Post by: Monsterbull11 on November 04, 2016, 05:05:19 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 04, 2016, 05:08:11 PM
Post by: Monsterbull11 on November 04, 2016, 05:16:01 PM
I figured that might be the case but I don't generally draw stuff like this, so I didn't worry about it.
Thanks for the info.
Post by: boneaddict on November 04, 2016, 08:18:42 PM
To be eligible for a cougar management removal permit (permit), the participant must be a Washington resident dog hunter (i.e., owns and hunts with dogs capable of detecting, tracking, and treeing a cougar) . The permit holder must use dogs while participating in a cougar management removal.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on November 04, 2016, 08:29:48 PM
Post by: highside74 on November 04, 2016, 08:44:56 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 04, 2016, 09:31:33 PM
You don't have to be the owner of the dogs. You just have to have dogs available to you for the hunt. There will be plenty of guys and most likely alot from this forum that will want to run their dogs for you. good luck on your hunt. :tup:That's false. It says clearly that you are to be a hound hunter that owns and hunts with dogs. This is the reason the pilot program got scrapped, because everyone in the state applied and when a person got a tag that didn't have dogs (most of the tags...) They were hiring outfitters and trying to make it something that it was not designed for. This is a damage hunt designed to give hound owners an opportunity to use their dogs.
Post by: boneaddict on November 04, 2016, 09:44:25 PM
Post by: jackelope on November 04, 2016, 11:09:42 PM
2nd bullet point in email....
To be eligible for a cougar management removal permit (permit), the participant must be a Washington resident dog hunter (i.e., owns and hunts with dogs capable of detecting, tracking, and treeing a cougar) . The permit holder must use dogs while participating in a cougar management removal.
That's a copy and paste of the email. Lines 2-3 sum it up.
Post by: highside74 on November 05, 2016, 09:02:01 AM
In our state the way the regs are written... if it isn't in there then it's not against the rules. Kinda backwards but that's how they do it.
It says at the end the permit holder must use dogs. It does not say the permit holder must use his own dogs.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 05, 2016, 09:10:44 AM
Are you arguing that everyone should be able to apply for the damage hunts, even if they don't have dogs?
That was the problem with the pilot program too... People with tags and no dogs, or access to them, drawing tags and screwing the hound handlers that had dogs and couldn't pull a tag.
Post by: highside74 on November 05, 2016, 09:21:48 AM
The i.e. is an example. It is not part of the reg it's an aside to the reg. If you take that line out because it is just one example of which there could be several. Like, if they didn't want you using someone else's dogs they would have said you must use your own dogs. Then the paragraph states you must be a dog hunter and you must use dogs. That is what it says. Nothing else.
We can agree to disagree. But I know people with dogs so I will put in for this hunt.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 05, 2016, 09:36:48 AM
I.e. OWNS AND HUNTS WITH DOGS.....Knew one person that drew under the old pilot program. Thought that training a Labrador a month before the hunt started would meet the hunts with dogs requirement. :dunno:
Are you arguing that everyone should be able to apply for the damage hunts, even if they don't have dogs?
That was the problem with the pilot program too... People with tags and no dogs, or access to them, drawing tags and screwing the hound handlers that had dogs and couldn't pull a tag.
Post by: trophyhunt on November 05, 2016, 09:57:51 AM
Post by: jackelope on November 05, 2016, 10:16:34 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 05, 2016, 10:54:15 AM
Post by: JLS on November 05, 2016, 11:00:45 AM
.i.e means for example. It does not say anywhere you have to use your own dogs. I can be a dog hunter with friends and not own a single dog.
In our state the way the regs are written... if it isn't in there then it's not against the rules. Kinda backwards but that's how they do it.
It says at the end the permit holder must use dogs. It does not say the permit holder must use his own dogs.
Actually i.e. means a point of clarification, not an example. So, to CLARIFY, the resident dog hunter is someone who owns and hunts with dogs.
Let's not make this something it's not.
Post by: highside74 on November 05, 2016, 11:35:32 AM
.i.e means for example. It does not say anywhere you have to use your own dogs. I can be a dog hunter with friends and not own a single dog.
In our state the way the regs are written... if it isn't in there then it's not against the rules. Kinda backwards but that's how they do it.
It says at the end the permit holder must use dogs. It does not say the permit holder must use his own dogs.
Actually i.e. means a point of clarification, not an example. So, to CLARIFY, the resident dog hunter is someone who owns and hunts with dogs.
Let's not make this something it's not.
Dang it! I hate it when I'm wrong. I was mixed up between i.e. and e.g.
e.g. is for example
i.e. is clarification meaning (that is)
So I stand corrected.
Don't tell my wife I was wrong, she always tell me I know everything. I choose to take it as a compliment.
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2016, 11:43:07 AM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt? To me it's like drawing a Blues elk permit after waiting 15-20 years and then not hunting. You could have just left that permit for a guy who would actually hunt.
:yeah:
Post by: boneaddict on November 05, 2016, 12:09:24 PM
It was of course a pain in the butt and often another fee.
Post by: trophyhunt on November 05, 2016, 01:33:07 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt? To me it's like drawing a Blues elk permit after waiting 15-20 years and then not hunting. You could have just left that permit for a guy who would actually hunt.I mostly agree with what you are saying, maybe let the guys with dogs give names of friends who could apply? I would think guys who run dogs would love to take their friends out. The more practice the better.
Post by: Monsterbull11 on November 05, 2016, 02:27:59 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt? To me it's like drawing a Blues elk permit after waiting 15-20 years and then not hunting. You could have just left that permit for a guy who would actually hunt.
Well, I gues I'll withdraw my name because somebody that owns hounds deserves a lion tag over me.
I certainly didn't ask this to start an argument or to have somebody tell me that I'm not deserving.
Appreciate every bodies time.
Post by: Monsterbull11 on November 05, 2016, 03:10:35 PM
Hopefully hound hunters will stick together on this and not take people out that shouldn't be applying. I will not be offering my dogs up.
Now that I've sat on this and thought about it a bit, I have a couple more points to this discussion.
First, I don't recall asking anybody on this site for help other than a clarification on the tag. I'm sorry that there's folks that got all butt-hurt over this.
As for my eligibility for the tag, I'll be calling the WDFW first thing Monday morning for all the particulars. If I shouldn't have submitted an app. I'll be more than happy to withdraw my name.
Lastly, you don't know me from Adam and have no idea how I plan on taking care of this tag if it is mine, so I would appreciate you not passing judgement on someone you don't even know?
Post by: arrowflinger on November 05, 2016, 03:15:40 PM
Post by: jackelope on November 05, 2016, 04:09:48 PM
Hopefully hound hunters will stick together on this and not take people out that shouldn't be applying. I will not be offering my dogs up.
Now that I've sat on this and thought about it a bit, I have a couple more points to this discussion.
First, I don't recall asking anybody on this site for help other than a clarification on the tag. I'm sorry that there's folks that got all butt-hurt over this.
As for my eligibility for the tag, I'll be calling the WDFW first thing Monday morning for all the particulars. If I shouldn't have submitted an app. I'll be more than happy to withdraw my name.
Lastly, you don't know me from Adam and have no idea how I plan on taking care of this tag if it is mine, so I would appreciate you not passing judgement on someone you don't even know?
No offense but I don't see anyone passing judgement on you specifically at all.
Some questions and comments came up from other posts in this thread that were not direct responses to any of your posts aside from the one where you said it would be nice if the email clarified the specifics of the tags.
Post by: Branden on November 05, 2016, 04:19:49 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt?
So out of respect for the guys that are in iron man shape, have ten trail cams out, and scout all year nobody else should apply for the Blues then. They are putting in the time, money and effort that others aren't so they deserve the tags?
If the law is that you have to own and use your own dogs then you shouldn't apply unless you have capable dogs. If not then apply if you think you can find somebody with dogs to help you.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 05, 2016, 04:37:47 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt?
So out of respect for the guys that are in iron man shape, have ten trail cams out, and scout all year nobody else should apply for the Blues then. They are putting in the time, money and effort that others aren't so they deserve the tags?
If the law is that you have to own and use your own dogs then you shouldn't apply unless you have capable dogs. If not then apply if you think you can find somebody with dogs to help you.
That's a laughable comparison.
Post by: predatorpro on November 05, 2016, 05:31:58 PM
Hopefully hound hunters will stick together on this and not take people out that shouldn't be applying. I will not be offering my dogs up.I may be wrong but don't most hound hunters use theit dogs to hunt cats mostly for other people anyways? How many hound hunters don't use their dogs to help other people get cats and only for themselves? As a sportsman I would hope hound hunters wouldn't tell other hunters to go kick rocks...charge a fee for your services and help someone get a cat...
Post by: jackelope on November 05, 2016, 05:37:07 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt?
So out of respect for the guys that are in iron man shape, have ten trail cams out, and scout all year nobody else should apply for the Blues then. They are putting in the time, money and effort that others aren't so they deserve the tags?
If the law is that you have to own and use your own dogs then you shouldn't apply unless you have capable dogs. If not then apply if you think you can find somebody with dogs to help you.
Nope. Not what I'm saying at all. The comparison I tried to make was a little sarcastic I'll admit....but what I was getting at is the folks who apply for and draw a permit and then they don't hunt because they don't know what they're getting into or know they won't be able to hunt because they don't have vacation time, or something along those lines yet they still apply, thereby taking permits away from those who can draw and hunt. That's all. Compare that to a guy who doesn't have or own capable dogs who applies for these lion tags then finds out they can't have the tag because they don't have dogs or can't find someone with dogs willing to take them or whatever the case may be.
Post by: Branden on November 05, 2016, 05:39:26 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt?
So out of respect for the guys that are in iron man shape, have ten trail cams out, and scout all year nobody else should apply for the Blues then. They are putting in the time, money and effort that others aren't so they deserve the tags?
If the law is that you have to own and use your own dogs then you shouldn't apply unless you have capable dogs. If not then apply if you think you can find somebody with dogs to help you.
That's a laughable comparison.
Why? Jack is talking about guys spending time and money so they deserve the lion tag. So wouldn't the guys that spend more time and money deserve the elk tag?
Regards, Branden
Post by: Branden on November 05, 2016, 05:41:48 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt?
So out of respect for the guys that are in iron man shape, have ten trail cams out, and scout all year nobody else should apply for the Blues then. They are putting in the time, money and effort that others aren't so they deserve the tags?
If the law is that you have to own and use your own dogs then you shouldn't apply unless you have capable dogs. If not then apply if you think you can find somebody with dogs to help you.
Nope. Not what I'm saying at all. The comparison I tried to make was a little sarcastic I'll admit....but what I was getting at is the folks who apply for and draw a permit and then they don't hunt because they don't know what they're getting into or know they won't be able to hunt because they don't have vacation time, or something along those lines yet they still apply, thereby taking permits away from those who can draw and hunt. That's all. Compare that to a guy who doesn't have or own capable dogs who applies for these lion tags then finds out they can't have the tag because they don't have dogs or can't find someone with dogs willing to take them or whatever the case may be.
I agree you should hunt the tag and not take opportunity away from other people if you aren't going to use it. But if you are able to make an attempt with someone else's dogs then I don't see why it's disrespectful.
Post by: jackelope on November 05, 2016, 05:45:09 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt?
So out of respect for the guys that are in iron man shape, have ten trail cams out, and scout all year nobody else should apply for the Blues then. They are putting in the time, money and effort that others aren't so they deserve the tags?
If the law is that you have to own and use your own dogs then you shouldn't apply unless you have capable dogs. If not then apply if you think you can find somebody with dogs to help you.
That's a laughable comparison.
Why? Jack is talking about guys spending time and money so they deserve the lion tag. So wouldn't the guys that spend more time and money deserve the elk tag?
Regards, Branden
That's not entirely what I was getting at. Specifically, why would a guy who has no hounds apply for a permit specifically designated as a hound permit? If the guy with no hounds can't hunt, why should he be able to draw these permits taking away from those who can?
If you can't hunt the Blues, don't apply for the Blues(just an example). If you don't have vacation time, or you're not physically able, or whatever the case may be, don't apply for the East Wenaha(as an example) when you've never been there and have no idea what you're getting into, don't know the terrain challenges, don't have gear to backpack in, etc. You're taking permits away from folks who can hunt it.
Post by: jackelope on November 05, 2016, 05:46:14 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt?
So out of respect for the guys that are in iron man shape, have ten trail cams out, and scout all year nobody else should apply for the Blues then. They are putting in the time, money and effort that others aren't so they deserve the tags?
If the law is that you have to own and use your own dogs then you shouldn't apply unless you have capable dogs. If not then apply if you think you can find somebody with dogs to help you.
Nope. Not what I'm saying at all. The comparison I tried to make was a little sarcastic I'll admit....but what I was getting at is the folks who apply for and draw a permit and then they don't hunt because they don't know what they're getting into or know they won't be able to hunt because they don't have vacation time, or something along those lines yet they still apply, thereby taking permits away from those who can draw and hunt. That's all. Compare that to a guy who doesn't have or own capable dogs who applies for these lion tags then finds out they can't have the tag because they don't have dogs or can't find someone with dogs willing to take them or whatever the case may be.
I agree you should hunt the tag and not take opportunity away from other people if you aren't going to use it. But if you are able to make an attempt with someone else's dogs then I don't see why it's disrespectful.
If it's legal and your buddy has hounds or your brother has them or whatever, then go for it. If you're going to throw a hail mary out there hoping someone takes you, then I disagree and find it disrespectful.
I think we're on the same page.
Post by: Branden on November 05, 2016, 05:49:16 PM
Personally, out of respect for the guys who put tons of money and time into training their dogs year round, I'd let the actual houndhunters apply and draw. Why would a guy apply and draw and then hope to find a hound guy who will take them to hunt?
So out of respect for the guys that are in iron man shape, have ten trail cams out, and scout all year nobody else should apply for the Blues then. They are putting in the time, money and effort that others aren't so they deserve the tags?
If the law is that you have to own and use your own dogs then you shouldn't apply unless you have capable dogs. If not then apply if you think you can find somebody with dogs to help you.
That's a laughable comparison.
Why? Jack is talking about guys spending time and money so they deserve the lion tag. So wouldn't the guys that spend more time and money deserve the elk tag?
Regards, Branden
That's not entirely what I was getting at. Specifically, why would a guy who has no hounds apply for a permit specifically designated as a hound permit? If the guy with no hounds can't hunt, why should he be able to draw these permits taking away from those who can?
If you can't hunt the Blues, don't apply for the Blues(just an example). If you don't have vacation time, or you're not physically able, or whatever the case may be, don't apply for the East Wenaha(as an example) when you've never been there and have no idea what you're getting into, don't know the terrain challenges, don't have gear to backpack in, etc. You're taking permits away from folks who can hunt it.
I agree if he has zero access to hounds. It was the money/time wording I don't agree with is all.
Regards, Branden
Post by: cougarbart on November 15, 2016, 04:11:09 PM
Post by: plottwalker on November 16, 2016, 08:00:49 AM
Hopefully hound hunters will stick together on this and not take people out that shouldn't be applying. I will not be offering my dogs up.I may be wrong but don't most hound hunters use theit dogs to hunt cats mostly for other people anyways? How many hound hunters don't use their dogs to help other people get cats and only for themselves? As a sportsman I would hope hound hunters wouldn't tell other hunters to go kick rocks...charge a fee for your services and help someone get a cat...
most houndsmen dont offer to take guys out, and they cant legally charge any money or exchange for gas or anything else as payment.there is a lot that goes into catch game, most houndsmen dont want to have some rookie tagging along just to get to shoot a critter in a tree.
not to be a dick, but most guys talking on here dont have a clue what it really takes/costs to own a pack of dogs and keep them in shape year round to catch game.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on November 16, 2016, 10:18:50 AM
:yeah:Hopefully hound hunters will stick together on this and not take people out that shouldn't be applying. I will not be offering my dogs up.I may be wrong but don't most hound hunters use theit dogs to hunt cats mostly for other people anyways? How many hound hunters don't use their dogs to help other people get cats and only for themselves? As a sportsman I would hope hound hunters wouldn't tell other hunters to go kick rocks...charge a fee for your services and help someone get a cat...
most houndsmen dont offer to take guys out, and they cant legally charge any money or exchange for gas or anything else as payment.there is a lot that goes into catch game, most houndsmen dont want to have some rookie tagging along just to get to shoot a critter in a tree.
not to be a dick, but most guys talking on here dont have a clue what it really takes/costs to own a pack of dogs and keep them in shape year round to catch game.
It's kind of the same as saying that guys who run lots of trail cameras should help people get big bucks so that they can keep running trail cams and finding big bucks. or guys with access to good private land should share...
Post by: Houndhunter on November 18, 2016, 05:16:12 PM
Post by: Maverick on November 18, 2016, 06:14:54 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on November 18, 2016, 07:59:28 PM
Post by: Limhangerslayer on November 18, 2016, 08:26:07 PM
The reason they did the dog owner with hounds capable of treeing lion is because of greenies. They used to put in and draw so a hound hunter wouldn't
Post by: bearbaito6 on November 18, 2016, 09:07:19 PM
It's not always a joke, in the beginning of it we shot a lot of cats in portions of Alta and huckleberry and had great hunts. Then you had to kill the first cat that was treed. Now that it's only mayview is a joke.
The reason they did the dog owner with hounds capable of treeing lion is because of greenies. They used to put in and draw so a hound hunter wouldn't
That was the pilot program hunts. The public safety hunts usually are a joke! No place to actually hunt with dogs.
Post by: Limhangerslayer on November 18, 2016, 09:31:38 PM
no it wasn't, we've hunted both. The ones we killed the most cats were the public safety cougar removal hunts. They were always a certain portion of a specific unitIt's not always a joke, in the beginning of it we shot a lot of cats in portions of Alta and huckleberry and had great hunts. Then you had to kill the first cat that was treed. Now that it's only mayview is a joke.
The reason they did the dog owner with hounds capable of treeing lion is because of greenies. They used to put in and draw so a hound hunter wouldn't
That was the pilot program hunts. The public safety hunts usually are a joke! No place to actually hunt with dogs.
Post by: villageidiot on November 30, 2016, 06:47:05 AM
Another issue is it's been so long since we were allowed to hunt cats this requirement to own dogs that are capable of tree ing a cat is ridiculous. Most of our hounds have died of old age and all we have left is a two year old that has never been off the chain. Chances of him tree ing a cougar are real slim.