HB 1046 Would Ban WDFW and Other Agencies from Using Dogs to Take Bear & Cougar

[boneaddict]

Just shaking my head.   

[Whitpirate]

I was at the open house last week.  There are at least 10 very motivated folks pressing this agenda.  We better get in the stick or it will pass.

[fireweed]

She also is sponsoring a bill that would prevent ANYBODY (including wdfw agents) from killing wolves for any reason.  Of course, this is a real issue on the Kitsap Penn.

[hunter399]

I'm surprised so many hunters against this,cougar quotas will go up ,a lot of quotas are meet each year due to public removal.
Cougar that attacks people I can see removal.But livestock no! Livestock owner can have a permit to shoot it.
Hunters need to get over it,we will never be able to use dogs again .so why let the government have permission.I would also hope it ends hound hunting for bears on timber company land.

I see it does include bears .
Ya I don't have a problem with it at all .livestock owners can take care of there animals.
Timber companies can let some access to there land by bear hunters ,or suck it up.

[ipkus]

So let’s get rid of the most effective management tool the department has left, just because the liberals took it away from you?

Talk about cutting off your nose...

[WAcoyotehunter]

I'm surprised so many hunters against this,cougar quotas will go up ,a lot of quotas are meet each year due to public removal.
Cougar that attacks people I can see removal.But livestock no! Livestock owner can have a permit to shoot it.
Hunters need to get over it,we will never be able to use dogs again .so why let the government have permission.I would also hope it ends hound hunting for bears on timber company land.

I see it does include bears .
Ya I don't have a problem with it at all .livestock owners can take care of there animals.
Timber companies can let some access to there land by bear hunters ,or suck it up.

Evidently you have not had to respond to many cougar depredations.  This isn't about cattle on range, this is about a kids 4h animal or a beloved pet getting killed.  Leaving that cougar on the landscape to continue killing pets/livestock is irresponsible and it's rediculous to expect the landowner to have the tools to deal with it. 

[Timberstalker]

I'm surprised so many hunters against this,cougar quotas will go up ,a lot of quotas are meet each year due to public removal.
Cougar that attacks people I can see removal.But livestock no! Livestock owner can have a permit to shoot it.
Hunters need to get over it,we will never be able to use dogs again .so why let the government have permission.I would also hope it ends hound hunting for bears on timber company land.

I see it does include bears .
Ya I don't have a problem with it at all .livestock owners can take care of there animals.
Timber companies can let some access to there land by bear hunters ,or suck it up.

This isn’t what we want at all.

This bill is evil, at best. We need to have the ability to track these problem animals down and eradicate them.

[Southpole]

The type of people that would support this bill are the same people that leave horrible, mean comments on articles/stories involving animal attacks on people or hunters bagging a beloved animal ie. grizzly attacking mom & baby or Cinder the bear story. Anyone who has read comments on those articles know what I mean. They are literally rooting for the animal and/or wishing death to hunters... sick and deranged people.

[hunter399]

Here's a perfect example of a good livestock owners.
There are many ways of keeping livestock safe.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,217537.0.html

If there is a problem you deal with it.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Bigtex. I read the linked Bill and to me it doesn't look like it bans the use of dogs by government entities as much as it severely limits the legal justifications for using dogs. Not that that is much better.

It sure gets tiring having people who don't understand an issue making up laws concerning that issue.

It removes the section I included in my original post. Officers could no longer use houndsmens after attacks or near attacks. The other exemptions (for research, etc.) remain intact.

What about this? 

"(3)(a)
  Notwithstanding  subsection (2)of  this  section,  the
27commission  shall  authorize  the  use  of  dogs  only  in  selected  areas
28within  a  game  management  unit  to  address  a  public  safety  need
29presented by one or more cougar. This authority may only be exercised
30after  the  commission  has  determined  that  no  other  practical
31alternative to the use of dogs exists, and after the commission has
32adopted  rules  describing  the  conditions  in  which  dogs  may  be  used.
33Conditions that may warrant the use of dogs within a game management
34unit  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  confirmed  cougar/human  safety
35incidents,  confirmed  cougar/livestock  and  cougar/pet  depredations,
36and the number of cougar capture attempts and relocations."

[Bob33]

Bigtex. I read the linked Bill and to me it doesn't look like it bans the use of dogs by government entities as much as it severely limits the legal justifications for using dogs. Not that that is much better.

It sure gets tiring having people who don't understand an issue making up laws concerning that issue.

It removes the section I included in my original post. Officers could no longer use houndsmens after attacks or near attacks. The other exemptions (for research, etc.) remain intact.

What about this? 

"(3)(a)
  Notwithstanding  subsection (2)of  this  section,  the
27commission  shall  authorize  the  use  of  dogs  only  in  selected  areas
28within  a  game  management  unit  to  address  a  public  safety  need
29presented by one or more cougar. This authority may only be exercised
30after  the  commission  has  determined  that  no  other  practical
31alternative to the use of dogs exists, and after the commission has
32adopted  rules  describing  the  conditions  in  which  dogs  may  be  used.
33Conditions that may warrant the use of dogs within a game management
34unit  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  confirmed  cougar/human  safety
35incidents,  confirmed  cougar/livestock  and  cougar/pet  depredations,
36and the number of cougar capture attempts and relocations."

Sure. When the bikers were attacked by cougars, a houndsman caught and killed the cougar hours later.

After 1046:
1. Cougar attacks biker,
2. Report is prepared and submitted to the commission.
3. Weeks go by until the commission meets.
4. Deliberations are held by the commission:
- Was the cougar in a "selected area"?
- Did WDFW exercise all other available options?
- Another month passes while WDFW prepares the report that no other option exists.
- Another month passes until the commission meets again to review the WDFW report.
- Perhaps the commission authorizes the killing of the cougar. Perhaps not.

Good luck finding it now. How many others humans and animals did it harm in the meanwhile?

[Special T]

I'm going to take a devil's advocate position.. hopefully most of you know what that is...

Could this be the best thing long term for sportsmen? Many on here talk about transplanting wolves to Olympia and Seattle so they can experience the love of the wild first hand. Perhaps it is the pain inflicted by this kind of ignorance that could sway public oppinion...  then a cat eats some one and nothing can be done?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Odell]

Its time for us to fight back with our own legislation. We need a ballot measure that effectively takes game management issues out of the ballot initiative process. Something that puts game management as the strict purview of those changed with managing it. I know it could also bite us in certain areas, but the managers cannot keep having their hands tied by the public who know nothing about managing fish and game

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Bigtex. I read the linked Bill and to me it doesn't look like it bans the use of dogs by government entities as much as it severely limits the legal justifications for using dogs. Not that that is much better.

It sure gets tiring having people who don't understand an issue making up laws concerning that issue.

It removes the section I included in my original post. Officers could no longer use houndsmens after attacks or near attacks. The other exemptions (for research, etc.) remain intact.

What about this? 

"(3)(a)
  Notwithstanding  subsection (2)of  this  section,  the
27commission  shall  authorize  the  use  of  dogs  only  in  selected  areas
28within  a  game  management  unit  to  address  a  public  safety  need
29presented by one or more cougar. This authority may only be exercised
30after  the  commission  has  determined  that  no  other  practical
31alternative to the use of dogs exists, and after the commission has
32adopted  rules  describing  the  conditions  in  which  dogs  may  be  used.
33Conditions that may warrant the use of dogs within a game management
34unit  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  confirmed  cougar/human  safety
35incidents,  confirmed  cougar/livestock  and  cougar/pet  depredations,
36and the number of cougar capture attempts and relocations."

Sure. When the bikers were attacked by cougars, a houndsman caught and killed the cougar hours later.

After 1046:
1. Cougar attacks biker,
2. Report is prepared and submitted to the commission.
3. Weeks go by until the commission meets.
4. Deliberations are held by the commission:
- Was the cougar in a "selected area"?
- Did WDFW exercise all other available options?
- Another month passes while WDFW prepares the report that no other option exists.
- Another month passes until the commission meets again to review the WDFW report.
- Perhaps the commission authorizes the killing of the cougar. Perhaps not.

Good luck finding it now. How many others humans and animals did it harm in the meanwhile?

I'm not arguing with that. It's exactly what I said originally. This bill limits the use of hounds to the point their use is useless. But technically, they could still be used.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Here's a perfect example of a good livestock owners.
There are many ways of keeping livestock safe.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,217537.0.html

If there is a problem you deal with it.
[/q

Here's a perfect example of a good livestock owners.
There are many ways of keeping livestock safe.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,217537.0.html

If there is a problem you deal with it.

How do you propose keeping pets and livestock safe from cougars?

Not everyone has the ability to kill a cougar.  Some don't have guns some can't have guns... Some don't want to kill the cat themselves.  The WDFW is the agency tasked with sort of work.  Taking their tools away is a bad idea.  Leave it to the professionals to manage wildlife