  You could ALMOST specify that lever action guns are acceptable and it would nearly cover you.

I do like your wording though and think that it would work, as long as you don't exclude those folks who have made guns for the .50 beowulf / .45 bushmaster / .458 socom.

[Chad McMullen]

There is little doubt that hunting deer with a cowboy lever-gun is a damn sexy option! Serious style points.  I will be fighting off hordes of attractive women left and right -- I will need to redouble my camouflaging efforts...

[Bango skank]

There is little doubt that hunting deer with a cowboy lever-gun is a damn sexy option! Serious style points.  I will be fighting off hordes of attractive women left and right -- I will need to redouble my camouflaging efforts...

Ive made a decent number of lever kills.  Dont seem to have that problem.  I guess i must have good camo. 

[konradcountry]

Let's get back on topic here, gentlemen -- "pistol-cartridge" and "straight-wall cartridge" rifles in FRAs...not bottleneck .223 pistols, or the unsuitability of .38 special, or why .223/5.56 might be appropriate, or the "impossibility" of WDFW amending the current FRA firearm list because they haven't adopted some previous suggestion in the past.

Clearly they sometimes DO modify the rules when there's a sufficient argument and they hear enough voices in favor...maybe

I wasn't suggesting that you build a 223 pistol. I was pointing out that there was a lot of support for allowing 223 but they haven't changed that rule.

What I did suggest is building an AR pistol in a hunt legal caliber. It will outrange a 44 or 357 carbine easily.

[TheFudd]

Hi there. I'm mostly just a lurker on this forum, but was working up the gumption to post, asking about WDFW rule mods for this very topic, when I stumbled across this post. I apologize if reviving this thread vs. starting a new one is a real New Guy move, but here I am.
At any rate, obviously -now 5 years later- the FRA requirements have not changed, and my foggy memory doesn't even remember seeing this in the 3-year cycle. So, I'm curious if you guys have any new info on this, or continued to pursue it, as well as if I want to be a squeaky wheel to WDFW, who's the best ear to squeak in?

Thanks!

[WWC]

This issue has been brought up at GMAC meetings in the past. Not much support has been expressed for this change. The main reasoning is the stated desire of sportsmen to have rules that are simple. Adding another layer of complexity was not very appealing.

[birdshooter1189]

I would be interested in seeing a change to these FRA's.  However, changing the rules from what is currently in place to allowing straight wall cartriges doesn't help me.

I primarily hunt coyotes with .223 and .22-250.  I prefer shooting in semi-residential areas with these calibers than I would with a .44 mag rifle or a .357 rifle. Those rifles shoot slow, have lots of drop (more likely to miss), and that big slow projectile is going to tend to ricochet (or over-penetrate through the animal) and continue traveling much further, where my high-speed .22 bullets will disintegrate on contact.

For the sake of supporting all hunters and keeping the rules simple. I'd propose getting rid of the restricted area all together, and point out that all hunters are required to complete a hunter's safety course prior to getting a hunting license. Part of that training is that we only take safe shots. Leave it to the individual hunter to determine what is a safe caliber to use for their specific location.

[Sundance]

This issue has been brought up at GMAC meetings in the past. Not much support has been expressed for this change. The main reasoning is the stated desire of sportsmen to have rules that are simple. Adding another layer of complexity was not very appealing.

This, along with with creating more headache for enforcement. I talked with my local enforcement about the irony of being able to hunt coyotes with a muzzy, but not a SBR using subsonic ammo (in a FRA). The velocity and weight of the projectile would be less in the SBR, making the effective range less than the muzzy. While he agreed, enforcement of using this setup in a FRA would be near impossible. The rules are already tough enough for most to decipher, add more layers to it would only further muddy the waters. 

[Special T]

In my county the farmers got a 223 2xcemption for the specific purpose of hunting coyotes. Farmers had too much drip tape and electrical chewed up.

[luvmystang67]

This issue has been brought up at GMAC meetings in the past. Not much support has been expressed for this change. The main reasoning is the stated desire of sportsmen to have rules that are simple. Adding another layer of complexity was not very appealing.

The irony is that everything is so f'in complicated, who even cares at this point?