Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
WA Hound Hunting
EMPyre:
--- Quote ---"not able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between cougar population reductions and reduced human-cougar conflict."
--- End quote ---
Those cats in contact with humans likely aren't in hunting areas, thus the reduction may not be occurring in areas that would effect conflict.
--- Quote ---Indeed, states with the heaviest random removal of lions have had the highest incidence of attacks.
--- End quote ---
This statement proves nothing other than where cougar populations are dense and thus allow more hunting have more attacks. One would think it obvious that large populations living along side each other may have a greater chance of conflict.
--- Quote ---The Cougar Management Guidelines, pointed out that the random shooting of mountain lions by recreational hunters -- either by boot or hound hunt -- did not accomplish the goal of reducing conflicts between cougars and humans.
--- End quote ---
First off, he's quoting his own puplication here, look at the credentials at the end of the article. That's bad pool, quoting your previous statement of opinion (from a "green" org.) as a reputable "scientific" guideline does nothing to strengthen his stance. Secondly, again, likely due to the fact that hunting cannot occur in areas where cats will come in contact with people. I don't think many people hunt cougars inside the Suncadia complex, but you know what, there's a lot of cats in those neighborhoods.
--- Quote ---A recent study out of Washington State University revealed cougar populations in the Northwest are decreasing even as sightings are increasing. The reasons for this relate to the building of second homes in prime cougar habitat as well as to the lack of education on ways to safely manage potential conflicts.
--- End quote ---
Gee, ya think? I wonder if I built a home next to a river if there would be an increase in houses damaged by flood? Get real, again, nobody want people, and indeed it is unsafe, to be hunting cats in neighborhoods. But if you build a house in cat territory, well, you're probably going to see cats!
--- Quote ---Not only could the bill encourage a false sense of security, it will also drain state resources that should be spent on conflict resolution methods that actually work.
--- End quote ---
How will it drain state resources? Which resources specifically will be effected> You can't make blanket statements like this and expect it to go over well with people who listen, regardless of what side of the issue they are on.
WAcoyotehunter:
The flower sniffing do-gooders don't think like you do. That's the problem. They're spoon-fed BS like this from some feelgood "wildlife organization" and a bunch of pseudo scientists. The press eats it up and prints every word as gospel and a bunch of "wildlife defenders" base thier vote on it...It's very frustrating.
EMPyre:
you know I would argue that people in general will believe what you tell them. I think the term I've seen around here is 'sheeple'. However their a few issues that have an ingrained mentality toward them, and for most hunting is one of those, again regardless of which side you're one.
My point here is that I believe that we as a group (hunter's/sportsmen/insert outdoorsy adjective) could easily sway legislation in our favor. The problem is our approach. These other groups have an agenda 'to protect' wildlife, I believe fundamentally that too is our objective. The problem is as you pointed out, with the press. Or more specifically how we present our case to the press. I believe that we should not present our arguments as 'pro-hunting' but as 'pro-wildlife' or 'pro-conservation' much in the same manner as anti groups do.
If people are willing to be spoon fed their stance on issues that generally don't affect them, then I say feed away. Why don't we have an organization that promotes responsible wildlife management WITHOUT a stated objective of expanding hunting opportunity? Instead let's pile on the 'pseudo science' from our prospective, with fancy high-gloss brochures, and scare-tactic spin images of starving wildlife. Hell you could easily call it something like the 'wildlife-defense-club'. Now what tree-hugger yuppy with little time to research where their tax deductible donation is going would be concerned about pledging their support annually to that group?
WAcoyotehunter:
I'm in- lets get the glossy paper out and start writing down facts...as we see it.
I think you're right though. There are LOTS of reasons people hunt and they all have their own position about why they do it...meat, companionship, trophy, time alone...but we don't have a united group that says what we're all about...wildlife and wild places.
HUNTWA are you looking for another project? :chuckle: :chuckle:
TONTO:
That article is a bunch of crap.First off he keeps mentioning "(randomly) killing cougars with hounds",random killing is what we have now.By using hounds you can choose which cats to kill,by putting them in a tree you can then decide to kill that particular cat or not which insures more mature toms are killed,thus opening teritory so the young toms aren't forced out of the territory and wind up in town.Cougar are very territorial, a dominate tom will chase all younger toms off,yet without use of hounds the dominate tom will never be harvested,actualy hardly ever seen.As it stands now the vast majority of cats taken are young imature cats that either get shot by chance sightings or wander into town looking for their own territory.The only way to controll the cougar population is to harvest these mature dominate toms,and the only way to do that is by use of hounds.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version