Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 10:34:09 PM
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1.
(1)(a) The department, in cooperation and collaboration with the county legislative authorities of Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Chelan, Okanogan, and Klickitat counties, shall recommend rules to establish a five-year pilot program within select game management units of these counties, to pursue or kill cougars with the aid of dogs.
(b) Dangerous wildlife task teams must be developed in each county comprised of representatives from the county and the department. A pursuit season and a kill season with the aid of dogs must be established through the commission's rule-making process, utilizing local dangerous wildlife task teams. The dangerous wildlife task teams shall also develop a more effective and accurate dangerous wildlife reporting system to ensure a timely response.
(c) The pilot program's primary goals are to provide for public safety, to protect property, and to assess, conserve, and manage cougar populations.
(2) Rules adopted by the commission to establish a pilot project allowing for the pursuit or hunting of cougars with the aid of dogs under this section must ensure that all pursuits or hunts are:
(a) Designed to protect public safety or property;
(b) Reflective of the most current cougar population data;
(c) Designed to generate data that is necessary for the department to satisfy the reporting requirements of section 3 of this act; and
(d) Consistent with any applicable recommendations emerging from research on cougar population dynamics in a multiprey environment funded in whole or in part by the department.
(3) The department may authorize five seasons in which cougars may be pursued or killed with dogs, subject to the other conditions of the pilot program. The seasons are authorized to aid the department in the gathering of information necessary to formulate a recommendation to the legislature regarding whether a permanent program is warranted and, if so, what constraints, goals, and objectives should be included in a permanent program.
(4) This section expires July 1, 2019.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2.
(1) A county legislative authority may request inclusion in the pilot project authorized by section 1 of this act after taking the following actions:
(a) Adopting a resolution that requests inclusion in the pilot project;
(b) Documenting the need to participate in the pilot program by identifying the number of cougar/human encounters and livestock and pet depredations;
(c) Developing and agreeing to the implementation of an education program designed to disseminate to landowners and other citizens information about predator exclusion techniques and devices and other nonlethal methods of cougar management; and
(d) Demonstrating that existing cougar depredation permits, public safety cougar hunts, or other existing wildlife management tools have not been sufficient to deal with cougar incidents in the county.
(2) This section expires July 1, 2019.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) By September 1, 2018, the department must deliver to the legislature, consistent with RCW 43.01.036, a progress report summarizing the pilot program authorized in section 1 of this act. The report must include information relating to how the program has been used to assess cougar population levels and protect public safety and property. The report may also include any recommendations as to how cougar management policies may be changed in the future to achieve more effective or efficient management.
(2) This section expires July 1, 2019.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6287&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6287&year=2013)
Post by: aer212 on January 20, 2014, 06:53:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 07:11:30 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on January 20, 2014, 07:26:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 08:20:59 AM
I hope they only allow permits for houndsman this time, else the guides will eventually get it shut down again and the actual guys with dogs still won't be able to hunt :twocents:
Since you are not a guide I can understand your thoughts, after all you simply want to run your dogs. However, what about the guy who buys licenses every year and is a continual supporter of wildlife in this state but doesn't own hounds, someone who simply wants a chance to go cougar hound hunting?
I think the end desire should be to control the cougar population and reduce problems. While accomplishing this goal I think every hunter in the state should get a chance to participate, perhaps an applicant should be required to know someone with hounds or hire a guide, but either way hounds will get a chance to be hunted. I actually wouldn't care if it was illegal to pay a guide, but I still think any hunter should be able to apply, provided he has a hound hunter willing to participate in the hunt.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 20, 2014, 08:50:02 AM
I'm all for it because it might, maybe, possibly turn into bringing back hound hunting.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 20, 2014, 08:55:52 AM
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 11:26:12 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 20, 2014, 07:55:46 PM
Post by: snowpack on January 20, 2014, 08:06:26 PM
I think the pilot program has always been for those who own hounds ...you had to get an affidavit signed from a vet stating the dogs were your dogs if you were the one shooting the cat ....you could still have your friends participate in the chase but only the permit holder could do the shooting ....some correct me if I am wrong ...The last one they had was a drawing for a special permit. You just had to apply hounds or not. I was talking to one of the guys on the peninsula that said that one year the permit went to one lady that it was her first draw app for hunting and she didn't even have dogs yet. The winners are on standby and if a cougar causes a problem, WDFW calls the permit winner to come chase the cat.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 20, 2014, 08:32:48 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on January 20, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 21, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
Got Cougars chriping outside the bedroom window while back, every 3-4 weeks they come down and check things out. I can't even hunt them now :bash:
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2014, 10:16:11 AM
+1, if hound owners simply want to "run their hounds" than offer them up to those that draw, win/win for all involved.I hope they only allow permits for houndsman this time, else the guides will eventually get it shut down again and the actual guys with dogs still won't be able to hunt :twocents:
Since you are not a guide I can understand your thoughts, after all you simply want to run your dogs. However, what about the guy who buys licenses every year and is a continual supporter of wildlife in this state but doesn't own hounds, someone who simply wants a chance to go cougar hound hunting?
I think the end desire should be to control the cougar population and reduce problems. While accomplishing this goal I think every hunter in the state should get a chance to participate, perhaps an applicant should be required to know someone with hounds or hire a guide, but either way hounds will get a chance to be hunted. I actually wouldn't care if it was illegal to pay a guide, but I still think any hunter should be able to apply, provided he has a hound hunter willing to participate in the hunt.
Post by: Houndhunter on January 22, 2014, 07:54:35 AM
I struggled my entire life in WA trying to own dogs that can catch game, the only thing guys got our coons. With that pilot program a guy could justify owning hounds, tree a half dozen coons and a handful of lion in a year and it was still worth it for guys with a passion for hounds. But when the public was allowed to draw the permits, me and my family with hounds never drew another permit. When the pilot program changed houndsman got screwed. Unless you worked with the wdfw, in with the logging companies, or born with privileged hunting rights than you really couldn't hunt hounds.
The biggest thing here is that if this is a public sport hunt, should the bill pass, than it will get shut down just like last time. If we want this to happen it needs to be a public safety hunt, keep it low key and to hound owners only. If guys without dogs want to join in on the fun than find a houndsman and ask to go along. Or maybe put in the hours upon hours of work and get your own hounds if you want. To say "offer up your hounds" is a joke and clearly you've never owned hounds.
Honestly this bill doesn't even apply to me anymore as im not a WA resident and living in a place where one can run lion all winter. However for the hound hunters back home, this bill is for them. This isn't a free for all hunt, its a public safety issue. I honestly would not let a one and done hunter kill a lion under my hounds, because he doesn't deserve it. Infact every guy I know with dogs will not let just anyone kill a decent tom under there dogs for the same reason. You want a lion under dogs, than go get some hounds and earn it. :twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on January 22, 2014, 08:13:17 AM
I hope they only allow permits for houndsman this time, else the guides will eventually get it shut down again and the actual guys with dogs still won't be able to hunt :twocents:
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2014, 12:18:23 PM
Ok i'll bite, if I remember right didn't you huntnphool draw a tag? How many times did you go out?I did draw a tag a few years ago but did not get a chance to hunt.
Post by: MooseZ25 on January 22, 2014, 12:35:38 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2014, 12:38:14 PM
In 2010 I drew a tag. I never killed a cat that year. I did however help six other guys fill their tags, four of which never owned a hound. All six were mature tom cats. I never received a cent from any of the hunters for helping them fill their tags. I will say this though, whatever we can do to help reduce the predator populations guided or not we need to make it happen. I ended up catching 23 cougars that winter with my hounds. Only killing six did not make a dent in the population.:tup:
Post by: bearbaito6 on January 22, 2014, 07:45:09 PM
Post by: threedwizard on January 22, 2014, 07:53:20 PM
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on January 22, 2014, 07:55:37 PM
Post by: bugs n bones on January 22, 2014, 08:03:54 PM
I hope they only allow permits for houndsman this time, else the guides will eventually get it shut down again and the actual guys with dogs still won't be able to hunt :twocents:Well said dale
Since you are not a guide I can understand your thoughts, after all you simply want to run your dogs. However, what about the guy who buys licenses every year and is a continual supporter of wildlife in this state but doesn't own hounds, someone who simply wants a chance to go cougar hound hunting?
I think the end desire should be to control the cougar population and reduce problems. While accomplishing this goal I think every hunter in the state should get a chance to participate, perhaps an applicant should be required to know someone with hounds or hire a guide, but either way hounds will get a chance to be hunted. I actually wouldn't care if it was illegal to pay a guide, but I still think any hunter should be able to apply, provided he has a hound hunter willing to participate in the hunt.
Post by: rasbo on January 22, 2014, 08:13:17 PM
I think the end desire should be to control the cougar population and reduce problems. While accomplishing this goal I think every hunter in the state should get a chance to participate, perhaps an applicant should be required to know someone with hounds or hire a guide, but either way hounds will get a chance to be hunted. I actually wouldn't care if it was illegal to pay a guide, but I still think any hunter should be able to apply, provided he has a hound hunter willing to participate in the hunt.
I agree with Dale,I put in before and had houndsmen lined up in case I got drawn,lets not pit one against the other in any
way or we lose in the longrun
Post by: bearbaito6 on January 22, 2014, 08:16:49 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on January 22, 2014, 08:35:53 PM
Guiding and public app's shut down the pilot program, remember that....... I guess its hard to explain to guys who don't know the situation.
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on January 22, 2014, 09:05:25 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on January 22, 2014, 09:13:40 PM
How does fish and game prove who's a houndsmen and who's not?
bringing a dog into a vet sure helps :twocents:
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on January 22, 2014, 09:18:12 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2014, 10:32:18 PM
Guiding put this program in a bad light
Care to explain?
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2014, 06:12:49 AM
Guiding put this program in a bad light
Care to explain?
I helped several Washington residents fill cougar tags. My fee was about half what I charge in Idaho. Anti-hunting groups like Conservation Northwest used guides as a reason to oppose the original program when it came up for renewal in the House Natural Resources committee. Representative Hans Dunshee was the primary opposition and he used my business as an example.
Like I said, add language prohibiting payments to guides if needed to pass the bill, that eliminates guiding and that eliminates Dunshee's argument, but don't eliminate the possibility for the average hunter to apply because that also eliminates a lot of support for the bill. We need support from all hunters to help get this passed.
I think any hunter should have an opportunity to apply to hunt with hounds if it's legal for any other hunter to apply to hunt with hounds. What's important is to get the bill passed, adding language eliminating payment for guiding services eliminates the guiding argument.
Post by: MooseZ25 on January 23, 2014, 06:38:09 AM
Post by: threedwizard on January 23, 2014, 06:47:10 AM
Well put, there's plenty of guys down here with dogs I won't hire to chase cats. Thank you Dale for your input too.
Post by: jackmaster on January 23, 2014, 07:00:53 AM
:yeah: BEARPAW, they should put you in charge of this, your a guide and a regular joe, i really like your ideas :tup:Guiding put this program in a bad light
Care to explain?
I helped several Washington residents fill cougar tags. My fee was about half what I charge in Idaho. Anti-hunting groups like Conservation Northwest used guides as a reason to oppose the original program when it came up for renewal in the House Natural Resources committee. Representative Hans Dunshee was the primary opposition and he used my business as an example.
Like I said, add language prohibiting payments to guides if needed to pass the bill, that eliminates guiding and that eliminates Dunshee's argument, but don't eliminate the possibility for the average hunter to apply because that also eliminates a lot of support for the bill. We need support from all hunters to help get this passed.
I think any hunter should have an opportunity to apply to hunt with hounds if it's legal for any other hunter to apply to hunt with hounds. What's important is to get the bill passed, adding language eliminating payment for guiding services eliminates the guiding argument.
Post by: jackmaster on January 23, 2014, 07:02:07 AM
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on January 23, 2014, 07:52:08 AM
Just because you own a hound dog does not mean you can catch a cougar. In the past my local vets wanted nothing to do with signing an affidavit stated I owned a dog capable of trailing baying treeing a cougar. If you haven't owned and trained hounds before it would be a lot better experience going with a guide or someone who has trained hounds. Like stated above this will not bring back hound hunting. So if you want to train dogs you still will need to go to another state. I appreciate Dale's support on helping this bill to go through.
im not sure if the first part of that was directed at me or not, but what im saying is one of the reasons for a general draw would be the state cannot 100% regulate who for sure has hounds capable of running lions.
Post by: MooseZ25 on January 23, 2014, 09:28:54 AM
It was not directed at you. Just making a point that not all dogs are created equal. I agree we do need to make sure that any permits given are in the hands of hunters that want to harvest a cougar. I have heard that even anti hunters put in for these just so a hunter won't get a chance to harvest.
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2014, 10:33:01 AM
I have heard that even anti hunters put in for these just so a hunter won't get a chance to harvest.
:yeah: that's what I've heard too...
Post by: KFhunter on January 23, 2014, 11:07:39 AM
We rent out trained dogs by the day or by the week.
Don't mess around trying to keep and train your own dogs when our dogs are fully trained and ready to go.
Each dog will have a GPS collar on that will indicate to you when a dog is bayed up, simply follow your GPS to your tree'd cougar!
Hey what you think about my new business? :chuckle: (it's a joke btw)
Post by: jackmaster on January 23, 2014, 12:10:31 PM
KFhunter kennels is now offering fully trained Mt Lion and bear dogs!:chuckle: :chuckle: good one, i sure hope this happens, i would love to hunt behind hounds again, i wouldnt go out and get dogs again, it took alot of time and money to get them trained up just right and broke of trash, and honestly it was so depressing when i my dad had to have buck put down when i left for the service, he just got to old, i dont want to ever go through that again, you guys that still have good cat dogs, my hats off to you, it aint easy and it aint cheap :tup:
We rent out trained dogs by the day or by the week.
Don't mess around trying to keep and train your own dogs when our dogs are fully trained and ready to go.
Each dog will have a GPS collar on that will indicate to you when a dog is bayed up, simply follow your GPS to your tree'd cougar!
Hey what you think about my new business? :chuckle: (it's a joke btw)
Post by: huntnphool on January 23, 2014, 12:15:36 PM
Agree 100% :tup:Guiding put this program in a bad light
Care to explain?
Like I said, add language prohibiting payments to guides if needed to pass the bill, that eliminates guiding and that eliminates Dunshee's argument, but don't eliminate the possibility for the average hunter to apply because that also eliminates a lot of support for the bill. We need support from all hunters to help get this passed.
I think any hunter should have an opportunity to apply to hunt with hounds if it's legal for any other hunter to apply to hunt with hounds. What's important is to get the bill passed, adding language eliminating payment for guiding services eliminates the guiding argument.
Post by: mulehunter on January 23, 2014, 02:28:07 PM
Also Bearpaw and I were talking about Cindy permit thur text/pm and I asked him... Can I come up help and look for cut in Cindy's permit unit. He said come up so I did spend hundreds dollar and drive over night and spend whole morning snowmobile from midnight till right before afternoon and I found one most fresh cut out of 7 old cuts. I text Dale to tell Cindy and Brian and Anothny to come out so we all can dump hounds on cat. I didnt get paid to go chase and I was very thankful to have my dogs to chase. After Cindy put Arrow in right before dark and she hug hug me said Thank you Thank you so much.... couldnt done with out me right before season closed. :tup: it wasnt easy for me to put all my effort to go and help. I got email from Cindy and she would do my bear rug from Idaho that I shot with hounds for cheaper than any one. So I got great deal with her. I am grateful.
In 2010 huntphool and I have been texting while I help Mark my father in law on his permit and he have always always wanted a Cat and I took him and I spend first day open season on his permit and he shot down first thing in morning, :chuckle: then with bad weather and no snow I search and search for mature Cat and Boneaddict helped me find but end up having fun with small cats on tree then one of day I ran in to Canyon with full of biologlist. Biologlist end up tell me to go somewhere else and not chase this cat that they found. But this Cat need to be killed that day which I had permit to do since I been waiting for 6 years to get permit in Wa. Biologlist should not bother any of permittee. Biologlist should respect anyone with permit with hounds who willing to work for WDFW to remove the Cat to reduce problem area. Later I kept working on find mature Cat but Bio had #160 lbs Cat collared with five other Biologlist next day and GD called family that I stayed over night told me I should have chase it but I dont want fight with Bio that tell me to go somewhere which should not happen to anybody then few days later harvest quota met already done so I text to see if Huntphool on his permit up NE is open and harvest qoute already met Dang... so I end up chase for fun myself in my area.
Its not easy for any houndmen but whatever it works for most is all matter. I have almost maybe more than 40 frineds texting asking me if they can put their name in and I was like whatever. I dont mind sometime depend on who is truth frineds, Its like bring my kids or family out there. I love being houndman and I do truely miss it. After WA got Banned in March 2011, I send Elmo to Outtfitter in Idaho to keep my dog busy and Elmo end up being killed by last bear. :bash: I also send Blackberry hound out to MT to keep her busy with lions and she is doing very good. I am going to get my dogs back once Bill get passed... :tup: IT BETTER BE!!! :hello:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 23, 2014, 02:53:57 PM
I wish we could at least get a couple month pursuit season, I hope this passes, it will be fun!Yeah I wish so too ...but most likely will never happen .. :bash: :bash: I would be all in for just going to take pictures :yike: Yep I would be happy just to be able to go and run some dogs ...I am moving and could now support a pack :yeah:
Post by: idaho guy on January 23, 2014, 03:12:19 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2014, 09:10:03 AM
Could out of state hound hunters apply for the permits when they had them last time? Just wondering were in Idaho but have been hunting with my son there since he is not old enough to hunt big game here. Probably be a lot of fun over there with the dogs since they have been protecting all those lions!
If I remember correctly it was residents only.
Post by: idaho guy on January 24, 2014, 12:54:40 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 24, 2014, 03:34:46 PM
I agree with BearPaw, why can't a hunter who draws a tag hunt? If I drew a tag, and I don't have have dogs, would then look to hire a guide/houndsman to go out and fill my tag. I have thousands of acres of forest behind my place filled with cats that need hunted. I hope we all get a chance to hunt cougars with hounds in the state.
I think everybody wants that Joe. I certainly do, but I655 ( I think that's the right one) banned the use of hounds for hunting bears/cats. With basically hands tied, we need to get back on track running hounds to control predator populations. At this time, I feel that letting the houndsmen get depredation or control tags is our best route. Hopefully this would get us back on track to someday down the road, open up a general public season allowing every sportsman to apply to have a chance. Oh, the green state of Washington................ >:(
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 25, 2014, 07:43:25 AM
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2014, 10:39:28 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 27, 2014, 07:03:30 AM
Guiding put this program in a bad light, when legislators tried to renew it. And I guarantee will be brought up again. If there was wording to eliminate guiding we would stand a better chance.That's exactly right. This MUST be a public safety/damage hunt or it will never fly. I have been in those meetings in Olympia and promise this bill will meet strong oppostion if it is viewed as a trophy hunt.
I wouldn't want it to be open to non hound owners. I think it should only be open to someone that has made themselves and their hounds available to respond to damage complaints here in the past.
I got sick of seeing 'out of towners' over here with a tag figuring we would just be lining up to take them out.
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on January 27, 2014, 09:40:04 AM
i do not see a way that does not include fish and game going way out of thier way (which they wont do) to make for certain that the people who are applying are houndsmen.
any ideas?
Post by: villageidiot on January 30, 2014, 09:23:39 AM
I'd like to see all hunters be able to get a chance at a tag including out of state to help on the revenue end. Part of this would allow any hound hunter to pursue even if they did not get drawn to keep their dogs in shape and ready to go when a tag holder calls. I'd also like the owner of the dogs to be allowed to charge at least his expenses or they will get shafted like Mulehunter did. Doubtful they would ever allow pursuit without a kill tag because that would be considered "recreational hunting" which the anti's hate. They do not want hunters to actually enjoy a sport even if they just catch and release. This seems no different to me than catch release fishing. They could even charge a healthy fee for a permit to hound hunters just for a pursuit permit. If legal pursuit was allowed then the big problem the Methow Valley is having right now would be helped quit a bit by just chaseing all these cats away from town.
At preseent WDFW is having to pay their people to catch and kill many cats at the expense of the dept when the exact same thing could be done by hunters bringing in revenue to the dept, towns and free up the game agents to get their other work done.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2014, 02:18:18 PM
PRO: This bill would reauthorize a pilot program that began in 2004 and ended in 2011. This bill would create a useful tool in combating potential cougar attacks and depredations. There has been an increase in cougar-livestock related issues. With the limitation of the use of hounds as a tool for hunting pursuit and management, there has been an expansion of cougars in the environment. The use of dogs allows for more management options for dealing with cougars. Currently boot hunters are the primary tool in existence.
CON: Citizens voted on an initiative and banned the use of dogs to hunt cougars as a means of management. This bill would breach the integrity of that initiative. Scientific research has determined that increased hunting levels can lead to higher numbers of depredations. Therefore, there is a chance that this new bill would have the opposite of its intended effect. Wildlife viewing is a huge boon to the state’s economy, and any removal of cougars could potentially hurt the state’s economy.
OTHER: This issue has been around for a number of years, and cougar management has undergone significant changes over time. The use of dogs for cougar hunting can help manage the sex and age of cougars killed. The main issue is the depredation issue, and DFW believes they have the proper tools in place already. DFW is willing to work with stakeholders to arrive at common ground.
Persons Testifying: PRO: Jack Field, WA Cattlemen’s Assn.; Tom Davis, WA Farm Bureau; Tom Echols, Hunters Heritage Council.
CON: Dan Paul, The Humane Society of the United States; Bob McCoy, Bob Aegerter,citizens.
OTHER: Dave Ware, DFW.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2014, 02:19:50 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 03, 2014, 02:21:57 PM
Huh?
Post by: MtnMuley on February 03, 2014, 02:23:24 PM
Post by: Special T on February 03, 2014, 02:55:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 05, 2014, 07:28:46 PM
Given that the bill had a hearing on 1/28 and has not yet been scheduled for a committee vote I am guessing this bill will not pass this year. Policy bills must be passed out of their house of origin by this Friday.
Apparently I spoke a day too soon..
On 2/4 the Senate Natural Resource and Parks Committee voted this bill out of committee with bipartisan support with only Democrat Senators Kline and Liias voting in opposition. The bill now goes to the Rules Committee which will set the bill for a full Senate vote. There is one amendment to the bill, the amendment adds the following language:
(e) Designed to minimize the harvest of healthy, dominant males and breeding females in order to promote stability in the social structure of cougar populations
The effect of this amendment is: EFFECT: Adds to the list of required elements of the pilot program that seasons must be designed to minimize the harvest of healthy, dominant males and breeding females in order to promote stability in the social structure of cougar populations
Post by: bearpaw on February 05, 2014, 07:51:34 PM
Given that the bill had a hearing on 1/28 and has not yet been scheduled for a committee vote I am guessing this bill will not pass this year. Policy bills must be passed out of their house of origin by this Friday.
Apparently I spoke a day too soon..
On 2/4 the Senate Natural Resource and Parks Committee voted this bill out of committee with bipartisan support with only Democrat Senators Kline and Liias voting in opposition. The bill now goes to the Rules Committee which will set the bill for a full Senate vote. There is one amendment to the bill, the amendment adds the following language:
(e) Designed to minimize the harvest of healthy, dominant males and breeding females in order to promote stability in the social structure of cougar populations
The effect of this amendment is: EFFECT: Adds to the list of required elements of the pilot program that seasons must be designed to minimize the harvest of healthy, dominant males and breeding females in order to promote stability in the social structure of cougar populations
:dunno: definitely better than nothing....
Post by: Humptulips on February 05, 2014, 08:38:36 PM
I heard that the pilot program died because the head of the natural resource committe refused to bring it up for a vote to continue it. It was originally set up to be voted on every 3 yrs but the greenies outfoxed us on this one and got a bunny hugger in as head of the natural resource committee who has the right to not bring things up for a vote thus it dies.
I'd like to see all hunters be able to get a chance at a tag including out of state to help on the revenue end. Part of this would allow any hound hunter to pursue even if they did not get drawn to keep their dogs in shape and ready to go when a tag holder calls. I'd also like the owner of the dogs to be allowed to charge at least his expenses or they will get shafted like Mulehunter did. Doubtful they would ever allow pursuit without a kill tag because that would be considered "recreational hunting" which the anti's hate. They do not want hunters to actually enjoy a sport even if they just catch and release. This seems no different to me than catch release fishing. They could even charge a healthy fee for a permit to hound hunters just for a pursuit permit. If legal pursuit was allowed then the big problem the Methow Valley is having right now would be helped quit a bit by just chaseing all these cats away from town.
At preseent WDFW is having to pay their people to catch and kill many cats at the expense of the dept when the exact same thing could be done by hunters bringing in revenue to the dept, towns and free up the game agents to get their other work done.
I don't think that is the way things went down.
Couple years ago WDFW was behind a bill to basically expand the program to all counties. The pilot program bill wasn't sent up because they were pushing for a statewide program. It was shot down so they came up with an empty net and nothing has been in place in the interim.
WDFW was well intentioned and I saw Donny Matorella give a really excellent presentation at a hearing for the bill in The House Committee on Agricultue and Natural Resources. I think Hans Dunshee was instumental in killing the bill.
Post by: bearpaw on February 06, 2014, 07:36:01 PM
I heard that the pilot program died because the head of the natural resource committe refused to bring it up for a vote to continue it. It was originally set up to be voted on every 3 yrs but the greenies outfoxed us on this one and got a bunny hugger in as head of the natural resource committee who has the right to not bring things up for a vote thus it dies.
I'd like to see all hunters be able to get a chance at a tag including out of state to help on the revenue end. Part of this would allow any hound hunter to pursue even if they did not get drawn to keep their dogs in shape and ready to go when a tag holder calls. I'd also like the owner of the dogs to be allowed to charge at least his expenses or they will get shafted like Mulehunter did. Doubtful they would ever allow pursuit without a kill tag because that would be considered "recreational hunting" which the anti's hate. They do not want hunters to actually enjoy a sport even if they just catch and release. This seems no different to me than catch release fishing. They could even charge a healthy fee for a permit to hound hunters just for a pursuit permit. If legal pursuit was allowed then the big problem the Methow Valley is having right now would be helped quit a bit by just chaseing all these cats away from town.
At preseent WDFW is having to pay their people to catch and kill many cats at the expense of the dept when the exact same thing could be done by hunters bringing in revenue to the dept, towns and free up the game agents to get their other work done.
I don't think that is the way things went down.
Couple years ago WDFW was behind a bill to basically expand the program to all counties. The pilot program bill wasn't sent up because they were pushing for a statewide program. It was shot down so they came up with an empty net and nothing has been in place in the interim.
WDFW was well intentioned and I saw Donny Matorella give a really excellent presentation at a hearing for the bill in The House Committee on Agricultue and Natural Resources. I think Hans Dunshee was instumental in killing the bill.
:yeah: I agree with your comments.
Post by: jackmaster on February 07, 2014, 06:51:30 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2014, 09:21:50 AM
I think the rash of recent cougar problems has likely caused this bill to be given greater consideration. Those of us who support this bill might email his office and ask how we can help.
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2014, 09:22:25 AM
Senate Bill 6287 sponsored by Senator Dansel will be introduced this week. The bill, would allow WDFW to permit the use of dogs to pursue or kill cougars in Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Chelan, Okanogan, and Klickitat counties with the approval of the county for 5 years.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1.
(1)(a) The department, in cooperation and collaboration with the county legislative authorities of Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Chelan, Okanogan, and Klickitat counties, shall recommend rules to establish a five-year pilot program within select game management units of these counties, to pursue or kill cougars with the aid of dogs.
(b) Dangerous wildlife task teams must be developed in each county comprised of representatives from the county and the department. A pursuit season and a kill season with the aid of dogs must be established through the commission's rule-making process, utilizing local dangerous wildlife task teams. The dangerous wildlife task teams shall also develop a more effective and accurate dangerous wildlife reporting system to ensure a timely response.
(c) The pilot program's primary goals are to provide for public safety, to protect property, and to assess, conserve, and manage cougar populations.
(2) Rules adopted by the commission to establish a pilot project allowing for the pursuit or hunting of cougars with the aid of dogs under this section must ensure that all pursuits or hunts are:
(a) Designed to protect public safety or property;
(b) Reflective of the most current cougar population data;
(c) Designed to generate data that is necessary for the department to satisfy the reporting requirements of section 3 of this act; and
(d) Consistent with any applicable recommendations emerging from research on cougar population dynamics in a multiprey environment funded in whole or in part by the department.
(3) The department may authorize five seasons in which cougars may be pursued or killed with dogs, subject to the other conditions of the pilot program. The seasons are authorized to aid the department in the gathering of information necessary to formulate a recommendation to the legislature regarding whether a permanent program is warranted and, if so, what constraints, goals, and objectives should be included in a permanent program.
(4) This section expires July 1, 2019.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2.
(1) A county legislative authority may request inclusion in the pilot project authorized by section 1 of this act after taking the following actions:
(a) Adopting a resolution that requests inclusion in the pilot project;
(b) Documenting the need to participate in the pilot program by identifying the number of cougar/human encounters and livestock and pet depredations;
(c) Developing and agreeing to the implementation of an education program designed to disseminate to landowners and other citizens information about predator exclusion techniques and devices and other nonlethal methods of cougar management; and
(d) Demonstrating that existing cougar depredation permits, public safety cougar hunts, or other existing wildlife management tools have not been sufficient to deal with cougar incidents in the county.
(2) This section expires July 1, 2019.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) By September 1, 2018, the department must deliver to the legislature, consistent with RCW 43.01.036, a progress report summarizing the pilot program authorized in section 1 of this act. The report must include information relating to how the program has been used to assess cougar population levels and protect public safety and property. The report may also include any recommendations as to how cougar management policies may be changed in the future to achieve more effective or efficient management.
(2) This section expires July 1, 2019.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6287&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6287&year=2013)
Post by: bigtex on February 26, 2014, 08:03:03 PM
Our local Senator Dansel whom I believe sponsored this bill was on the radio today saying it is looking good for the hound bill. :tup:I wonder how it looks good?
Bills were supposed to be passed out of their house of origin by Feb 14. This bill hasn't even been scheduled for a full Senate vote yet, then it would have to go to the House. The legislative session ends March 13th....
Post by: bearpaw on February 27, 2014, 12:33:20 PM
Our local Senator Dansel whom I believe sponsored this bill was on the radio today saying it is looking good for the hound bill. :tup:I wonder how it looks good?
Bills were supposed to be passed out of their house of origin by Feb 14. This bill hasn't even been scheduled for a full Senate vote yet, then it would have to go to the House. The legislative session ends March 13th....
I've got a message in to him asking questions. :tup:
Post by: bigtex on February 27, 2014, 12:43:34 PM
Good to hear. Wonder what his answer will beI've got a message in to him asking questions. :tup:Our local Senator Dansel whom I believe sponsored this bill was on the radio today saying it is looking good for the hound bill. :tup:I wonder how it looks good?
Bills were supposed to be passed out of their house of origin by Feb 14. This bill hasn't even been scheduled for a full Senate vote yet, then it would have to go to the House. The legislative session ends March 13th....
Post by: Humptulips on February 27, 2014, 10:46:03 PM
I don't know anything about this particular bill but I do know that no bill is dead until the session is over. There are a number of ways of resurrecting a bill that has missed the deadlines for hearings. For instance it could be attached to an appropriations bill.
Someone with some real power has to give it some help to advance it at this late date but the possibility exists.
Post by: sakoshooter on March 04, 2014, 02:41:54 AM
I'm in favor of allowing hound hunting but not at the expense of the rest of us losing that opportunity.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 04, 2014, 08:02:01 AM
The result while it was in effect was that all cougar hunting was closed during modern firearm seasons for deer and elk in many or the popular deer and elk GMU's.
I'm in favor of allowing hound hunting but not at the expense of the rest of us losing that opportunity.
I agree. The decision to shut it down for boot hunters was as pathetic as it can get. No matter who tries to explain that logic to me, I will never agree with it.
Post by: bigtex on March 04, 2014, 09:10:13 AM
The Rules Committee is the committee that decides if bills go up for a full Senate/House vote.
When a Rules Committee placed a bill in the "X file" it essentially says no full vote will occur.
The Senate Rules Committee is controlled by the Republicans. Unless some "magic" happens with legislation in a supplemental budget, this bill is dead...
Post by: bearpaw on March 04, 2014, 11:59:13 AM
We truly appreciate your email and your offer of help. Unfortunately this bill will not be brought to the floor for a vote this year. However we will be bringing this bill back for consideration next year and we would welcome your support when that time comes. We will be posting updates on Senator Dansel’s website and via his newsletter.
Please feel free to contact our office with any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Amber Oliver
Session Aid for Senator Brian Dansel
Post by: bearpaw on March 04, 2014, 12:01:49 PM
The result while it was in effect was that all cougar hunting was closed during modern firearm seasons for deer and elk in many or the popular deer and elk GMU's.
I'm in favor of allowing hound hunting but not at the expense of the rest of us losing that opportunity.
I agree. The decision to shut it down for boot hunters was as pathetic as it can get. No matter who tries to explain that logic to me, I will never agree with it.
I agree, they should not have taken all opportunity from the boot hunters. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have hound hunting, it means that WDFW should not remove all opportunity from boot hunters. It doesn't have to be one or the other, there should be equal opportunity for both. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on March 04, 2014, 12:03:07 PM
However we will be bringing this bill back for consideration next year and we would welcome your support when that time comes.
Good to hear. The 2015 session will be a "fresh" one. All bills will be "new." Bills introduced in odd years are able to be passed for 2 years, those introduced in even years are only able to be passed for that year.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 04, 2014, 03:05:14 PM
The result while it was in effect was that all cougar hunting was closed during modern firearm seasons for deer and elk in many or the popular deer and elk GMU's.
I'm in favor of allowing hound hunting but not at the expense of the rest of us losing that opportunity.
I agree. The decision to shut it down for boot hunters was as pathetic as it can get. No matter who tries to explain that logic to me, I will never agree with it.
I agree, they should not have taken all opportunity from the boot hunters. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have hound hunting, it means that WDFW should not remove all opportunity from boot hunters. It doesn't have to be one or the other, there should be equal opportunity for both. :twocents:
My point exactly. No logical reason not to have both. :tup:
Post by: sakoshooter on March 05, 2014, 03:24:13 AM
The result while it was in effect was that all cougar hunting was closed during modern firearm seasons for deer and elk in many or the popular deer and elk GMU's.
I'm in favor of allowing hound hunting but not at the expense of the rest of us losing that opportunity.
I agree. The decision to shut it down for boot hunters was as pathetic as it can get. No matter who tries to explain that logic to me, I will never agree with it.
I agree, they should not have taken all opportunity from the boot hunters. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have hound hunting, it means that WDFW should not remove all opportunity from boot hunters. It doesn't have to be one or the other, there should be equal opportunity for both. :twocents:
Dale,
It sure looks like they basically want to reinstate the same 'pilot program' that was in effect a few years ago. I don't read anything in it that would lead me to believe boot hunters with a tag in their pockets could hunt cougar.
It would be a win for hound hunters for sure but a big loss again for regular hunters that always buy a cougar tag for that one chance.
Sorry boys, I'm against this as it's written especially if it's going to be run per the last one.
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2014, 03:43:35 AM
The result while it was in effect was that all cougar hunting was closed during modern firearm seasons for deer and elk in many or the popular deer and elk GMU's.
I'm in favor of allowing hound hunting but not at the expense of the rest of us losing that opportunity.
I agree. The decision to shut it down for boot hunters was as pathetic as it can get. No matter who tries to explain that logic to me, I will never agree with it.
I agree, they should not have taken all opportunity from the boot hunters. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have hound hunting, it means that WDFW should not remove all opportunity from boot hunters. It doesn't have to be one or the other, there should be equal opportunity for both. :twocents:
Dale,
It sure looks like they basically want to reinstate the same 'pilot program' that was in effect a few years ago. I don't read anything in it that would lead me to believe boot hunters with a tag in their pockets could hunt cougar.
It would be a win for hound hunters for sure but a big loss again for regular hunters that always buy a cougar tag for that one chance.
Sorry boys, I'm against this as it's written especially if it's going to be run per the last one.
I'm sorry you feel that way when the bill does not read that way, you are assuming. This is precisely the thinking that divides hunters and why we fail to be effective. The bill is dead for this year but will be brought up next year. Senator Dansel is in my legislative district so I will ask him if he will include language restricting less than equal opportunity for boot hunters. Would that additional language satisfy you?
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6287-S.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6287-S.pdf)
SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6287
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2014 Regular Session
By Senate Natural Resources & Parks (originally sponsored by Senators
Dansel and Benton)
READ FIRST TIME 02/05/14.
1 AN ACT Relating to a pilot program for cougar control; adding new
2 sections to chapter 77.12 RCW; and providing expiration dates.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1)(a) The department, in cooperation and
5 collaboration with the county legislative authorities of Ferry,
6 Stevens, Pend Oreille, Chelan, Okanogan, and Klickitat counties, shall
7 recommend rules to establish a five-year pilot program within select
8 game management units of these counties, to pursue or kill cougars with
9 the aid of dogs.
10 (b) Dangerous wildlife task teams must be developed in each county
11 comprised of representatives from the county and the department. A
12 pursuit season and a kill season with the aid of dogs must be
13 established through the commission's rule-making process, utilizing
14 local dangerous wildlife task teams. The dangerous wildlife task teams
15 shall also develop a more effective and accurate dangerous wildlife
16 reporting system to ensure a timely response.
17 (c) The pilot program's primary goals are to provide for public
18 safety, to protect property, and to assess, conserve, and manage cougar
19 populations.
p. 1 SSB 6287
1 (2) Rules adopted by the commission to establish a pilot project
2 allowing for the pursuit or hunting of cougars with the aid of dogs
3 under this section must ensure that all pursuits or hunts are:
4 (a) Designed to protect public safety or property;
5 (b) Reflective of the most current cougar population data;
6 (c) Designed to generate data that is necessary for the department
7 to satisfy the reporting requirements of section 3 of this act;
8 (d) Consistent with any applicable recommendations emerging from
9 research on cougar population dynamics in a multiprey environment
10 funded in whole or in part by the department; and
11 (e) Designed to minimize the harvest of healthy, dominant males and
12 breeding females in order to promote stability in the social structure
13 of cougar populations.
14 (3) The department may authorize five seasons in which cougars may
15 be pursued or killed with dogs, subject to the other conditions of the
16 pilot program. The seasons are authorized to aid the department in the
17 gathering of information necessary to formulate a recommendation to the
18 legislature regarding whether a permanent program is warranted and, if
19 so, what constraints, goals, and objectives should be included in a
20 permanent program.
21 (4) This section expires July 1, 2019.
22 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. (1) A county legislative authority may
23 request inclusion in the pilot project authorized by section 1 of this
24 act after taking the following actions:
25 (a) Adopting a resolution that requests inclusion in the pilot
26 project;
27 (b) Documenting the need to participate in the pilot program by
28 identifying the number of cougar/human encounters and livestock and pet
29 depredations;
30 (c) Developing and agreeing to the implementation of an education
31 program designed to disseminate to landowners and other citizens
32 information about predator exclusion techniques and devices and other
33 nonlethal methods of cougar management; and
34 (d) Demonstrating that existing cougar depredation permits, public
35 safety cougar hunts, or other existing wildlife management tools have
36 not been sufficient to deal with cougar incidents in the county.
37 (2) This section expires July 1, 2019.
SSB 6287 p. 2
1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) By September 1, 2018, the department
2 must deliver to the legislature, consistent with RCW 43.01.036, a
3 progress report summarizing the pilot program authorized in section 1
4 of this act. The report must include information relating to how the
5 program has been used to assess cougar population levels and protect
6 public safety and property. The report may also include any
7 recommendations as to how cougar management policies may be changed in
8 the future to achieve more effective or efficient management.
9 (2) This section expires July 1, 2019.
10 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. Sections 1 through 3 of this act are each
11 added to chapter 77.12 RCW.
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2014, 04:08:39 AM
Dear Amber,
There is one issue with the language that might be looked at for revision. I am learning that some hunters oppose this bill because in the past WDFW closed boot hunting opportunity during deer and elk seasons during the previous pilot program. That caused opposition to hound hunting then and it is still a problem that is causing opposition to this bill by some hunters. Please see the quote from another hunter:
Quote
Dale,
It sure looks like they basically want to reinstate the same 'pilot program' that was in effect a few years ago. I don't read anything in it that would lead me to believe boot hunters with a tag in their pockets could hunt cougar.
It would be a win for hound hunters for sure but a big loss again for regular hunters that always buy a cougar tag for that one chance.
Sorry boys, I'm against this as it's written especially if it's going to be run per the last one.
Amber, I’m wondering if there could be some language added to the bill to this affect: (in blue)
1 (2) Rules adopted by the commission to establish a pilot project
2 allowing for the pursuit or hunting of cougars with the aid of dogs
3 under this section must ensure that all pursuits or hunts are:
(f) Designed so that there is no net loss of hunting season or opportunity for recreational hunters as a result of this program being implemented
Could you please forward my suggestion to Senator Dansel for consideration.
Best Regards,
Post by: sakoshooter on March 05, 2014, 01:13:24 PM
I certainly wasn't trying to divide us as hunters but this forum is just that, a forum and what's great about it as you know is that when a bunch of folks put their ideas together, we end up with with good programs.
Thanx for taking the time to write Oly.
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2014, 03:48:49 PM
Post by: mulehunter on March 05, 2014, 03:56:09 PM