Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2019, 07:16:00 AM
Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer said he’s heard increasing concerns from ranchers and others about predators.
Since the sheriff took charge of chasing predators last last month, a cougar seen in a field with cattle was chased and euthanized, a livestock-protection measure Songer said he doubts Fish and Wildlife would have taken..."
Read on.
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/washington-sheriff-takes-lead-in-pursuing-cougars/article_cae2a1a4-d0e1-11e9-9965-937aa24afc1e.html
Post by: Buckhunter24 on September 26, 2019, 07:29:48 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on September 26, 2019, 07:31:07 AM
Post by: Special T on September 26, 2019, 07:47:22 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Timberstalker on September 26, 2019, 08:22:14 AM
Post by: Jgarrigus on September 26, 2019, 08:29:36 AM
Post by: rainshadow1 on September 26, 2019, 09:06:21 AM
Wise move, and puts the authority and ability to respond into the correct hands.
"The State" needs less and less hands-on authority in communities. (Not just in the case of Animal Damage, but you've got to start somewhere.) WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who are supposed to say so.
Way to go, Sheriff Songer!
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2019, 09:58:59 AM
Post by: buckfvr on September 26, 2019, 09:59:37 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on September 26, 2019, 10:25:46 AM
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2019, 10:34:27 AM
Hope this starts to snow ball into other counties though I fear with it being publicised like this the wrong people will catch wind of it and here come the lawsuits.
This isn't hunting though, this is protecting people and property from dangerous entities (this case large predators) but it could be a tweaker, a eco terrorist, alien from outer space, dangerous out of control robot...In those cases regular deputies are equipped to handle most situations, but when it comes to large predators such as mt lions and bears the deputies are not equipped to handle it, so they've enlisted people who are due to WDFW's failure or unwillingness to do so.
It is the ultimate job of the Sheriff to protect the people who voted him or her into office, and in fulfilling their oath of office this sheriff has seen a need to deputize houndsmen in order to effect that mandate.
It would be false to equate this act to "hunting" when it is not. For a deputized houndsmen to be called into service there must first be a complaint lodged, a concern from a citizen that there is or is about to be a dangerous encounter with a dangerous animal or property destruction by a dangerous animal. Then a deputized houndsmen can go and mitigate that threat.
It has nothing to do with "hunting" and everything to do with protecting people and property :tup:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on September 26, 2019, 10:40:54 AM
did I say it was about hunting? No sir I did not. Government isn't supposed to infringe on our constitution right to keep and bear arms either but in our law system where there is a will there is a way. To think otherwise is foolish. There will be a fight over this with the antis, mark my wordsHope this starts to snow ball into other counties though I fear with it being publicised like this the wrong people will catch wind of it and here come the lawsuits.
This isn't hunting though, this is protecting people and property from dangerous entities (this case large predators) but it could be a tweaker, a eco terrorist, alien from outer space, dangerous out of control robot...In those cases regular deputies are equipped to handle most situations, but when it comes to large predators such as mt lions and bears the deputies are not equipped to handle it, so they've enlisted people who are due to WDFW's failure or unwillingness to do so.
It is the ultimate job of the Sheriff to protect the people who voted him or her into office, and in fulfilling their oath of office this sheriff has seen a need to deputize houndsmen in order to effect that mandate.
It would be false to equate this act to "hunting" when it is not. For a deputized houndsmen to be called into service there must first be a complaint lodged, a concern from a citizen that there is or is about to be a dangerous encounter with a dangerous animal or property destruction by a dangerous animal. Then a deputized houndsmen can go and mitigate that threat.
It has nothing to do with "hunting" and everything to do with protecting people and property :tup:
Post by: MooseZ25 on September 26, 2019, 10:44:31 AM
Post by: Special T on September 26, 2019, 10:46:53 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2019, 10:48:12 AM
Stevens and Ferry Counties have had a deputized predator specialist for a year or better. He has been chasing predator issues non stop. Actually he cant keep up with problem cats or wolves.
they could deputize houndsmen too, could even be the same guys as Sheriff Bob Songer deputized.
those houndsmen can be reimbursed for personal expenses (I think that's allowed?)
Post by: gee_unit360 on September 26, 2019, 10:54:56 AM
Been a fan of Songer ever since I met him when he chased me down on deer huting on private property. Dropped the right name and he let me hunt on. Also love his stance against WA new gun laws, as well as the sheriff posse they have out in Goldendale.
Songer’s been suspect his whole career. Clark County Superior Court ruled he used excessive force when he worked in Vancouver, WA. He improperly and without reason fired 3 employees in Elko, Nevada which led to the city having to pay compensation of $148,000 for 1 employee who took the issue to court and settlements of 65,000 and 70,000 to two other employees who chose not to go to court.
My interactions with Bob Songer have been less then pleasant for absolutely no reason. Which actually led me to research the guy. With the way he presented himself I wasn’t shocked to find out what I did about him.
Glad he’s trying to decrease the cougar population in Klickitat County, but I’m definitely not a fan of the guy.
Post by: bigtex on September 29, 2019, 10:07:04 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 30, 2019, 05:12:58 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 30, 2019, 05:35:45 AM
Really hope this sets a trend.
Wise move, and puts the authority and ability to respond into the correct hands.
"The State" needs less and less hands-on authority in communities. (Not just in the case of Animal Damage, but you've got to start somewhere.) WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who are supposed to say so.
Way to go, Sheriff Songer!
:yeah:
Post by: birddogdad on September 30, 2019, 07:01:02 AM
I agree with what WDFW Enforcement Chief Bear said in terms of killing cougars too freely. This provision of law can be eliminated by a simple majority vote of the liberal WA legislature and Inslee's signature. If Klickitat County or any other county starts popping every cougar they see, or appear to give that illusion, we may see this provision of law eliminated pretty quickly.
been hunting Klick for 30+ years, last ten have seen a very marked drop in deer population.. hope they cull a bunch of these pred's.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 30, 2019, 07:05:19 AM
I agree with what WDFW Enforcement Chief Bear said in terms of killing cougars too freely. This provision of law can be eliminated by a simple majority vote of the liberal WA legislature and Inslee's signature. If Klickitat County or any other county starts popping every cougar they see, or appear to give that illusion, we may see this provision of law eliminated pretty quickly.
That doesn't mean the sheriff will follow the law. We've seen a few who've decided to ignore 1639. In addition, WA state holds no high ground here and has given precedent by ignoring US immigration law. I doubt seriously that there's going to be a shortage of cougars in Klickitat anytime soon.
Post by: 300rum on September 30, 2019, 09:25:44 AM
I was about ready to make the long (now nearly dark) walk out and guess what? Here comes Bob driving up the road. He said he got off shift awhile ago but something told him to check on those newlyweds. He called dispatch to send out Les Schwab.
My wife and I owe him a debt of gratitude, he could have went home to his family after work but he didn't, he intentionally went way out of his way, just to make sure.
He is a fair man but I wouldn't test him! :tup:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 30, 2019, 10:23:01 AM
Been a fan of Songer ever since I met him when he chased me down on deer huting on private property. Dropped the right name and he let me hunt on. Also love his stance against WA new gun laws, as well as the sheriff posse they have out in Goldendale.
Songer’s been suspect his whole career. Clark County Superior Court ruled he used excessive force when he worked in Vancouver, WA. He improperly and without reason fired 3 employees in Elko, Nevada which led to the city having to pay compensation of $148,000 for 1 employee who took the issue to court and settlements of 65,000 and 70,000 to two other employees who chose not to go to court.
My interactions with Bob Songer have been less then pleasant for absolutely no reason. Which actually led me to research the guy. With the way he presented himself I wasn’t shocked to find out what I did about him.
Glad he’s trying to decrease the cougar population in Klickitat County, but I’m definitely not a fan of the guy.
I've read up on that.
He choked a guy who was trying to swallow heroin balloons so that he couldn't in fact destroy the balloons. That either preserved evidence or saved the guy's life, depending on how you look at it.
Oh, and he delivered the message from the City Manager that 4 ladies were fired for disobeying a direct order.
Curtis
Post by: KFhunter on September 30, 2019, 10:49:47 AM
I know nothing about him or his past, he's not my sheriff, but I support this recent thing he's doing with the hounds. I imagine those not in favor of this policy and others of his will dig up dirt on him so better to have it come to light and get ahead of it...for him and his supporters.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 30, 2019, 11:03:21 AM
What kind of order? lawful and adherent to department policy and procedures?
I know nothing about him or his past, he's not my sheriff, but I support this recent thing he's doing with the hounds. I imagine those not in favor of this policy and others of his will dig up dirt on him so better to have it come to light and get ahead of it...for him and his supporters.
One employee reported that 4 others were harassing her. He interviewed those 4 and asked them not to speak to each other while he was investigating. They spoke to each other and he fired them. The jury determined that he violated their free speech rights.... I don't know if that would hold in another court. I've had similar scenarios and had to handle them in a similar fashion.
Post by: dilleytech on September 30, 2019, 11:38:30 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 30, 2019, 12:43:31 PM
I like it, so far.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 30, 2019, 01:05:04 PM
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on September 30, 2019, 01:19:27 PM
Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.Where do you get this information?
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
The sheriff deputized certain houndsmen to respond to citizens complaints of dangerous animals threatening people or destruction of property, no where does it say they're going to hunt random cougars/bears without a complaint or manage these animals in anyway.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 30, 2019, 01:21:55 PM
Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
The law says he can. If you don't like the law, you can contact your legislator.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 30, 2019, 01:49:56 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 30, 2019, 02:05:05 PM
Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 30, 2019, 02:14:25 PM
Yes, if its a very legitimate and specific threat to public safety. No, if it is a facade for killing cougars to reduce overall numbers or "potential" conflicts.Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.
I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources.
Post by: buckfvr on September 30, 2019, 02:15:58 PM
Dictatorial management from a central political position just doesnt meet the needs of our wildlife.
Post by: buckfvr on September 30, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
[/quote]
This is exactly what you have in Wa.........a politician over managing wdfw currying favors from his constituency, AND it is definitely at the expense of our wildlife and has been for quite some years now,. Not possibly, ABSOLUTELY.
Post by: Special T on September 30, 2019, 02:24:16 PM
The only argument against this that the liberal legislature may repeal the law that allows this activity.
IMO even if this were to happen this means there will be more immediate documentation of cougars depredation on citizens property, and safety concerns. We are constantly told "Document, Document, Document." The sheriff taking this up reduces the amount of wiggle room on denying the actual impact Cats have in this state. Hopefully they will keep as much documentation as possible to protect this tool.
Post by: Bango skank on September 30, 2019, 02:29:07 PM
The only argument against this that the liberal legislature may repeal the law that allows this activity.
And its a stupid argument. Saying we shouldnt do a thing, because if we do they might make it illegal. Well then what good is it doing us to have it legal if we are afraid to do it? Whats the point?
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 30, 2019, 02:32:27 PM
Yes, if its a very legitimate and specific threat to public safety. No, if it is a facade for killing cougars to reduce overall numbers or "potential" conflicts.Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.
I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources.
Sheriffs departments don't have unlimited budgets. They also need to respond to safety concerns. I would find it hard to believe that a sheriff is going to spend money he doesn't have on houndsmen to respond to something not a threat to public safety. I wouldn't, however, find it hard to believe that with their also limited resources, the WDFW takes too long to respond to individual occurrences, keeping peoples' lives and resources at risk until they do something. "I saw the cougar attack my cow." "We'll have to analyze the cow for a cougar attack." "How long will that take?" "Probably a week or so." "But I saw it." "Procedure."
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on September 30, 2019, 03:02:47 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 30, 2019, 03:04:52 PM
Next up after wolves is the grizz. By the time the 200 grizz gets dumped and starts marauding about the countryside the sheriff has some experience and court decisions under their belts to use dealing with them.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on September 30, 2019, 03:10:51 PM
I don't disagree. My overarching point is I'm very wary of giving county elected officials much discretion on wildlife management issues. Very narrow authority to strictly address immediate public safety issues...fine. Any hint of abuse of that discretion and I'd be immediately in favor of revising the law.Yes, if its a very legitimate and specific threat to public safety. No, if it is a facade for killing cougars to reduce overall numbers or "potential" conflicts.Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.
I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources.
Sheriffs departments don't have unlimited budgets. They also need to respond to safety concerns. I would find it hard to believe that a sheriff is going to spend money he doesn't have on houndsmen to respond to something not a threat to public safety. I wouldn't, however, find it hard to believe that with their also limited resources, the WDFW takes too long to respond to individual occurrences, keeping peoples' lives and resources at risk until they do something. "I saw the cougar attack my cow." "We'll have to analyze the cow for a cougar attack." "How long will that take?" "Probably a week or so." "But I saw it." "Procedure."
Post by: grundy53 on September 30, 2019, 07:07:05 PM
Yeah, cause the WDFW does such a bang up job of it. They are part of the reason we are in this mess.Yes, if its a very legitimate and specific threat to public safety. No, if it is a facade for killing cougars to reduce overall numbers or "potential" conflicts.Appears the sentiment is in favor of County Sheriff's essentially managing cougar populations in WA state.
I think that is misguided...as the attention will absolutely result in a prompt change by the legislature.
While I wish the state would more aggressively manage our high cougar populations I do not at all support individual county politicians managing the state's wildlife. Even if I ultimately like the actions they are taking in one instance, it is so loaded with problems and potential abuses I could never support it in principle. :twocents:
Do you support the county sheriff protecting his constituents when the WDFW constantly drags their feet in reaction to predator complaints? Their response has a track record of "dismal-at-best" timing. He's not looking to control populations. He's looking to counter attacks on the people, pets, and livestock in his county and keep them safe when action is called-for.
I would rather WDFW make determinations about whether an individual predator warrants removal...not an elected politician with substantial personal interest in currying favor with his voters, possibly at the expense of the states wildlife resources.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on September 30, 2019, 07:07:55 PM
Exactly. If you don't use it what's the difference.
The only argument against this that the liberal legislature may repeal the law that allows this activity.
And its a stupid argument. Saying we shouldnt do a thing, because if we do they might make it illegal. Well then what good is it doing us to have it legal if we are afraid to do it? Whats the point?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 30, 2019, 07:47:12 PM
The only argument against this that the liberal legislature may repeal the law that allows this activity.
And its a stupid argument. Saying we shouldnt do a thing, because if we do they might make it illegal. Well then what good is it doing us to have it legal if we are afraid to do it? Whats the point?
Bango for the win
If you don’t like it, contact your legislator. Wouldn’t take long to outlaw in this state.
Post by: dilleytech on October 02, 2019, 08:59:11 AM
Post by: wolfbait on October 03, 2019, 09:03:19 AM
I wonder if WDFW are trying to pull out of the mess they created with their poor to no predator control programs?
Post by: bornhunter on October 03, 2019, 09:43:14 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2019, 10:42:03 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 03, 2019, 12:18:23 PM
I was talking with one of our local Vets the other day, and his assistant said a cougar killed a deer just out of town in someones front yard, they called WDFW, WDFW told them "we don't handle those type of situations anymore".
I wonder if WDFW are trying to pull out of the mess they created with their poor to no predator control programs?
That's not their policy according to the director a few months ago.
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/wdfw-director-when-in-doubt-remove-the-cougar/article_d718cee0-57cd-11e9-9ff6-7b48a2be2ffe.html
"When in doubt, remove the cougar"
http://livingsnoqualmie.com/did-washington-state-fish-and-wildlife-internal-directive-lead-to-killing-of-snoqualmie-valley-cougar/
http://chewelahindependent.com/wdfw-director-talks-predator-management-deer-elk-populations-in-recent-visit/
"COUGAR ENFORCEMENT
With recent cougar attacks on livestock in the Chewelah area, The Independent asked Susewind about how enforcement policies would be carried out with a problem cougar. He urged people to call if they are concerned about an animal, and WDFW will send an officer out.
Enforcement, however, is not black and white, and there is no blanket policy on what the officer will do. It can be a gray area and each situation can be different.
“The worst thing I could do is give a black and white directive,” Susewind said. “I feel the best person to make the call is the person in the field.”
Some local groups in Stevens County want either hounding or some sort of lethal response after a depredation by a cougar. Susewind said that officers make assessments and can decide to chase and harass cougars with hounds, but every situation is different. Overall it’s a judgement call by their trained officers.
Overall public safety is the focus of WDFW, Susewind said"
https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/living/dangerous-wildlife/response
WDFW response to dangerous wildlife complaints
Some conflicts with dangerous wildlife species are inevitable as humans continue to expand into habitat traditionally occupied by black bear and cougar. When those conflicts occur, people often call WDFW offices for assistance.
The WDFW Enforcement Program is responsible for responding and assisting the public regarding solutions to complaints about dangerous wildlife. WDFW policy directs agency employees to respond within specific timeframes and with certain responses depending on the urgency of the incident.
These responses are summarized below.
Situation 1: Cougar or black bear depredation on livestock resulting in the loss of animal
Response: WDFW enforcement officer response within 24 hours, with the authority to:
•Euthanize the offending animal, or
•Immobilize, mark, and relocate offending animal one time only.
Situation 2: Cougar or black bear exhibit behavior that constitutes an 'urgent human safety concern'
Response: Immediate response by WDFW enforcement officer with the authority to:
•Euthanize the offending animal, or
•Immobilize, mark, and relocate the offending animal one time only.
Situation 3: Cougar or black bear attack on a human
Response: Immediate response by WDFW enforcement officer.
•Euthanize offending animal.
•Submit tissue samples to State Health Department for rabies test.
Although attacks on humans are rare, WDFW is prepared to respond based on established protocols.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 03, 2019, 12:27:35 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2019, 02:12:00 PM
Fixed it for you, Director Susewind.
Post by: jackelope on October 03, 2019, 02:29:08 PM
"Some conflicts with dangerous wildlife species are inevitable ashumans continue to expand into habitat traditionally occupied byblack bear and cougar populations continue to explode unchecked. When those conflicts occur, people often call WDFW offices for assistance."
Fixed it for you, Director Susewind.
Really it's probably a little bit of both. I wouldn't cross the part out that you crossed out. The addition is accurate.
Post by: KFhunter on October 03, 2019, 02:49:21 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on October 03, 2019, 03:51:05 PM
Why would wdfw care that a cat took out a deer? Proximity to people? Urban area?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
You're right. I skipped right over the part about it being a deer. What would they even do in the first place? I guess if the cougar did something that would classify it as a dangerous cougar, that's one thing. Seems to be a cougar just doin cougar stuff.
Post by: bigskyhounds on December 10, 2019, 07:44:32 PM
Over population of predators with the combination of incredibly low numbers of ungulates has driven these predators far and wide. It's moved beyond just overall health of our herds to a public safety issue that we shouldn't have to face. (Woman treed by wolves, kid attacked by cougar in Leavenworth)
The Stevens county sheriff doesn't want to follow in the footsteps of klickitat because he feels wdfw will and can do their job of managing predators. The bottom line is that if wdfw was doing their job we wouldn't have these depradation issues and lions wouldn't be showing up in colville city limits or collared wolves on the tracks in blue creek
Post by: jstone on December 10, 2019, 08:26:12 PM
Post by: jrebel on December 10, 2019, 08:35:45 PM
We need the politics from king county and all the west side out of eastern Washington. I grew up in Wenatchee it was awesome to be a kid there. I want to go back in 6 years BUT they need to keep the west side politics out of the east side
Wenatchee is rapidly becoming King County. I can't wait to get out and I have only lived here for about 10 years. In that 10 years it has gone down hill.
Post by: jstone on December 10, 2019, 08:47:14 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 11, 2019, 07:33:45 AM
Good on the Sheriff for taking the initiative. Sadly it won't take anything more than a phone call to shut the whole thing down. If WDFW chooses to take that action they would be well within their rights as the WDFW agency to do so, as well as to seek prosecution of the Sheriff's deputized hound hunters.
Everyone has a lane they are suppose to operate in, and the Sheriff's lane isn't game control. Maybe thats something they would be willing to allow the county to take on, but as of now it's not part of the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office.
The sheriff is the highest LE official in Klickitat. He's the one who allows WDFW LE to operate within his county. He's also the responsible party for any of his deputies' actions. The duty of the sheriff is to protect his constituents. If that means killing wildlife which has threatened the safety of those constituents, that falls under the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office. Since the sheriff has made these statements, I see zero indication that anyone feels he's abused his position and pursued dangerous wildlife in a reckless manner.
Post by: birddogdad on December 11, 2019, 07:37:13 AM
Good on the Sheriff for taking the initiative. Sadly it won't take anything more than a phone call to shut the whole thing down. If WDFW chooses to take that action they would be well within their rights as the WDFW agency to do so, as well as to seek prosecution of the Sheriff's deputized hound hunters.
Everyone has a lane they are suppose to operate in, and the Sheriff's lane isn't game control. Maybe thats something they would be willing to allow the county to take on, but as of now it's not part of the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office.
The sheriff is the highest LE official in Klickitat. He's the one who allows WDFW LE to operate within his county. He's also the responsible party for any of his deputies' actions. The duty of the sheriff is to protect his constituents. If that means killing wildlife which has threatened the safety of those constituents, that falls under the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office. Since the sheriff has made these statements, I see zero indication that anyone feels he's abused his position and pursued dangerous wildlife in a reckless manner.
i can say first hand the the deer population over past 5 years there has evaporated and my crew has seen more cats in that time than the previous 15 years there!
Post by: ctwiggs1 on December 11, 2019, 07:59:42 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 11, 2019, 08:11:21 AM
Good on the Sheriff for taking the initiative. Sadly it won't take anything more than a phone call to shut the whole thing down. If WDFW chooses to take that action they would be well within their rights as the WDFW agency to do so, as well as to seek prosecution of the Sheriff's deputized hound hunters.
Everyone has a lane they are suppose to operate in, and the Sheriff's lane isn't game control. Maybe thats something they would be willing to allow the county to take on, but as of now it's not part of the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office.
The sheriff is the highest LE official in Klickitat. He's the one who allows WDFW LE to operate within his county. He's also the responsible party for any of his deputies' actions. The duty of the sheriff is to protect his constituents. If that means killing wildlife which has threatened the safety of those constituents, that falls under the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office. Since the sheriff has made these statements, I see zero indication that anyone feels he's abused his position and pursued dangerous wildlife in a reckless manner.
Not entirely accurate.
The WDFW is known as a general authority law enforcement agency which basically allows them to enforce all laws of the state from traffic to drugs to wildlife. The only other state agency that is general authority is the state patrol. Yes the WDFW as well as the DNR also seek to be commissioned by the County Sheriff's throughout the state but in order to conduct law enforcement duties and enforce state laws the CO Sheriff is not required to "deputize" them.
I don't believe that's true in WA. They act within any county at the invitation of the sheriff, the only elected LEO in his jurisdiction. They may be working under a previous understanding with the sheriff's department that allows them to operate in his jurisdiction. But, were they to come down on his actions to protect his constituents, he could disallow their activities within his county. That goes for WSP, WDFW LE, FBI, DEA, etc.
Post by: boneaddict on December 11, 2019, 08:11:46 AM
But I applaud the sheriff for doing his job.
Post by: KFhunter on December 11, 2019, 08:16:54 AM
The sheriff isn't managing wildlife, that would be WDFW's purvue. We need to divorce those two very different concepts here.
The Sheriff is keeping the public safe from a threat which is right up in his wheelhouse. It could be anything, if its a threat he can act. It doesn't have to be a human threat, it can also be a dangerous pitt bull marauding through town mauling good women just trying to get gas, or it could be a mt lion.
I challenge you to show me where the sheriff can only work towards public safety in a limited scope....his authority is very broad when it comes to public safety.
Post by: KFhunter on December 11, 2019, 08:25:05 AM
Good on the Sheriff for taking the initiative. Sadly it won't take anything more than a phone call to shut the whole thing down. If WDFW chooses to take that action they would be well within their rights as the WDFW agency to do so, as well as to seek prosecution of the Sheriff's deputized hound hunters.
Everyone has a lane they are suppose to operate in, and the Sheriff's lane isn't game control. Maybe thats something they would be willing to allow the county to take on, but as of now it's not part of the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office.
The sheriff is the highest LE official in Klickitat. He's the one who allows WDFW LE to operate within his county. He's also the responsible party for any of his deputies' actions. The duty of the sheriff is to protect his constituents. If that means killing wildlife which has threatened the safety of those constituents, that falls under the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office. Since the sheriff has made these statements, I see zero indication that anyone feels he's abused his position and pursued dangerous wildlife in a reckless manner.
Not entirely accurate.
The WDFW is known as a general authority law enforcement agency which basically allows them to enforce all laws of the state from traffic to drugs to wildlife. The only other state agency that is general authority is the state patrol. Yes the WDFW as well as the DNR also seek to be commissioned by the County Sheriff's throughout the state but in order to conduct law enforcement duties and enforce state laws the CO Sheriff is not required to "deputize" them.
I don't believe that's true in WA. They act within any county at the invitation of the sheriff, the only elected LEO in his jurisdiction. They may be working under a previous understanding with the sheriff's department that allows them to operate in his jurisdiction. But, were they to come down on his actions to protect his constituents, he could disallow their activities within his county. That goes for WSP, WDFW LE, FBI, DEA, etc.
WDFW and other state LE can enforce state law anywhere within the state with or without the sheriff's OK, federal can enforce federal anywhere in the state without or without the Sheriff or the State's say so. ICE does it all the time in sanctuary cities.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 11, 2019, 08:27:27 AM
Good on the Sheriff for taking the initiative. Sadly it won't take anything more than a phone call to shut the whole thing down. If WDFW chooses to take that action they would be well within their rights as the WDFW agency to do so, as well as to seek prosecution of the Sheriff's deputized hound hunters.
Everyone has a lane they are suppose to operate in, and the Sheriff's lane isn't game control. Maybe thats something they would be willing to allow the county to take on, but as of now it's not part of the duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff's office.
The sheriff is the highest LE official in Klickitat. He's the one who allows WDFW LE to operate within his county. He's also the responsible party for any of his deputies' actions. The duty of the sheriff is to protect his constituents. If that means killing wildlife which has threatened the safety of those constituents, that falls under the duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office. Since the sheriff has made these statements, I see zero indication that anyone feels he's abused his position and pursued dangerous wildlife in a reckless manner.
Not entirely accurate.
The WDFW is known as a general authority law enforcement agency which basically allows them to enforce all laws of the state from traffic to drugs to wildlife. The only other state agency that is general authority is the state patrol. Yes the WDFW as well as the DNR also seek to be commissioned by the County Sheriff's throughout the state but in order to conduct law enforcement duties and enforce state laws the CO Sheriff is not required to "deputize" them.
I don't believe that's true in WA. They act within any county at the invitation of the sheriff, the only elected LEO in his jurisdiction. They may be working under a previous understanding with the sheriff's department that allows them to operate in his jurisdiction. But, were they to come down on his actions to protect his constituents, he could disallow their activities within his county. That goes for WSP, WDFW LE, FBI, DEA, etc.
WDFW and other state LE can enforce state law anywhere within the state with or without the sheriff's OK, federal can enforce federal anywhere in the state without or without the Sheriff or the State's say so. ICE does it all the time in sanctuary cities.
If WDFW or Federal enforces county ordinances, he needs the approval from the Sheriff.
The Sheriff can't preempt state or federal law.
He most obviously can and is with regards to hounds and cougars without WDFW approval. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on December 11, 2019, 08:29:33 AM
It's kinda like Archery hunters couldn't carry concealed pistols for the longest time, but then the courts said that hunting laws can't preempt or nullify 2a laws.
2a law > RCW's
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 11, 2019, 08:37:36 AM
Post by: birddogdad on December 11, 2019, 08:41:51 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on December 11, 2019, 08:53:00 AM
It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.
I think you're wrong:
(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the hunting of black bear, cougar, or bobcat with the aid of a dog or dogs by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245
I'm not a lawyer... So I fully acknowledge that my armchair lawyering may be off a bit :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on December 11, 2019, 08:54:57 AM
It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.
It's illegal to drive an armored vehicle through a house too, but yet they do that...
When it comes to responding to a threat pretty much anything goes, so I say again...the sheriff isn't using hunting laws or managing wildlife, they are responding to a public threat.
There is nothing saying a sheriff can't use a blood hound to track a fleeing pedo through the woods, or hounds to track a dangerous lion, or a Belgian Malinois to take down a barricaded madman.
Post by: KFhunter on December 11, 2019, 08:58:25 AM
It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.
I think you're wrong:
(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the hunting of black bear, cougar, or bobcat with the aid of a dog or dogs by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245
I'm not a lawyer... So I fully acknowledge that my armchair lawyering may be off a bit :chuckle:
:yeah:
affirming the Sheriff's authority to protect the public safety and property, but it isn't granting that authority, they already had it. This is an affirmation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 11, 2019, 09:34:35 AM
You're making my overall point, KF.It's illegal to hunt cougars in WA with hounds without the authorization of the WDFW. That's the whole issue here in this thread, KF. The sheriff has now said, damn the WDFW and their authorization. If I need to do it, I will, without their authorization.
It's illegal to drive an armored vehicle through a house too, but yet they do that...
When it comes to responding to a threat pretty much anything goes, so I say again...the sheriff isn't using hunting laws or managing wildlife, they are responding to a public threat.
There is nothing saying a sheriff can't use a blood hound to track a fleeing pedo through the woods, or hounds to track a dangerous lion, or a Belgian Malinois to take down a barricaded madman.
Post by: KFhunter on December 11, 2019, 09:37:06 AM
just go with it pman, just let it happen
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 11, 2019, 09:41:39 AM
Post by: Utah on December 27, 2019, 09:12:01 PM
Best thing I've read on a Forum in quite some time.. Spot on end of story. Once that is established there is literally no more discussion necessary...