Great post Brady.
Just addressing a couple of points brought up in this thread especially relating to OK: 1) this is not a statute change. That has been tried several times and never made it out of committee. This is an administration of the law which the ODWC and Wildlife Commission oversee. No part of an exception can contradict the existing statute. Thus, no weapons and leashed is a response to the existing statute-this cannot be construed as pursuing deer with dogs. Also this is why there is no "contact your representative" there is no statute change, and we have no opportunity to get it "right".
2) the reason for contacting the warden prior to tracking is to control how the tracking is done (leashed,etc) as it is indeed not currently in writing, but in no way is the warden approving something that is against the statute. The written exception is more to clarify.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but your statement isn't logical....
According to the wildlife department website, this is a proposed "amendment" to the existing rule.
"(i) Dogs may be used in taking all game species in these rules except bear, deer, elk, antelope and turkey. Exceptions to this rule would be the use of a leashed dog to track downed game after obtaining game warden permission and having no means of take on person while tracking. Use of an unleashed dog to track is prohibited."
The bolded portion is the proposed amendment.
If using dogs to track deer is not against the current rule or statute, then why would there need to be an exception approved by the wildlife commission?? An exception to what?? If it's not illegal (against the statute), then there would be no need for an exception, right??
If it's not against the statute or regulation, why would you need the game warden's permission to do it??
If it was just a clarification of existing rule or regulation, you wouldn't need the wildlife commission to approve it, would you??
Seems to me if this was just a clarification of the existing rule, the wildlife department could simply release a statement to that effect and/or include a note about it in the wildlife regs. There would be no need for wildlife commission approval or public input or hearings etc.
Isn't a new exception to a statute, regulation or rule, where one did not exist before, not a clarification, but, instead, a change to that statute, regulation or rule?