Question on the History of Dog Running Becoming Illegal

[UplandSetter]

I'm a pretty new WA resident, been stationed here a little over two years. I grew up in the south and lived all around the south, where running dogs on bear, yotes, even deer is legal and valued from a cultural perspective.

When I first got here I heard and still hear a lot about running dogs being made illegal by recreational hunters back in the 90's. With all the politics going on with predator hunting currently, I wanted to ask if someone could give me a brief history on how running dogs became illegal. I've tried searching the forum and picked up tidbits here and there, as it sounds like it was driven mainly by King county residents (sounds familiar).

I know a lot of people on here think the same as I do, that running dogs on lions is a great way to manage the resource and is in no way, shape, or form inhumane. It's a cultural practice that is effective and valued in many other parts of the country, so it's clear to me that it was an emotional decision. I wanted to ask if someone had a good explanation of the history, i.e. what group or person led the movement against running dogs, how it happened politically (was it a commission decision?), and (this is a dangerous question) what could have been done in hindsight to fight it.

I don't intend for this thread to becoming a venting of frustration about the fact that it was made illegal. I would imagine we're all already on the same page that it was a violation of WA sportsmen's rights and culture. After all, that's the way I feel and I can't even imagine how somebody who has lived here their whole life feels. Thanks in advance.

[MADMAX]

Initiative 655
Mid 90s
Ridiculous


https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/13/passage-of-initiative-655-leaves-hunters-up-a-tree/

[passman65]

Short trip to Idaho, they are much more reasonable

[Special T]

Initiative 655 made hound hunting illegal for the 1996 season . Sportsmen did t stand with houndsmen because the Antis were smart and attacked the small numbers of hunters.  Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation was formed shortly after. It's a collection of Sportsmen groups to advocate for science based management and for groups to protect each other. Animal rights activists are loud in this state and use it as a testing grou d to attack other states hunting and trapping rights. We recently lost our boots only spring bear and its activated a lot of Sportsmen to defend what we still have. Skagit county just east of you had a long history of hound hunting. It was hard to see a Toyota without a dog box.

[UplandSetter]

I appreciate the link to the article. Pretty messed up, to say the least. So from what I'm reading, it was an actual legal initiative (referendum) sent to the public to vote on? In other words, the masses got to decide the fate of legal methods of wildlife management? I just want to make sure I have my facts straight -- the general public voted on this?

Very sad to hear about Skagit county. I love Skagit, I spend as much time there as I can. My friends who have lived there for decades always say the same thing: you should've seen it 50 years ago.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Yes, Washington has a Voter Initiative procedure, that with enough signatures gathered prior, allowed the anti's to put it on the ballot, then was voted on in the general election, and was voted to stop by about a 2/3 majority if memory serves me. 

As for spring bear, that was done away with by the Wildlife Commission on their own.

[ducks4days]

I appreciate the link to the article. Pretty messed up, to say the least. So from what I'm reading, it was an actual legal initiative (referendum) sent to the public to vote on? In other words, the masses got to decide the fate of legal methods of wildlife management? I just want to make sure I have my facts straight -- the general public voted on this?

Very sad to hear about Skagit county. I love Skagit, I spend as much time there as I can. My friends who have lived there for decades always say the same thing: you should've seen it 50 years ago.

A referendum is a poll taken which mandates lawmakers make laws. Initiatives are laws directly voted on by registered voters in the state.

WA has a history of pushing controversial and complicated issues through by initiative, where the complex rules haven’t been debated and negotiated into consensus. It’s a trick to push through crap laws by pure majority based on the feelings of the uninformed.

[GWP]

This.
One of the first of a number of backdoor, underhanded ways the state is using to stop hunting.
Like one politician said, "All the votes you need can be seen from the top of The Space Needle".
So one big bunch of 'city folk', that know little about outdoor matters, get to decide them for the entire State.
While I never hound hunted, I supported them, and lost a lot of faith in those in charge to 'do the right thing'.
The rest of the State does not operate or think like King County. Nor should it.
Some person sitting in a Condo that has never been in the woods, and thinks their food 'mysteriously' appears cut and wrapped, should not be making judgements on the other.
It still pisses me off. And continues to do so watching the actions going on now by those that control hunting and fishing rules.
Aaaaaaaarrrrrrggg!
Rant over.

[boneaddict]

Play a couple video clips over and over again of a video that should never have been taken let alone put on the internet or released and there ya have it.  King county votes and the rest of us can deal with it.   

[buckfvr]

Having hunted over hounds (west side) in the mid 70s and a few times in the 80s (family with hounds), and having baited bear on the west side into the early 90s, Id have to say hound hunting today would be extremely regulated and restricted even if legal based on what we saw in the woods from hwy 2 to Chinook pass during bear season, in the end of hounds being legal.

I have friends in Idaho who live in the legal hound units and even though they are bear hunters/past houndsmen, they dont have much good to say about the Idaho hound hunts.  When you have fond memories of the "REAL" good ol days, today isnt likely to float your boat.

[ducks4days]

Having hunted over hounds (west side) in the mid 70s and a few times in the 80s (family with hounds), and having baited bear on the west side into the early 90s, Id have to say hound hunting today would be extremely regulated and restricted even if legal based on what we saw in the woods from hwy 2 to Chinook pass during bear season, in the end of hounds being legal.

I have friends in Idaho who live in the legal hound units and even though they are bear hunters/past houndsmen, they dont have much good to say about the Idaho hound hunts.  When you have fond memories of the "REAL" good ol days, today isnt likely to float your boat.

While this is good context, I will always land on the side of self-regulation to improve an activity over banning. Houndsmen with pride in what they do should be refusing to associate with people who give them a bad name. Calling them out and publicly embarrassing them for it, expanding options for education and teaching newcomers how to hound hunt responsibly has never been easier since the invention of the internet.

[buckfvr]

For as wonderful as all that sounds, I believe it's extremely unlikely to happen in this state.

[boneaddict]

Every time I self regulate on here, I get the WE GOTTA STCIK TOGETHER, we are our own enemy.   I do understand that can go both ways. LOL   

I'm trying to decide how much the wolf agenda had to do with the banning of hounds

[300rum]

The ads on T.V. were particularity bad and they ran them over and over and over again.  Remember, it was pre-internet days and people actually watched the networks and radio and they just flooded it with terrible adds and other "hunters" who supported the bans.  They must have been very well funded and I don't remember the fight to counter it being all that organized.  They were better at it then we were. 

Play a couple video clips over and over again of a video that should never have been taken let alone put on the internet or released and there ya have it.  King county votes and the rest of us can deal with it.

[BigGoonTuna]

I was a kid then, but I remember seeing well produced ads from the anti hunters on local tv.  The only dissent I saw on tv was of an uncomfortable looking female WDFW biologist making a case against 655. It looked like it was put together on a vhs camcorder for public access tv.

Our citizen initiative process in this state has been hijacked by deep pocketed special interest groups(like bloombergs gun banning group) using paid petitioners to gather signatures to push bad laws like I594.  Imho the process should be reserved only for true grassroots politics and having petitioners on a political party or lobbying group’s payroll should be outlawed.

[RB]

The newspaper editorials were awful as well. Fourteen Karen's spewing hate and emotional bias about the subject, and two "hunters" that sounded awful to "balance" the argument. My local paper at the time, the Everett Herald, had very poor representation of the subject for the hunters. 

[hunter399]

I was also a teenager at the time.
Unable to vote yet.
Remember my parents voted for it. We didn't get to bait bears anymore. Id have to ask my dad. But I don't ever remember him buying a bear tag since. That's how my dad is,piss down his back , you'll never see a dime from him.

My dad ran 5-10 bait sites a year.
There are spots on public land where his tree stands are still there.
Except they are like 30 feet up instead of 15.

[Britt-dog]

The antis were very well funded and organized. We looked and sounded very much like the backwards hicks they made us out to be. Based on the numbers we never had a chance.

That said I would bet a majority of “hunters” supported the ban or were quiet/neutral. The worst arguments I had over the whole thing were with other hunters. It was very disappointing in that regard.

[highcountry_hunter]

The antis were very well funded and organized. We looked and sounded very much like the backwards hicks they made us out to be. Based on the numbers we never had a chance.

That said I would bet a majority of “hunters” supported the ban or were quiet/neutral. The worst arguments I had over the whole thing were with other hunters. It was very disappointing in that regard.

Why do you think other hunters were also in support of the ban? Think the anti’s were able to persuade them or do you think they just legitimately thought it was unfair chase? I was 7 at the time so I don’t really remember the ads on tv or radio.

It would be interesting to hear from one of these “hunters” who voted in favor of the ban and see if they would still vote the same way if they could go back in time and vote again. This however is extremely unlikely. For whatever reason, it’s like a cardinal sin to admit you may have made a mistake in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bullkllr]

The antis were very well funded and organized. We looked and sounded very much like the backwards hicks they made us out to be. Based on the numbers we never had a chance.

That said I would bet a majority of “hunters” supported the ban or were quiet/neutral. The worst arguments I had over the whole thing were with other hunters. It was very disappointing in that regard.

This is what I remember most. The argument was often, "well I don't hound hunt". Some actually leaned into the potential negatives of using hounds (and baiting). It was very disappointing to see hunters and fishermen not step up in support. I would add it was very short-sighted when you see what we have now. It may have passed anyway, but it was sad to see.

[Cougartail]

Comments out of hunters about trapping and legholds made me want to puke. Some were as ignorant as those coming out of the PETA crazies.

Remember, when they are done with one type of hunting your type is next.

[snit]

Comments out of hunters about trapping and legholds made me want to puke. Some were as ignorant as those coming out of the PETA crazies.

Remember, when they are done with one type of hunting your type is next.

THIS! "They" just won't stop until "they" win...same as the "assault weapon" anti's