Post by: Bango skank on August 29, 2019, 12:18:44 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
August 29, 2019
Contact: Sam Montgomery, 360-688-0721
WDFW discussing recommendations for the fall 2020 cougar season
OLYMPIA — The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has assembled an internal working group of department biologists and enforcement officers to develop recommended changes to the cougar hunting seasons.
After hearing from concerned constituents at the March 2019 commission meeting, the department began reviewing its current cougar hunting rules in order to bring the commission potential amendments for their consideration.
"Our group has met five times over the last six months to discuss changes to the hunt structure," said Anis Aoude, WDFW game division manager. "After completing our internal process, we will begin a public engagement process to receive feedback from our stakeholders."
In the coming months, WDFW will discuss progress with the Fish and Wildlife Commission at their Wildlife Committee meetings, seek input from key external stakeholders, open a public comment period, host a digital open house with a question and answer session, and provide information through social media.
In addition, the commission will seek public comment as they consider changes during a public hearing on proposed rules in March prior to making a decision in April 2020.
"Public safety remains one of our highest concerns," said Aoude. "This internal cougar working group continues to work at finding the balance between maintaining sustainable cougar populations while also addressing public safety."
On March 5, the department filed a CR-101 that advertises the intent of possible rule making. The CR-101, and any future filings related to this process, can be found at wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is the state agency tasked with preserving, protecting and perpetuating fish, wildlife, and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.
Post by: mburrows on August 29, 2019, 12:30:01 PM
Post by: Bango skank on August 29, 2019, 12:31:06 PM
Post by: KFhunter on August 29, 2019, 12:33:27 PM
hopefully they'll drop the asinine quotas entirely
I understand trapping is off the table for now I think ??
Post by: JJB11B on August 29, 2019, 12:34:07 PM
Post by: Bango skank on August 29, 2019, 12:46:42 PM
If we must stick with this harvest guideline system though, which im sure we will be stuck with, a few basic changes would help at least a little. Right now our general season runs sept 1st through dec 31st before harvest guideline shutdowns go into effect. Id like to see the general season open august 1st with bear, and go through at least january 31st, if not the end of february. Also greatly increased quotas are a no brainer. Second cougar tags should also be available for those fortunate enough to fill their first tag if they are feeling optimistic enough to buy another.
What other ideas do you guys have other than hounds? Keep in mind the ban on hounds isnt wdfws policy, and it can not be changed at their discretion. It is state law, from voter initiative.
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on August 29, 2019, 12:51:40 PM
Post by: Buckjunkie on August 29, 2019, 03:20:13 PM
Post by: Bango skank on August 29, 2019, 03:25:11 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 29, 2019, 03:44:13 PM
Post by: Bango skank on August 29, 2019, 05:12:18 PM
Post by: KFhunter on August 29, 2019, 06:22:27 PM
I would really love to see trapping opened up for lions too, but thats a pipe dream for sure. No way would that fly. But i figure a cat is a cat. If i could set up an extra large bobcat style trap on that lion highway in my back yard i have to believe it would work. It would also have the benefit of allowing more selective harvest, like hound hunting. Give a guy a chance to take a real good close look at the animal to determine if it was one he wanted. Of course, releasing a cat you didnt want would be a little sketchy.
@Humptulips
WSTA is taking the lead on that and has got *some* traction, or at least not a resounding NO! yet.
I think the current info on that is "wait until these new rules are done then maybe we'll think about it"
That topic has been broached, I'd let WSTA see what they can do with this and just wait for these new rules to shake out first before proposing new trapping rules which is really unrelated to big game hunting rules process.
Post by: Bango skank on August 29, 2019, 07:36:04 PM
Post by: KFhunter on August 29, 2019, 07:38:46 PM
Post by: Humptulips on August 29, 2019, 10:34:10 PM
The population estimate is based on area. So many square miles contains so many cougar. Harvest targets are based on this population estimate but large parts of the State are not included e.g. National Parks, Tribal land, Hanford but these areas still produce cougars plus you have the 40% to 60% of the PMAs that are under harvested. Where do all the surplus cougars in those areas go? A lot of them wander into PMAs that meet harvest targets and are closed early. Weilgus (I know everybody hates him) concluded that hunter harvest had no effect on cougar populations because of this out migration of young cougar looking for territory.
These cougar should be taken into account and not ignored. Harvest targets should be increased because of this. Also the PMAs are too small. They need to be larger to account for migrating cougars filling in for harvested cougars. many PMAs never reach harvest targets because they are too remote. add their target numbers to areas that go over every year.
I actually think there should be maybe 10 PMAs in the State with target numbers to match. That keeps the season open longer and according to Weilgus' study any area will fill back in if over harvested.
Bango Skank touched on another thing I believe. Who cares abut an exact count? They should be managed by harvest trends. Hunter days afield per cougar harvested should tell you the direction the population is going over three years. It's a cinch you will never wipe out the cougars without hounds. They couldn't do it when they had hounds and traps year round with bounties.
You can legally trap cougar in two States, bear in one. Why not WA?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 30, 2019, 05:38:06 AM
Failed significantly here and part of it is cougar management
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on August 30, 2019, 12:12:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 30, 2019, 12:27:06 PM
Just about an hour before i got this email i sat down and wrote another letter to wdfw about our need for cougar changes. I saved it as a draft, so that i can sit on it a while incase i decide to add anything. The way our harvest guideline system is set up now is seriously flawed. Its basically going off the concept that you can take X% of the adult lion population out every year without reducing the population (though i feel a big reduction is exactly what is needed.) The problem with this is that they dont know how many lions we have, so how can they come up with a harvest guideline number to accurately reach that percentage? This is why we should be using the minimum harvest concept instead. No top end restriction on harvest numbers. If harvest falls below a predetermined level for a couple years, use that as an indicator that the population is struggling and adjust seasons accordingly. I dont see numbers ever getting dangerously low without hound hunting and trapping. I highly doubt we could ever drop them to unsustainable levels with just boot hunting and calling, even if the season was opened up year round like coyotes.
If we must stick with this harvest guideline system though, which im sure we will be stuck with, a few basic changes would help at least a little. Right now our general season runs sept 1st through dec 31st before harvest guideline shutdowns go into effect. Id like to see the general season open august 1st with bear, and go through at least january 31st, if not the end of february. Also greatly increased quotas are a no brainer. Second cougar tags should also be available for those fortunate enough to fill their first tag if they are feeling optimistic enough to buy another.
What other ideas do you guys have other than hounds? Keep in mind the ban on hounds isnt wdfws policy, and it can not be changed at their discretion. It is state law, from voter initiative.
WDFW should request the legislature to address another hound hunting season, it could be something similar to the 5 year pilot cougar safetey removals we had before that the legislature didn't renew. The legislature has had some changes, the primary legislator who prevented the 5 year cougar safety removal program from being reimplemented is no longer in the legislature!
Post by: Bango skank on August 30, 2019, 06:39:13 PM
Commission@dfw.wa.gov
Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Director@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: Twispriver on August 30, 2019, 07:44:20 PM
Post by: Windwalker on August 30, 2019, 09:09:44 PM
Some copy-&-paste action from Idaho Regs.
Aug. 1 - Dec. 31 Jan. 1 - Apr. 30
Two Cougar during the license year
A second Cougar transport tag/license must be purchased to take a second Cougar.
Unused deer and elk tags may be used to tag a black bear or mountain lion.
Establish a Hound pursuit season
Must have a valid Hound Hunter Permit in possession- Except clients of licensed outfitters are not required to have a hound hunter permit.
No limit on the number of resident hound hunter permits.
Anyone who owns or controls pursuit dogs must purchase a black bear or a mountain lion tag to pursue the respective species. A tag which has been filled is valid for pursuit seasons for that species.
Dogs may be used to pursue black bears or mountain lions during a dog training season open for black bear or mountain lion. Pursuit is allowed regardless of whether a black bear or mountain lion already has been harvested. During a dog training season, black bears or mountain lions may be pursued and treed, but may not be captured, killed, or possessed.
Hound hunting pursuit not allowed in Units during Deer & Elk season or to take or pursue any other big game species.
With the exception of the use of one blood-trailing dog controlled by leash during lawful hunting hours and within 72 hours of hitting a big game animal is allowed to track wounded animals and aid in recovery. A hound hunter permit is not required.
***
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife Commission
Wildlife Committee
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING via CONFERENCE CALL
WHEN: Friday, September 6,2019–9:30 A.M.
Committee Members:Baker, Thorburn, Anderson, Linville
Agenda Topics:Cougar Timeline
*WHERE:This meeting will take place by telephone conference call.
The public may listen to the discussion.
Please contact Commission staff at (360)902-2267 or commission@dfw.wa.gov to obtain call-in information no later than 3p.m. on September 5, 2019.
(See attached )
Fish and Wildlife Commission Regular Meeting Agenda for September 13-14
Note: Friday, September 13
Sun Mountain Lodge
604 Patterson Lake Road
Winthrop, WA 98862
Room Pasayten B
7 a.m. Agenda topics:
Consolidating the WAC/Commission Policy on Grazing on our lands
Update on the Predator/Prey research project
Landowner Hunting Permit program update
Blood tracking dogs – discussion
Cougar rule making timeline discussion
Staff and Committee member discussion of emerging issues
Post by: wheels on August 31, 2019, 01:02:29 PM
Post by: Bango skank on September 01, 2019, 02:49:46 PM
Our deer, elk and moose numbers are getting worse all the time, and lions are a major part of the problem. The way things are going, i predict that it wont be too much longer before we lose otc mule deer and otc late rifle whitetail. You think a decent elk tag is hard to draw now? Just wait until permit numbers are reduced further. I hope you guys like our draw system, because eventually it will be the only way to ever get a decent deer or elk hunt. And when everybody has to apply just to do a buck mule deer hunt of any kind, or to rifle hunt whitetail in november, the point creep is going to be ridiculous.
But hey, you dont care if the next generation gets to hunt, why should you? Not your problem, right? By all means, lets continue to let predator populations go unchecked. Afterall, spending 2 minutes writing an email would cut into your valuable time that would be better spent browsing this forum, or watching a bunch of meatheads in spandex running around a big field with a ball. Who wants healthy, stable deer and elk populations anyway?
Post by: bearpaw on September 02, 2019, 09:23:22 AM
Post by: KFhunter on September 02, 2019, 04:01:31 PM
Its time for me to get out calling for bears and cats
Post by: kodiak10 on September 02, 2019, 05:43:13 PM
I absolutely believe the season needs to changed to increase harvest, but am struggling to think of compelling fact based arguments to justify it.
Post by: Bango skank on September 02, 2019, 05:49:48 PM
I am thinking about what context to frame the need for a change in. Do you all think that the increased conflict with humans in recent years is a compelling argument to frame the need for change in my email? What other points are you all using in your emails to demand that the cougar management practices are improved?
I absolutely believe the season needs to changed to increase harvest, but am struggling to think of compelling fact based arguments to justify it.
The entire northeast corner has a combined harvest guideline of what, 35 cats? The state has already killed over 40 cats here this year for depredation. If thats not indicative of a problem, what is?
Post by: KFhunter on September 02, 2019, 05:55:23 PM
I would want numbers on historic conflict vs later trends before I crafted a letter using this source. I'm sure its out there and maybe even easy to find I just don't have it right now.
2) decline in ungulates, again it would be nice to have some statistics and some are available but in many areas there isn't any counts on some/all ungulate species.
3) ineffectiveness of boot hunting and clearly articulating that the only reason boot hunters are having success is due to gross overpopulation of mt lions.
4) current hunting rule set currently based on a fraudulent study that was highly manipulated by Wielgus. Cougars had no trouble thriving in WA before Wielgus came along and restricted
Mt. Lion hunting by implementing the ludicrous quota system. It didn't need to be implemented then, and doesn't need to be here now.
Post by: kodiak10 on September 02, 2019, 05:55:57 PM
The entire northeast corner has a combined harvest guideline of what, 35 cats? The state has already killed over 40 cats here this year for depredation. If thats not indicative of a problem, what is?
That's exactly the sort of fact I was looking for. I am not debating the validity of the claim that more cougars need to be harvested, I am just looking for real facts to help make my email more compelling.
Although I am not a resident of NE Wa, the last time I went there I was blown away by all the cat sign I did see. Counted 10 whitetail kills in a weekend, one of which was roughly 200 yds from someone's home. Really eye opening for me.
Post by: KFhunter on September 02, 2019, 05:58:51 PM
The entire northeast corner has a combined harvest guideline of what, 35 cats? The state has already killed over 40 cats here this year for depredation. If thats not indicative of a problem, what is?
That's exactly the sort of fact I was looking for. I am not debating the validity of the claim that more cougars need to be harvested, I am just looking for real facts to help make my email more compelling.
Although I am not a resident of NE Wa, the last time I went there I was blown away by all the cat sign I did see. Counted 10 whitetail kills in a weekend, one of which was roughly 200 yds from someone's home. Really eye opening for me.
Yes, I wish people would quit winter feeding deer. Even non-hunters "thinking they're helping out the deer" are only concentrating them for the cats buffet.
Any winter feeding I could find had lion tracks in or around it.
Post by: kodiak10 on September 02, 2019, 06:09:06 PM
study found that remedial hunting was associated with increased reports and livestock
depredations."
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/46476 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/46476)
From the abstract of this particular study I just found. Harvest levels would have to increase beyond remedial sport hunting in order to reduce the population. A solid reference for anyone else writing their email.
Post by: Bango skank on September 02, 2019, 06:58:27 PM
Post by: Bango skank on September 19, 2019, 03:58:13 PM
Post by: Buckhunter24 on September 19, 2019, 04:30:34 PM
Im just not buying that more lions killed by hunters = more depredation. Ill read that later, busy now, but my initial thought is that it sounds like an agenda driven study financed by people who dont like lions being hunted. Just like all the studies that show how great the wolves are for wildlife.
Looks like Wielgus provided guidance with her research. I dont buy it either.
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2019, 12:27:57 AM
Im just not buying that more lions killed by hunters = more depredation. Ill read that later, busy now, but my initial thought is that it sounds like an agenda driven study financed by people who dont like lions being hunted. Just like all the studies that show how great the wolves are for wildlife.
Looks like Wielgus provided guidance with her research. I dont buy it either.
Wielgus, the guy helping HSUS try to outlaw all cougar hunting in Colorado. Yeah, no agenda there... totally unbiased study I'm sure.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 20, 2019, 05:37:34 AM
Weilgus loves to say that increased harvest exacerbates problems, he has beat that drum for bears, wolves and lions.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 20, 2019, 06:04:23 AM
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2019, 07:05:36 AM
I sent my e-mail and would like to know why these so called hunters who put I don't care as an answer can actually call their selves one.I'm not one of them, but I would hazard to guess they have given up. We have seen posts in the past stating that folks will hunt out of state, or hang up thier gear.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2019, 12:03:59 PM
Nowadays when we have lots of reports and concerns it is attributed to increased awareness and people reporting more frequently.
Does wdfw really believe that increased reports are due to increased awareness and people being more willing to report, rather than the logical conclusion of incidents actually increasing? Thats absurd. If anything i would guess peoples willingness to report is lower than ever. I can tell you for a fact plenty of people handle these types of things themselves when possible and wont bother calling wdfw.
Post by: ne kid on September 20, 2019, 12:08:08 PM
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2019, 12:10:41 PM
Post by: Humptulips on September 20, 2019, 12:27:00 PM
She did say an end to all recreational hunting of cougar was on the table so I just want emphasize how important it is to get your comments in. You can be sure the animal rights people are writing.
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2019, 12:33:49 PM
I had a meeting with staff about trapping issues but the Large carnivore section manager was there. We have been talking about a trapping season for cougar. Not happening if WDFW has their way.
She did say an end to all recreational hunting of cougar was on the table so I just want emphasize how important it is to get your comments in. You can be sure the animal rights people are writing.
You cant be serious
Post by: Humptulips on September 20, 2019, 01:04:21 PM
I had a meeting with staff about trapping issues but the Large carnivore section manager was there. We have been talking about a trapping season for cougar. Not happening if WDFW has their way.
She did say an end to all recreational hunting of cougar was on the table so I just want emphasize how important it is to get your comments in. You can be sure the animal rights people are writing.
You cant be serious
That is what she said. I was astounded and I honestly don't think it will happen but the fact that they are even talking about it makes me think there is the possibility of a bad outcome if we do not be very vocal.
Post by: KFhunter on September 20, 2019, 02:11:51 PM
I had a meeting with staff about trapping issues but the Large carnivore section manager was there. We have been talking about a trapping season for cougar.
Not happening if WDFW has their way. <--- that sucks >:(
She did say an end to all recreational hunting of cougar was on the table so I just want emphasize how important it is to get your comments in.
You can be sure the animal rights people are writing.
:yike: so stupid!!
please write in folks!!
Post by: buckfvr on September 20, 2019, 02:29:12 PM
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2019, 03:11:15 PM
I had a meeting with staff about trapping issues but the Large carnivore section manager was there. We have been talking about a trapping season for cougar.
Not happening if WDFW has their way. <--- that sucks >:(
She did say an end to all recreational hunting of cougar was on the table so I just want emphasize how important it is to get your comments in.
You can be sure the animal rights people are writing.
:yike: so stupid!!
please write in folks!!
It only takes a few minutes to write an email.
Commission@dfw.wa.gov
Director@dfw.wa.gov
Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: KFhunter on September 20, 2019, 03:12:36 PM
That may work in other states but it sure wont work in n.e. wa.
:yeah:
social tolerance is pretty much zero and going lower :chuckle:
In my letter to the commission, director and wildthing I wrote about helping out the canadian lynx in the lynx recovery zones, cougars are hell on lynx. fishers can take out a lynx.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on September 20, 2019, 03:23:43 PM
Post by: kodiak10 on September 20, 2019, 03:25:24 PM
The mechanism suggested in the study is that the younger individuals take up the territory near civilization in areas of so called "heavy hunting". If hunting could actually be conducted without the quota system, then I would imagine that harvest would increase, and the critters would outright avoid the area.
But with the current system of low harvest, I can see some merit to the idea that it would in fact increase the conflict by flooding younger more aggressive animals into the area. Just my :twocents:
Post by: theleo on September 20, 2019, 03:28:26 PM
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2019, 03:32:43 PM
Without being able to use hounds this discussion is pointless. Oregon has done a decent job tracking numbers and doing studies. The only answer they've found that works is hiring houndsmen to kill lions in areas where deer populations risk collapse. Yeah Oregon isn't Washington, but they're not all that different.
I disagree. Run the season august 1st through april 30th with no harvest quotas, plus the option of a 2nd cougar tag, and we will definitely see an increase in harvest.
And with them saying a complete closure of cougar hunting is on the table, sending emails supporting cougar hunting isnt only not pointless, its absolutely critical.
Post by: KFhunter on September 20, 2019, 03:35:36 PM
To clarify, I posted the study because I thought it could be used as a good source to justify more hunting of cougars.
The mechanism suggested in the study is that the younger individuals take up the territory near civilization in areas of so called "heavy hunting". If hunting could actually be conducted without the quota system, then I would imagine that harvest would increase, and the critters would outright avoid the area.
But with the current system of low harvest, I can see some merit to the idea that it would in fact increase the conflict by flooding younger more aggressive animals into the area. Just my :twocents:
I see what you're saying, and don't disagree. Here was my letter:
All,
I'm addressing you all about concerns to proposed changes to mountain lion hunting, I am a lion hunter, each winter I spend 10-15 days hunting mt lion. I can tell you that calling lions isn't all that difficult really, its calling in the right lion and getting a shot that's difficult.
As we all know it is difficult to hunt lion by our current methods and most of the lions taken (the great bulk of lions) are taken as a by-product of hunting other species and is completely randomized. These lions taken can only be counted as surplus lions and easily replaced by next years batch of kits.
Being that the huge majority of lions taken in Washington are very randomized, most of the current studies about cats being "self regulating" doesn't fit our hunting circumstances, we simply don't (can't) target those large dominant Toms. Washington hunters are mostly killing younger surplus lions that a large tom either drove out, or would kill eventually anyways.
My main concern isn't the "self regulating population of lions"; but the declining deer/elk herds.
If Washington hunters can "help" get rid of surplus lions and those big hunter wary toms are likewise killing younger lions, I think it can only help deer/elk herds and at least in areas I hunt would also give the Canadian Lynx a fighting chance if they aren't mauled by Cougars.
Limiting lion hunting even more will also have a profound effect on social tolerance of all predators and WDFW.
My recommendation is to get rid of quota's and tags and do coyote hunting rules. Without hounds, traps and other more successful means of hunting... Washington hunters will never be able to make a measurable dent in the population, yet social tolerance will be improved and perhaps deer/elk numbers in heavily lion impacted areas will also improve.
Post by: KFhunter on September 20, 2019, 03:38:40 PM
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2019, 03:53:34 PM
Post by: kodiak10 on September 20, 2019, 04:04:58 PM
Post by: Humptulips on September 20, 2019, 06:32:35 PM
Without being able to use hounds this discussion is pointless. Oregon has done a decent job tracking numbers and doing studies. The only answer they've found that works is hiring houndsmen to kill lions in areas where deer populations risk collapse. Yeah Oregon isn't Washington, but they're not all that different.
If cougar trapping were allowed we could put the hurt on them. They readily go into a cage trap. The beauty of the idea is unlike hound hunting this can be done without going through the Legislature. All the Commission would need to do is change cougars status to dual Big Game/ Furbearer.
Who wouldn't want to catch a cougar? :dunno: I might turn the lot of you into trappers. :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on September 20, 2019, 06:45:00 PM
Post by: Stein on September 20, 2019, 06:47:31 PM
I'm afraid that assuming the increase in interactions with people and livestock leading to actively managing the cats down is going to lead to disappointment when we see what is really going on behind the scenes.
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2019, 07:11:34 PM
That is a well written letter. 2cTo clarify, I posted the study because I thought it could be used as a good source to justify more hunting of cougars.
The mechanism suggested in the study is that the younger individuals take up the territory near civilization in areas of so called "heavy hunting". If hunting could actually be conducted without the quota system, then I would imagine that harvest would increase, and the critters would outright avoid the area.
But with the current system of low harvest, I can see some merit to the idea that it would in fact increase the conflict by flooding younger more aggressive animals into the area. Just my :twocents:
I see what you're saying, and don't disagree. Here was my letter:
All,
I'm addressing you all about concerns to proposed changes to mountain lion hunting, I am a lion hunter, each winter I spend 10-15 days hunting mt lion. I can tell you that calling lions isn't all that difficult really, its calling in the right lion and getting a shot that's difficult.
As we all know it is difficult to hunt lion by our current methods and most of the lions taken (the great bulk of lions) are taken as a by-product of hunting other species and is completely randomized. These lions taken can only be counted as surplus lions and easily replaced by next years batch of kits.
Being that the huge majority of lions taken in Washington are very randomized, most of the current studies about cats being "self regulating" doesn't fit our hunting circumstances, we simply don't (can't) target those large dominant Toms. Washington hunters are mostly killing younger surplus lions that a large tom either drove out, or would kill eventually anyways.
My main concern isn't the "self regulating population of lions"; but the declining deer/elk herds.
If Washington hunters can "help" get rid of surplus lions and those big hunter wary toms are likewise killing younger lions, I think it can only help deer/elk herds and at least in areas I hunt would also give the Canadian Lynx a fighting chance if they aren't mauled by Cougars.
Limiting lion hunting even more will also have a profound effect on social tolerance of all predators and WDFW.
My recommendation is to get rid of quota's and tags and do coyote hunting rules. Without hounds, traps and other more successful means of hunting... Washington hunters will never be able to make a measurable dent in the population, yet social tolerance will be improved and perhaps deer/elk numbers in heavily lion impacted areas will also improve.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2019, 08:02:10 PM
Without being able to use hounds this discussion is pointless. Oregon has done a decent job tracking numbers and doing studies. The only answer they've found that works is hiring houndsmen to kill lions in areas where deer populations risk collapse. Yeah Oregon isn't Washington, but they're not all that different.
If cougar trapping were allowed we could put the hurt on them. They readily go into a cage trap. The beauty of the idea is unlike hound hunting this can be done without going through the Legislature. All the Commission would need to do is change cougars status to dual Big Game/ Furbearer.
Who wouldn't want to catch a cougar? :dunno: I might turn the lot of you into trappers. :chuckle:
Id do it in a heartbeat. Wouldnt even have to leave my property with the trap.
Post by: Humptulips on September 20, 2019, 10:24:22 PM
Unfortunately, my guess would be that we should be arguing to keep what we have as this smells of a reduction rather than WDFW looking to increase opportunity.
I'm afraid that assuming the increase in interactions with people and livestock leading to actively managing the cats down is going to lead to disappointment when we see what is really going on behind the scenes.
I think we have allies in the Commission and the Director. Why we need to speak up.
Post by: bearpaw on September 22, 2019, 11:29:18 AM
1) conflict is certainly a concern, although I don't know the yearly averages for conflict. Even during hound seasons way back when, there were still human/lion conflicts.
I would want numbers on historic conflict vs later trends before I crafted a letter using this source. I'm sure its out there and maybe even easy to find I just don't have it right now.
2) decline in ungulates, again it would be nice to have some statistics and some are available but in many areas there isn't any counts on some/all ungulate species.
3) ineffectiveness of boot hunting and clearly articulating that the only reason boot hunters are having success is due to gross overpopulation of mt lions.
4) current hunting rule set currently based on a fraudulent study that was highly manipulated by Wielgus. Cougars had no trouble thriving in WA before Wielgus came along and restricted
Mt. Lion hunting by implementing the ludicrous quota system. It didn't need to be implemented then, and doesn't need to be here now.
5) I think current lion quotas are somewhat based on prior years harvest statistics. A major problem with basing current quotas on historic harvest data is that historic harvest data occurred when cougar populations were much lower and cougar were not as widely distributed. When a population becomes three times larger it is certainly arguable that the harvest quota needs to be increased to three times as many to prevent continued population growth!
Post by: Bango skank on September 27, 2019, 03:27:42 PM
Emails, the more the merrier.
Commission@dfw.wa.gov
Director@dfw.wa.gov
Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
:mgun:
Post by: Wsucoug on December 07, 2019, 11:31:36 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 08, 2019, 04:57:38 AM
Post by: Bango skank on December 08, 2019, 05:20:08 AM
Any updates on this?
"In addition, the commission will seek public comment as they consider changes during a public hearing on proposed rules in March prior to making a decision in April 2020. "
Official public comment period is still a few months away. I posted this to get people to start badgering them early, to make it clear to them that more aggressive cougar management is needed before they begin working on the new proposal. We will all have to throw our 2 cents in when they open up the public comment period.
Post by: Bango skank on December 20, 2019, 12:32:27 PM
Post by: hhack on December 20, 2019, 03:06:28 PM
Post by: Bango skank on December 20, 2019, 04:02:55 PM
Can we still send emails? Whom are we address email to? Looks burry on my phone. Eric Gardner? Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Yeah, sorry its blurry, had to resize to post. You csn still send emails. The official public comment period is still "to be announced," but it doesnt hurt to send emails anyway, let them know what we want before the proposed changes are finalized and announced. In addition to the general season going later with greatly increased quotas, i really want to see lion season open august 1st with bear season.
Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Commission@dfw.wa.gov
Director@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: Bango skank on December 20, 2019, 05:32:37 PM
Post by: gramps on December 20, 2019, 07:48:27 PM
As we remember, the last recommended harvest increase was vetoed by Inslee
Post by: Bango skank on December 20, 2019, 07:57:00 PM
The powers that be in Olympia are using Weilgus' cougar plan for the upcoming cougar management plan as per a WDFW employee.
As we remember, the last recommended harvest increase was vetoed by Inslee
Weilgus was disavowed by his own university for being full of *censored* about the cattle / wolf den thing, and hes currently working with hsus to outlaw all lion hunting in colorado. He is clearly exposed as an anti hunting predator advocate, not an unbiased scientist. How wdfw can even consider any management plan based off of his work as valid is beyond me. everything he has touched should be tossed in the trash where it, and he belongs. I hope he gets ass cancer and dies a slow painful death. Ill dance on his grave.
https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/
Post by: Bango skank on December 26, 2019, 07:51:27 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 26, 2019, 08:19:07 PM
With WDFW you might gain ground get some changes,then few studies later your two step backward .I will wait and see .
Post by: Wsucoug on December 26, 2019, 08:56:17 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/magazine/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-wolf-scientist.amp.html
Does anyone actually have access to these studies in their raw form.
Post by: KFhunter on December 26, 2019, 09:32:35 PM
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 11:44:42 AM
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 11:57:29 AM
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2019, 01:11:29 PM
Im going to be raising a stink about this. As much as i hate to see these animals get dumped in a pit and wasted, if allowing the landowner to tag them means they will count toward the harvest guideline, then they need to either change that policy, or stop allowing the landowner to keep them. Hell, even aside from dogs being an illegal method of take, putting your tag on an animal killed by somebody else sounds like party hunting to me.First bango I would like to say your right about the quota , and cougar removals.
As far as cougar management I'm gonna keep my opinion to myself.But will say they should of never started a quota system period.They have kinda put there foot in there mouth .With our governor we are stuck with.
Post by: KFhunter on December 30, 2019, 01:28:32 PM
And yes hunter399, quotas are stupid.
Its my opinion that mt lions connot be hunted below a reasonable objective with the tools available to hunters.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Wsucoug on December 30, 2019, 01:36:31 PM
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/is-cougar-hunting-breeding-chaos/
The point i want to make from the article is: "Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year."
The initiative is the hound hunting ban. I feel if we can get back to a two bag limit and extended season, the ship can be corrected.
I will also add that there was a total of 376 cougars killed last year. Goes to show just how many cats are out there right now.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/management/game-harvest/2018/cougar
Post by: KFhunter on December 30, 2019, 01:41:26 PM
Other than bango, no one makes it look easy.
Just the fact that boot hunters are killing more lions than they did in the days of hounds, shows how outta wack lions are
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2019, 02:16:51 PM
Has anyone ever read this article before?I'm not sure if the amount of cats had went up.As much as more cats are being pushed into pockets and areas that are not the normal.Same goes with deer and elk they are being pushed closer to people off of public lands etc.wolves and coyotes are changing the eco-system at least here in the northeast.Where there are abundant wolves everywhere eles abundant coyotes.The only place to go is where the deer-goat-horse-cow etc. is.Quotas have pushed us as hunters to fill them ,come Jan 1 people look at them and go hunt knowing it's about to close.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/is-cougar-hunting-breeding-chaos/
The point i want to make from the article is: "Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year."
The initiative is the hound hunting ban. I feel if we can get back to a two bag limit and extended season, the ship can be corrected.
I will also add that there was a total of 376 cougars killed last year. Goes to show just how many cats are out there right now.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/management/game-harvest/2018/cougar
Quotas always seem to be higher around gmu closer to cities ,public safety ,ect.
My biggest fear is we will follow California just like our gun laws Hunting for lions will be banned.At some point.WDFW will over harvest just like every other species it will get banned never to come back.WDFW have a pretty good history of giving out to many permits,tags,ect.To only take it away years later.
I think the quotas are stupid,I believe they should of just reduced the season by a month and end cougar season March 1 or Feb 1 or just reduced or lengthen the season from a year to year basis on harvest reports ect.
But know we are stuck with quotas , So it makes it very important that they stick to the harvest guidelines they put fourth , cause we will go down that Californian road.
These are all thoery on cougar. :tinfoil:
I will not argue about it ,it's just a crackpot ramble good for nothing,so please share how you feel about it, right or wrong I really don't care.
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 03:21:17 PM
We should have this info for all units, i know, but for now im focusing locally so as to be less work retrieving the information, and to be able to go through our local wdfw personnell rather than the numbskulls in olympia. My guess is that they dont even keep track of that information. If thats the case, ill be making noise about that too, and hope some folks on here will help me with said noise making. Ill report back when i get a reply that will undoubtedly be a disappointment.
Ya know, maybe if they cared about the almost universal distrust of the department by the public they could start operating with a bit of honesty and transparency.
As hunters, we cover a larger portion of their operating costs through license fees than the non hunting public does. We deserve to know what is going on.
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 04:07:35 PM
First the good: in the new lion proposal, they are suggesting not counting cats under 24 months of age toward the harvest guideline. This is good, and is only rational since those cats dont count toward our estimated population. However, tooth aging doesnt occur that fast, so the age would be left to the determination / interpretation of whoever checks in the cat. I dont trust them all not to have their own agenda. One local wdfw officer i know of is very much against killing cougars.
Now the bad. And its really bad. I believe it would nearly eliminate all hunter harvest, exascerbating our cougar overpopulation problem. : one proposal "to increase hunter opportunity by allowing cougar season to stay open through april" is to NOT OPEN COUGAR SEASON UNTIL AFTER GENERAL DEER AND ELK SEASONS to remove incidental harvest, so thst dedicated lion hunters can have all winter. How many people are actually out in the winter targeting lions? Dont get me wrong, i want more opportunity, but the single most important thing is to get lions killed, to try to somewhat keep our population in check. Pretty much all lion kills are incidental. This is a HORRIBLE idea, and if anybody here cares sbout deer or elk hunting, you damn well better start raising hell about this now.
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 04:12:08 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 30, 2019, 04:12:45 PM
Wild guess on my part, but its gotta be super high!
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: bigskyhounds on December 30, 2019, 04:14:11 PM
So how bout this program to harass cats to get them to stop depredations. Are they going to continue this and have hunters out there and possibly being interfered with. Those cats that they harass may become darn near impossible to hunt after they're done. That's the goal to learn to avoid humans. Don't think it's a good idea, when we need to help our ungulates this doesn't do anything but possibly have a negative impact.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 30, 2019, 04:14:15 PM
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 04:17:19 PM
CORRECTION, looks like theyve all met quota other than 101and 113
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 04:34:54 PM
Temove incidental harvest and that would imilinate what, 98% of the harvest?
Wild guess on my part, but its gotta be super high!
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Id guess that number isnt far off.
Post by: KFhunter on December 30, 2019, 04:42:21 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: buckfvr on December 30, 2019, 05:24:55 PM
How can we challenge proposals that contain false or misinformation directly to the author that is unknown. If they write a proposal, they sure as hell should stand up and be accountable for it.
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 05:26:07 PM
Some how we need to pressure wdfw and the commission to require proposals be signed by the author. I think one of the requirements for a proposal to even be read/considered, would be a signature of those or the individual responsible.
How can we challenge proposals that contain false or misinformation directly to the author that is unknown. If they write a proposal, they sure as hell should stand up and be accountable for it.
Damn right
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 05:53:44 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
Post by: ctwiggs1 on December 30, 2019, 06:09:31 PM
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 06:16:43 PM
I’ll read it through tomorrow but offhand I think Option C is what we need be very vocal in opposing. It’s going to be hard to rally people to hunt cougar during deer and elk seasons.
And we need to be very vocal in opposing the proposal to not open cougar until after general deer and elk seasons. That would effectively eliminate damn near all hunter harvest. Nobody would be killing cats here except the guys doing the depredation removals. It would basically be california
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2019, 06:21:19 PM
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 06:24:25 PM
I thought I read something about using cougar tag holders for hound depredations removals ,i like that option.Its like a guided hunt for free.
Sounds to me like a way to make depredation removals count toward the harvest quota. I dont like it one bit.
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2019, 06:24:51 PM
But the chances of me seeing a cougar are slim as a rifle Hunter for deer .I’ll read it through tomorrow but offhand I think Option C is what we need be very vocal in opposing. It’s going to be hard to rally people to hunt cougar during deer and elk seasons.
And we need to be very vocal in opposing the proposal to not open cougar until after general deer and elk seasons. That would effectively eliminate damn near all hunter harvest. Nobody would be killing cats here except the guys doing the depredation removals. It would basically be california
Then I have to stay at home with kids,and sit on the couch and talk to the wife and talk about our feelings . :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
ALL WINTER.
Post by: TheStovePipeKid on December 30, 2019, 06:26:35 PM
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 06:28:48 PM
But the chances of me seeing a cougar are slim as a rifle Hunter for deer .I’ll read it through tomorrow but offhand I think Option C is what we need be very vocal in opposing. It’s going to be hard to rally people to hunt cougar during deer and elk seasons.
And we need to be very vocal in opposing the proposal to not open cougar until after general deer and elk seasons. That would effectively eliminate damn near all hunter harvest. Nobody would be killing cats here except the guys doing the depredation removals. It would basically be california
Then I have to stay at home with kids,and sit on the couch and talk to the wife and talk about our feelings . :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
ALL WINTER.
Or you could go out and actively hunt cougar outside of deer season rather than support a proposal that will result in premature quota closures and reduce hunter opportunity and the total number of lions killed just for your own personal sense of satisfaction in notching a tag that youre saying you wont actually work to fill.
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 06:30:05 PM
Why on earth would evaluating social dynamics (people) and adjusting guidelines even be a consideration? How does that fit into their stupid narrative of "good science".
Didnt you know? Science = feelings. Duh.
Post by: gramps on December 30, 2019, 06:31:59 PM
Wheredid you find the mortality data?
The season closure page hasn't been updated since Aug. 29
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 06:32:54 PM
Thanks Bango for your work on this.
Wheredid you find the mortality data?
The season closure page hasn't been updated since Aug. 29
I got it by annoying people with emails.
Post by: gramps on December 30, 2019, 06:40:19 PM
I haven't been able to get an update from anyone in the office down here re: harvest to date. About 3 weeks ago there had only been 3 tagged locally.
Last 3 yrs harvest in the blues has exceeded the quota by double by the end of Dec.
I have made 13 trips so far and 21 calling sets in areas where I have seen and harvested cougar, trapped bobcats and nothing so far but wolves.
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2019, 06:42:53 PM
Was kinda jokeing .But the chances of me seeing a cougar are slim as a rifle Hunter for deer .I’ll read it through tomorrow but offhand I think Option C is what we need be very vocal in opposing. It’s going to be hard to rally people to hunt cougar during deer and elk seasons.
And we need to be very vocal in opposing the proposal to not open cougar until after general deer and elk seasons. That would effectively eliminate damn near all hunter harvest. Nobody would be killing cats here except the guys doing the depredation removals. It would basically be california
Then I have to stay at home with kids,and sit on the couch and talk to the wife and talk about our feelings . :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
ALL WINTER.
Or you could go out and actively hunt cougar outside of deer season rather than support a proposal that will result in premature quota closures and reduce hunter opportunity and the total number of lions killed just for your own personal sense of satisfaction in notching a tag that youre saying you wont actually work to fill.
But I will support what ever option that works for me.
Honestly I kinda like the quotas being in the early season ,And being able to hunt till April .Your looking for harvest rates.I'm looking for quality time I can spend in the woods without a huge pumpkin patch.
Just FYI you should never assume how much time I spend in the woods , you may be surprised.
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 06:44:29 PM
Tks.
I haven't been able to get an update from anyone in the office down here re: harvest to date. About 3 weeks ago there had only been 3 tagged locally.
Last 3 yrs harvest in the blues has exceeded the quota by double by the end of Dec.
I have made 13 trips so far and 21 calling sets in areas where I have seen and harvested cougar, trapped bobcats and nothing so far but wolves.
Everywhere i go looking for bobcat tracks its wolf tracks, wolf tracks, wolf tracks. When i go to idaho tomorrow looking for wolves it will probably just be bobcat tracks everywhere :rolleyes:
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 06:45:12 PM
Was kinda jokeing .But the chances of me seeing a cougar are slim as a rifle Hunter for deer .I’ll read it through tomorrow but offhand I think Option C is what we need be very vocal in opposing. It’s going to be hard to rally people to hunt cougar during deer and elk seasons.
And we need to be very vocal in opposing the proposal to not open cougar until after general deer and elk seasons. That would effectively eliminate damn near all hunter harvest. Nobody would be killing cats here except the guys doing the depredation removals. It would basically be california
Then I have to stay at home with kids,and sit on the couch and talk to the wife and talk about our feelings . :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
ALL WINTER.
Or you could go out and actively hunt cougar outside of deer season rather than support a proposal that will result in premature quota closures and reduce hunter opportunity and the total number of lions killed just for your own personal sense of satisfaction in notching a tag that youre saying you wont actually work to fill.
But I will support what ever option that works for me.
Honestly I kinda like the quotas being in the early season ,And being able to hunt till April .Your looking for harvest rates.I'm looking for quality time I can spend in the woods without a huge pumpkin patch.
Just FYI you should never assume how much time I spend in the woods , you may be surprised.
You said yourself after deer season youd be sitting on the couch.
And whatever option works for you, meaning works for you filling a cougar tag... what about what works for the health of our herds? We need to help our ungulate populations, thats more important than you filling a tag on a depredation hound hunt. Tjink about something bigger than your own personal gratification.
Does losing otc mule deer hunting work for you? Does losing otc late mf whitetail work for you? How about big reductions in moose permits snd elk opportunities, does that work for you? Because its all in the near future if we dont start bringing down our predator numbers.
Post by: Humptulips on December 30, 2019, 06:51:24 PM
The only hope for increased harvest seems to be Option F or they will increase the population estimate based on localized habitat conditions. I get the feeling from reading it they will not increase the Statewide population but just move things around so that there will be no real change.
I lobbyied them for trapping and not even a mention of it.
I predict whatever they do will be of no consequence. I hope I am wrong.
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2019, 07:17:09 PM
I know me and you just can't get along.Was kinda jokeing .But the chances of me seeing a cougar are slim as a rifle Hunter for deer .I’ll read it through tomorrow but offhand I think Option C is what we need be very vocal in opposing. It’s going to be hard to rally people to hunt cougar during deer and elk seasons.
And we need to be very vocal in opposing the proposal to not open cougar until after general deer and elk seasons. That would effectively eliminate damn near all hunter harvest. Nobody would be killing cats here except the guys doing the depredation removals. It would basically be california
Then I have to stay at home with kids,and sit on the couch and talk to the wife and talk about our feelings . :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
ALL WINTER.
Or you could go out and actively hunt cougar outside of deer season rather than support a proposal that will result in premature quota closures and reduce hunter opportunity and the total number of lions killed just for your own personal sense of satisfaction in notching a tag that youre saying you wont actually work to fill.
But I will support what ever option that works for me.
Honestly I kinda like the quotas being in the early season ,And being able to hunt till April .Your looking for harvest rates.I'm looking for quality time I can spend in the woods without a huge pumpkin patch.
Just FYI you should never assume how much time I spend in the woods , you may be surprised.
You said yourself after deer season youd be sitting on the couch.
And whatever option works for you, meaning works for you filling a cougar tag... what about what works for the health of our herds? We need to help our ungulate populations, thats more important than you filling a tag on a depredation hound hunt. Tjink about something bigger than your own personal gratification.
The way I see it bear season starts in August.That starts to put animals on alert .My chances go down from there, labor day,grouse etc .all seasons kick in .my chances of seeing a coug go down and down.Then all the people go home and I can take $hit in the woods without looking over my shoulder.
I'm basically saying I'm sick of quota after Jan 1.I like to snowshoe around with a tag to burn,but that might only be me. :dunno:
I don't have faith that much is gonna save deer and elk.I do believe there is a balance between Prey/Predator.Its been way off balance for many years too long.
You have been asking for more opportunity , just like the poll says at the top of the page now your not happy with the great opportunity there giving ya .Just keep blasting with emails before you know it opportunity should be great.A few pages back I said I would wait to send my email till I seen the changes now I will send.
I do like the idea of a lucky tag holder getting a hound hunt and not the property owner, I think its great way to keep those cats out of the state pit.
You wanna help deer-elk let's get trapping regs changed now that will make a difference.
Post by: Bango skank on December 30, 2019, 07:19:14 PM
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2019, 09:10:40 PM
Youre saying youre sick of the quota after jan 1st... well thats exactly what youll have in every unit every year if they allow hunters to tag along on depredation removals. Every unit would close jan 1st, and your only option to hunt cougars would be to tag along on a depredation removal. How many names will be in the hat for that? It would essentially change all cougar hunting in this state to a lottery draw for a hunt accompanying wdfw. And it would decrease total harvest. But you just want to fill a tag. Screw whats right for our herds.I'm not sure why your so upset ?
Most units already close as of Jan 1.
WDFW already outlined there trying to keep harvest rates the same.
:dunno:
You can't kill all the cats and bears leave everything to wolves and think there will be some deer-elk resurrection.Will it help maybe.
We can spit fire all day at each other,but we have all seen this a few times WDFW will do which one they want,we will all comment on how it's sucks and it's a done deal.
Post by: KFhunter on December 30, 2019, 09:18:13 PM
How freaking pathetic is that?
I could see people getting some goats just for this, a hound hunt in Idaho is how much?
Depredation hunts shouldnt go towards a quota, even if its tagged, and if people start doing that with goats, sheep etc then no one should keep the lions
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkslayer on December 30, 2019, 11:12:57 PM
Just continues to get crazier all the time that is on of the craziest proposals I've heard.
So how bout this program to harass cats to get them to stop depredations. Are they going to continue this and have hunters out there and possibly being interfered with. Those cats that they harass may become darn near impossible to hunt after they're done. That's the goal to learn to avoid humans. Don't think it's a good idea, when we need to help our ungulates this doesn't do anything but possibly have a negative impact.
It’s happened to me twice and let me tell you I’m not to happy about it. Went in this morning with my son planning on calling in two different areas. Hit one side of the road first and while I was calling they dumped the dogs out on the other side of the road. I could tell they had one treed up on top of the ridge by the time I got back to the truck.
Also messed up a late archery deer hunt back on Dec 5th in the same area.
They should have to wait until seasons are over to do this hazing study. My opinion is that it’s a complete waste of time and money anyway. The cat they are attempting to haze is not leaving the area at all. We have it on camera every week.
The way I see it, today’s stunt just screwed me out of a opportunity to punch my tag.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on December 30, 2019, 11:32:58 PM
Bango, if you raised some goats you'd for sure get a free hound hunt AND you could tag your lion!KF I think they are trying to get away from property owners taging , And calling Hunters in the area that have cougar tags to come shoot and tag.But could be wrong :dunno:
How freaking pathetic is that?
I could see people getting some goats just for this, a hound hunt in Idaho is how much?
Depredation hunts shouldnt go towards a quota, even if its tagged, and if people start doing that with goats, sheep etc then no one should keep the lions
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on December 30, 2019, 11:38:40 PM
Post by: bigskyhounds on December 31, 2019, 04:18:53 AM
Just continues to get crazier all the time that is on of the craziest proposals I've heard.
So how bout this program to harass cats to get them to stop depredations. Are they going to continue this and have hunters out there and possibly being interfered with. Those cats that they harass may become darn near impossible to hunt after they're done. That's the goal to learn to avoid humans. Don't think it's a good idea, when we need to help our ungulates this doesn't do anything but possibly have a negative impact.
It’s happened to me twice and let me tell you I’m not to happy about it. Went in this morning with my son planning on calling in two different areas. Hit one side of the road first and while I was calling they dumped the dogs out on the other side of the road. I could tell they had one treed up on top of the ridge by the time I got back to the truck.
Also messed up a late archery deer hunt back on Dec 5th in the same area.
They should have to wait until seasons are over to do this hazing study. My opinion is that it’s a complete waste of time and money anyway. The cat they are attempting to haze is not leaving the area at all. We have it on camera every week.
The way I see it, today’s stunt just screwed me out of a opportunity to punch my tag.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Heard they chased a cat near horseshoe yesterday. Was this incident neat there? Ya they shouldn't be interfering with legal hunts or tranquilizing cats while a season is open. Just amazes me more and more all the time how backwards things are done by those in charge.
How does this harassment program even get approved but a pursuit season goes no where? I was told they had 7 meetings to discuss the pursuit season. These people are being paid to sit down and figure it out. Guess what they figured out nothing?
Hound hunting and wildlife issues should not be in politics or be voted on by undeducated people. But when the people in charge want to take away opportunity and manage for predators it's a scary period we are being forced to live through I only hope some of those in charge realize how screwed up things are and they turn the other way.
Post by: Elkslayer on December 31, 2019, 07:46:00 AM
Just continues to get crazier all the time that is on of the craziest proposals I've heard.
So how bout this program to harass cats to get them to stop depredations. Are they going to continue this and have hunters out there and possibly being interfered with. Those cats that they harass may become darn near impossible to hunt after they're done. That's the goal to learn to avoid humans. Don't think it's a good idea, when we need to help our ungulates this doesn't do anything but possibly have a negative impact.
It’s happened to me twice and let me tell you I’m not to happy about it. Went in this morning with my son planning on calling in two different areas. Hit one side of the road first and while I was calling they dumped the dogs out on the other side of the road. I could tell they had one treed up on top of the ridge by the time I got back to the truck.
Also messed up a late archery deer hunt back on Dec 5th in the same area.
They should have to wait until seasons are over to do this hazing study. My opinion is that it’s a complete waste of time and money anyway. The cat they are attempting to haze is not leaving the area at all. We have it on camera every week.
The way I see it, today’s stunt just screwed me out of a opportunity to punch my tag.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Heard they chased a cat near horseshoe yesterday. Was this incident neat there? Ya they shouldn't be interfering with legal hunts or tranquilizing cats while a season is open. Just amazes me more and more all the time how backwards things are done by those in charge.
How does this harassment program even get approved but a pursuit season goes no where? I was told they had 7 meetings to discuss the pursuit season. These people are being paid to sit down and figure it out. Guess what they figured out nothing?
Hound hunting and wildlife issues should not be in politics or be voted on by undeducated people. But when the people in charge want to take away opportunity and manage for predators it's a scary period we are being forced to live through I only hope some of those in charge realize how screwed up things are and they turn the other way.
Yes this was up horseshoe. I’ve been hunting that area for years for cats.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Wsucoug on January 02, 2020, 11:06:34 AM
We need to increase our opportunity. There is no shortage of cougars in 117 and 121. I can't speak to the other units as I don't hunt them, but from what I hear, it's no different.
Do we know from past experience with other rule changes if the commission will take our comments and basically blend the options? Or is it options A through F period, with no changes to the current text possible.
Post by: Wsucoug on January 02, 2020, 11:21:49 AM
Why on earth would evaluating social dynamics (people) and adjusting guidelines even be a consideration? How does that fit into their stupid narrative of "good science".
Didnt you know? Science = feelings. Duh.
Have you ever seen data sets from these types of studies? They are often not very convincing and also hard to reproduce because the environment is so dynamic. Additionally good science is slow, it takes years to collect data, and when you finally collect the data, it may be already out of date because disease goes though and wipes out the deer populations changing a important environmental factor (blue tongue anyone?)
This method could take into account what sportsman are seeing in the field and make changes faster. What are the guides and outfitters seeing? Large landowners seeing? Lots of cougar sightings and no deer.........well we can take that into account next season.
What is hard is how do you maintain accountability? Words are cheap when there are no consequences.
Post by: buckfvr on January 02, 2020, 11:50:50 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 02, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
Too many wdfw employees are anti hunters, too many inslee constituents anti hunt, so it seems wdfw wants you to spend every last cent you have to keep them afloat with out killing anything except baby deer.:yeah:
I'm sure they prefer non harvest at times.More resource to charge you for next year.
Post by: hunter399 on January 02, 2020, 08:23:48 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 05, 2020, 09:26:48 PM
Bart George
509 671 6149
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 06, 2020, 05:13:36 AM
Post by: Special T on January 06, 2020, 07:20:09 AM
If you mess with the earlier part of the season your not gonna kill as many cats.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Jingles on January 06, 2020, 08:23:07 AM
It is WDFW's responsibility to manage the game populations, All Species, in the State not Anti hunters or voters
Post by: Wsucoug on January 06, 2020, 12:12:48 PM
Incidental harvest of cats is HUGE. Something like 95% of cats in this state are taken while hunting a different species, namely deer and elk.
If you mess with the earlier part of the season your not gonna kill as many cats.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
WDFW probably has a pretty accurate number. When you harvest a cougar they ask you if you were cougar hunting or if you were doing something else when you take the hide in to get it sealed.
Post by: bearpaw on January 06, 2020, 05:52:24 PM
Okay, you guys got to read through this. One option is to abolish the quota. One is to reverse it so the quota shutdowns would only be in effect during the early season, with the late season open no matter what. Option 3, flat out closing the season after dec 31st.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
It says final draft, so they probably are not going to be very receptive to many other options. When they adopted the wolf plan, every option put the same excessive number of wolves in this state, we were screwed no matter what option was chosen.
I see a few good options in some of the recommendations but lack any faith that WDFW will do anything meaningful.
Master Hound Hunters
Volunteer hound hunters could provide help with cougar safety removals and public hunters could benefit if allowed to take a cougar. That would be a huge win for the hunting community and for public relations in cougar impacted areas, local residents get rid of problem cougar, hound hunters get to work their dogs, and a public hunter gets an opportunity to take a cougar! Why keep throwing cougar in the landfill? This is an excellent idea!
Season Structures
Lots of talk about early and late seasons, why not keep both, split the quota and save 20% or at least one cougar in every cougar management area for the late season, so everyone gets opportunity.
Population Dynamics
This is where WDFW really falls flat on their face! They are still hung up on studies done by Wielgus a proven fraud who works for the anti-hunting community now, every other western state has done studies on cougar and nobody got the same results as Wielgus! DOH! WDFW needs to get past his rubbish!
That's about all I've got to say at the moment!
Post by: hunter399 on January 07, 2020, 10:12:01 AM
Okay, you guys got to read through this. One option is to abolish the quota. One is to reverse it so the quota shutdowns would only be in effect during the early season, with the late season open no matter what. Option 3, flat out closing the season after dec 31st.Option 1 does not abolish the quotas.From the link for option 1.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
Implementation Option 1 Decide if current season dates are still acceptable and change as necessary (e.g., later opening date, exclusion of April, etc.). Continue mandatory checks and harvest data collection. Harvest guidelines would still be the same as current, but implemented throughout the entire season. Hunter hotline, reporting, and closures would be implemented as they currently are in the winter.
Option 1 General season structure (dates to be determined, 1 animal bag limit) with statewide harvest guideline. The department could vary the dates to allow for more focused cougar hunting opportunities. Closure occurs when we meet statewide guideline.
Options Option 1 Permit hunting opportunity In this option, all hunters could hunt for cougar during regular general season (Sept 1 through December 31) and cougar-only hunters could apply for by permit winter season.
Sub-adult cougars of both sexes, defined as less than 24 months of age, are excluded from the revised Harvest Guideline calculations and seasonal closure triggers
Using existing research data and the scientific literature, generate a new habitat map for Washington that classifies the landscape into one of four classes of habitat quality – “High”, “Medium”, “Low”, and “Unsuitable”. We would base habitat quality designations on a combination of biotic and abiotic landscape characteristics (e.g., forest composition, terrain ruggedness, and human footprint). The amount of area of each habitat class would be summed within each PMU and assigned a cougar density. The current harvest framework would still be applied throughout the state (i.e., season length and structure, 12-16% harvest limit), albeit with new population estimates for each PMU
Basicly new cougar map
New statewide quota
Only adult cougar counted
Permit season for winter hunting
No increased harvest.
They can change any season dates they want to reflect harvest.
That option 1 in a nutshell.
Post by: buckfvr on January 07, 2020, 10:21:36 AM
Post by: Special T on January 07, 2020, 11:41:09 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
I see this as a sorry attempt to think the Department can substitute large numbers of deer and elk tag $ with cat hunting. I cannot fathom how these number could offset the decline in tag sales $ the WDFW receives. There certainly is not any way to do so only offering boot hunting. Not even sure you could do it with hounds because the tag price would have to be so high.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 07, 2020, 02:14:09 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 07, 2020, 02:15:48 PM
I really don't see any of these options have a significant decrease in the population of the. Ougars as is needed. When we as hunters and the WDFW allow outside groups to determine the outcome it won't be in our favor. Especially since we don't participate as a group.
Most of their proposals will reduce hunter harvest. Wdfw is full on ******* us over.
Post by: Stein on January 07, 2020, 02:24:07 PM
I really don't see any of these options have a significant decrease in the population of the. Ougars as is needed. When we as hunters and the WDFW allow outside groups to determine the outcome it won't be in our favor. Especially since we don't participate as a group.
I agree with that. A bunch of people will buy a DEBC license and a couple percent of those will see and shoot at one. Other than that, there are a few people that hunt them and of those a few get one.
Nothing they listed will change that. Trying to run a few commercials to recruit cougar hunters is pretty much a waste of money. Anyone that thinks the average guy is going to take his vacation and chase a cat on foot is not bright enough to be in charge of the budget.
Extending the season may result in a few more, but it won't move any needles.
The two options are 1) give up hope and spend the money elsewhere or 2) figure a way to bring back hound hunting.
That won't happen because WDFW won't do the research to build the science to back their stance against backlash from Olympia. They will throw money in a pit, wring their hands and then call up Jay and get new marching orders.
Post by: Jingles on January 07, 2020, 02:32:36 PM
I see this portion as BS and am da-ned tired of the crap in this state of only able to hunt by permit of special hunts for "Master Hunters when they are not accepting anymore applications for their Master hunter program [b[/b]or after I have purchased a license to hunt... If the season is open for any it is open for all
Either open it for everyone or allow permitees to use dogs and not have to take some special class to tell you how to use Dogs I don't need some westside wannabe expert telling me how to run dogs
Post by: Bango skank on January 07, 2020, 02:37:01 PM
"Options Option 1 Permit hunting opportunity In this option, all hunters could hunt for cougar during regular general season (Sept 1 through December 31) and cougar-only hunters could apply for by permit winter season
I see this portion as BS and am da-ned tired of the crap in this state of only able to hunt by permit of special hunts for "Master Hunters when they are not accepting anymore applications for their Master hunter program [b[/b]or after I have purchased a license to hunt... If the season is open for any it is open for all
Not to mention, if they did a draw permit for jan - april, it would end up like the spring bear thing where a ton of people apply and draw the permits, and dont ever even attempt to use them, but even moreso.
Post by: BreezyBear on January 07, 2020, 02:46:20 PM
Post by: gramps on January 07, 2020, 03:03:44 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 07, 2020, 03:08:33 PM
There were 40 tags available to draw for all of the Blue Mountains for the 2009-2010 season. I think that was the last yr for the drawing only cougar deal. There were 9 Lions harvested, one of which was mine. I have only seen one other hunter out hunting Cougar specifically in 35 + years.
Ive gone out in the winter targeting lions in several northeast units and never have i run into another person doing the same. Ive never even once ran into anybody hunting coyotes anywhere. Just not a lot of people out there willing to hit the woods in the winter to hunt even coyotes, let alone cougars. I have a hunch most coyote hunting is done on private land, not out in the mountains on public land.
Post by: Stein on January 07, 2020, 03:12:07 PM
"Options Option 1 Permit hunting opportunity In this option, all hunters could hunt for cougar during regular general season (Sept 1 through December 31) and cougar-only hunters could apply for by permit winter season
I see this portion as BS and am da-ned tired of the crap in this state of only able to hunt by permit of special hunts for "Master Hunters when they are not accepting anymore applications for their Master hunter program [b[/b]or after I have purchased a license to hunt... If the season is open for any it is open for all
I wonder if the reason for a permit instead of a season may have something to do with the fee associated with a permit application.
Not to mention, if they did a draw permit for jan - april, it would end up like the spring bear thing where a ton of people apply and draw the permits, and dont ever even attempt to use them, but even moreso.
Post by: Jingles on January 07, 2020, 03:33:59 PM
"Options Option 1 Permit hunting opportunity In this option, all hunters could hunt for cougar during regular general season (Sept 1 through December 31) and cougar-only hunters could apply for by permit winter season
I see this portion as BS and am da-ned tired of the crap in this state of only able to hunt by permit of special hunts for "Master Hunters when they are not accepting anymore applications for their Master hunter program [b[/b]or after I have purchased a license to hunt... If the season is open for any it is open for all
I wonder if the reason for a permit instead of a season may have something to do with the fee associated with a permit application.
Not to mention, if they did a draw permit for jan - april, it would end up like the spring bear thing where a ton of people apply and draw the permits, and dont ever even attempt to use them, but even moreso.
You are probably correct in saying it probably has something to do with the permit fees, WDFW can't manage their money or the Game any better than the legislators in Olympia can manage their money, all they can do is say Give me more so you can do less.
Post by: Humptulips on January 07, 2020, 05:58:58 PM
I'll note in there pros and cons you can see where they are trying to lead this. Most of the cons in D I would put in the pro column.
CONS
"PMUs that routinely exceed the guidelines could become even greater population sinks."
They don't believe there are actually more cougars in areas where harvest is high. :bash:
"Some members of the public are unlikely to be accepting of this liberalization"
They are obviously worried about CNW, CBD, HSUS and our Governor.
"Provides a perception that the agency thinks more cougars need to be harvested; which could lead to increases in harvest pressure"
There's the problem! They don't see there is a problem. They don't really want to increase the harvest of cougar. :bash:
"Clumped distribution of harvest in areas with high access, potentially creating population sinks in new areas"
If there weren't a lot of cougars in these areas current methods could not increase the harvest significantly. Besides, the studies they are working off of say hunting cannot do this because of migration of young cougar.
" Not using best available science"
The best available science has turned the State into a predator pit.
"Would likely have a negative impact on social stability (males) and recruitment (females) in portions of the state that routinely exceed the guidelines."
IMO a good thing. If we had a few areas where there is some space between cougars maybe the ungulates would rebound a bit.
"High amount of uncertainty of future harvest."
If it goes up good but I don't believe they want that. They should.
"Would be the only western state without a harvest limit."
Every Western State without hound hunting has a cougar problem. Time to try something new. There was a time when there was no harvest limit. Those were better times IMO.
"No mechanism to prevent over harvest"
The mechanism that limits the harvest is by the methods of harvest allowed.
"Increase in harvest is unlikely to decrease conflict and does not address the causes of human-wildlife conflict."
I guess that they don't think an overabundance of hungry cougars has anything to do with conflict. :bash:
They rely too much on models that are not proving to be accurate IMO.
Post by: Bango skank on January 07, 2020, 06:09:39 PM
I have read this thing over a few times and it seems to me like we should all be supporting D No Harvest Guideline General Season. This has the potential to increase the cougar harvest. I don't think substantially but we should get this and then ask for more methods of harvest. None of their options addresses the lack of an effective method of hunting cougars. Maybe eastside with a lot of snow you guys can get them but most of the State I don't see boot hunting ever hurting the cougar population.
I'll note in there pros and cons you can see where they are trying to lead this. Most of the cons in D I would put in the pro column.
CONS
"PMUs that routinely exceed the guidelines could become even greater population sinks."
They don't believe there are actually more cougars in areas where harvest is high. :bash:
"Some members of the public are unlikely to be accepting of this liberalization"
They are obviously worried about CNW, CBD, HSUS and our Governor.
"Provides a perception that the agency thinks more cougars need to be harvested; which could lead to increases in harvest pressure"
There's the problem! They don't see there is a problem. They don't really want to increase the harvest of cougar. :bash:
"Clumped distribution of harvest in areas with high access, potentially creating population sinks in new areas"
If there weren't a lot of cougars in these areas current methods could not increase the harvest significantly. Besides, the studies they are working off of say hunting cannot do this because of migration of young cougar.
" Not using best available science"
The best available science has turned the State into a predator pit.
"Would likely have a negative impact on social stability (males) and recruitment (females) in portions of the state that routinely exceed the guidelines."
IMO a good thing. If we had a few areas where there is some space between cougars maybe the ungulates would rebound a bit.
"High amount of uncertainty of future harvest."
If it goes up good but I don't believe they want that. They should.
"Would be the only western state without a harvest limit."
Every Western State without hound hunting has a cougar problem. Time to try something new. There was a time when there was no harvest limit. Those were better times IMO.
"No mechanism to prevent over harvest"
The mechanism that limits the harvest is by the methods of harvest allowed.
"Increase in harvest is unlikely to decrease conflict and does not address the causes of human-wildlife conflict."
I guess that they don't think an overabundance of hungry cougars has anything to do with conflict. :bash:
They rely too much on models that are not proving to be accurate IMO.
Aside from california, which is a special kind of stupid and doesnt count, i believe only oregon doesnt have hound hunting. Idaho, montana, wyoming, colorado, north and south dakota, utah, nevada, arizona, new mexico. They all have hound hunting. Several also have a 2 cat bag limit. Nevada is open year round. Texas appears to have no regulations on them, basically like our coyote hunting, but even more liberal
Post by: hunter399 on January 07, 2020, 08:51:36 PM
Option two guarantees a winter hunt,and allows quotas to be hit in general season.But can reduce harvest.
Option three does have the best chance at a over harvest but is marginal at best.Lose four months of season.While some gmu will go over by a few cats,more will be under.Depending from year to year.
Basicly they all suck.WDFW is worried about selling big game package and permits so I guess it's a toss up.
Post by: Bango skank on January 24, 2020, 05:13:05 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
January 24, 2020
Contact: Anis Aoude, 360-902-2515
Sam Montgomery, 360-688-0721
WDFW seeks public comments on 2020-2021 hunting seasons
OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking public comments on proposed recommendations for 2020-2021 hunting seasons.
From Feb. 6 through Feb. 26, WDFW will accept written public comments to help finalize hunting rules and regulations proposed for the upcoming year. The proposals and comment forms will be posted on the department's website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/season-setting.
Most of the proposals address minor changes in special permit levels and hunting area descriptions proposed since the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission approved the state's latest three-year hunting package. More substantial proposals, including several options related to cougar season setting, are also under consideration during this process.
"We encourage everyone interested in the upcoming hunting seasons to check the proposed changes and send us your comments," said Anis Aoude, WDFW game division manager.
The Commission, which sets policy for WDFW, will also accept public comments on the proposed recommendations at its March 13-14 meeting in Kennewick. Final action by the Commission is scheduled at a public meeting April 10-11 in Olympia.
WDFW is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish, wildlife, and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 24, 2020, 05:51:49 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 24, 2020, 05:59:06 PM
MINOR changes. I hate to be Debbie downer but no matter what comments we make the dates and numbers rarely change from the adopted 3 year period. The comment period is just a formality. :twocents:
I dont have high hopes either, but if we dont speak up our voices definitely wont be heard. I for one am not ready to lay back and take it with a grin. Look what we did with fall bear. Everybody was naysaying that too, telling me i was blowin smoke up their asses. The change got made outside of the normal season setting timeline, because people made a stink about it. We need to make an even bigger stink about our lion problem.
Post by: KFhunter on January 24, 2020, 06:17:54 PM
I'll be writing in (again) thanks for keeping up with this bango :tup:
Post by: Special T on January 24, 2020, 07:42:58 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bango skank on January 24, 2020, 07:46:26 PM
If you read the proposed changes the harvest level increase is not the goal.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Which is why we need to raise hell.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2020, 07:49:06 PM
If you read the proposed changes the harvest level increase is not the goal.You are correct ,It's not the goal at all.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I would have to read the proposal again but pretty much all three suck.If you look at havest level.
Post by: Nwgunner on January 24, 2020, 08:08:48 PM
MINOR changes. I hate to be Debbie downer but no matter what comments we make the dates and numbers rarely change from the adopted 3 year period. The comment period is just a formality. :twocents:
I dont have high hopes either, but if we dont speak up our voices definitely wont be heard. I for one am not ready to lay back and take it with a grin. Look what we did with fall bear. Everybody was naysaying that too, telling me i was blowin smoke up their asses. The change got made outside of the normal season setting timeline, because people made a stink about it. We need to make an even bigger stink about our lion problem.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2020, 08:19:23 PM
With predator mangement everybody won when the two bear tags where given out early season opener for bear.Bear has a population that can support that ,added extra tag which is revenue.
I would like to see people push the APR min for whitetail VS cougar management we are all barking up the wrong tree .
We have been barking and the three options they gave suck.
The cougar management issues are taking away from other issues that could be making hunting better for future hunters.Just remember every time you bark about cougar management there is only 2000 cougars in the state .So it might be time to get over it and move on to other mangement strategies for deer and elk. :dunno:
Post by: sandman76 on January 25, 2020, 02:39:57 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: buckfvr on January 25, 2020, 03:01:58 PM
Post by: bigmacc on January 25, 2020, 08:31:19 PM
Its just going to wind up being a manipulation of words that dont have much if any affect on harvest. They really really dont want hunters killing more cats.
Unfortunately you are probably right. Predators, and the expansion and growing populations of them are a tool to ever so slowly erode our hunting and in time all but eliminate it as far as some species go. This states government and its voters have and will continue to chip away, growing and nurturing predators is a great resource and tool to achieve the goal. I see it in the Methow already, its just a decade or so away from going draw only because that herd has been flata$$ed decimated by cougars, bears and now wolves, more and more deer are being killed every year by the growing numbers of all 3, the once largest migrating mule deer herd in the country that numbered 35,000 to 40,000 head has been sadly (and in not that long of time) reduced down to around 15,000 head, many(including myself) feel that estimate is about 5,000 head to high. As more and more folks move into that valley, the more and more don't want to see folks in orange walking around the hills, and as more new folks use it for recreation, a large percentage of them are anti hunting, fall in love with the valley and vote accordingly. Our game management is run by politics and voters in this state and until the politics change there will never be enough wolves, bear populations are just right, deer populations are doing great and cougar populations will ALWAYS be at about 2000 animals.... :twocents:
And no, I'm not giving up, they will still hear from me every chance I get.
I hope things change but until some new folks with different political views are voted in I,m afraid this stuff aint gonna change. Everyone needs to exercise their voting rights, it really is the only chance we have as far as the future of hunting in this state goes.
Post by: O. Nerka on January 25, 2020, 09:09:55 PM
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on February 06, 2020, 10:58:50 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/wsr_20-04-091.pdf
"WAC 220-415-100 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 Cougar.
The proposed changes are designed to give the Commission four options to choose from relating to recreational cougar
harvest guidelines. The non-status quo options are intended to extend seasons in areas where harvest has been historically
high, and where cougar human conflict is also high. The intended result of the longer season is to shift a proportion of the
cougar removal, currently carried out by agency personnel, to hunters:
• The first option is status quo with one caveat, the density we used to set the guideline is the median of five research
projects that were conducted in Washington. The median is a better measure because it is not affected by outliers in
the data. In the past we used the mean.
Page 4 of 8
• The second option also uses a median density that is calculated using only adult cougars that are 24 months or
older. This option reduces the guideline slightly, but sub-adult cougars harvested under this option would not count
toward the guideline for season closure.
• The third option adjusts the guideline upward for units that exceeded the guideline by December 31 at least once in
the past five years. The new guideline is based on the highest harvest in the past five years. In this option there is the
assumption that density is higher in these areas. In two PMUs, the guidelines in this option were adjusted, so they did
not exceed an assumed density 4.15 cougars per 100 square kilometers. This was intended to keep the density
within an acceptable range based on research conducted in the western United States. This guideline includes adults
and sub-adults.
• The fourth option is like option three, but only uses a density based on adult cougars and only counts adult cougars
towards the guideline."
If I read this correct we want to support the forth option? Younger cougars shot as "opportunity" don't count, and the population density or quota is set based off the best harvest year in the last 5 years so the units would stay open longer because of a higher quota... I am reading this correct?
Post by: Bango skank on February 06, 2020, 12:28:20 PM
the past five years. The new guideline is based on the highest harvest in the past five years."
Sooo... then gmu 121 would have a harvest guideline of 16??? Sounds good to me. Not as good as NO guideline, but a big improvement.
Post by: Special T on February 06, 2020, 12:29:57 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on February 06, 2020, 12:53:28 PM
"The third option adjusts the guideline upward for units that exceeded the guideline by December 31 at least once in
the past five years. The new guideline is based on the highest harvest in the past five years."
Sooo... then gmu 121 would have a harvest guideline of 16??? Sounds good to me. Not as good as NO guideline, but a big improvement.
Yes... but option four does option 3 plus it doesn't count sub-adult Cougars. So it would be 16 cougars that are 24 months or older.
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on February 06, 2020, 01:09:31 PM
Here is the final draft that I read.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
When you read F, you gotta wonder or it more confirms, WDFW really will set seasons based on feelings...
"Harvest Guideline calculations can vary by social needs within designated geographic portions of
the state. We would establish guidelines that do not always consider maintaining stable cougar
populations based on territoriality or cougar densities."
In one hand, in this instance, I'm almost ok with it, because they are possibly saying if the NE doesn't want cougars they can over harvest, but at the same time they are suggesting other areas could under harvest depending on social needs (feelings).... fundamentally wrong as far as wildlife management goes, so I can't get on board.
Post by: Special T on February 06, 2020, 01:26:45 PM
Here is the final draft that I read.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
When you read F, you gotta wonder or it more confirms, WDFW really will set seasons based on feelings...
"Harvest Guideline calculations can vary by social needs within designated geographic portions of
the state. We would establish guidelines that do not always consider maintaining stable cougar
populations based on territoriality or cougar densities."
In one hand, in this instance, I'm almost ok with it, because they are possibly saying if the NE doesn't want cougars they can over harvest, but at the same time they are suggesting other areas could under harvest depending on social needs (feelings).... fundamentally wrong as far as wildlife management goes, so I can't get on board.
That is the MOST generous interpretation of their statement, which I don't think I could make come out of my mouth.
Post by: Bango skank on February 06, 2020, 01:28:31 PM
"The third option adjusts the guideline upward for units that exceeded the guideline by December 31 at least once in
the past five years. The new guideline is based on the highest harvest in the past five years."
Sooo... then gmu 121 would have a harvest guideline of 16??? Sounds good to me. Not as good as NO guideline, but a big improvement.
Yes... but option four does option 3 plus it doesn't count sub-adult Cougars. So it would be 16 cougars that are 24 months or older.
Not necessarily. Im sure thry would look at how many of those 16 cougar were 24 mo +. If only 7 of them were, wed get a quota of 7 im sure. Lot of very pointed specific questions need be put to wdfw, and they need to answer with specific clear answers.
Ill be poking and prodding at them for direct answers to some things before i comment on the options.
Post by: Bango skank on February 06, 2020, 01:39:53 PM
But my big thing with it, is whoever checks the cat in makes the determination on age. Do you think none of the wardens or bios have an anti cougar hunting agenda? One local wdfw officer told me to my face he thinks cougars are beautiful animals and he doesnt think people should shoot them. If somebody brings an 18 month old cat in to him, ill bet the farm hed call it 24 month+ so that it would count toward the harvest guideline.
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on February 06, 2020, 01:54:23 PM
Here is the final draft that I read.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
When you read F, you gotta wonder or it more confirms, WDFW really will set seasons based on feelings...
"Harvest Guideline calculations can vary by social needs within designated geographic portions of
the state. We would establish guidelines that do not always consider maintaining stable cougar
populations based on territoriality or cougar densities."
In one hand, in this instance, I'm almost ok with it, because they are possibly saying if the NE doesn't want cougars they can over harvest, but at the same time they are suggesting other areas could under harvest depending on social needs (feelings).... fundamentally wrong as far as wildlife management goes, so I can't get on board.
That is the MOST generous interpretation of their statement, which I don't think I could make come out of my mouth.
My vote is D-Option 1:
D. No Harvest Guideline, General Season
Description
Cougar harvest would occur in a general season with a 1 animal bag limit for licensed hunters.
No harvest guidelines would be in effect, except in the options below.
Options
Option 1
Cougar Season: 1 animal bag limit, no guideline.
But will they take comments on this idea or only comments on the rules they released today on their website?
Post by: Bango skank on February 06, 2020, 01:57:02 PM
Here is the final draft that I read.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/draft__alternatives_for_cougar_management_final_draft.pdf
When you read F, you gotta wonder or it more confirms, WDFW really will set seasons based on feelings...
"Harvest Guideline calculations can vary by social needs within designated geographic portions of
the state. We would establish guidelines that do not always consider maintaining stable cougar
populations based on territoriality or cougar densities."
In one hand, in this instance, I'm almost ok with it, because they are possibly saying if the NE doesn't want cougars they can over harvest, but at the same time they are suggesting other areas could under harvest depending on social needs (feelings).... fundamentally wrong as far as wildlife management goes, so I can't get on board.
That is the MOST generous interpretation of their statement, which I don't think I could make come out of my mouth.
My vote is D-Option 1:
D. No Harvest Guideline, General Season
Description
Cougar harvest would occur in a general season with a 1 animal bag limit for licensed hunters.
No harvest guidelines would be in effect, except in the options below.
Options
Option 1
Cougar Season: 1 animal bag limit, no guideline.
But will they take comments on this idea or only comments on the rules they released today on their website?
Read between the lines, "general season" that means sept 1st through dec 31st. The guidelines only shut down after dec 31st. So essentially all thats doing is saying no late season whatsoever. Thats a big loss. Anyway, that was one of the original proposals, not the new final 4 options.
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on February 06, 2020, 02:30:34 PM
"The third option adjusts the guideline upward for units that exceeded the guideline by December 31 at least once in
the past five years. The new guideline is based on the highest harvest in the past five years."
Sooo... then gmu 121 would have a harvest guideline of 16??? Sounds good to me. Not as good as NO guideline, but a big improvement.
Yes... but option four does option 3 plus it doesn't count sub-adult Cougars. So it would be 16 cougars that are 24 months or older.
Not necessarily. Im sure thry would look at how many of those 16 cougar were 24 mo +. If only 7 of them were, wed get a quota of 7 im sure. Lot of very pointed specific questions need be put to wdfw, and they need to answer with specific clear answers.
Ill be poking and prodding at them for direct answers to some things before i comment on the options.
You are right Bango... if you go to page 79. It states what the quota limits would be. Option 3 has overall the highest quota.
However the difference between Option 3 and Option 4 is only 1 for quota. Sooo would Option 4 be preferred because you would have the opportunity to have more cougars removed. Kind of splitting hairs... but I would give up one total harvest quantity for the opportunity at unlimited sub-adults....?
Post by: hunter399 on February 06, 2020, 02:48:49 PM
Just thought I would add that.
Post by: nwwanderer on February 06, 2020, 04:19:13 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 06, 2020, 05:08:30 PM
Seems that all options require accurate population numbers. Has that been accomplished ever, anywhere? Please cite the source.No there is none ,for population numbers quotas are based on harvest and what the estimated population is.
They don't want to put out hundreds of game cams cause I don't think they really want to know.
Post by: Bango skank on February 06, 2020, 05:16:35 PM
Seems that all options require accurate population numbers. Has that been accomplished ever, anywhere? Please cite the source.
Option 3 said they looked back 5 years, any unit that went over the quota in that period, they would adjust the quota to the highest harvest level in that 5 year period.
So, 2016, unit 121 shows a harvest of 16. Therefore the quota should be 16. Yet they have it set as 10-12 under option three. Lying dirtbags.
Post by: buckfvr on February 06, 2020, 05:24:24 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 06, 2020, 05:40:33 PM
Option 1 is all jacked up with season could open early/late/statewide quota on and on and on I can't support that at least option two has set season dates.
We are not gonna get past that 16 percent harvest rate so might as well have the extra season time. :twocents:
Post by: Humptulips on February 06, 2020, 07:22:22 PM
1 counts all cats toward the quota
2 counts only adults
3 counts all cats toward the quota but holds out the possibility of increased quota for units that exceed the quota in the early season
4 counts only adults toward the quota but holds out the possibility of increased quota for units that exceed the quota in the early season.
I have to go with option 4. That being said of the units I know that exceeded the quota in the past I see no evidence of the following through and adding to the quota.
I believe Bango already pointed this out.
Anybody tell me what the number in parenthesis in Options 3 and 4 of the unit quotas mean?
Post by: Special T on February 06, 2020, 08:11:24 PM
The way I read it all of the 4 options have the same exact seasons.
1 counts all cats toward the quota
2 counts only adults
3 counts all cats toward the quota but holds out the possibility of increased quota for units that exceed the quota in the early season
4 counts only adults toward the quota but holds out the possibility of increased quota for units that exceed the quota in the early season.
I have to go with option 4. That being said of the units I know that exceeded the quota in the past I see no evidence of the following through and adding to the quota.
I believe Bango already pointed this out.
Anybody tell me what the number in parenthesis in Options 3 and 4 of the unit quotas mean?
Do you see any option that has the possibility of an significant increase in harvest? I see some that might have an edge but only the possibility of reducing increases in population, and not by a bunch. keep in mind only 1/3 of harvest they belive is juvenile.
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on February 06, 2020, 10:02:59 PM
Anybody tell me what the number in parenthesis in Options 3 and 4 of the unit quotas mean?
“Assumed Cougar density per 100 sq km.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on February 06, 2020, 11:09:48 PM
Anybody tell me what the number in parenthesis in Options 3 and 4 of the unit quotas mean?
“Assumed Cougar density per 100 sq km.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you, I wonder why some units have such a high number but most have 1.91.
The way I read it all of the 4 options have the same exact seasons.
1 counts all cats toward the quota
2 counts only adults
3 counts all cats toward the quota but holds out the possibility of increased quota for units that exceed the quota in the early season
4 counts only adults toward the quota but holds out the possibility of increased quota for units that exceed the quota in the early season.
I have to go with option 4. That being said of the units I know that exceeded the quota in the past I see no evidence of the following through and adding to the quota.
I believe Bango already pointed this out.
Anybody tell me what the number in parenthesis in Options 3 and 4 of the unit quotas mean?
Do you see any option that has the possibility of an significant increase in harvest? I see some that might have an edge but only the possibility of reducing increases in population, and not by a bunch. keep in mind only 1/3 of harvest they belive is juvenile.
Significant? I don't think they have any intention to do that.
I think Option 4 has the potential to increase the harvest the most but DFW has to be true to increasing the harvest where there are proven problems. I'm skeptical.
Post by: hunter399 on February 07, 2020, 05:23:10 AM
Why are they even changing ,why not just raise quotas where scientifically we have a problem amount of cougar.
One and done. :dunno:
Post by: bigmacc on February 07, 2020, 11:59:51 AM
Now that I've read the proposal a little more can see these are all new options .
Why are they even changing ,why not just raise quotas where scientifically we have a problem amount of cougar.
One and done. :dunno:
I myself don't get it. Cougar numbers have exploded over the last 20 years in this state and even more so in specific areas of the state, like I have mentioned before about the Methow, they are walking down main streets, living under peoples porches, bridges etc. They are killing peoples livestock and pets in increasing numbers over the last 20 years, along with the deer herd being decimated. Sightings are occurring at increasing rates and encounters with humans are increasing. Folks who work, recreate and spend a lot of time in the hills of this valley have seen with their own eyes the growth in numbers of lions. Many I know and myself also, no longer hike, scout or walk in the hills any more without a sidearm, most I know that live in the valley won't even walk their property or walk to their barns without a gun nowadays. Raising quotas would be the absolute right thing and best thing to do in certain areas of this state and it could and should have been done yesterday. Instead they would rather take years and hundreds of thousands of tax payers money to drag out study after study when in reality, in parts of this state, all they need to do is open their eyes to whats happening and open their ears to what people are seeing and experiencing. Decimated deer herds over the last 20 years, livestock and pet attacks on the rise, people killing them under decks and in barns, more and more encounters etc. etc. etc. LIONS HAVE BECOME A PROBLEM! It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of our dollars in drawn out studies to figure this out. All its doing is justifying jobs for folks who really don't seem to care about the hunters and sportsmen/women of this state, and as far as our deer and elk herds, heck, it seems they are just food sources for the predators of this state anymore. The lion issues in this state need to be aggressively addressed, most know this and the ones that don't know it yet, will eventually know it ... :twocents:.....sorry for the rant.
Post by: Bango skank on February 07, 2020, 12:11:02 PM
Now that I've read the proposal a little more can see these are all new options .
Why are they even changing ,why not just raise quotas where scientifically we have a problem amount of cougar.
One and done. :dunno:
I myself don't get it. Cougar numbers have exploded over the last 20 years in this state and even more so in specific areas of the state, like I have mentioned before about the Methow, they are walking down main streets, living under peoples porches, bridges etc. They are killing peoples livestock and pets in increasing numbers over the last 20 years, along with the deer herd being decimated. Sightings are occurring at increasing rates and encounters with humans are increasing. Folks who work, recreate and spend a lot of time in the hills of this valley have seen with their own eyes the growth in numbers of lions. Many I know and myself also, no longer hike, scout or walk in the hills any more without a sidearm, most I know that live in the valley won't even walk their property or walk to their barns without a gun nowadays. Raising quotas would be the absolute right thing and best thing to do in certain areas of this state and it could and should have been done yesterday. Instead they would rather take years and hundreds of thousands of tax payers money to drag out study after study when in reality, in parts of this state, all they need to do is open their eyes to whats happening and open their ears to what people are seeing and experiencing. Decimated deer herds over the last 20 years, livestock and pet attacks on the rise, people killing them under decks and in barns, more and more encounters etc. etc. etc. LIONS HAVE BECOME A PROBLEM! It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of our dollars in drawn out studies to figure this out. All its doing is justifying jobs for folks who really don't seem to care about the hunters and sportsmen/women of this state, and as far as our deer and elk herds, heck, it seems they are just food sources for the predators of this state. The lion issues in this state need to be aggressively addressed, most know this and the ones that don't know it yet, will eventually know it ... :twocents:.....sorry for the rant.
Theyre still stuck on this "12-16% to maintain the population" nonsense. What will it take to get it through their heads that that hasnt been working, and the population has been rapidly increasing rather than remaining stable? What we NEED right now is a significant decrease in the lion population, not a maintenance-level harvest. Apparently our crashing herds arent enough for them to figure that out. Apparently the flood of citizen complaints arent enough for them to figure that out. Apparently the fact that between stevens / p.o. / spokane and lincoln counties, one team of houndsmen killed 69 depredating lions last year. Thats about one every 5 days, year round!!! This is indicative of a serious problem! Either everybody at wdfw has a 65 iq, or they know damn good and well what is going on, and they refuse to address the issue because its "politically volatile" and theyre all a bunch of damn cowards who would rather just keep kicking the can down the road and pretending everything is okay rather than doing what needs to be done and accepting the fact that it will piss certain types off. The decline of our herds, every attack on pets and livestock, the woman who was killed riding her bike a year or so back, the next person to get killed... the blame lies on the shoulders of the negligent cowards at wdfw who allow this problem to continue and get worse every day, just so they can avoid any type of political conflict.
Post by: bigmacc on February 07, 2020, 02:22:09 PM
Now that I've read the proposal a little more can see these are all new options .
Why are they even changing ,why not just raise quotas where scientifically we have a problem amount of cougar.
One and done. :dunno:
I myself don't get it. Cougar numbers have exploded over the last 20 years in this state and even more so in specific areas of the state, like I have mentioned before about the Methow, they are walking down main streets, living under peoples porches, bridges etc. They are killing peoples livestock and pets in increasing numbers over the last 20 years, along with the deer herd being decimated. Sightings are occurring at increasing rates and encounters with humans are increasing. Folks who work, recreate and spend a lot of time in the hills of this valley have seen with their own eyes the growth in numbers of lions. Many I know and myself also, no longer hike, scout or walk in the hills any more without a sidearm, most I know that live in the valley won't even walk their property or walk to their barns without a gun nowadays. Raising quotas would be the absolute right thing and best thing to do in certain areas of this state and it could and should have been done yesterday. Instead they would rather take years and hundreds of thousands of tax payers money to drag out study after study when in reality, in parts of this state, all they need to do is open their eyes to whats happening and open their ears to what people are seeing and experiencing. Decimated deer herds over the last 20 years, livestock and pet attacks on the rise, people killing them under decks and in barns, more and more encounters etc. etc. etc. LIONS HAVE BECOME A PROBLEM! It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of our dollars in drawn out studies to figure this out. All its doing is justifying jobs for folks who really don't seem to care about the hunters and sportsmen/women of this state, and as far as our deer and elk herds, heck, it seems they are just food sources for the predators of this state. The lion issues in this state need to be aggressively addressed, most know this and the ones that don't know it yet, will eventually know it ... :twocents:.....sorry for the rant.
Theyre still stuck on this "12-16% to maintain the population" nonsense. What will it take to get it through their heads that that hasnt been working, and the population has been rapidly increasing rather than remaining stable? What we NEED right now is a significant decrease in the lion population, not a maintenance-level harvest. Apparently our crashing herds arent enough for them to figure that out. Apparently the flood of citizen complaints arent enough for them to figure that out. Apparently the fact that between stevens / p.o. / spokane and lincoln counties, one team of houndsmen killed 69 depredating lions last year. Thats about one every 5 days, year round!!! This is indicative of a serious problem! Either everybody at wdfw has a 65 iq, or they know damn good and well what is going on, and they refuse to address the issue because its "politically volatile" and theyre all a bunch of damn cowards who would rather just keep kicking the can down the road and pretending everything is okay rather than doing what needs to be done and accepting the fact that it will piss certain types off. The decline of our herds, every attack on pets and livestock, the woman who was killed riding her bike a year or so back, the next person to get killed... the blame lies on the shoulders of the negligent cowards at wdfw who allow this problem to continue and get worse every day, just so they can avoid any type of political conflict.
:yeah:......well said Bango........Like I have said many times, this whole cougar explosion and the screwy numbers they keep putting out and expect us to believe is a big ol powder keg and more and more unfortunate encounters involving humans are going to happen and with that more and more tragic encounters like the women on the bike are going to happen. Places like the Methow where more and more people are vacationing, recreating and moving to is where the fuse to the powder keg is becoming very short. I know this whole fiasco is political driven and when unfortunately a little kid is snatched from their back yard or off a trail while hiking with their family I hope someone within the Department stands up and admits something drastic should have been done years ago to drastically thin lion populations........ya right!... :bash:
Post by: Humptulips on February 07, 2020, 06:19:21 PM
Post by: Wsucoug on February 18, 2020, 01:57:37 PM
http://chewelahindependent.com/wdfw-unveils-four-options-to-change-cougar-management/?fbclid=IwAR2f6YRNp8FwQywVIzR_3SnON5fIsjyd5cqe_rvnK-UJYC4FUacE-ydVC6I
If you want to be heard and to make a statement then show up at the public meeting. The only way things get changed is if the public demands it in a uniform voice.
March 13-14, 2020
8 a.m. at the Red Lion Columbia Center at 1101 N. Columbia Center Blvd. in Kennewick.
Post by: HillHound on February 18, 2020, 02:29:28 PM
Post by: buglebrush on February 18, 2020, 07:02:00 PM
Post by: hunter399 on February 18, 2020, 08:20:12 PM
They won't admit that the 4pt min created surplus deer.Even though harvest reports "science" says there was.In return created explosive amount of predators.All the surplus deer where harvested 2015-2016 now we are left with the predators.The percent of common sense at WDFW is about zero.
Off topic
For district 1 is fawn survival rate is 98 percent that's a hard pill for me to take.And every doe gets bread every year..When I see numbers like that ,nothing that lives in these woods have a 98 percent survival rate.When you start look in at the numbers and talking to people at WDFW you couldn't believe in the amount of stupidity and lack of common sense.They believe in the "science" so much ,It's like talking to a rock.
Post by: KFhunter on February 23, 2020, 08:35:33 AM
There's only one hope for hunting in Washington, and that's to break the state in half. The joke needs to become reality, and create a state from Eastern Washington and Northeastern Oregon.
Spokane voted for a feminist commy socialist Lisa Brown
“As a feminist … I am also inspired by great women activists, such as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Emma Goldman,” Brown wrote in her thesis acknowledgments. “Other great women in my life include Golie Jansen, the members of the Boulder Socialist-Feminist Collective, and the members of the Spokane Women’s ‘Group.’"
Flynn, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union, became the chairwoman of the U.S. Communist Party in 1961, and said once said capitalism was incompatible with “human welfare.” Brown quoted Flynn in her thesis as someone who called on people to “hail to” and “work for” a “Socialist America.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/democratic-running-against-cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-inspired-by-socialists-communists-anarchists
Inslee liked her brand of commy feminism socialist ways so much...
https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-announces-appointment-lisa-brown-director-washington-state-department-commerce
Brown wrote:
“As a feminist, my intellectual heroine is Simone de Beauvoir,” Brown wrote, referencing the French theorist who is credited widely with kick-starting modern theories of feminism in the 1940s. “I am also inspired by great women activists, such as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Emma Goldman.”
Flynn rose to become chairwoman of the Communist Party in the United States and in the 1950s was convicted for conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government
Ya, and Spokane county went for Lisa Brown. If it weren't for all the rest of Eastern WA going for McMorris Rodgers big time Lisa would be my rep right now.
I don't have much hope for splitting the state, hell even Idaho is going liberal, at their rate of turning blue it won't be long until they loose all the cool things we wish we had in WA. Spokane would be our new capitol, and they have homeless people living in the hallways of the court house crapping in the bushes and corners everywhere, it's little Seattle!!
sorry :jacked: back to your regular programming :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Bango skank on February 23, 2020, 08:46:09 AM
There's only one hope for hunting in Washington, and that's to break the state in half. The joke needs to become reality, and create a state from Eastern Washington and Northeastern Oregon.
Spokane voted for a feminist commy socialist Lisa Brown
“As a feminist … I am also inspired by great women activists, such as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Emma Goldman,” Brown wrote in her thesis acknowledgments. “Other great women in my life include Golie Jansen, the members of the Boulder Socialist-Feminist Collective, and the members of the Spokane Women’s ‘Group.’"
Flynn, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union, became the chairwoman of the U.S. Communist Party in 1961, and said once said capitalism was incompatible with “human welfare.” Brown quoted Flynn in her thesis as someone who called on people to “hail to” and “work for” a “Socialist America.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/democratic-running-against-cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-inspired-by-socialists-communists-anarchists
Inslee liked her brand of commy feminism socialist ways so much...
https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-announces-appointment-lisa-brown-director-washington-state-department-commerce
Brown wrote:
“As a feminist, my intellectual heroine is Simone de Beauvoir,” Brown wrote, referencing the French theorist who is credited widely with kick-starting modern theories of feminism in the 1940s. “I am also inspired by great women activists, such as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Emma Goldman.”
Flynn rose to become chairwoman of the Communist Party in the United States and in the 1950s was convicted for conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government
Ya, and Spokane county went for Lisa Brown. If it weren't for all the rest of Eastern WA going for McMorris Rodgers big time Lisa would be my rep right now.
I don't have much hope for splitting the state, hell even Idaho is going liberal. Spokane would be our new capitol, and they have homeless people living in the hallways of the court house crapping in the bushes and corners everywhere, it's little Seattle!!
sorry :jacked: back to your regular programming :chuckle: :chuckle:
Want to guarantee i wont listen to a word you say? Start off with "As a feminist..." and ill instantly tune you out. Looks like thats a favorite opening line for her.
Post by: Wsucoug on February 26, 2020, 09:24:27 PM
https://koho101.com/2020/02/proposed-changes-to-cougar-hunts/#comment-104753
Leave a simple message saying:
"cougar population are out of control and our ungulates are paying the price. Leave cougar season open year around with a two tags for each hunter"
Post by: Bango skank on February 26, 2020, 09:32:13 PM
Last day for public comment via email. You can follow this link:
https://koho101.com/2020/02/proposed-changes-to-cougar-hunts/#comment-104753
Leave a simple message saying:
"cougar population are out of control and our ungulates are paying the price. Leave cougar season open year around with a two tags for each hunter"
Thats just a link to comment on a news site. Front page of wdfw site has the link to actually comment to wdfw
Post by: Wsucoug on February 26, 2020, 09:40:43 PM
Last day for public comment via email. You can follow this link:
https://koho101.com/2020/02/proposed-changes-to-cougar-hunts/#comment-104753
Leave a simple message saying:
"cougar population are out of control and our ungulates are paying the price. Leave cougar season open year around with a two tags for each hunter"
Thats just a link to comment on a news site. Front page of wdfw site has the link to actually comment to wdfw
/quote]
I sent in a comment via that post link above. I received that link via an email, but after you mentioned it "being just a news site", it does look just like a comment section of a news site.
People can send an email here too:
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: Bango skank on March 07, 2020, 09:46:02 AM
Greetings,
Attached is the revised agenda for the March 13-14, 2020 Commission meeting, as well as, the revised special meeting agenda for the Columbia River Salmon Fishery Policy Workgroup. The information can also be found at the Commission website here.
The following has been revised on the March 13-14, 2020 Commission agenda.
Shortened the two day Commission meeting to one day
Canceled a previously scheduled wolf committee meeting,
Rescheduling a hatchery policy evaluation review workshop to a date to be determined and;
Rescheduling the review of the Columbia River Salmon policy to the June Commission meeting in Yakima.
The following has been revised on the March 11, 2020 Special Workgroup Meeting agenda.
The Columbia River Workgroup meeting previously scheduled for 1:00 p.m. in Kennewick is cancelled. Instead, the meeting will be conducted at the same time via conference call. Please contact Commission staff at (360) 902-2267 or commission@dfw.wa.gov to obtain call-in information no later than 3 p.m. on March 10, 2020. The public may also listen to the call at the Natural Resources Building Room 180.
The Commission encourages the public to monitor the Department’s website for further schedule changes that may be needed to help protect public health. The meetings will be recorded and may also be viewed from home either live or afterward at the public’s convenience.
Thank you.
Post by: KFhunter on March 07, 2020, 09:47:10 AM
Post by: Bango skank on March 07, 2020, 09:49:38 AM
what the heck?
Yeah, crystal clear huh?
Post by: KFhunter on March 07, 2020, 09:53:07 AM
seriously though, if a key person was in quarantine that would explain all that :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
otherwise I'm at a loss as to guesses
Post by: jrebel on March 07, 2020, 10:11:19 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 07, 2020, 10:15:27 AM
This is simply getting out of hand. COVID19 has this liberal state in a panic and gives our state government reasons to work even less than they already are......DUMB!! Wash your hands and get to work.
I just threw that out there...it was just a wild guess on my part, and it wasn't even a serious guess at that more like tongue in cheek.
Post by: jrebel on March 07, 2020, 11:09:06 AM
This is simply getting out of hand. COVID19 has this liberal state in a panic and gives our state government reasons to work even less than they already are......DUMB!! Wash your hands and get to work.
I just threw that out there...it was just a wild guess on my part, and it wasn't even a serious guess at that more like tongue in cheek.
I'm pretty sure you are correct. Covid19 is shutting down schools, events, towns, etc. People are buying toilet paper by the truck load due to the panic....explain that?? All this hysteria will give WDFW an excuse not to make decisions on Cougars and Wolfs till a later date. It is always something.
Post by: Bango skank on March 07, 2020, 11:11:26 AM
This is simply getting out of hand. COVID19 has this liberal state in a panic and gives our state government reasons to work even less than they already are......DUMB!! Wash your hands and get to work.
I just threw that out there...it was just a wild guess on my part, and it wasn't even a serious guess at that more like tongue in cheek.
I'm pretty sure you are correct. Covid19 is shutting down schools, events, towns, etc. People are buying toilet paper by the truck load due to the panic....explain that?? All this hysteria will give WDFW an excuse not to make decisions on Cougars and Wolfs till a later date. It is always something.
Oh theyll make a decision. After screwing with the meeting schedule and not even clarifying if the lion proposal will be a part of the now 1 day meeting, even less people will be likely to go. Then theyll say since nobody showed up to comment it will just be status quo. I imagine turnout will be poor on 0830 on a friday. :bash:
Post by: Bango skank on March 13, 2020, 11:17:39 PM
Post by: Onewhohikes on March 14, 2020, 04:28:47 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2020, 06:48:14 AM
Audio is not available yet, but should be when posted: https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings/2020
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 14, 2020, 11:26:25 AM
Did anybody go to the meeting today? Im stuck up in alaska, couldnt go. Curious what the mood was on the lion changes. I expect with the kung flu and the weekday meeting, in tri cities, that there wasnt much of s hunter turnout to address the lion changes.curious about this as well
Post by: buckfvr on March 14, 2020, 11:35:25 AM
Post by: shallowforks on March 14, 2020, 12:30:06 PM
Just about an hour before i got this email i sat down and wrote another letter to wdfw about our need for cougar changes. I saved it as a draft, so that i can sit on it a while incase i decide to add anything. The way our harvest guideline system is set up now is seriously flawed. Its basically going off the concept that you can take X% of the adult lion population out every year without reducing the population (though i feel a big reduction is exactly what is needed.) The problem with this is that they dont know how many lions we have, so how can they come up with a harvest guideline number to accurately reach that percentage? This is why we should be using the minimum harvest concept instead. No top end restriction on harvest numbers. If harvest falls below a predetermined level for a couple years, use that as an indicator that the population is struggling and adjust seasons accordingly. I dont see numbers ever getting dangerously low without hound hunting and trapping. I highly doubt we could ever drop them to unsustainable levels with just boot hunting and calling, even if the season was opened up year round like coyotes.
If we must stick with this harvest guideline system though, which im sure we will be stuck with, a few basic changes would help at least a little. Right now our general season runs sept 1st through dec 31st before harvest guideline shutdowns go into effect. Id like to see the general season open august 1st with bear, and go through at least january 31st, if not the end of february. Also greatly increased quotas are a no brainer. Second cougar tags should also be available for those fortunate enough to fill their first tag if they are feeling optimistic enough to buy another.
What other ideas do you guys have other than hounds? Keep in mind the ban on hounds isnt wdfws policy, and it can not be changed at their discretion. It is state law, from voter initiative.
true WDFW cannot change the hound rule but we can demand a portion of our license sales go toward an educational advertisement campain to reverse the law. WDFW should be spending dollars on advertising for public image, hunter recruitment and such anyways. Would go a long way to change public perception and straighten out some facts. many other state game departments advertise but WDFW minimal if any kind.
Post by: Humptulips on March 14, 2020, 12:55:41 PM
They may not be able to bring hound hunting back but to say they are helpless to increase harvest is just not true.
Change the status of cougar to dual big game/furbearer and set a season. I guarantee trapping cougar is a viable option.
Post by: bearpaw on March 14, 2020, 02:22:08 PM
At the risk of sounding like a broken record WDFW could legalize a trapping season for cougar at anytime without legislative approval.
They may not be able to bring hound hunting back but to say they are helpless to increase harvest is just not true.
Change the status of cougar to dual big game/furbearer and set a season. I guarantee trapping cougar is a viable option.
Absolutely agree!
Post by: Loup Loup on March 14, 2020, 06:26:22 PM
That being said, I think as long as these low quotas are not being met, or are not being met til the very end of our long season, depredation take is covered up, allows WDFW to blow smoke and take credibility for their management model.
All we can do is get off our rears and kill more cougars quicker every year.
It is a good time to be a predator hunter.
Post by: Sutherland on March 14, 2020, 08:50:49 PM
Good input.
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2020, 09:06:39 AM
Yet to hear a word about the meeting which doesnt bode well for ungulates. The composition of the commission alone, makes me highly suspicious of fair representation for hunters. It lookes to me now as if meetings are 100% protocol and 0% about bringing about changes.
True there is only 1 self professed hunter. and appears to be heavily weighted to the fishing side of things. I cannot comment on the fishing side because I have not followed that bag of worms.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/members
Molly Linville while not a hunter appears to get it. While not a hunter her current work as a rancher and growing up on a wheat farm near Rearden lead me to believe she understands the realities.
Don McIssac wouldn't seem like a big supporter of hunters from his experience. From the audio Ive listened to he doesn't speak that much but asks the most pointed and intelligent questions of the group.
Other commissions are good, and there are a few that are horrible. In general I think this is one of the better commissions we have had.
I wouldnt think for 1 second that the change to a Friday only meeting was at the behest of the commission. I heard that they stayed late on Saturday so that everyone that signed up to talk about the Cougar issue could be heard.
Post by: buckfvr on March 15, 2020, 11:00:27 AM
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2020, 11:34:13 AM
I just cant help but to think the commissioners are viewed by wdfw as their colleagues that will favor them in their role as intermediaries with us. I only feel this way as over the years of seeing how all these meetings play out with little or no suggestions acted upon or ever any credit given to the hunt/fish community. Its like we are incapable of intelligent opinions, and only they know what is really happening out there in nature. It has always been, wdfw fulfills their obligations for protocol but seldom takes any actions.
I dont think most sportsmen appreciate the amount of inside baseball that is required to make changes. The plainly obvious has to be proved in science. Lets not forget that increasing cats was proposed some years back and approved by the Commission and then Blocked by our Govenor Jay Inslee. If you want this problem resolved (like i do) you need to 1 get involved to get rid of Jay. 2 accept that reducing cat numbers requires unique solutions that likely means you wont be part of the harvest. If you look at most hunting harvest numbers vs safety removals hunter harvest is LOW in comparison.
I dont know about you, but I am willing to support Trapping, Sheriffs like Klickitats Bob Songer, Tribal members pushing the legal boundaries on hound hunting and trapping, or any other manner of solution. I hate to be a Buzz Kill but i doubt we will get the Perfect Solution. Certainly because sportsmen have not invested enough time into reading and researching the issues.
What Sportsmen Organization do you belong to? Are they active on this issue? if they dont have one why have you not volunteered to at least help out? It takes a lot of time for a Non Bio/government employee to read, learn and digest the proposals. To even make a comment that can make an impact means you need to know almost as much as the Department employee you are disagreeing with!
Post by: Bango skank on April 05, 2020, 08:29:04 AM
Its always protect these "beautiful" animals. What if cougars were ugly, would they not care then? Probably not. These people dont seem to give a damn about caribou or moose, a couple ugly critters by just about anyones standards.
Post by: hunter399 on April 05, 2020, 08:36:00 AM
532 anti hunting idiots sent in a prefab letter opposing cougar hunting, big shocker. Wonder how many were actually washington residents?532 that is alot :yike:
Its always protect these "beautiful" animals. What if cougars were ugly, would they not care then? Probably not. These people dont seem to give a damn about caribou or moose, a couple ugly critters by just about anyones standards.
I can barely get like 10 emails sent over season shutdown.
No caribou in washington all gone very sad
Post by: hunter399 on April 05, 2020, 09:31:24 AM
But I did send an email as you encourage.
Went something to the effect.
Keep the seasons the same and raise quota as needed in more populated gmu.That all these different options where a joke.That they already have regulations,quotas,and the tools they need to manage cougar.That they needed better account of populations and raise quota where needed.
It was something like that .
Don't be mad at me ,you do like hunting cougar in April .Com-on I know you do.
Post by: Special T on April 05, 2020, 12:00:06 PM
I don't know if this will offend you bango.And we are barely on a speaking term on here again.
But I did send an email as you encourage.
Went something to the effect.
Keep the seasons the same and raise quota as needed in more populated gmu.That all these different options where a joke.That they already have regulations,quotas,and the tools they need to manage cougar.That they needed better account of populations and raise quota where needed.
It was something like that .
Don't be mad at me ,you do like hunting cougar in April .Com-on I know you do.
Raising the quota is more of a Game Management Plan issue. The department has some funny numbers on Cat densities and such that have allowed them to slow roll increasing the quotas. Add to that the last time the department did propose raising the quotas the governor nixed it.
I agree that all of the choices are poor. the one that i think is a little better doesn't include sub adults in the quota... I almost think no change is better tho because it keeps the baseline of the departments nonsensical numbers easier to track.
Post by: Bango skank on April 05, 2020, 12:04:51 PM
I prefer number 3, as the total number is higher than 4, where they dont count sub adults. My reasoning for this is i dont trust some wdfw personnel to actually call a sub adult a sub adult. I know of 1 local game warden who doesnt think we should kill cougars because theyre "beautiful." No joke. You think if you bring a 20 month old cat to him to have it checked in he wont call it 24mo+ to have it count toward the quota? Wouldnt be surprised if some other folks at wdfw, bios, whatever, would have a similar agenda.
Post by: Special T on April 05, 2020, 12:17:49 PM
Why would status quo be better than increasing the quota?
I prefer number 3, as the total number is higher than 4, where they dont count sub adults. My reasoning for this is i dont trust some wdfw personnel to actually call a sub adult a sub adult. I know of 1 local game warden who doesnt think we should kill cougars because theyre "beautiful." No joke. You think if you bring a 20 month old cat to him to have it checked in he wont call it 24mo+ to have it count toward the quota? Wouldnt be surprised if some other folks at wdfw, bios, whatever, would have a similar agenda.
What Im trying to say is that the only way to solve the problem is increase the quota right? The only way to do that is through changing the GMP. IF we stay with the status quo and remove a change wont that make the data more clear that it needs to be increased? Throwing a change into the mix allows the department to say "Lets wait and study the effect of this change". We know that changing the seasons no matter the choice wont significantly increase harvest.
Top that off by comparing the number of cats killed in as safety of depredation VS season vs the hunting season and in the NE the numbers are close to 3 to 1 I want to say the numbers i saw wer high 90s and mid 30s in one district.
Post by: Bango skank on April 05, 2020, 12:23:08 PM
Post by: Special T on April 05, 2020, 12:42:58 PM
The only thing wdfw could implement legally that would have a chance at us getting cats under control would be to allow trapping. They know theres a problem. We know theres a problem. Theyre at least (potentially) giving us something here. Its s step in the right direction. They cant just go whole hog gloves off, the antis would flip. We have to just get a little bit at a time to prevent a massive crap storm from the non hunting public and animal rights groups. We got small step #1 with bears. This could be small step #1 for cougars. Its kind of the same thing in my eyes as the way anti gunners erode our rights. Just a little bit at a time so as to prevent a massive backlash. If we take enough small steps over time, we can eventually get somewhere.
Trapping would help the West side achieve its quota numbers. How would it help the NE where almost all quotas are meet?
If i Lived on the east side i would push my Sherriff to form trained dog handler posses like the Klickitat Sheriff did. IF we assume that other areas could have as much "Depredation kills" as a 3 to ratio that the NE does then we would kill a lot more cats.
IF i was a houndsmen I would make a few friends in the Colville or Yakima tribes and teach them how to hunt with hounds because they could stack up more cats with ZERO restrictions all across the areas where deer and elk need help. I dont think there is a workable solution inside of the WDFW on this issue. I am unconvinced that Sportsmen have tried hard enough to explore solutions outside of its hamstrung bureaucracy. :twocents:
Post by: Bango skank on April 05, 2020, 12:46:28 PM
And yes, id love it if the natives would hammer the north half with their dogs. They cant touch 121, 117, 111, etc etc though.
On the subject of tribes hunting predators, if any colville boys are on here that want to hunt wolves in the north half, pm me, and id gladly holler at you when i see them, hear them, or find fresh tracks in the snow.
Post by: hal on April 07, 2020, 10:18:13 AM
Post by: Onewhohikes on April 07, 2020, 10:29:33 AM