WA Hound Hunting

[WAcoyotehunter]

Here's a list of reps that voted against the extension of the hound hunting pilot program.  Please, if your rep is on here, and you agree with the pilot program, send them an email and let them know!

Representatives Appleton, Cody, Dunshee, Goodman, Green, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Kagi, Lantz, Liias, Loomis, McCoy, McIntire, Miloscia, Morrell, Morris, Nelson, Pedersen, Quall, Roberts, Rolfes, Santos, Schual-Berke, Seaquist, Simpson, Sommers, Sullivan, and Upthegrove

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Here's the type of emotion based 'scientists' we're up against.  The problem is that people actually believe they're doing a good thing protecting the 'rare' cats from all the cruel hunters.  They just don't know. 

from the Seattle Post Intelligencer
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ion27.html

Protect, don't shoot, Northwest cougars
By JON NAIMON
GUEST COLUMNIST

Washington voters, recognizing the importance of cougars to Northwest ecosystems, have twice banned the use of dogs for recreational hunting.

Regardless, in 2004, the Washington Legislature approved a controversial three-year pilot project in five counties to kill cougars with the aid of dogs. House Bill 2438 now proposes to extend this "pilot" project for three more years and allow other counties to opt in.

Pilot projects are trials or experiments for testing an idea prior to investing in a full-blown operation. This pilot project has not delivered any improvements in public safety and runs counter to a significant body of scientific evidence.

The Department of Wildlife, ignoring the science, claimed that the pilot project's shooting of cougars -- whether or not they had ever been involved in a conflict -- would somehow make people safer.

However, even the department's published results from the pilot project conclude they were "not able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between cougar population reductions and reduced human-cougar conflict." Perhaps the department was aware that the public does not support recreational hunting and felt a need to disguise the nature of the hunt along the lines of "scientific" whaling.

This issue takes on urgency because HB2438 is poised for consideration in the Senate. The Legislature should reject this thinly disguised sport hunting measure and ensure any new effort to encourage random killing of cougars is defeated.

In fact, there is a growing concern that this bill's idea of "recreationally" (randomly) killing cougars with hounds may actually increase conflicts between mountain lions and human interests. Indeed, states with the heaviest random removal of lions have had the highest incidence of attacks.

In 2005, a group of the most senior cougar researchers in the world created a wildlife management strategy document designed to capture what is known about cougars. 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.

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.

Mountain lions are an integral part of the Northwest ecology, and efforts to extirpate lions in the interest of public safety have a checkered past that is testament to the creativity of recreational hunters more than a deep concern for public welfare.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the proposed pilot project is that it can cause people to believe that randomly shooting cougars -- whether or not they have caused a conflict -- will in some way reduce the number of conflicts between humans and cougars. 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.

State resources should instead be used to establish baseline cougar population metrics necessary to perform their keystone role in the Northwest's ecosystems we know and love. Wildlife habitat and linkages should be mapped and then protected.

Jon Naimon is the founder and president of Light Green Advisors, an environmental investment firm in Seattle. He is treasurer of the Mountain Lion Foundation. Information on the Living with Lions program, including the Cougar Management Guidelines, is available at mountainlion.org

[WAcoyotehunter]

 The problem with the flower sniffing do gooders in Seattle is that they really want to help the wildlife. They get spoonfed a bunch of lies from a phoney organization like the "Mountain Lion Foundation" and they BELIEVE that they're helping the rare cats here.
They just don't know that there are lions everywhere and they don't need to be protected.

We need people that can articulate a reasonable response and not sound like a slack jawed redneck. We also need to understand that they are willing to kill all the animals from starvation, disease, and predation before they allow them to be taken by a hunter. It's illogical and wasteful, but they make decisions based on emotion, not logic or science.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE write your reps and let them know what you think. I live in NE Washington and have a pretty good bunch of reps, but they still hear from me EVERY time something that might effect my rights comes up.

[sisu]

YaaaHooo none of my reps from the 7th Legislative District came up on the list but then I did not think they would.

BTW WAcoyotehunter, I've seen wildlife biologists that hunt and fish recommend seasons, populations that need to be thinned, populations that need to be left alone etc. get crap because they don't sound the way a particular group wants them to sound even though they are using scientific data.

[Ray]

We need people that can articulate a reasonable response and not sound like a slack jawed redneck.

The best thing to do is have that someone craft the message as a template and then users can decide to either use it or not and even type in their own remarks.

[EMPyre]

"not able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between cougar population reductions and reduced human-cougar conflict."

   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.

Indeed, states with the heaviest random removal of lions have had the highest incidence of attacks.

    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.

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.

     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.

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.

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!

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.

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?   

[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.

[ICEMAN]

....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.

BS. Tonto, think about what you just wrote. "The only way....blah blah blah..."   Anytime anyone says that there is only one way to do something, I roll my eyes back in my head and turn my ears off. Apparently you think that the only way to control the cougar population is with hound hunters killing off dominant males. This is what you think. I am sure there are other ways of controlling the population. If this is the ONLY way, why dont you go tell the game commission so they better understand the issue.

[billythekidrock]

....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.

BS. Tonto, think about what you just wrote. "The only way....blah blah blah..."   Anytime anyone says that there is only one way to do something, I roll my eyes back in my head and turn my ears off. Apparently you think that the only way to control the cougar population is with hound hunters killing off dominant males. This is what you think. I am sure there are other ways of controlling the population. If this is the ONLY way, why dont you go tell the game commission so they better understand the issue.

I agree Ice.
Not only that but if you want the population under control you need to control the breeders. If you kill a big tom with a large territory you have the potential for the territory to be divided and controlled by two toms in affect doubling the the amount of damage potential.

[Cougeyes]

I read in an article that the harvest statistics flip-flopped since the ban, used to be 60% male harvest and 40% female, now its flipped 60% female, so with the increase in female harvests it could potentially cause a decline in cougar numbers if this hunting regime continues (i.e. boot hunting and 50,000 cougar tags sold).  I hope they change something soon, not that the cougar population is going to crash, but I would like to either see hound hunting come back or some state wide quota established based on zones, i mentioned this early. 

[bearsnack]

Tonto I have read the same thing your saying about the big toms before, I think they did a study in Montana, not sure though. Ice man If there was a better way to control the lion population than hounds I think someone would have came up with it by now. Obviously boot hunters can't do the job!

[billythekidrock]

I hear they are going to make AHE, oops Master Hunter certification mandatory for hound hunters?