Post by: UplandSetter on August 16, 2023, 06:46:47 PM
When I first got here I heard and still hear a lot about running dogs being made illegal by recreational hunters back in the 90's. With all the politics going on with predator hunting currently, I wanted to ask if someone could give me a brief history on how running dogs became illegal. I've tried searching the forum and picked up tidbits here and there, as it sounds like it was driven mainly by King county residents (sounds familiar).
I know a lot of people on here think the same as I do, that running dogs on lions is a great way to manage the resource and is in no way, shape, or form inhumane. It's a cultural practice that is effective and valued in many other parts of the country, so it's clear to me that it was an emotional decision. I wanted to ask if someone had a good explanation of the history, i.e. what group or person led the movement against running dogs, how it happened politically (was it a commission decision?), and (this is a dangerous question) what could have been done in hindsight to fight it.
I don't intend for this thread to becoming a venting of frustration about the fact that it was made illegal. I would imagine we're all already on the same page that it was a violation of WA sportsmen's rights and culture. After all, that's the way I feel and I can't even imagine how somebody who has lived here their whole life feels. Thanks in advance.
Post by: MADMAX on August 16, 2023, 07:03:13 PM
Mid 90s
Ridiculous
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/13/passage-of-initiative-655-leaves-hunters-up-a-tree/
Post by: passman65 on August 16, 2023, 07:12:25 PM
Post by: Special T on August 16, 2023, 07:56:08 PM
Post by: UplandSetter on August 16, 2023, 10:29:18 PM
Very sad to hear about Skagit county. I love Skagit, I spend as much time there as I can. My friends who have lived there for decades always say the same thing: you should've seen it 50 years ago.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 16, 2023, 11:04:04 PM
As for spring bear, that was done away with by the Wildlife Commission on their own.
Post by: ducks4days on August 17, 2023, 07:33:57 AM
I appreciate the link to the article. Pretty messed up, to say the least. So from what I'm reading, it was an actual legal initiative (referendum) sent to the public to vote on? In other words, the masses got to decide the fate of legal methods of wildlife management? I just want to make sure I have my facts straight -- the general public voted on this?
Very sad to hear about Skagit county. I love Skagit, I spend as much time there as I can. My friends who have lived there for decades always say the same thing: you should've seen it 50 years ago.
A referendum is a poll taken which mandates lawmakers make laws. Initiatives are laws directly voted on by registered voters in the state.
WA has a history of pushing controversial and complicated issues through by initiative, where the complex rules haven’t been debated and negotiated into consensus. It’s a trick to push through crap laws by pure majority based on the feelings of the uninformed.
Post by: GWP on August 17, 2023, 08:09:55 AM
One of the first of a number of backdoor, underhanded ways the state is using to stop hunting.
Like one politician said, "All the votes you need can be seen from the top of The Space Needle".
So one big bunch of 'city folk', that know little about outdoor matters, get to decide them for the entire State.
While I never hound hunted, I supported them, and lost a lot of faith in those in charge to 'do the right thing'.
The rest of the State does not operate or think like King County. Nor should it.
Some person sitting in a Condo that has never been in the woods, and thinks their food 'mysteriously' appears cut and wrapped, should not be making judgements on the other.
It still pisses me off. And continues to do so watching the actions going on now by those that control hunting and fishing rules.
Aaaaaaaarrrrrrggg!
Rant over.
Post by: boneaddict on August 17, 2023, 08:35:05 AM
Post by: buckfvr on August 17, 2023, 09:49:47 AM
I have friends in Idaho who live in the legal hound units and even though they are bear hunters/past houndsmen, they dont have much good to say about the Idaho hound hunts. When you have fond memories of the "REAL" good ol days, today isnt likely to float your boat.
Post by: ducks4days on August 17, 2023, 11:17:46 AM
Having hunted over hounds (west side) in the mid 70s and a few times in the 80s (family with hounds), and having baited bear on the west side into the early 90s, Id have to say hound hunting today would be extremely regulated and restricted even if legal based on what we saw in the woods from hwy 2 to Chinook pass during bear season, in the end of hounds being legal.
I have friends in Idaho who live in the legal hound units and even though they are bear hunters/past houndsmen, they dont have much good to say about the Idaho hound hunts. When you have fond memories of the "REAL" good ol days, today isnt likely to float your boat.
While this is good context, I will always land on the side of self-regulation to improve an activity over banning. Houndsmen with pride in what they do should be refusing to associate with people who give them a bad name. Calling them out and publicly embarrassing them for it, expanding options for education and teaching newcomers how to hound hunt responsibly has never been easier since the invention of the internet.
Post by: buckfvr on August 17, 2023, 11:38:14 AM
Post by: boneaddict on August 17, 2023, 01:10:50 PM
I'm trying to decide how much the wolf agenda had to do with the banning of hounds
Post by: 300rum on August 17, 2023, 01:49:24 PM
Play a couple video clips over and over again of a video that should never have been taken let alone put on the internet or released and there ya have it. King county votes and the rest of us can deal with it.
Post by: BigGoonTuna on August 19, 2023, 01:28:43 PM
Our citizen initiative process in this state has been hijacked by deep pocketed special interest groups(like bloombergs gun banning group) using paid petitioners to gather signatures to push bad laws like I594. Imho the process should be reserved only for true grassroots politics and having petitioners on a political party or lobbying group’s payroll should be outlawed.
Post by: RB on August 19, 2023, 02:01:39 PM
Post by: hunter399 on August 19, 2023, 02:14:16 PM
Unable to vote yet.
Remember my parents voted for it. We didn't get to bait bears anymore. Id have to ask my dad. But I don't ever remember him buying a bear tag since. That's how my dad is,piss down his back , you'll never see a dime from him.
My dad ran 5-10 bait sites a year.
There are spots on public land where his tree stands are still there.
Except they are like 30 feet up instead of 15. :chuckle:
Post by: Britt-dog on August 20, 2023, 08:54:56 AM
That said I would bet a majority of “hunters” supported the ban or were quiet/neutral. The worst arguments I had over the whole thing were with other hunters. It was very disappointing in that regard.
Post by: highcountry_hunter on August 20, 2023, 09:04:06 AM
The antis were very well funded and organized. We looked and sounded very much like the backwards hicks they made us out to be. Based on the numbers we never had a chance.Why do you think other hunters were also in support of the ban? Think the anti’s were able to persuade them or do you think they just legitimately thought it was unfair chase? I was 7 at the time so I don’t really remember the ads on tv or radio.
That said I would bet a majority of “hunters” supported the ban or were quiet/neutral. The worst arguments I had over the whole thing were with other hunters. It was very disappointing in that regard.
It would be interesting to hear from one of these “hunters” who voted in favor of the ban and see if they would still vote the same way if they could go back in time and vote again. This however is extremely unlikely. For whatever reason, it’s like a cardinal sin to admit you may have made a mistake in the past.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bullkllr on August 20, 2023, 09:10:12 AM
The antis were very well funded and organized. We looked and sounded very much like the backwards hicks they made us out to be. Based on the numbers we never had a chance.
That said I would bet a majority of “hunters” supported the ban or were quiet/neutral. The worst arguments I had over the whole thing were with other hunters. It was very disappointing in that regard.
This is what I remember most. The argument was often, "well I don't hound hunt". Some actually leaned into the potential negatives of using hounds (and baiting). It was very disappointing to see hunters and fishermen not step up in support. I would add it was very short-sighted when you see what we have now. It may have passed anyway, but it was sad to see.
Post by: Cougartail on August 20, 2023, 11:32:01 AM
Remember, when they are done with one type of hunting your type is next.
Post by: snit on August 20, 2023, 12:18:50 PM
Comments out of hunters about trapping and legholds made me want to puke. Some were as ignorant as those coming out of the PETA crazies.
Remember, when they are done with one type of hunting your type is next.
THIS! "They" just won't stop until "they" win...same as the "assault weapon" anti's