Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: konradcountry on January 02, 2019, 08:00:51 PMQuote from: WA hunter14 on January 02, 2019, 05:45:34 PMAll 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.
Quote from: WA hunter14 on January 02, 2019, 05:45:34 PMAll 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.
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.
Quote from: Special T on January 03, 2019, 09:51:07 AMQuote from: konradcountry on January 02, 2019, 08:00:51 PMQuote from: WA hunter14 on January 02, 2019, 05:45:34 PMAll 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.These are strong arguments and I gotta be honest, its making me nod my head in agreement.
Quote from: KFhunter on January 03, 2019, 10:02:26 AMQuote from: Special T on January 03, 2019, 09:51:07 AMQuote from: konradcountry on January 02, 2019, 08:00:51 PMQuote from: WA hunter14 on January 02, 2019, 05:45:34 PMAll 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.These are strong arguments and I gotta be honest, its making me nod my head in agreement. If ranchers cannot get the kind of support they need then those in Urban areas should be on the same footing. Isnt that why Kretz has proposed transplanting wolves to Orcas Island and such? Most folks dont care because it doesnt effect them...Im not convinced this is a great strategy since all manner of cat hunting is illegal in this state. I wonder if this predator lawsuit will address any of this nonsense?