Post by: Ridgeratt on April 29, 2024, 06:11:52 PM
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission splits over cougar hunting rules
April 29, 2024 Updated Mon., April 29, 2024 at 10:50 a.m.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission finds itself deeply divided over predator hunting rules for the second time in recent years.
At a meeting in Olympia last week, a majority of the nine-member panel that sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife disregarded pleas from a minority faction and approved a prescriptive motion directing agency officials to craft new cougar hunting rules.
The motion directed staff of the agency to bring back a proposed rule that establishes a single cougar season running from Sept. 1 to March 31 and limits hunter harvest, safety and livestock removals to 13% of the estimated mountain lion population. However, the proposed structure would, for at least next year, allow cougar hunting areas where 13% or more of the estimated population has already been removed by Sept. 1 through control actions to limit livestock killings and public safety, to open and run until it hits 20%.
As it is now structured, the season runs in two parts — September through December and then, if quotas allow, from January through April — and cougars removed for public safety or livestock attacks do not count against hunting quotas
Members in the minority asked their fellow commissioners to slow the process and wait a year, noting wildlife managers from the agency said the population does not appear in imminent danger. They said waiting would make them more comfortable and foster wider public trust in the process.
Cougar populations are difficult to monitor with precision but the department assumes a medium density of 2.3 per 100 square kilometers within its established population management units. Agency scientists believe 10% to 16% of the population can be removed annually without disrupting the social structure of the cougar population. They say social stability begins to break down when removals hit the 16% to 27% range.
In 2014, the commission, upon request from local public officials, loosened cougar hunting quotas and regulations in northeastern Washington. The change, combined with cougars being killed to address public safety or to reduce livestock losses, results in removal rates in some areas that exceed 27%. Hunting typically results in a small portion of the removals.
While they said the population does not appear to require emergency intervention, the take rates in some areas risk undermining the goal of achieving stable social structure of populations where dominant males establish and enforce territories.
Commissioner Jim Anderson pushed a motion that would have delayed changes to cougar hunting until the 2025 season when an update to the state’s Game Management Plan is expected to be complete.
“I just think this is a measured approach that is deliberate. It would be inclusive, transparent and it would be fair.”
The motion that was supported by commissioners Molly Linville, John Lehmkuhl and Steve Parker failed. Commissioners Barbara Baker, Tim Ragen, Lorna Smith, Melanie Rowland and Woody Myers voted against it.
They eventually approved a motion by Baker which replaced a similar one offered by Ragen. Supporters argued reducing harvest of cougars eliminates risk.
“I think it’s our obligation to be more careful, more precautionary, to err on the side of healthy cougar populations,” Ragen said.
But Linville argued the commission wasn’t given sufficient time to consider the motion, noting she had not seen it until the previous night. She warned that rushing it through would add to tensions within the commission and further erode the public’s trust.
Two years ago, the commission and its stakeholders split during a controversial move to eliminate the state’s spring black bear hunting season. Hunters, a traditional stakeholder group in wildlife management issues, opposed the move and felt betrayed by it. Animal rights activists and anti-hunters supported it.
“For the first time, I’m going to really understand why the public doesn’t trust us,” Linville said during last week’s meeting. “I just got completely disregarded when I shared that there are four of us that aren’t comfortable and you just steamrolled us.”
Department director Kelly Susewind said the motion was highly prescriptive and that the commission traditionally gives the department more leeway to craft proposed rules. Commissioner Smith attempted to cut him off, saying it was a commission deliberation.
Susewind pushed on, noting Smith often interrupts him and that he had been recognized by chairperson Baker to share his view as head of the agency they oversee.
“This is part of the problem,” Susewind said. “You are trying to go your direction despite where the agency wants to go and if we don’t say what you want to hear, you don’t want to hear from us.”
Baker said that the commissioners and the department were given ample time to consider the amendment and said any cougar hunting rule would likely look quite different by the time the rulemaking process is completed.
“I don’t think we will finish with anything that looks like this,” she said.
The amendment was approved on a 5-3-1 vote with Linville abstaining and Lehmkuhl, Parker and Anderson voting against it. Commissioners in the majority said they hope to complete the rulemaking process before Sept. 1.
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 29, 2024, 07:05:10 PM
I'm glad they are getting called out but honestly it's going to take a new governor to fix this mess.
Post by: duckmen1 on April 29, 2024, 09:08:06 PM
If their agenda wasn't clear as day by now I don't what it will take...
I'm glad they are getting called out but honestly it's going to take a new governor to fix this mess.
Exactly what I just was saying in a conversation in regards. The commission is a mess. 2 or 3 specific people would change the whole outlook on the commission. This is extremely comical to see these clowns getting called out. Hope it continues to see backlash until we see the change we need. Not just change for us. But change for the better overall management of our animal herds.
Post by: hunter399 on April 29, 2024, 09:08:27 PM
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/apr/29/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-splits-ove/
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission splits over cougar hunting rules
April 29, 2024 Updated Mon., April 29, 2024 at 10:50 a.m.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission finds itself deeply divided over predator hunting rules for the second time in recent years.
At a meeting in Olympia last week, a majority of the nine-member panel that sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife disregarded pleas from a minority faction and approved a prescriptive motion directing agency officials to craft new cougar hunting rules.
The motion directed staff of the agency to bring back a proposed rule that establishes a single cougar season running from Sept. 1 to March 31 and limits hunter harvest, safety and livestock removals to 13% of the estimated mountain lion population. However, the proposed structure would, for at least next year, allow cougar hunting areas where 13% or more of the estimated population has already been removed by Sept. 1 through control actions to limit livestock killings and public safety, to open and run until it hits 20%.
As it is now structured, the season runs in two parts — September through December and then, if quotas allow, from January through April — and cougars removed for public safety or livestock attacks do not count against hunting quotas
Members in the minority asked their fellow commissioners to slow the process and wait a year, noting wildlife managers from the agency said the population does not appear in imminent danger. They said waiting would make them more comfortable and foster wider public trust in the process.
Cougar populations are difficult to monitor with precision but the department assumes a medium density of 2.3 per 100 square kilometers within its established population management units. Agency scientists believe 10% to 16% of the population can be removed annually without disrupting the social structure of the cougar population. They say social stability begins to break down when removals hit the 16% to 27% range.
In 2014, the commission, upon request from local public officials, loosened cougar hunting quotas and regulations in northeastern Washington. The change, combined with cougars being killed to address public safety or to reduce livestock losses, results in removal rates in some areas that exceed 27%. Hunting typically results in a small portion of the removals.
While they said the population does not appear to require emergency intervention, the take rates in some areas risk undermining the goal of achieving stable social structure of populations where dominant males establish and enforce territories.
Commissioner Jim Anderson pushed a motion that would have delayed changes to cougar hunting until the 2025 season when an update to the state’s Game Management Plan is expected to be complete.
“I just think this is a measured approach that is deliberate. It would be inclusive, transparent and it would be fair.”
The motion that was supported by commissioners Molly Linville, John Lehmkuhl and Steve Parker failed. Commissioners Barbara Baker, Tim Ragen, Lorna Smith, Melanie Rowland and Woody Myers voted against it.
They eventually approved a motion by Baker which replaced a similar one offered by Ragen. Supporters argued reducing harvest of cougars eliminates risk.
“I think it’s our obligation to be more careful, more precautionary, to err on the side of healthy cougar populations,” Ragen said.
But Linville argued the commission wasn’t given sufficient time to consider the motion, noting she had not seen it until the previous night. She warned that rushing it through would add to tensions within the commission and further erode the public’s trust.
Two years ago, the commission and its stakeholders split during a controversial move to eliminate the state’s spring black bear hunting season. Hunters, a traditional stakeholder group in wildlife management issues, opposed the move and felt betrayed by it. Animal rights activists and anti-hunters supported it.
“For the first time, I’m going to really understand why the public doesn’t trust us,” Linville said during last week’s meeting. “I just got completely disregarded when I shared that there are four of us that aren’t comfortable and you just steamrolled us.”
Department director Kelly Susewind said the motion was highly prescriptive and that the commission traditionally gives the department more leeway to craft proposed rules. Commissioner Smith attempted to cut him off, saying it was a commission deliberation.
Susewind pushed on, noting Smith often interrupts him and that he had been recognized by chairperson Baker to share his view as head of the agency they oversee.
“This is part of the problem,” Susewind said. “You are trying to go your direction despite where the agency wants to go and if we don’t say what you want to hear, you don’t want to hear from us.”
Baker said that the commissioners and the department were given ample time to consider the amendment and said any cougar hunting rule would likely look quite different by the time the rulemaking process is completed.
“I don’t think we will finish with anything that looks like this,” she said.
The amendment was approved on a 5-3-1 vote with Linville abstaining and Lehmkuhl, Parker and Anderson voting against it. Commissioners in the majority said they hope to complete the rulemaking process before Sept. 1.
That last sentence pisses me right off.
They HOPE to complete the rule making process by September 1.
Are you freaking kidding me,I already bought a tag for a season
That may not open.
What a joke, I've been bitting my tongue, thinking maybe they will do the right thing.
But this takes the cake.
💨💩💦
Post by: BUTTER on April 29, 2024, 09:18:51 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on April 29, 2024, 09:29:05 PM
Post by: BUTTER on April 29, 2024, 09:31:31 PM
Post by: rackattack on April 29, 2024, 09:47:26 PM
All they are implementing is cougars being shot and left. Good work commissioners
That's what it will come to eventually.
Post by: pickardjw on April 29, 2024, 10:44:06 PM
Post by: JakeLand on April 30, 2024, 04:30:28 AM
I thought this Woody fella was supposed to lean more pro-hunting??woody is a coward without face , he’s a follower
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 30, 2024, 05:03:16 AM
Susewind pushed on, noting Smith often interrupts him and that he had been recognized by chairperson Baker to share his view as head of the agency they oversee.
“This is part of the problem,” Susewind said. “You are trying to go your direction despite where the agency wants to go and if we don’t say what you want to hear, you don’t want to hear from us.”
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 30, 2024, 05:08:05 AM
I thought this Woody fella was supposed to lean more pro-hunting??
If not pro hunting at least pro science...
I mean 40 years with wdfw as a bio he knows what uncontrolled predation does to ungulates...
Post by: Rainier10 on April 30, 2024, 07:01:16 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 30, 2024, 07:41:09 AM
Please everyone vote red.
Maybe a better idea is to vote with your wallet!!! But that won't happen.
The wdfw is like a drug dealer and they have the sportsman of Washington HOOKED. In the next few weeks people will race to the counter to purchase chances on the limited morsels that remain. When in reality they have little chance of drawing. How many folks hope to draw the single opportunity they offer for limited access.
Post by: hunter399 on April 30, 2024, 08:05:48 AM
Please everyone vote red.
Maybe a better idea is to vote with your wallet!!! But that won't happen.
The wdfw is like a drug dealer and they have the sportsman of Washington HOOKED. In the next few weeks people will race to the counter to purchase chances on the limited morsels that remain. When in reality they have little chance of drawing. How many folks hope to draw the single opportunity they offer for limited access.
Me ....me ....me.
I'm gonna draw. HaHaHa lol ....yeah right.
But seriously,this is most likely the last year I buy the big game package. After they change both bear/cougar season.
It will be just deer/elk for me.
Only reason I bought it this year was bear still has August opening for bear. If it wasn't for that ,I probably wouldn't have bought it.
Cougar will most likely be closed before the season starts in Eastern Washington.
Shorter bear season.
I have a feeling most guys won't buy a tag till they need a tag.
No reason to buy early,no draw opportunity for these species.
It's pretty obvious that this commission loves predators,since they can't wait for department recommendations/science.
That will also come with lower licence sales,less funding, overall they won't see my money.
Along with the slap to the face to department recommendations.
The rush to complete season rules before September 1.
Which could result in the season not opening at all.
Seems like a perfect excuse for the perfect Strom.
Post by: nwwanderer on April 30, 2024, 08:29:29 AM
Post by: RC on April 30, 2024, 09:21:27 AM
Please everyone vote red.
Maybe a better idea is to vote with your wallet!!! But that won't happen.
The wdfw is like a drug dealer and they have the sportsman of Washington HOOKED. In the next few weeks people will race to the counter to purchase chances on the limited morsels that remain. When in reality they have little chance of drawing. How many folks hope to draw the single opportunity they offer for limited access.
I think ultimately that's what some of the commission wants. No licences purchased means no more revenue, which means nobody hunts or fishes anymore. At that point, why allow any hunting or fishing at all?
Post by: ipkus on April 30, 2024, 10:17:50 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 30, 2024, 10:28:02 AM
If the wdfw loses the cash base they will have to make spending choices and staffing.
Yes, I was guilty of buying into the hype they project!
Just look at the quality deer for the Northeast GMUs and see what the harvest return is for the area.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/management/game-harvest/2023/deer-individual
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 30, 2024, 11:10:29 AM
Post by: ipkus on April 30, 2024, 11:17:15 AM
Just how does throwing money out the window benefit us?
It keeps us at the table, even though we have a small chair that is not very close to it.
A 50% drop in license sales let's them say that interest in harvest is dropping and it's time to fully shift WDFW to a non-consumptive mission.
How does that help?
They don't need us. When license sales fall off they just go to the legislature and beg for more money. They already do it every year anyway!
Post by: hunter399 on April 30, 2024, 11:45:08 AM
The legislature will cut them off eventually.Just how does throwing money out the window benefit us?
It keeps us at the table, even though we have a small chair that is not very close to it.
A 50% drop in license sales let's them say that interest in harvest is dropping and it's time to fully shift WDFW to a non-consumptive mission.
How does that help?
They don't need us. When license sales fall off they just go to the legislature and beg for more money. They already do it every year anyway!
If licence sales drop.
It's an investment in wildlife.
Licence sales is a return on that investment.
No return...no investment.
Post by: ipkus on April 30, 2024, 11:52:23 AM
And they do it with a smile on their face.
Post by: hunter399 on April 30, 2024, 12:45:32 PM
Apparently you don’t know who is in our legislature. Handouts for bad investments is what they do best.Sorry I forgot.
And they do it with a smile on their face.
I agree your correct.
No win situation. Lol
Post by: ghosthunter on April 30, 2024, 01:10:30 PM
The rush for September is they want it wrapped up before the election. This has to be an election issue and they have to believe that we can harm their political supporters at the polls.
There is no coverage of their agenda on the news at all ,therefore they have no worries. You have a commission that openly gets called out by the director and they don’t care one little bit.
If you can’t get Ferguson to worry that they will cost him votes than there no pressure to change their non consumptive path. You really believe Ferguson isn’t supporting them ?
What we are lacking in muscle is fisherman. Fisherman need to understand that this just isn’t a hunting issue. You only need to look to Oregon to see what’s ahead.
Everyone of us should be talking to fisherman and bringing them into the fight.
Otherwise, well it’s over.
Post by: Pathfinder101 on April 30, 2024, 01:54:02 PM
I doubt the Commission cares a bit about what we do. They have an agenda and they are moving forward with it whether we like it or not. Lawsuits and boycotts won’t even faze them.
The rush for September is they want it wrapped up before the election. This has to be an election issue and they have to believe that we can harm their political supporters at the polls.
There is no coverage of their agenda on the news at all ,therefore they have no worries. You have a commission that openly gets called out by the director and they don’t care one little bit.
If you can’t get Ferguson to worry that they will cost him votes than there no pressure to change their non consumptive path. You really believe Ferguson isn’t supporting them ?
What we are lacking in muscle is fisherman. Fisherman need to understand that this just isn’t a hunting issue. You only need to look to Oregon to see what’s ahead.
Everyone of us should be talking to fisherman and bringing them into the fight.
Otherwise, well it’s over.
:yeah: Agree. Fishermen are going to be key.
Post by: ducks4days on April 30, 2024, 04:22:07 PM
If their agenda wasn't clear as day by now I don't what it will take...
I'm glad they are getting called out but honestly it's going to take a new governor to fix this mess.
That, or a couple well timed heart attacks
Post by: TommyH on April 30, 2024, 08:46:17 PM
Lol, the NE has got that # of “2.3” in a few mile radius
Post by: wolfbait on May 06, 2024, 05:30:39 AM
Funding from sportsmen is the only thing giving us ANY voice at all at this point. Once that goes away, they get their money from the general fund and sportsmen have even less of a say than they do already. The commission doesn't rely on tag funds for their decision making, but they would love for the non-hunting public to be their majority funding mechanism. It would just give them more ammo to fast-track their preservation agenda
Well Said!
WDFW want to be tax payer funded, they are inching their way to their goal.
Post by: hunter399 on May 06, 2024, 08:36:11 AM
Funding from sportsmen is the only thing giving us ANY voice at all at this point. Once that goes away, they get their money from the general fund and sportsmen have even less of a say than they do already. The commission doesn't rely on tag funds for their decision making, but they would love for the non-hunting public to be their majority funding mechanism. It would just give them more ammo to fast-track their preservation agenda
Well Said!
WDFW want to be tax payer funded, they are inching their way to their goal.
I agree with tax payer funded being the goal.
Our voice has fallen on def ears since spring bear was cancelled.
They just take our money anyway. Continue to cut opportunity for any predator type hunts.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on May 06, 2024, 08:51:35 AM
If their agenda wasn't clear as day by now I don't what it will take...
I'm glad they are getting called out but honestly it's going to take a new governor to fix this mess.
That, or a couple well timed heart attacks
I don't think any of them work for Boeing :dunno:
Post by: Special T on May 06, 2024, 10:02:19 AM
I thought this Woody fella was supposed to lean more pro-hunting??woody is a coward without face , he’s a follower
It is now known that he runs with the Weilgus crowd when it comes to predator management. Weilgus and his BS WSUstudy that claimed hunting promoted cougar conflicts.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 06, 2024, 10:17:20 AM
I thought this Woody fella was supposed to lean more pro-hunting??woody is a coward without face , he’s a follower
It is now known that he runs with the Weilgus crowd when it comes to predator management. Weilgus and his BS WSUstudy that claimed hunting promoted cougar conflicts.
Wasn't Weilgus either censured or removed because it was shown that he manipulated data to support his positions on predator management? I seem to remember something like that.
Post by: Special T on May 06, 2024, 10:25:29 AM
I belive you are correctI thought this Woody fella was supposed to lean more pro-hunting??woody is a coward without face , he’s a follower
It is now known that he runs with the Weilgus crowd when it comes to predator management. Weilgus and his BS WSUstudy that claimed hunting promoted cougar conflicts.
Wasn't Weilgus either censured or removed because it was shown that he manipulated data to support his positions on predator management? I seem to remember something like that.