Waterfowl Possession UPDATE

[bigtex]

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

[Fishnclifff]

Sent Lori an e-mail.

[sakoshooter]

I just did also.

[sakoshooter]

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?

[sakoshooter]

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

[Fishnclifff]

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

[sakoshooter]

Sounds like we've got the ball rolling pretty good. All we gotta do is remind em once in a while now.

[Fishnclifff]

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.

[sakoshooter]

Yeah. That'd be funny.

[sakoshooter]

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'.

[bigtex]

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.

[Fishnclifff]

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.

[sakoshooter]

You're exactly right bigtex. An organization definitely has a louder voice than a single person.