NwOutdoorShop

no problem...every little bit helps

Robb92

Thanks for the link!! I wish they would have just thrown out the whole vote to begin with and not banned hunting with dogs or baiting, because its come back to bite the state in the butt

Bldhound

My thougth on the whole ordeal is why in the heck is WDFW is letting the hunting/fishing regs be controlled by people without a clue(tree huggers) instead of the wildlife biologists? If a bill can only support one thing why hasnt a lawyer who hunts/fishes take this on to have it struck down as unconstitutional? It did include hunting with dogs & baiting for bears & cougars didn't it?

Why are game laws open to be voted on by the general public instead of WDFW?

trapper T

Basically that is the bad side of the intative process, that was our biggest arguement was to leave it in the hands of the WDFW,but tree huggers aren't common sensical people.

The lawyer part of it I don't understand why, I know it was bantered about but I don't think we have any judges that would see it as a management tool and therefore nobody put up a fight about it? besides who in this state on the hunter/trapper side has that kind of money to throw into this(the real reason it didn't go to court) most of us are workin folk who didn't cash in on the Dot Commers boom.

NwOutdoorShop

Yes it did...It said..to ban hunting by methods of Baiting for Bear and the use of dogs for hunting Bear,Cougar and Bobcat on the account that it was crule...and to answer your other question....about 15 to 20 years ago it used to be in the hands of the WFDW...until it was brought up on a ballot to put the control to the people and not the WDFW.....

Alot of people thought this would be a good idea...."We can set our own seasons" and such thinking....Well all it did was to put the control into the antis favor...and into the democratic voting of 3 counties....King,Peirce,Snohomish...The 3 counties with the most amount of people.

Does anyone else remember the year it switched?

Robb92

I thought is was signed to law in 1996, but don't hold me to that!!

NwOutdoorShop

yes that is when the ban went into affect.


I was refering to when the WFDW went from state or federal run to a public voting system...in my last post

NwOutdoorShop

...PAWS Response:

Fish and Wildlife decision returns sport hound hunting of cougars


The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recently approved a plan that returns sport hound hunting of cougars to Washington State. The plan nullifies many of the provisions of citizens’ Initiative 655, which banned sport hound hunting of cougars, bears and bobcats in 1996, and was passed by an overwhelming majority of the vote.

"This is really shameless," said Stephanie Hillman, PAWS Wildlife Advocate. "I-655 already allowed WDFW to use hounds to hunt cougars when public safety is at risk. These new rules allow the trophy killing of cougars who have never posed any threat."


Last March the Washington State legislature approved SSB 5001 which was intended to address specific public safety concerns, or ‘problem’ cougars. The bill was presented to the legislature as a "public safety measure." Governor Gary Locke signed the bill into law on March 31, 2000. SSB 5001 directed WDFW to draft a plan to implement the bill. At the time of the bill’s passage, citizens were told that SSB 5001 would not result in a return to trophy hunting, "But the plan that WDFW drafted does exactly that," said Hillman. "The plan allows for 74 cougars, ‘problem’ or not, to be unfairly hunted right away, and the number of cougar to be killed are decided a year in advance. It allows hunters to keep the trophy hide for mounting on their wall. Despite what we were told in March, this is clearly a return to trophy hunting with hounds." The plan also allows hunters to use professional guide services and the boundaries of the hunt may extend far beyond the area of any ‘said’ problem. Permits are issued on a lottery type basis, and the plan makes it very easy to obtain additional permits once the initial 74 cougars are killed. Although the WDFW plan refers to these kills as ‘public safety cougar removals,’ "We are not so easily deceived. A plan with these provisions was obviously not drafted for the sake of public safety," said Hillman.

The plan was to be presented at a series of public hearings, before the full Fish and Wildlife Commission voted on it. At a Wenatchee hearing on September 16th Wildlife Commissioners listened to five hours of public testimony. A large majority of the public urged them to reject the plan. Letters, phone calls, and e-mails to the Commission ran about 7 to 1 against the plan. Many of those opposed to the plan pointed out the lack of necessity for additional hound hunts, as well as the disregard for the citizens vote.

Despite the lack of public support for the plan, the Commission met in Olympia on October 6 and after much discussion and questions asked of the authors of the plan, approved the plan by a 5 to 4 vote. The commissioners who voted against the plan did express their wish to respect the voters decision on I-655, and did recognize that this hunt was merely an extension of what their department was already authorized to do.

"There is absolutely no scientific evidence or guarantee that shows that population control of this nature will have any effect on cougar-human interactions," said Hillman, "or do anything to alleviate any cougar ‘problems.’ In fact, it will do nothing more than allow the heads of cougars to be mounted on the walls of hunters."

Several wildlife biologists have noted that the killing of cougars, with or without hounds, will most likely do little to nothing to lessen the amount of cougar-human interactions.

Considering the extent of human destruction and encroachment into wildlife habitat, there have been extremely few attacks in the past several years. The two most recent attacks on humans here in Washington took place in an area where the highest number of cougars had been killed.

PacNWhunter

The funny thing about all this, esp. around here the very same people that voted for the ban are some of the 1st ones to come whinning about their dog, cat or other domestic animal being killed or attacted. They freak out when they are out Xcountry skiing and they have a cat on their groomed trail. Also these same people are the ones that are building their homes in areas that these cats call home.
I'm not one for sueing people but I know this if one of my girls or wife is attacted, I will be sueing these anti groups that supported and got this law on the ballot. Since the ban went into effect I have seen more cats then what I did before.
Maybe it's time these anti groups are held accountable for their action and lies to get what they want.
Oh one other thing, when hound hunting was aloud, most of the time it was the big toms that were taken. When a dom. tom is taken it leaves a open spot for a new tom to move in. From what I've seen and been told most of the problem cats are young cats that have no place to go but to take up living close to human res. Seems to me what the antis call trophy hunting was actualy selective hunting to keep the population of the cats in check and to keep the rural populace safe.

Robb92

I would have to agree with you PacNWhunter, I would be out for blood if any of my family was attacked!!!