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

[ribka]

Good points cement finisher  and buck mania

[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

Exactly. 

The other thing being missed here is you don't just take a hound off the shelf and poof, it's trees whatever game is being targeted.  Hounds need practice.  There needs to be a pursuit season. Pursuit alone will have a conditioning effect on cougars.

In playing my role as the devils advocate I'll pose this question.  If the voters dont want hounds what is the best way for them to feel the natural consequences? As stated by others on here  most rural folks are ok with hounds and would/do feel the consequences instead of the deserving parties.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[hunter399]

 USDA APHIS has a lot of red tape to be in there bear programs ,I don't think they will take as many bears as needed.Here is a report from Oregon bear removal through  USDA APHIS ,I urge many of you to download and read for yourself.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/OR%2520Bear%2520FONSI.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj075WR6a7fAhUSJXwKHZa_AdMQFjACegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw32NNAIUXT6fovKtcn0ooUq

But a lot of red tape,and not very sympathetic with timber company's and bear damage.Will they help ,yes.Will they expect a lot of info on damage ,thinning of trees,yes.will they take the number of bears that hounds do ,no.
Anybody that's wants  USDA APHIS to snare bears ,you are in fact wanting taxpayers to pay for timber company's loses .Which I don't thinks sits well with a lot of people and don't see it lasting long.

[CementFinisher]

USDA APHIS has a lot of red tape to be in there bear programs ,I don't think they will take as many bears as needed.Here is a report from Oregon bear removal through  USDA APHIS ,I urge many of you to download and read for yourself.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/OR%2520Bear%2520FONSI.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj075WR6a7fAhUSJXwKHZa_AdMQFjACegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw32NNAIUXT6fovKtcn0ooUq

But a lot of red tape,and not very sympathetic with timber company's and bear damage.Will they help ,yes.Will they expect a lot of info on damage ,thinning of trees,yes.will they take the number of bears that hounds do ,no.
Anybody that's wants  USDA APHIS to snare bears ,you are in fact wanting taxpayers to pay for timber company's loses .Which I don't thinks sits well with a lot of people and don't see it lasting long.

it wont be paid for by tax dollars. look into whats being in Washington currently. lets not post to much info on a public forum. we don't need to hurt the snaring or hound programs. If antis want to find info make em earn it.

[CementFinisher]

I wouldn't think this house bill will get any traction. BBBuuuTTTTTT I could see it passing through in an initiative.

[KFhunter]

I wouldn't think this house bill will get any traction. BBBuuuTTTTTT I could see it passing through in an initiative.

All bets are off if it hits a ballot, I have zero confidence in the bulk of Washington's voters.

[hunter399]

USDA APHIS has a lot of red tape to be in there bear programs ,I don't think they will take as many bears as needed.Here is a report from Oregon bear removal through  USDA APHIS ,I urge many of you to download and read for yourself.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/OR%2520Bear%2520FONSI.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj075WR6a7fAhUSJXwKHZa_AdMQFjACegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw32NNAIUXT6fovKtcn0ooUq

But a lot of red tape,and not very sympathetic with timber company's and bear damage.Will they help ,yes.Will they expect a lot of info on damage ,thinning of trees,yes.will they take the number of bears that hounds do ,no.
Anybody that's wants  USDA APHIS to snare bears ,you are in fact wanting taxpayers to pay for timber company's loses .Which I don't thinks sits well with a lot of people and don't see it lasting long.

it wont be paid for by tax dollars. look into whats being in Washington currently. lets not post to much info on a public forum. we don't need to hurt the snaring or hound programs. If antis want to find info make em earn it.

USDA is department of agriculture ,when we as tax payers have to pay a Forrester to take damage assets of lots of different stands of timber.
I guess what bugs me the most is wdfw has harvest reports from sportsman in any gmu and can up spring permits and should of long time ago.
Just for the record I would love to have baiting and hounds back ,just not gonna happen.So the next best thing is more opportunities for the average Joe boot Hunter.

As for snares the first time some animal lovers take a pic of bear in a snare , or walk up and almost get attacked we can kiss that goodbye.

[konradcountry]

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...

Well the counter-argument is that the state isn't going to be motivated to change the law if they are allowed to skirt it. Rules for us but no them.

It would at least be amusing to see the state in some of these cases admit they are having a hard time catching a problem bear or cougar. Then the media can explain to the California transplants that they need to live in harmony with the cat eating cougar of Vashon. 

[hunter399]

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...

Well the counter-argument is that the state isn't going to be motivated to change the law if they are allowed to skirt it. Rules for us but no them.

It would at least be amusing to see the state in some of these cases admit they are having a hard time catching a problem bear or cougar. Then the media can explain to the California transplants that they need to live in harmony with the cat eating cougar of Vashon. 

I agree
Happens every year with road maintenance and first winter storms a fatal accident happen then the roads are sanded ,and total night and day .The roads are good within a hour.
It's a sad realty every winter.

[wolfbait]

I wouldn't think this house bill will get any traction. BBBuuuTTTTTT I could see it passing through in an initiative.

All bets are off if it hits a ballot, I have zero confidence in the bulk of Washington's voters.

X2

[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...

Well the counter-argument is that the state isn't going to be motivated to change the law if they are allowed to skirt it. Rules for us but no them.

It would at least be amusing to see the state in some of these cases admit they are having a hard time catching a problem bear or cougar. Then the media can explain to the California transplants that they need to live in harmony with the cat eating cougar of Vashon.

I don't know how long you've lived in Washington but if that's how you think it would play out in your mind, cool.  That's not how it will go down in real life, though.  It will just be another loss to the cuckoo crowd.

[konradcountry]

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...

Well the counter-argument is that the state isn't going to be motivated to change the law if they are allowed to skirt it. Rules for us but no them.

It would at least be amusing to see the state in some of these cases admit they are having a hard time catching a problem bear or cougar. Then the media can explain to the California transplants that they need to live in harmony with the cat eating cougar of Vashon.

I don't know how long you've lived in Washington but if that's how you think it would play out in your mind, cool.  That's not how it will go down in real life, though.  It will just be another loss to the cuckoo crowd.

Oh ok way to be insulting even though I pointed out what is simply a counter-argument so we don't jump on this mindlessly. 

Yes that is exactly how it *could* play out especially since this already happened in other states.

There have already been cases on the East coast where liberals banned certain types of hunting until they saw the results of overpopulation. That has happened with both bears and deers.

It could easily work to our favor for liberals to run to the state for help over problem cougars and only to be told that the laws liberals have passed prevent them from doing anything effective. Would be hilarious.

[WA hunter14]

All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.

[konradcountry]

All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.

Agreed.

Consider the scenario where an urban area has too many cougars. So the state comes in with hounds and provides a public service by removing them. Well doesn't that mean that previous hunters were providing the same service?

I don't like the implication that the state only does it because it has to and that makes it acceptable. Well they wouldn't have to if they allowed hound hunting in the first place.

So I don't see a loss if this bill passes. Why shouldn't the state have to play by the same rules as the rest of us? And if it passes the anti-hunting Seattle media will have to explain how this anti-hunting Democrat didn't understand what she was doing.

But I doubt it will get the votes so I wouldn't get worked up either way. Most rural Democrats will probably vote against it.

[Special T]

All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.

Agreed.

Consider the scenario where an urban area has too many cougars. So the state comes in with hounds and provides a public service by removing them. Well doesn't that mean that previous hunters were providing the same service?

I don't like the implication that the state only does it because it has to and that makes it acceptable. Well they wouldn't have to if they allowed hound hunting in the first place.

So I don't see a loss if this bill passes. Why shouldn't the state have to play by the same rules as the rest of us? And if it passes the anti-hunting Seattle media will have to explain how this anti-hunting Democrat didn't understand what she was doing.

But I doubt it will get the votes so I wouldn't get worked up either way. Most rural Democrats will probably vote against it.

I cant quoat the article but i read that California takes as many cats with hounds as they used to... So cats being killed are ok just not sportsmen doingit.