Klickitat Sheriff Swears in Hound Hunters to pursue Cougars & Bears

[WAcoyotehunter]

It's not population management.  The sheriff will have to make an argument that they are protecting public safety

[pianoman9701]

Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.   

I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature. 

While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife.  Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle.     

Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.

[idahohuntr]

Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.   

I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature. 

While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife.  Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle.     

Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.

Yes, if its a very legitimate and specific threat to public safety.  No, if it is a facade for killing cougars to reduce overall numbers or "potential" conflicts.

I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources.   

[buckfvr]

I support regional wildlife management and believe that is the only solution to addressing the needs of our vastly different regions, geographically and demographically. 

Dictatorial management from a central political position just doesnt meet the needs of our wildlife.

[buckfvr]

 "I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources." 
[/quote]

This is exactly what you have in Wa.........a politician over managing wdfw currying favors from his constituency, AND it is definitely at the expense of our wildlife and has been for quite some years now,. Not possibly, ABSOLUTELY.

[Special T]

Lets point out a few facts. The WDFW doesn't have any hounds. They have to find houndmen to come and assist with the tracking. There have been many cases where none can be found for a long period of time and the track/sent becomes too old, or too many other cats have crossed the path to determine which was the culprit.  There may not be an agent available to get right on a report. The law states the sherrif can intervene if he follows the rules.

The only argument against this that the liberal legislature may repeal the law that allows this activity.

IMO even if this were to happen this means there will be more immediate documentation of cougars depredation on citizens property, and safety concerns. We are constantly told "Document, Document, Document." The sheriff taking this up reduces the amount of wiggle room on denying the actual impact Cats have in this state. Hopefully they will keep as much documentation as possible to protect this tool.

[Bango skank]

The only argument against this that the liberal legislature may repeal the law that allows this activity.

And its a stupid argument.  Saying we shouldnt do a thing, because if we do they might make it illegal.  Well then what good is it doing us to have it legal if we are afraid to do it? Whats the point?

[pianoman9701]

Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.   

I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature. 

While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife.  Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle.     

Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.

Yes, if its a very legitimate and specific threat to public safety.  No, if it is a facade for killing cougars to reduce overall numbers or "potential" conflicts.

I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources.   

Sheriffs departments don't have unlimited budgets. They also need to respond to safety concerns. I would find it hard to believe that a sheriff is going to spend money he doesn't have on houndsmen to respond to something not a threat to public safety. I wouldn't, however, find it hard to believe that with their also limited resources, the WDFW takes too long to respond to individual occurrences, keeping peoples' lives and resources at risk until they do something. "I saw the cougar attack my cow." "We'll have to analyze the cow for a cougar attack." "How long will that take?" "Probably a week or so." "But I saw it." "Procedure."

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

 

[KFhunter]

Lets also not forget wolves are still expanding and going to get worse, this helps set a precedent in handling dangerous wildlife at the county level to eventually deal with wolves.

Next up after wolves is the grizz. By the time the 200 grizz gets dumped and starts marauding about the countryside the sheriff has some experience and court decisions under their belts to use dealing with them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[idahohuntr]

Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.   

I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature. 

While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife.  Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle.     

Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.

Yes, if its a very legitimate and specific threat to public safety.  No, if it is a facade for killing cougars to reduce overall numbers or "potential" conflicts.

I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources.   

Sheriffs departments don't have unlimited budgets. They also need to respond to safety concerns. I would find it hard to believe that a sheriff is going to spend money he doesn't have on houndsmen to respond to something not a threat to public safety. I wouldn't, however, find it hard to believe that with their also limited resources, the WDFW takes too long to respond to individual occurrences, keeping peoples' lives and resources at risk until they do something. "I saw the cougar attack my cow." "We'll have to analyze the cow for a cougar attack." "How long will that take?" "Probably a week or so." "But I saw it." "Procedure."

I don't disagree.  My overarching point is I'm very wary of giving county elected officials much discretion on wildlife management issues.  Very narrow authority to strictly address immediate public safety issues...fine.  Any hint of abuse of that discretion and I'd be immediately in favor of revising the law. 

[grundy53]

Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.   

I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature. 

While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife.  Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle.     

Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.

Yes, if its a very legitimate and specific threat to public safety.  No, if it is a facade for killing cougars to reduce overall numbers or "potential" conflicts.

I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources.   

Yeah,  cause the WDFW does such a bang up job of it. They are part of the reason we are in this mess.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[grundy53]

The only argument against this that the liberal legislature may repeal the law that allows this activity.

And its a stupid argument.  Saying we shouldnt do a thing, because if we do they might make it illegal.  Well then what good is it doing us to have it legal if we are afraid to do it? Whats the point?

Exactly. If you don't use it what's the difference.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ctwiggs1]

The only argument against this that the liberal legislature may repeal the law that allows this activity.

And its a stupid argument.  Saying we shouldnt do a thing, because if we do they might make it illegal.  Well then what good is it doing us to have it legal if we are afraid to do it? Whats the point?

Bango for the win

If you don’t like it, contact your legislator.  Wouldn’t take long to outlaw in this state.

[dilleytech]

What is the difference with this then what they allready do? The game department has been treeing and killing cougars constantly around Klickitat for years it seems.