Post by: jasnt on July 06, 2015, 08:57:30 PM
Animal Rights Groups Challenge Washington Cougar Hunt Quota
Public News Service - WA | July 2015 | Download audioAnimal WelfareEndangered Species & WildlifeEnvironmentPublic Lands/Wilderness
PHOTO: More than 200 cougars a year are killed by hunters in Washington. Animal rights' organizations are asking the state Fish and Wildlife Commission to change its recent decision to increase the cougar quota in some hunting units. Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
July 6, 2015
SEATTLE – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is being asked to rethink its decision to allow more cougars to be killed during hunting season.
The recommended quota, based on in-state university research, has been 12 to 16 percent of the cougar population – but the commission increased the number to 17 to 21 percent in some hunting management units.
The Humane Society of the United States says there's no scientific justification for it. Dan Paul, the society's Washington director, says cougars often inhabit wolf country – and since wolves are off-limits to hunters in the state, he suspects cougars are paying the price.
"This is not about cougar management at all, and this is not about public safety," he says. "We already have the ability to take care of 'problem cats.' This appears to be targeting cats as a way to appease folks that want to shoot wolves, but can't."
The Fish and Wildlife Commission proposed a higher quota for the next three years, then dropped it to one year. The Humane Society and other groups have petitioned for a return to the original quota. The commission has 60 days to respond.
Estimates put Washington's cougar population at over 3,000 animals, with more than 200 a year killed by hunters.
Paul describes the state's cougar population as stable and healthy. One concern with a higher quota is it could change the dynamics of that otherwise healthy population. He says the "trophy animals" sought by hunters are adult male cougars – and when there are fewer of them, younger males become more dominant. That, he says, is trouble.
"The young cougars will move in, and they don't know how to interact with people well, so they're going to create conflict," he says. "This whole plan is really convoluted, because you're killing more cougars. But they're going to make these new cats, way less experienced, and have way more problems."
According to research cited in the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Game Management Plan, even increasing hunting quotas to 24 percent wouldn't affect the number of cougar-human conflicts.
Cougar hunting season begins September 1.
Chris Thomas, Public News
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2015-07-06/animal-welfare/animal-rights-groups-challenge-washington-cougar-hunt-quota/a46988-1
Just makes me wanna puke! :bash:
Post by: Bob33 on July 06, 2015, 09:35:59 PM
Too bad that WDFW gets slammed from both sides.
Post by: Elkterd on July 06, 2015, 10:02:50 PM
Post by: jasnt on July 06, 2015, 10:20:03 PM
"The recommended quota, based on in-state university research, has been 12 to 16 percent of the cougar population – but the commission increased the number to 17 to 21 percent in some hunting management units."
So we could kill over 400 a year and still be in the recommended quota :bash:
Post by: Romulus1297 on July 06, 2015, 11:12:47 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 07, 2015, 04:49:54 AM
Post by: jasnt on July 07, 2015, 05:50:34 AM
I thought we were supposed to work with these people? I wonder why they would hamstring the process like this? I like how they had to throw in the statement that we want to kill wolves but we can't so we take it out on the cougars. That definitely paints the correct portrayal of hunters.they will never work with us on any subject. Their goal is to take away hunting all together. Hsus is an enemy not an Allie, anyone who thinks they will ever give in on ANY issue is clueless!!!
Post by: opdinkslayer on July 07, 2015, 07:51:21 AM
Post by: huntnphool on July 07, 2015, 08:23:12 AM
I think most are confused about what this group does and does not do or how politically powerful some of these more pro-wolf groups are in WA state. If the greenies don't have a seat at the table, they actually become more powerful. Adding them as one member or voice amongst a group of other members/voices eliminates their ability to cry foul over not being included but also forces them to sit amongst pro-hunting groups and listen to other viewpoints. This is where the personal relationship building can be very effective in working on finding common ground and solutions in controversial issues...otherwise...they certainly don't need a facilitator...post a wolf article in the seattle times and link it to Hunt-Wa and DoW webpages and let the fringe folks go at each others throats...that will work I'm sure.
If this were Idaho or Wyoming I could see telling the greenie groups to take a hike...but in WA it is a non-starter. Also, a big part of these advisory groups is actually an opportunity for WDFW to educate multiple stakeholders on wolf management...make sure all sides are getting the same information and updates so there is less unintentional miscommunication/misinformation.
I could go on and on about why it is essential to have folks you philosophically disagree with come to the table to discuss these issues...bottom line though is it will be a necessary part of any kind of wolf management in this state.
Some folks just can't see the forest through the trees!
Post by: idahohuntr on July 07, 2015, 08:28:04 AM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on July 07, 2015, 08:35:00 AM
That post is in reference to the WAG and why it was a better move to include other groups on that committee. If you are suggesting by this post I support the humane society making wildlife management decisions you are mistaken.Isn't that what the WAG is doing? This organization has a representative on the WAG correct?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on July 07, 2015, 08:38:46 AM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on July 07, 2015, 08:39:58 AM
The WAG does not make any decisions on wildlife management.
:chuckle:
What's to lose? If we can get some traction amongst folks on lethal control so not every removal is contested...that would be great. Will we get HSUS to support sport hunting of wolves...no. Nor will they get hunters and many others to support an end to all hunting. But if we can get reasonable, diplomatic people representing these various interests to talk to one another it might be surprising where we find common ground.Quote from: link=topic=174866.msg2313494#msg2313494 date=1431847802
:rolleyes:
Post by: Stein on July 07, 2015, 08:47:27 AM
Not surprising, this group is well known for wanting to ban hunting. Like most articles these days, the anti crowd gets interviewed and nobody from the other side.
Post by: grundy53 on July 07, 2015, 08:51:52 AM
The WAG does not make any decisions on wildlife management.The WAG will certainly influence decisions or it wouldn't have been formed.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on July 07, 2015, 08:52:26 AM
Apparently the Commission had made the decision in a conference call and this was the first chance these groups had to complain.
I do not believe the Commission will go back on these changes. They said as much at the meeting. In fact several Commissioners took them to task for some of the outlandish comments they made.
The one that really stood out was one a woman made who before the meeting was huddled up with the CNW, DOW people. "If the ranchers in E WA don't like the cougar they should just move, The deer eat my raspberries here in Olympia and I don't want them all killed."
Post by: WAPatriot on July 07, 2015, 09:04:51 AM
I thought we were supposed to work with these people? I wonder why they would hamstring the process like this? I like how they had to throw in the statement that we want to kill wolves but we can't so we take it out on the cougars. That definitely paints the correct portrayal of hunters.they will never work with us on any subject. Their goal is to take away hunting all together. Hsus is an enemy not an Allie, anyone who thinks they will ever give in on ANY issue is clueless!!!
I couldn't agree more they will never comprise. This state is so liberal if predator managment is not an individual grassroots efforts we are done for. Hunting will be all but done in the next 40 years. It's never enough for these terrorist organizations they won't stop til hunting is done and they get stronger and stronger every year. Just look at this bs wolf recovery. Endangered please what a joke.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 07, 2015, 09:10:15 AM
:chuckle: Thats cute.The WAG does not make any decisions on wildlife management.The WAG will certainly influence decisions or it wouldn't have been formed.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on July 07, 2015, 10:13:06 AM
Is what I said not true?:chuckle: Thats cute.The WAG does not make any decisions on wildlife management.The WAG will certainly influence decisions or it wouldn't have been formed.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 07, 2015, 10:16:44 AM
"Humane Society". What a crock.
Too bad that WDFW gets slammed from both sides.
I'm surprised that including the HSUS on the WAG hasn't helped stop their disruption efforts in other areas. But, I don't suppose they'll object when it's time to manage the wolves, though. After all, we're still building our relationship with them, right? :tup:
Post by: jasnt on July 07, 2015, 10:24:24 AM
the wag will influence decisions. Nothing cute about it! I don't hold much faith in the WAG. I hope wdfw is going to raise quotas on cougar especially in the areas with very high predator numbers such as the NE and SE corners. I also believe juvinial cougar especially young males should not be counted towards the quota. Young males are often killed by dominate males any way.:chuckle: Thats cute.The WAG does not make any decisions on wildlife management.The WAG will certainly influence decisions or it wouldn't have been formed.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 07, 2015, 10:29:28 AM
I wonder which other groups those might be. Is it possible they're also sitting on the WAG and/or the Wildlife Commission? I can't remember: what is it that happens when you sleep with dogs?????
Post by: Rainier10 on July 07, 2015, 11:01:17 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 07, 2015, 11:18:20 AM
Post by: bearhunter99 on July 07, 2015, 11:55:31 AM
Paul describes the state's cougar population as stable and healthy. One concern with a higher quota is it could change the dynamics of that otherwise healthy population. He says the "trophy animals" sought by hunters are adult male cougars – and when there are fewer of them, younger males become more dominant. That, he says, is trouble.If you just neglect the fact that the quotas never really get met anyway there is still this statement which is asinine. A biologist once explained it to me this way:
"The young cougars will move in, and they don't know how to interact with people well, so they're going to create conflict," he says. "This whole plan is really convoluted, because you're killing more cougars. But they're going to make these new cats, way less experienced, and have way more problems."
According to research cited in the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Game Management Plan, even increasing hunting quotas to 24 percent wouldn't affect the number of cougar-human conflicts.
Older males typically take up territory further away from populated areas, pushing the younger males closer to urban environments. This actually creates more conflict as the younger cats have not learned that Humans=Bad. As the cougar population grows as a result of lower harvest rates, due to the ban on hound hunting, the younger cats get pushed closer and closer to urban environments where they start preying on Fifi and Rover, causing conflict.
This is basically the opposite of what this guy is quoted as saying.
Post by: huntnphool on July 07, 2015, 12:13:14 PM
Funny that they think killing more cougars will kill the mature trophy animals that know how to interact with people leaving the young ones to move in and cause conflicts with people. Sounds like they think if you don't kill as many cougars the young ones will stay in line and not cause problems. :dunno: None of their argument makes sense.
Paul describes the state's cougar population as stable and healthy. One concern with a higher quota is it could change the dynamics of that otherwise healthy population. He says the "trophy animals" sought by hunters are adult male cougars – and when there are fewer of them, younger males become more dominant. That, he says, is trouble.As the cougar population grows as a result of lower harvest rates, due to the ban on hound hunting, the younger cats get pushed closer and closer to urban environments where they start preying on Fifi and Rover, causing conflict.
"The young cougars will move in, and they don't know how to interact with people well, so they're going to create conflict," he says. "This whole plan is really convoluted, because you're killing more cougars. But they're going to make these new cats, way less experienced, and have way more problems."
According to research cited in the Department of Fish and Wildlife's Game Management Plan, even increasing hunting quotas to 24 percent wouldn't affect the number of cougar-human conflicts.
Actually the study WDFW have based their cougar management plan on says the reason we have urban conflicts with the big cats is over harvest. In a nut shell the philosophy is increased numbers = less urban conflict. ;)
For your entertainment http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,106200.msg1385948.html#msg1385948 here is the link.
Post by: Rainier10 on July 07, 2015, 12:30:00 PM
They are basing their decisions on old and outdated data. Frustrating. :bash:
Post by: bobcat on July 07, 2015, 12:30:56 PM
I get that if you are harvesting the mature animals but since that study was done hound hunting has been banned and you aren't taking out the big toms anymore you are taking out whatever happens by when deer or elk hunting. I would guess since the ban the number of people specifically targeting cougars while hunting has dropped drastically.
They are basing their decisions on old and outdated data. Frustrating. :bash:
:yeah: