Post by: bigtex on December 15, 2018, 07:31:45 PM
WA's law on using dogs to assist in the aid of hunting has several exceptions including the following:
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the killing of black bear, cougar, bobcat, or lynx with the aid of a dog or dogs by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety. A dog or dogs may be used by the owner or tenant of real property consistent with a permit issued and conditioned by the director.
Essentially put, when a cougar attacks a biker WDFW can call in a houndsmen to assist with the killing of the cougar.
Rep. Appleton has sponsored HB 1046 which would eliminate this exception, essentially meaning even the government couldn't use dogs.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1046.pdf
Post by: bigtex on December 15, 2018, 07:43:15 PM
Ok so who is backing this Appleton character. One of his financial backers or constituents must be a leaf lickerRep Appleton.... (https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api/storage/uploads/thumbs/200/300/crop/best/Sherry_Appleton.jpg)
Post by: Houndhunter on December 15, 2018, 07:56:38 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 15, 2018, 07:57:20 PM
It sure gets tiring having people who don't understand an issue making up laws concerning that issue.
Post by: bigtex on December 15, 2018, 08:00:46 PM
Bigtex. I read the linked Bill and to me it doesn't look like it bans the use of dogs by government entities as much as it severely limits the legal justifications for using dogs. Not that that is much better.It removes the section I included in my original post. Officers could no longer use houndsmens after attacks or near attacks. The other exemptions (for research, etc.) remain intact.
It sure gets tiring having people who don't understand an issue making up laws concerning that issue.
Post by: Mudman on December 15, 2018, 08:05:28 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 15, 2018, 08:07:49 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 15, 2018, 08:12:45 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 15, 2018, 08:27:04 PM
Just a thought
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 15, 2018, 08:30:19 PM
Post by: bornhunter on December 15, 2018, 08:47:21 PM
Post by: chukarchaser on December 16, 2018, 09:07:58 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 16, 2018, 09:08:34 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 16, 2018, 09:16:50 AM
Post by: CementFinisher on December 16, 2018, 09:17:05 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 16, 2018, 09:20:15 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on December 16, 2018, 09:35:43 AM
Post by: fireweed on December 16, 2018, 09:43:12 AM
Post by: hunter399 on December 16, 2018, 10:00:07 AM
Cougar that attacks people I can see removal.But livestock no! Livestock owner can have a permit to shoot it.
Hunters need to get over it,we will never be able to use dogs again .so why let the government have permission.I would also hope it ends hound hunting for bears on timber company land.
I see it does include bears .
Ya I don't have a problem with it at all .livestock owners can take care of there animals.
Timber companies can let some access to there land by bear hunters ,or suck it up.
Post by: ipkus on December 16, 2018, 10:08:28 AM
Talk about cutting off your nose...
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 16, 2018, 10:29:42 AM
I'm surprised so many hunters against this,cougar quotas will go up ,a lot of quotas are meet each year due to public removal.Evidently you have not had to respond to many cougar depredations. This isn't about cattle on range, this is about a kids 4h animal or a beloved pet getting killed. Leaving that cougar on the landscape to continue killing pets/livestock is irresponsible and it's rediculous to expect the landowner to have the tools to deal with it.
Cougar that attacks people I can see removal.But livestock no! Livestock owner can have a permit to shoot it.
Hunters need to get over it,we will never be able to use dogs again .so why let the government have permission.I would also hope it ends hound hunting for bears on timber company land.
I see it does include bears .
Ya I don't have a problem with it at all .livestock owners can take care of there animals.
Timber companies can let some access to there land by bear hunters ,or suck it up.
Post by: Timberstalker on December 16, 2018, 10:37:23 AM
I'm surprised so many hunters against this,cougar quotas will go up ,a lot of quotas are meet each year due to public removal.
Cougar that attacks people I can see removal.But livestock no! Livestock owner can have a permit to shoot it.
Hunters need to get over it,we will never be able to use dogs again .so why let the government have permission.I would also hope it ends hound hunting for bears on timber company land.
I see it does include bears .
Ya I don't have a problem with it at all .livestock owners can take care of there animals.
Timber companies can let some access to there land by bear hunters ,or suck it up.
This isn’t what we want at all.
This bill is evil, at best. We need to have the ability to track these problem animals down and eradicate them.
Post by: Southpole on December 16, 2018, 10:56:52 AM
Post by: hunter399 on December 16, 2018, 11:22:12 AM
There are many ways of keeping livestock safe.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,217537.0.html
If there is a problem you deal with it.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 16, 2018, 11:46:39 AM
Bigtex. I read the linked Bill and to me it doesn't look like it bans the use of dogs by government entities as much as it severely limits the legal justifications for using dogs. Not that that is much better.It removes the section I included in my original post. Officers could no longer use houndsmens after attacks or near attacks. The other exemptions (for research, etc.) remain intact.
It sure gets tiring having people who don't understand an issue making up laws concerning that issue.
What about this?
"(3)(a)
Notwithstanding subsection (2)of this section, the
27commission shall authorize the use of dogs only in selected areas
28within a game management unit to address a public safety need
29presented by one or more cougar. This authority may only be exercised
30after the commission has determined that no other practical
31alternative to the use of dogs exists, and after the commission has
32adopted rules describing the conditions in which dogs may be used.
33Conditions that may warrant the use of dogs within a game management
34unit include, but are not limited to, confirmed cougar/human safety
35incidents, confirmed cougar/livestock and cougar/pet depredations,
36and the number of cougar capture attempts and relocations."
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2018, 12:58:00 PM
Sure. When the bikers were attacked by cougars, a houndsman caught and killed the cougar hours later.Bigtex. I read the linked Bill and to me it doesn't look like it bans the use of dogs by government entities as much as it severely limits the legal justifications for using dogs. Not that that is much better.It removes the section I included in my original post. Officers could no longer use houndsmens after attacks or near attacks. The other exemptions (for research, etc.) remain intact.
It sure gets tiring having people who don't understand an issue making up laws concerning that issue.
What about this?
"(3)(a)
Notwithstanding subsection (2)of this section, the
27commission shall authorize the use of dogs only in selected areas
28within a game management unit to address a public safety need
29presented by one or more cougar. This authority may only be exercised
30after the commission has determined that no other practical
31alternative to the use of dogs exists, and after the commission has
32adopted rules describing the conditions in which dogs may be used.
33Conditions that may warrant the use of dogs within a game management
34unit include, but are not limited to, confirmed cougar/human safety
35incidents, confirmed cougar/livestock and cougar/pet depredations,
36and the number of cougar capture attempts and relocations."
After 1046:
1. Cougar attacks biker,
2. Report is prepared and submitted to the commission.
3. Weeks go by until the commission meets.
4. Deliberations are held by the commission:
- Was the cougar in a "selected area"?
- Did WDFW exercise all other available options?
- Another month passes while WDFW prepares the report that no other option exists.
- Another month passes until the commission meets again to review the WDFW report.
- Perhaps the commission authorizes the killing of the cougar. Perhaps not.
Good luck finding it now. How many others humans and animals did it harm in the meanwhile?
Post by: Special T on December 16, 2018, 01:17:17 PM
Could this be the best thing long term for sportsmen? Many on here talk about transplanting wolves to Olympia and Seattle so they can experience the love of the wild first hand. Perhaps it is the pain inflicted by this kind of ignorance that could sway public oppinion... then a cat eats some one and nothing can be done?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Odell on December 16, 2018, 02:51:09 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 16, 2018, 02:58:04 PM
Sure. When the bikers were attacked by cougars, a houndsman caught and killed the cougar hours later.Bigtex. I read the linked Bill and to me it doesn't look like it bans the use of dogs by government entities as much as it severely limits the legal justifications for using dogs. Not that that is much better.It removes the section I included in my original post. Officers could no longer use houndsmens after attacks or near attacks. The other exemptions (for research, etc.) remain intact.
It sure gets tiring having people who don't understand an issue making up laws concerning that issue.
What about this?
"(3)(a)
Notwithstanding subsection (2)of this section, the
27commission shall authorize the use of dogs only in selected areas
28within a game management unit to address a public safety need
29presented by one or more cougar. This authority may only be exercised
30after the commission has determined that no other practical
31alternative to the use of dogs exists, and after the commission has
32adopted rules describing the conditions in which dogs may be used.
33Conditions that may warrant the use of dogs within a game management
34unit include, but are not limited to, confirmed cougar/human safety
35incidents, confirmed cougar/livestock and cougar/pet depredations,
36and the number of cougar capture attempts and relocations."
After 1046:
1. Cougar attacks biker,
2. Report is prepared and submitted to the commission.
3. Weeks go by until the commission meets.
4. Deliberations are held by the commission:
- Was the cougar in a "selected area"?
- Did WDFW exercise all other available options?
- Another month passes while WDFW prepares the report that no other option exists.
- Another month passes until the commission meets again to review the WDFW report.
- Perhaps the commission authorizes the killing of the cougar. Perhaps not.
Good luck finding it now. How many others humans and animals did it harm in the meanwhile?
I'm not arguing with that. It's exactly what I said originally. This bill limits the use of hounds to the point their use is useless. But technically, they could still be used.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 16, 2018, 03:46:02 PM
Here's a perfect example of a good livestock owners.
There are many ways of keeping livestock safe.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,217537.0.html
If there is a problem you deal with it.
[/qHere's a perfect example of a good livestock owners.How do you propose keeping pets and livestock safe from cougars?
There are many ways of keeping livestock safe.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,217537.0.html
If there is a problem you deal with it.
Not everyone has the ability to kill a cougar. Some don't have guns some can't have guns... Some don't want to kill the cat themselves. The WDFW is the agency tasked with sort of work. Taking their tools away is a bad idea. Leave it to the professionals to manage wildlife
Post by: KFhunter on December 16, 2018, 04:31:06 PM
Not everyone has the ability to kill a cougar. Some don't have guns some can't have guns... Some don't want to kill the cat themselves. The WDFW is the agency tasked with sort of work. Taking their tools away is a bad idea. Leave it to the professionals to manage wildlife
guy kills a cougar that were getting his sheep....
Nice work. We have had a few calls out that way this summer, but it's always the next day and the hounds can't do much. Glad you got him squared away
Most livestock owners just want the support and ability to take care of their own. I hope the law passes, let the turd finish swirling the bowl.
Post by: Humptulips on December 16, 2018, 05:16:09 PM
Everyone on here talks about the need for predator control and this is OK. :bash:
Somehow you expect by sticking it to somebody that lives in the country and probably voted no on 655 is supposed to get this law changed to allow hounds? :dunno: Newsflash: the people who voted for 655 will never be affected by cougar and bear.
On the plus side I can't imagine this bill going anyplace. Those that support it would probably be happier in San Diego. We ought to pitch in and buy them a ticket!
Post by: JakeLand on December 16, 2018, 06:29:06 PM
Its time for us to fight back with our own legislation. We need a ballot measure that effectively takes game management issues out of the ballot initiative process. Something that puts game management as the strict purview of those changed with managing it. I know it could also bite us in certain areas, but the managers cannot keep having their hands tied by the public who know nothing about managing fish and game:tup: but the game dept know nothing of managing fish and game either soooo ?
Post by: hunter399 on December 16, 2018, 07:00:01 PM
For cougar they will have to write a report of public safety, or multiple livestock attack to get hound removal.I do think in some cases they may be very quick to drop the hammer.
Will give give more quotas for the boot Hunter.
Yes everybody does complain about predator control.But with hounds your taking opportunity away from 99.9 percent of hunters.Really what's the point in spring bear hunt , or cougar hunting past Jan 1 if hounds already got it covered.
If animals rights people want to give the average Hunter more opportunities for fair chase hunting I will take it.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 16, 2018, 07:04:13 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 16, 2018, 07:21:12 PM
Its time for us to fight back with our own legislation. We need a ballot measure that effectively takes game management issues out of the ballot initiative process. Something that puts game management as the strict purview of those changed with managing it. I know it could also bite us in certain areas, but the managers cannot keep having their hands tied by the public who know nothing about managing fish and game:yeah:
Post by: hunter399 on December 16, 2018, 08:46:04 PM
The state isn't counting agency controls against the quota. There have been a bunch of problem cats killed in NE Washington this year and damn near all if them were with use of hounds. To think that the landowner is going to be able to deal with it is rediculous. You have one example.... I have over 30, just this yearI'm pretty sure public safety removal are counted towards quotas.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-440-030
Here's a quote from above link.
Public safety cougar removals will be based on a quota system, where permit holders may hunt cougar until the allotted numbers of cougar have been killed from each game management unit or March 31, whichever is first.
All cougars killed by licensed hunters during the early and late hunting seasons, and seasons authorized under WAC 220-440-030 shall be counted toward the harvest guideline.
Which mean all cougar killed or authorized under wac 220-440-030 will be counted toward quotas.
If you know of so many problem cougar , maybe you should be hunting that area.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 16, 2018, 10:48:20 PM
The state isn't counting agency controls against the quota. There have been a bunch of problem cats killed in NE Washington this year and damn near all if them were with use of hounds. To think that the landowner is going to be able to deal with it is rediculous. You have one example.... I have over 30, just this yearI'm pretty sure public safety removal are counted towards quotas.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-440-030
Here's a quote from above link.
Public safety cougar removals will be based on a quota system, where permit holders may hunt cougar until the allotted numbers of cougar have been killed from each game management unit or March 31, whichever is first.
All cougars killed by licensed hunters during the early and late hunting seasons, and seasons authorized under WAC 220-440-030 shall be counted toward the harvest guideline.
Which mean all cougar killed or authorized under wac 220-440-030 will be counted toward quotas.
If you know of so many problem cougar , maybe you should be hunting that area.
Perhaps you should be asking the question since you are unsure of the answer.
There is at least one person on this thread who is extremely knowledgeable on problem cats.
Post by: Humptulips on December 16, 2018, 11:29:20 PM
Same thing happens every year in this unit. I know for a fact it will close early this year because I am aware of at least 7 depredation cougar taken in the unit this year plus a road kill I know of turned in which may be what the other category is all about.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 17, 2018, 04:57:45 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 17, 2018, 05:07:09 AM
The question here is not around hunting season though, it's about the agency ability to respond to a dangerous situation in a timely manner. When a lion kills ten alpacas overnight (like one did last wee in Spokane) the agency should not have to wait and see if it returns the next night to kill more. They should call a hound handler and take care of it, because the landowner was not going to be able to, and the neighbors should not have to worry about a cat like that in the area. BTW- hounds ran and treed that cat the day after and it was euthanized, approximately 2 miles from the scene.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 17, 2018, 05:13:15 AM
Post by: Humptulips on December 17, 2018, 06:46:17 AM
But were dogs used in the depredations?
Yes
There have been years that depredations count against the quota, to my knowledge, that is not happening this year.
Depredation hunts have been counted every year. What makes this year different?
It may seem like I am arguing in favor of this law being adopted. No! Just trying to state the facts.
Let us say this law passed. What about the poor farmer who sheep, goats, cattle or whatever are being killed. Anyone that says he should just take care of it doesn't know much about cougar. He already could do that if he could but the chances of catching a cougar in the act are slim at best. Hounds are the most efficient way to handle these complaints.
As for bear in timber company land they will just turn to foot snares. Already happening.
Post by: KFhunter on December 17, 2018, 08:09:00 AM
@WAcoyotehunter I said: "Most livestock owners just want the support and ability to take care of their own" support = you and your dogs working with WDFW, but if a livestock owner has a huge flashlight on top of his gun and takes out a cougar he should be able to do so, this was in reply to your comment: "let the wildlife professionals take care of it" which I don't agree with if the homeowner can take care of it themselves.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 17, 2018, 08:16:37 AM
I definitely ain't supporting this law, my last comment about passing it so the turd can finish swirling the bowl was tongue in cheek.Thanks for clarifying that. I agree, if a landowner has the ability and opportunity to get rid of a depredating animal they should (and generally can) deal with it, but would need permission from the state to use dogs.
@WAcoyotehunter I said: "Most livestock owners just want the support and ability to take care of their own" support = you and your dogs working with WDFW, but if a livestock owner has a huge flashlight on top of his gun and takes out a cougar he should be able to do so, this was in reply to your comment: "let the wildlife professionals take care of it" which I don't agree with if the homeowner can take care of it themselves.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 17, 2018, 08:41:36 AM
Post by: CementFinisher on December 17, 2018, 04:08:50 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on December 17, 2018, 04:11:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 18, 2018, 12:41:30 AM
Could this work in favor of some sort of public hunting with dogs? If the gov wants to do that they have to allow the public to also?
Just a thought
That was my first thought too, perhaps the consequences of poor predator management (by initiative) need to be felt by everyone, including WDFW and the public who expect WDFW to take care of dangerous predators?
I'm still pondering all the implications!
Post by: Bushcraft on December 19, 2018, 03:10:23 PM
Let's just say that this insanely stupid bill is as good as dead. It will likely not be heard by Committee, much less make it out of Committee. ;)
You can thank SCI and the Hunters Heritage Council by joining us (see links below). We'd love to have you be a member of the most influential advocate for hunters, hunting and wildlife conservation in Washington State and beyond.
www.safariclub.org
www.huntersheritagecouncil.org
Thanks!
Allen
Post by: X-Force on December 19, 2018, 04:13:40 PM
Post by: ribka on December 19, 2018, 05:02:06 PM
Post by: Special T on December 19, 2018, 07:33:55 PM
Is conservation NW behind this anti hunting legislation?I heard they were against it...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on December 19, 2018, 10:59:33 PM
Is conservation NW behind this anti hunting legislation?
On the surface...No. But nothing is as it seems with their constantly conniving crew. Evidently, their wingnut uber-leftist Overlord sporadically caught enough of a clue to try and avoid both donor and legislative suicide. Too bad, really.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 20, 2018, 05:18:12 AM
But I imagine most of you will be in favor of cannibalizing other hunter groups and taking away a productive and useful toolJust what makes you think that??
Post by: ribka on December 20, 2018, 05:39:08 AM
Is conservation NW behind this anti hunting legislation?I heard they were against it...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Well Mitch Friedman and CNW have stated that hunting with dogs is not ethical
Post by: Special T on December 20, 2018, 06:03:24 AM
You mean they made a tactical decision to appear more reasonable?Is conservation NW behind this anti hunting legislation?I heard they were against it...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Well Mitch Friedman and CNW have stated that hunting with dogs is not ethical
Say it ain't so! Lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Buckmania on December 20, 2018, 08:04:51 AM
One step away from anyone using dogs to pursue any animal. Next up, no more bird hunting with your pooch! :stup:
This should have been banned with the hound hunting. It's ironic (or hypocritical) how many bird hunters voted for the hound ban.
Post by: Buckmania on December 20, 2018, 08:10:11 AM
I'm going to take a devil's advocate position.. hopefully most of you know what that is...
Could this be the best thing long term for sportsmen? Many on here talk about transplanting wolves to Olympia and Seattle so they can experience the love of the wild first hand. Perhaps it is the pain inflicted by this kind of ignorance that could sway public oppinion... then a cat eats some one and nothing can be done?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Exactly.
The other thing being missed here is you don't just take a hound off the shelf and poof, it's trees whatever game is being targeted. Hounds need practice. There needs to be a pursuit season. Pursuit alone will have a conditioning effect on cougars.
Post by: Buckmania on December 20, 2018, 08:13:23 AM
When the bear depredation program is taken away boot hunters will not get more opportunity or access. you will be locked out during a giant snaring program done by USDA APHIS. Its been done for a while now. but when you remove the hound depredations snaring will be done on a large scale, and you will be locked out so that no picture or video make it out into the public so they can keep the last effective way of protecting their resource.
YEP!!!!!!!
Post by: ribka on December 20, 2018, 08:16:25 AM
Post by: Special T on December 20, 2018, 08:31:08 AM
In playing my role as the devils advocate I'll pose this question. If the voters dont want hounds what is the best way for them to feel the natural consequences? As stated by others on here most rural folks are ok with hounds and would/do feel the consequences instead of the deserving parties.I'm going to take a devil's advocate position.. hopefully most of you know what that is...
Could this be the best thing long term for sportsmen? Many on here talk about transplanting wolves to Olympia and Seattle so they can experience the love of the wild first hand. Perhaps it is the pain inflicted by this kind of ignorance that could sway public oppinion... then a cat eats some one and nothing can be done?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Exactly.
The other thing being missed here is you don't just take a hound off the shelf and poof, it's trees whatever game is being targeted. Hounds need practice. There needs to be a pursuit season. Pursuit alone will have a conditioning effect on cougars.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on December 20, 2018, 09:01:51 AM
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/OR%2520Bear%2520FONSI.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj075WR6a7fAhUSJXwKHZa_AdMQFjACegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw32NNAIUXT6fovKtcn0ooUq
But a lot of red tape,and not very sympathetic with timber company's and bear damage.Will they help ,yes.Will they expect a lot of info on damage ,thinning of trees,yes.will they take the number of bears that hounds do ,no.
Anybody that's wants USDA APHIS to snare bears ,you are in fact wanting taxpayers to pay for timber company's loses .Which I don't thinks sits well with a lot of people and don't see it lasting long.
Post by: CementFinisher on December 20, 2018, 06:24:07 PM
USDA APHIS has a lot of red tape to be in there bear programs ,I don't think they will take as many bears as needed.Here is a report from Oregon bear removal through USDA APHIS ,I urge many of you to download and read for yourself.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/OR%2520Bear%2520FONSI.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj075WR6a7fAhUSJXwKHZa_AdMQFjACegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw32NNAIUXT6fovKtcn0ooUq
But a lot of red tape,and not very sympathetic with timber company's and bear damage.Will they help ,yes.Will they expect a lot of info on damage ,thinning of trees,yes.will they take the number of bears that hounds do ,no.
Anybody that's wants USDA APHIS to snare bears ,you are in fact wanting taxpayers to pay for timber company's loses .Which I don't thinks sits well with a lot of people and don't see it lasting long.
it wont be paid for by tax dollars. look into whats being in Washington currently. lets not post to much info on a public forum. we don't need to hurt the snaring or hound programs. If antis want to find info make em earn it.
Post by: CementFinisher on December 20, 2018, 06:45:27 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 20, 2018, 06:52:51 PM
I wouldn't think this house bill will get any traction. BBBuuuTTTTTT I could see it passing through in an initiative.
All bets are off if it hits a ballot, I have zero confidence in the bulk of Washington's voters.
Post by: hunter399 on December 20, 2018, 07:07:51 PM
USDA is department of agriculture ,when we as tax payers have to pay a Forrester to take damage assets of lots of different stands of timber.USDA APHIS has a lot of red tape to be in there bear programs ,I don't think they will take as many bears as needed.Here is a report from Oregon bear removal through USDA APHIS ,I urge many of you to download and read for yourself.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/OR%2520Bear%2520FONSI.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj075WR6a7fAhUSJXwKHZa_AdMQFjACegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw32NNAIUXT6fovKtcn0ooUq
But a lot of red tape,and not very sympathetic with timber company's and bear damage.Will they help ,yes.Will they expect a lot of info on damage ,thinning of trees,yes.will they take the number of bears that hounds do ,no.
Anybody that's wants USDA APHIS to snare bears ,you are in fact wanting taxpayers to pay for timber company's loses .Which I don't thinks sits well with a lot of people and don't see it lasting long.
it wont be paid for by tax dollars. look into whats being in Washington currently. lets not post to much info on a public forum. we don't need to hurt the snaring or hound programs. If antis want to find info make em earn it.
I guess what bugs me the most is wdfw has harvest reports from sportsman in any gmu and can up spring permits and should of long time ago.
Just for the record I would love to have baiting and hounds back ,just not gonna happen.So the next best thing is more opportunities for the average Joe boot Hunter.
As for snares the first time some animal lovers take a pic of bear in a snare , or walk up and almost get attacked we can kiss that goodbye.
Post by: konradcountry on January 02, 2019, 09:00:10 AM
So let’s get rid of the most effective management tool the department has left, just because the liberals took it away from you?
Talk about cutting off your nose...
Well the counter-argument is that the state isn't going to be motivated to change the law if they are allowed to skirt it. Rules for us but no them.
It would at least be amusing to see the state in some of these cases admit they are having a hard time catching a problem bear or cougar. Then the media can explain to the California transplants that they need to live in harmony with the cat eating cougar of Vashon.
Post by: hunter399 on January 02, 2019, 09:55:31 AM
:yeah:So let’s get rid of the most effective management tool the department has left, just because the liberals took it away from you?
Talk about cutting off your nose...
Well the counter-argument is that the state isn't going to be motivated to change the law if they are allowed to skirt it. Rules for us but no them.
It would at least be amusing to see the state in some of these cases admit they are having a hard time catching a problem bear or cougar. Then the media can explain to the California transplants that they need to live in harmony with the cat eating cougar of Vashon.
I agree
Happens every year with road maintenance and first winter storms a fatal accident happen then the roads are sanded ,and total night and day .The roads are good within a hour.
It's a sad realty every winter.
Post by: wolfbait on January 02, 2019, 12:32:07 PM
I wouldn't think this house bill will get any traction. BBBuuuTTTTTT I could see it passing through in an initiative.
All bets are off if it hits a ballot, I have zero confidence in the bulk of Washington's voters.
X2
Post by: ipkus on January 02, 2019, 12:36:50 PM
So let’s get rid of the most effective management tool the department has left, just because the liberals took it away from you?
Talk about cutting off your nose...
Well the counter-argument is that the state isn't going to be motivated to change the law if they are allowed to skirt it. Rules for us but no them.
It would at least be amusing to see the state in some of these cases admit they are having a hard time catching a problem bear or cougar. Then the media can explain to the California transplants that they need to live in harmony with the cat eating cougar of Vashon.
I don't know how long you've lived in Washington but if that's how you think it would play out in your mind, cool. That's not how it will go down in real life, though. It will just be another loss to the cuckoo crowd.
Post by: konradcountry on January 02, 2019, 04:19:39 PM
So let’s get rid of the most effective management tool the department has left, just because the liberals took it away from you?
Talk about cutting off your nose...
Well the counter-argument is that the state isn't going to be motivated to change the law if they are allowed to skirt it. Rules for us but no them.
It would at least be amusing to see the state in some of these cases admit they are having a hard time catching a problem bear or cougar. Then the media can explain to the California transplants that they need to live in harmony with the cat eating cougar of Vashon.
I don't know how long you've lived in Washington but if that's how you think it would play out in your mind, cool. That's not how it will go down in real life, though. It will just be another loss to the cuckoo crowd.
Oh ok way to be insulting even though I pointed out what is simply a counter-argument so we don't jump on this mindlessly.
Yes that is exactly how it *could* play out especially since this already happened in other states.
There have already been cases on the East coast where liberals banned certain types of hunting until they saw the results of overpopulation. That has happened with both bears and deers.
It could easily work to our favor for liberals to run to the state for help over problem cougars and only to be told that the laws liberals have passed prevent them from doing anything effective. Would be hilarious.
Post by: WA hunter14 on January 02, 2019, 05:45:34 PM
Post by: konradcountry on January 02, 2019, 08:00:51 PM
All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.
Agreed.
Consider the scenario where an urban area has too many cougars. So the state comes in with hounds and provides a public service by removing them. Well doesn't that mean that previous hunters were providing the same service?
I don't like the implication that the state only does it because it has to and that makes it acceptable. Well they wouldn't have to if they allowed hound hunting in the first place.
So I don't see a loss if this bill passes. Why shouldn't the state have to play by the same rules as the rest of us? And if it passes the anti-hunting Seattle media will have to explain how this anti-hunting Democrat didn't understand what she was doing.
But I doubt it will get the votes so I wouldn't get worked up either way. Most rural Democrats will probably vote against it.
Post by: Special T on January 03, 2019, 09:51:07 AM
All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.
Agreed.
Consider the scenario where an urban area has too many cougars. So the state comes in with hounds and provides a public service by removing them. Well doesn't that mean that previous hunters were providing the same service?
I don't like the implication that the state only does it because it has to and that makes it acceptable. Well they wouldn't have to if they allowed hound hunting in the first place.
So I don't see a loss if this bill passes. Why shouldn't the state have to play by the same rules as the rest of us? And if it passes the anti-hunting Seattle media will have to explain how this anti-hunting Democrat didn't understand what she was doing.
But I doubt it will get the votes so I wouldn't get worked up either way. Most rural Democrats will probably vote against it.
I cant quoat the article but i read that California takes as many cats with hounds as they used to... So cats being killed are ok just not sportsmen doingit.
Post by: KFhunter on January 03, 2019, 10:02:26 AM
All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.
Agreed.
Consider the scenario where an urban area has too many cougars. So the state comes in with hounds and provides a public service by removing them. Well doesn't that mean that previous hunters were providing the same service?
I don't like the implication that the state only does it because it has to and that makes it acceptable. Well they wouldn't have to if they allowed hound hunting in the first place.
So I don't see a loss if this bill passes. Why shouldn't the state have to play by the same rules as the rest of us? And if it passes the anti-hunting Seattle media will have to explain how this anti-hunting Democrat didn't understand what she was doing.
But I doubt it will get the votes so I wouldn't get worked up either way. Most rural Democrats will probably vote against it.
I cant quoat the article but i read that California takes as many cats with hounds as they used to... So cats being killed are ok just not sportsmen doingit.
These are strong arguments and I gotta be honest, its making me nod my head in agreement.
Post by: Special T on January 03, 2019, 10:22:50 AM
All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.
Agreed.
Consider the scenario where an urban area has too many cougars. So the state comes in with hounds and provides a public service by removing them. Well doesn't that mean that previous hunters were providing the same service?
I don't like the implication that the state only does it because it has to and that makes it acceptable. Well they wouldn't have to if they allowed hound hunting in the first place.
So I don't see a loss if this bill passes. Why shouldn't the state have to play by the same rules as the rest of us? And if it passes the anti-hunting Seattle media will have to explain how this anti-hunting Democrat didn't understand what she was doing.
But I doubt it will get the votes so I wouldn't get worked up either way. Most rural Democrats will probably vote against it.
I cant quoat the article but i read that California takes as many cats with hounds as they used to... So cats being killed are ok just not sportsmen doingit.
These are strong arguments and I gotta be honest, its making me nod my head in agreement.
If ranchers cannot get the kind of support they need then those in Urban areas should be on the same footing. Isnt that why Kretz has proposed transplanting wolves to Orcas Island and such? Most folks dont care because it doesnt effect them...
Im not convinced this is a great strategy since all manner of cat hunting is illegal in this state. I wonder if this predator lawsuit will address any of this nonsense?
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2019, 10:31:58 AM
All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.
Like most things there is more than one side to this issue.
- If anyone still has hounds that is one of the few ways to keep them hunting
- Local rural residents and ranchers need help eliminating a problem animal that is costing them
I've helped WDFW in the past but after conflicting issues I quit. However, a rancher friend had a cougar killing animals last spring and none of the houndmen they normally use were available, so I helped.
Post by: bearpaw on January 03, 2019, 10:37:41 AM
All those *censored*s that voted agaist hound hunting did it because they think its cruel and inhumane for the bear/cat, but yet this whole time fish and game had been hiring sell out houndsman to do it for them. Thats total BS. If its cruel and inhumane and made illegal for the everyday citizen it should be illegal for everyone especially the government and their biologists.
Agreed.
Consider the scenario where an urban area has too many cougars. So the state comes in with hounds and provides a public service by removing them. Well doesn't that mean that previous hunters were providing the same service?
I don't like the implication that the state only does it because it has to and that makes it acceptable. Well they wouldn't have to if they allowed hound hunting in the first place.
So I don't see a loss if this bill passes. Why shouldn't the state have to play by the same rules as the rest of us? And if it passes the anti-hunting Seattle media will have to explain how this anti-hunting Democrat didn't understand what she was doing.
But I doubt it will get the votes so I wouldn't get worked up either way. Most rural Democrats will probably vote against it.
I cant quoat the article but i read that California takes as many cats with hounds as they used to... So cats being killed are ok just not sportsmen doingit.
These are strong arguments and I gotta be honest, its making me nod my head in agreement.
If ranchers cannot get the kind of support they need then those in Urban areas should be on the same footing. Isnt that why Kretz has proposed transplanting wolves to Orcas Island and such? Most folks dont care because it doesnt effect them...
Im not convinced this is a great strategy since all manner of cat hunting is illegal in this state. I wonder if this predator lawsuit will address any of this nonsense?
The whole issue is complex. The few remaining hound hunters rely on helping WDFW or helping timber companies to keep their dogs trained, or they have moved their hunting out of state. The hound hunting and baiting was banned by voter initiative, there are only two ways to overturn a voter innitiative, the voters have to vote again or the legislature has to overturn it. While I agree with some of the thoughts on taking the ability to use hounds away from WDFW, I understand that the few remaining hound hunters rely on WDFW and/or timber companies to keep their dogs trained. There is no easy answer!