Washington Senate Bill 5613 - Stops County agencies from doing cougar removal

[bearpaw]

SB 5613 - 2021-22
Concerning the use of dogs to hunt black bear, cougar, or bobcat.

Sponsors: Van De Wege, Rolfes, Conway, Hasegawa, Liias, Lovelett, Pedersen, Stanford

Substitute Bill Text: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5613-S.pdf?q=20220124125438

[bearpaw]

Sheriff responds to proposed bill on cougar hunting

https://www.goldendalesentinel.com/news/sheriff-responds-to-proposed-bill-on-cougar-hunting/article_8d6a28a6-73e1-11ec-92fe-eff831e39f1b.html

[bearpaw]

Sportsmens Alliance: SB 5613: Washington State Serves as a Cautionary Tale

https://www.sportsmensalliance.org/news/sb-5613-washington-state-serves-as-a-cautionary-tale/?bblinkid=257673591&bbemailid=37734769&bbejrid=-2052331081

[KFhunter]

That foia email chain that was posted here not long ago shows some in the dept are very against it too

[pickardjw]

My letter to my representatives if you need a template. Link to comment is below:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill/5613

I am opposed to SSB 5613 and request that my elected representatives vote NO on this bill for the following reasons:

1. County officials are more likely to respond appropriately to problem predators like cougars. Stripping them of the ability to manage these predators for the residents in their jurisdictions could potentially cause harm to livestock, pets and people.

2. Wildlife management should not be dictated by the legistlature in the first place. Stripping the WDFW of the ability to allow hunters to manage predator populations by the fair chase methods of baiting and hound hunting has been a serious detriment to deer and elk populations. RCW 77.15.245 should be removed in it's entirety.

Please vote NO on SSB 5613 and please consider legislation to remove RCW 77.15.245 for the sake of our deer and elk populations. Thank you for your time.

[bigtex]

The original bill is significantly different than the substitute bill.

The article with Songer's quotes were regarding the original bill. The original bill would've outright banned county involvement. The substitute bill allows for county involvement after WDFW authorizes such assistance. How it would go is Klickitat County (or any county) responds to a cougar call, they call WDFW (which they typically do anyways) and WDFW says go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar.

[bearpaw]

The original bill is significantly different than the substitute bill.

The article with Songer's quotes were regarding the original bill. The original bill would've outright banned county involvement. The substitute bill allows for county involvement after WDFW authorizes such assistance. How it would go is Klickitat County (or any county) responds to a cougar call, they call WDFW (which they typically do anyways) and WDFW says go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar.

That wouldn't be so bad, but typically, WDFW is probably more likely to avoid killing any predator! The bill sucks!

[bigtex]

The original bill is significantly different than the substitute bill.

The article with Songer's quotes were regarding the original bill. The original bill would've outright banned county involvement. The substitute bill allows for county involvement after WDFW authorizes such assistance. How it would go is Klickitat County (or any county) responds to a cougar call, they call WDFW (which they typically do anyways) and WDFW says go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar.

That wouldn't be so bad, but typically, WDFW is probably more likely to avoid killing any predator! The bill sucks!

The bill has nothing to do with killing a predator, it's simply can counties utilize their own dog teams. Even if the original bill were to pass (which doesn't matter now since that bill is essentially gone) if a deputy responded to a cougar attack and they observed the cougar they could shoot it on sight, they just couldn't call out a county dog team.

It is highly likely the substitute bill was pass and become law. But in reality I doubt it will change anything since those calls to WDFW were in almost all cases already being made.

[bearpaw]

The original bill is significantly different than the substitute bill.

The article with Songer's quotes were regarding the original bill. The original bill would've outright banned county involvement. The substitute bill allows for county involvement after WDFW authorizes such assistance. How it would go is Klickitat County (or any county) responds to a cougar call, they call WDFW (which they typically do anyways) and WDFW says go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar.

That wouldn't be so bad, but typically, WDFW is probably more likely to avoid killing any predator! The bill sucks!

The bill has nothing to do with killing a predator, it's simply can counties utilize their own dog teams. Even if the original bill were to pass (which doesn't matter now since that bill is essentially gone) if a deputy responded to a cougar attack and they observed the cougar they could shoot it on sight, they just couldn't call out a county dog team.

It is highly likely the substitute bill was pass and become law. But in reality I doubt it will change anything since those calls to WDFW were in almost all cases already being made.

That's simply not true, it's all about stopping predators from being killed, that's why they are doing this legislation, so counties can't manage problem cats!

[bigtex]

The original bill is significantly different than the substitute bill.

The article with Songer's quotes were regarding the original bill. The original bill would've outright banned county involvement. The substitute bill allows for county involvement after WDFW authorizes such assistance. How it would go is Klickitat County (or any county) responds to a cougar call, they call WDFW (which they typically do anyways) and WDFW says go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar.

That wouldn't be so bad, but typically, WDFW is probably more likely to avoid killing any predator! The bill sucks!

The bill has nothing to do with killing a predator, it's simply can counties utilize their own dog teams. Even if the original bill were to pass (which doesn't matter now since that bill is essentially gone) if a deputy responded to a cougar attack and they observed the cougar they could shoot it on sight, they just couldn't call out a county dog team.

It is highly likely the substitute bill was pass and become law. But in reality I doubt it will change anything since those calls to WDFW were in almost all cases already being made.

That's simply not true, it's all about stopping predators from being killed, that's why they are doing this legislation, so counties can't manage problem cats!

Obviously hound teams are vital to finding problem cats and if you take away a hound team your chances of finding the cat decrease almost entirely. However, the bill simply deals with can counties utilize their own dog teams, it does not prohibit counties from killing cougars.

[Alan K]

The original bill is significantly different than the substitute bill.

The article with Songer's quotes were regarding the original bill. The original bill would've outright banned county involvement. The substitute bill allows for county involvement after WDFW authorizes such assistance. How it would go is Klickitat County (or any county) responds to a cougar call, they call WDFW (which they typically do anyways) and WDFW says go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar.

That wouldn't be so bad, but typically, WDFW is probably more likely to avoid killing any predator! The bill sucks!

The bill has nothing to do with killing a predator, it's simply can counties utilize their own dog teams. Even if the original bill were to pass (which doesn't matter now since that bill is essentially gone) if a deputy responded to a cougar attack and they observed the cougar they could shoot it on sight, they just couldn't call out a county dog team.

It is highly likely the substitute bill was pass and become law. But in reality I doubt it will change anything since those calls to WDFW were in almost all cases already being made.

That's simply not true, it's all about stopping predators from being killed, that's why they are doing this legislation, so counties can't manage problem cats!

Obviously hound teams are vital to finding problem cats and if you take away a hound team your chances of finding the cat decrease almost entirely. However, the bill simply deals with can counties utilize their own dog teams, it does not prohibit counties from killing cougars.

It's like saying the county can use guns to take care of problem cats, but they can't use any ammo... It reduces a county's odds of successfully removing problem cats to near zero.

The purpose of the original carveout language in I-655 was because everyone recognized the need to remove problem animals when they threatened safety or damaged property. I can't think of a valid reason why on earth would anyone want to use anything but the quickest and most effective method of solving the problem. It's not about fair chase or sport hunting, its about stopping problem animals. Period.  Thats why the the only possible reason for the bill is to inhibit killing of cougars. 

[walt]

The original bill is significantly different than the substitute bill.

The article with Songer's quotes were regarding the original bill. The original bill would've outright banned county involvement. The substitute bill allows for county involvement after WDFW authorizes such assistance. How it would go is Klickitat County (or any county) responds to a cougar call, they call WDFW (which they typically do anyways) and WDFW says go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar.

And how long until policy changes and WDFW no longer says "go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar" and instead says "we need to send our wildlife conflict manager out to assess the situation...blah...blah...blah..."?  Public safety is the Sherriff's responsibility.

[highcountry_hunter]

It’ll pass. I almost guaran *censored*ing tee it. The way they’ve got it worded says the words “Hunt cougars with hounds” in the summary of the bill. The anti’s will push hard for it in King and Pierce county because they know that’s who decides what’s best for our entire state (even though this bill will more than likely not effect either of those counties), and the antis know that’s where the voters are most uninformed on the true issues with wildlife. As usual, they’ll vote with their hearts instead of their heads and the rest of us will actually have to live with these decisions. What a wonderful *censored* hole of a state we live in!

And before you start in on me, yes I will do my part by sending plenty of emails to all of my local representatives

[chukarchaser]

as it pertains to public safety no dually authoirzed LE agency should have to call WDFW first.  We elect county sheriffs (except the idiots in King county) to protect us as they deam necessary.  WDFW cant even make a case that the kill rate in Klickitat is higher than when they did it.  Proof there is no abuse. 

[Tbar]

The original bill is significantly different than the substitute bill.

The article with Songer's quotes were regarding the original bill. The original bill would've outright banned county involvement. The substitute bill allows for county involvement after WDFW authorizes such assistance. How it would go is Klickitat County (or any county) responds to a cougar call, they call WDFW (which they typically do anyways) and WDFW says go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar.

And how long until policy changes and WDFW no longer says "go ahead and use dogs to find the cougar" and instead says "we need to send our wildlife conflict manager out to assess the situation...blah...blah...blah..."?  Public safety is the Sherriff's responsibility.

What is the definition of public safety? Do you feel that the Sherriff in this case has acted solely in the interest of public safety? What are you basing your disagreement on?