BTW,,

It may seem that I waste alot of time argueing/debating with you guys and I guess that I may, atleast thats what my wife says

The real winners in this and the ones I am targeting, are the ones reading these threads, absorbing data and facts that will hopefully help them to make informed decisions at their next opportunity, regardless of their personnal views.

Which may not be that far away

I hunt cause I think its fun! The meat is a bonus!

I like the prep, the anticipation , the bs, the comraderie, and most of all the kill! The bigger the better! (220 lbr makes ya more macho than the ones who only got 195 lbr)

Found out when I was about 7 it was more fun to shoot a tweety-bird than a tin-can with my B-B gun. Old man cured me of that though!

I've hunted behind hounds and it's a blast! We were not tryin to thin the cats out, we were havin a good time.

I've shot bear behind hounds too. It's not as much fun but it's productive, and you get to kill something. I enjoy it more than baitin em.

For me, I'd love to be able to stalk a cat and kill it with a jack-knife, or dive into salmonberry patch an kill a Bar with a Bowie knife. I aint that good! And I'd just be doin it to bs about it later.

All of the stuff is fun, even the unsuccessful trips (no kill)

I've caught fish with my hands, with spears, arrows, nets, flies, worms , eggs, spinners, hoochies,flossed em. snagged em,even shot a couple, same deal, FUN!

I've gotten a lot older, and a little wiser, I quit doin a lot of the stuff 20 yrs ago.

Hounds in the woods?, Hell Yes! Bait Bears? if thats your thing, Hell Yes!

I use a hook and line(legal setup) now. And it's a lot more fun.

I don't see the logic in stopping a practice that is fun and doesn't threaten the existence of a resource!

It is legal to spear undersized ling-cod and once you get the first one they come from everywhere to feed on the kill, (real turkey shoot then) I don't hear anybody gripen bout that!

If it doesn't threaten the resource, why do you care how somebodyelse does it? Catch n release has got to be as barbaric as it gets, (next to bow hunting). They are both fun.

If you want to kill a poor defenseless insect so you can tie a flie that matches the hatch so you can hook a fish, put it through a life threatening experience, instill who knows how much trauma to his psychi, run it till it can't resist anymore, take a pic. of it, then release it, and brag about it, it's fine with me!

Just don't get too pumped up about your moral and ethical superiority! Have fun!



herm

Well I have been watching this conversation for a few days and I think our friends with problems concerning certain techniques in hunting needs at least a three hour dose of Bonanza and most importantly a trip to the local slaughter house. Fisherman argue about snaggers, flossers, poachers, native handling, and anti- bait guys vs. fly fisherman, and hunters argue about certain season lengths and areas, bow vs. muzzle loader vs. modern rifle, and tons of other stuff. Take a step back and notice were all in the same boat pretty darn much, no one is more elite than the other. We both hopefully share a passion and a natural Ted Nugion high of hooking up with nature and making beautiful love via the means of hunting, and fisging. Yeah there are bad apples out there who drag gill nets through the river at 3 in the morning and morons who go to feeding stations and kill massive numbers of deer and elk, but that is just a few and wer not all like that and I seem to think we might be projecting our frustration concerning them and ultra radical groups who oppose any kind of hunting or fishing onto each other and not realizing the root of our angst. That cougar on the most awesome river on the universe has always been there and will always be there, so occurrances like the past will continue. To be pissed at the cougar is like being irate at snow and melting it everywhere it is seen just because a skier or snow mobiler was killed or injured in an avalanche. We are in their territory and that is that. The attacks in the developments well hey that is just our fault and we are the guilty party there. In terms of the degredation on a huter because they use dogs, give it a rest. Hunting is hunting and those dogs nor hunters arived on this beautiful planet with the knwoledge and skill to hunt any animal in that technique. ( Oldy but goody "their are people starving in ethiopia") I feel lucky too be able to post my opinion on such a non issue type of thing in the wholistic view of life on this planet. Tight lines, and filled freezers.

JP,,
I am glad you chimed in! I hope that I did not come across in this discussion as someone that is pissed at the cougar? I have the utmost respect for them and their place. I am pissed at the fact we are mandated to manage them in a non-effective way that is financial burden..

GFC,

You got me thinking about your statement on waterfowl and their mating practices.
Here is a link from the USDA just in case you didn't believe my earlier off the cuff remark.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/educators/radio_shows/waterfowl_family.html

So do ya think the theory of sterio typing, media manipulating may have played a part in your incorrect conclusion about waterfowl? Too many Disney shows?

I am glad there are a few still out there that do not believe everything they see and hear as fact but instead try to educate themslves.

Ya wanna go sit in a blind next year?

DB and CWU Girl,
Just so you don't think I'm too pompous and arrogant to admit when I'm wrong, I did research both corrections.
In re ring-necked pheasant origins, I stand corrected. They did originate in China and were introduced in Oregon, per CWU

In re geese AND ducks mating for life, DB's link did correct the inference that ducks do. It does state clearly that swans and geese do mate for life. I guess you gotta kill both if you're gonna do it right. I'm not that good of a shot and don't care to partake.
You both are good resources of info. That is understood.
There are others who are also technically accurate but have a difference of opinion on what they feel is sporting.
Good job on the research.

This thread is so long one more post can't hurt that much.

Driftboater,

You're entitled to your opinions, and generally keep them separate from your facts. However, you describe hounds and bait as viable and needed management for cougar and bear. I agree that the hound and bait alternative may be viable, but "needed" is a personal value term, like an opinion. It seems to me that you believe it's needed because otherwise we have to pay someone to kill problem cougars. Actually, it's a social choice, and the public apparently has choosen to disallow the general use of hounds to hunt cougar, but allows (altho this wasn't part of the public initiative decision as I recall) hounds for ridding problem cougars, even if it costs extra money. An equally valid social choice would be for WDFW to do nothing about cougar complaints, simply saying they were being responsive to the initiative, and allowing those who are pestered by cougars to take care of the situation themselves - as long as they didn't use hounds.

I'm just pickin' on ya' a little bit because you made quite a deal about your and others facts and opinions. Just wanted to let you know that one of your "facts" is an opinion.

All in all, this has been an interesting thread because of the way it has illustrated differing views of the sporting ethic. Bait for bears is non-sporting, yet bait for fishing is sporting. Hmmm, I like that one. And if it weren't for the scarcity of fish, I suppose we could have sport gill-netting and dupont spinner seasons on the rivers, since some people, or cultures, would no doubt consider those activities as having sporting value (how long do you hold the lit fuse before tossing the dynamite into the head of a pool? Gutsy, huh?). It looks like society, thru its fish and wildlife agencies, or thru initiatives, decides what is sporting, and therefore permissible. And apparently those values can change over time, so that an act that formerly was sporting and allowed, isn't any longer.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Ok Ok ,, another reply from me..

First I apploud your humbleness GFC I really respect that and at times can use some humble pie.. You are still welcome to experience a waterfowl hunt with me..

Salmo,

Allright I am not always perfect Sometime my context gets skewed when I type and what I am thinking and what comes out on the finger tips differs..

Well,, WDFW stated thats its needed. Matter of fact I listened to recently listened to a couple of wildlife officials testify in front of a House Committe how they support trapping. I can find some quotes that state it is a needed tool (hounding etc.)
Our legislature deemed it as a "needed managment tool" thus allowing depredation hunting.

You eluded to it as a social choice and society made the decision, Correct! but did society get the opportunity to view it on a level playing field and understand the ramifications that would happen after this passed? NO! Whos fault? Mine, yours and every other person that enjoys partaking in consumptive use.
There were some very dirty, decietfull and manipulating going on during both campaigns. This last time during I-713 they got caught for breaking certain rules and recieved fines levied from the AG

My opinion is we would have won both campaigns given we had the financial backing as they did. We could have combated their lies with facts and truths, unfortunantly we didn't. Fishing and Hunting news only ran one article during both fights. One would think that they would have a vested intrest in protecting consumptive use.
Not many other Organizations stepped up to the plate. We had Washington Trout stepp up to the oppositions plate but there wasnt any unified rallying from the various user groups..

This is more than enough from me. I got a house that is supposed to be painted before the wife gets home, so I better get off my ample posterior and get something done!

BTW, I dont mind being picked on, I dish it out I better be able to take it Sometimes my panties do get knotted up but I will never admit it

Hmmm, time for me to chime in on this one?

This thread has evolved into something with a life of its own. Hunting in any form that is not detrimental to the general population of wildlife being hunted is a VIABLE form. Same thing goes with fishing.

Now for the Chicken Little statement... yes, the sky is falling, yes the AR groups are out there to take away everything you hold dear. Australia has lost waterfowling because the AR movement pushed hard for it, not because of general public sentiment.

Yes the AR groups have the backing of the general populace in ballot issues. Is it because they are stronger? Because they are smarter? Because they are right?

NO! again I say NO! What they are is organized, what they have is cohesion within the mass. What they have is a unified voice to stand on a unified platform and spout their idiocy, sentiment, and misinformation!

Every single person posting to this or reading this thread has a strong opinion regarding our fish and wildlife... but do all of you belong to a group dedicated to retaining your heritage? If so, are you active within that organization? Do you volunteer your time, or do you just send your $15-$45 per year and forget it until the renewal comes in the mail?

*Break out the guns here folks and get ready to blast me for this one....*

I am ashamed of the fishing and hunting population. The vast majority, those the public sees, are nothing more than a bunch of coat-tail riding slackers! They believe that someone else does the fighting. They believe there is nothing they can do because they haven't tried. They believe the propaganda that is thrown around the media. They believe that drivel and trash that is handed them by the AR groups. They are the same ones that voted to remove trapping because that picture of the kitty in the trap moved them. They are the ones that voted to remove baiting because, "I believe hunting should be done through stalking and tracking." They are the ones that removed hound hunting for the same reasons... or because they bought into the clap-trap of "fair-chase" and "ethics."

Are you one of these people? Are you willing to give your heritage away one piece at a time because it is something you don't do, so why should you support it? Have you read anything from the PETA site? Have you looked at the crap they are throwing at our children? Have you read their work up on "How to become an activist."? Do you realize that it isn't just the tofu eating, Jesus sneaker wearing, hemp coat making, dreadlocked crowd that is wanting to take this away from you?

Really, do you understand that? Do you understand that the only people powerful enough to take what you love away from you are....... YOURSELVES?!?!

1/6 of WA citizens are sportsmen/women. We spend more than the entire apple crop of this state. We spend more than the entire commercial fishing crop of this state. We employ more people than Microsoft. But we have no clout. Because those that I am ashamed to call my brethren do nothing but sit on their laurels and hope for the best. Even worse, they believe the AR groups are not out for what they do.

Wake up people. driftboater is pissed at these people for a reason. bearmanric hates them for a reason.

By everything that you love, you should to! Or are you perfectly happy having to whisper the discussions of your dream hunt while in public places or at the water cooler?

Fight for what you love, you will find your opinion matters, your voice can be heard, your vote does count. 1/6 of WA citizens is a strong force... too bad 90% of that force would rather grab another beer than write a letter

Robert J.

Standing Ovation RJ! Glad you chimed in!

Robert J said:

"Yes the AR groups have the backing of the general populace in ballot issues. Is it because they are stronger? Because they are smarter? Because they are right?

NO! again I say NO! What they are is organized, what they have is cohesion within the mass. What they have is a unified voice to stand on a unified platform and spout their idiocy, sentiment, and misinformation! "


Here's what it means to be in America - if you change the AR to NRA, your arguement begins to make perfect sense to me. Now there are a few ways to look at this.

1. I am absolutely wrong, a pinko wacko that deserves to live in Canada and pay high taxes the rest of my life.

2. I am completely right, a rational man who understands that only criminals commit felonies with guns, but also know that up until the moment he pulled the trigger, David Brame was not a criminal.

3. We live in a society where the majority prevails, sometimes I like what the majority does, sometimes I don't.

And that's what it means to live in America.

I just can't stay off of this post....
I wouldn't exactly say 'David Brame was not a criminal until he pulled the trigger'.
A rapist without a conviction on his record would likely be more accurate.
If she was my sister, he wouldve been wearing a toetag a long time ago.
No flames on this one, please.

PS...lifetime member of NRA, been shooting indoor match since I was 8 yrs old.

Actually we do not live in a society where the majority prevail, that is a pipe dream. We live in a society where the organized minority prevail, to include well funded special interest groups. If you throw in power monger politicians that are in office many times because of these groups, you have policy being set by, in some cases, the minority. Society in general is filied with people who don't think they make can make a difference, the ones that do, organize, raise money, put people in office, and in the end, help make policy. Is there a better system? No. But to think that the majority is making decisions on issues like this is not really true. Perhaps some of the leaders of this board are in a position to rally the troops in a way that counters the PETA crap.

Golfer hit it on the head.

The fallicy that this country is run on the "majority" has been promoted in K-12 and post grad studies for far too long. They really need to teach classes not on theory but on the way it really works.

If you look at the case of I-713 you find that 54% of the populace voted to eliminate trapping in this state. Due mainly on the antics, support, and media hype from Lisa Wathne of the HSUS. 54% of the voters in WA said that trapping should be banned.... why?

Do any of you honestly believe that 54% of the citizens believe trapping is cruel? Do you think they believed this prior to the television campaign waged by the HSUS? Did you believe it was cruel prior to seeing that kitty in the trap? Did you honestly think your children were in danger of errant traps prior to the HSUS telling you they were (I am talking legally set traplines that are marked as required by law)? Do any of you know someone that was caught in a legally set trap that was marked with the trapline owners name, address, and telephone number? Do you know someone that knows someone that knows someone that was caught? I would venture that the answer would be "No."

So now we have people putting out illegal traps (yes there were some before but they were few and far between) that have no identification, no means of contacting the owner, no recourse to take in case the unspeakable happens.

This all happened because of the "majority" of this state? Ummm, NOPE! It happened because an animal rights group had practice doing this in other states and decided the west coast was the front line in this battle. This animal rights group is dedicated to the elimination of consumptive use sports in all fashion. This animal rights group was organized and made a spearhead movement based on rhetoric and sentiment to get the people to vote the issues based on what the last thing they heard was, not on scientific fact or statistical analysis. However, this animal rights group does not consist of 1/6 of WA population.

If you still believe that the misinformed and lied to 54% of the populace voted as the "majority" then I ask you this..... Would they have even voted on the ballot issue if the HSUS hadn't put on a media blitz? Better yet, would it have even made it to ballot if the HSUS hadn't pushed it?

I don't know about you, but when a national organization tells me what to do in my own state and lies to the citizens to ensure it is being done... I don't call it "majority" I call it time to stand and fight, to expose these people for the world to see.

I am not going to infer that the elimination of trapping had anything to do with the cougar sighting this thread was originally about. I will let you draw your own conclusion there. But in case you were wondering, there is no way that more tags can be filled and still be able to see more of these cats in the wild. Unless, just maybe, it seems to make a bit of sense, there is an increase in population. For whatever reason, the population of these cats has increased over the last few years and we have lost two viable means of hunting them (hounds and traps). But then again, let the numbers speak for themselves.... more cats now means more tags filled... logically this would mean the population is stabilizing or decreasing slightly with firearms hunting, but somehow we seem to be seeing more and more of them each year. Funny how all this started hitting the media after eliminating trapping and hounding... but they probably had little impact on cats to begin with (?). I'll let you reason it out for yourself.

Robert J.

I've never heard of trapping cougars. Man, that would take a hell of a big trap, and a big chain too, to keep that big kitty there. Did they really trap cougars before leg-hold traps were banned?

As far as I know it was an extremely rare occurence prior to 713. But at least one person I have talked to used to attempt to trap them... 34 years and only got 1. Not good odds and I probably shouldn't have included it in the above post, but it's there anyway

Robert J.

This post has gotten way off the topic. And way out of hand. Anyways just a thought of mine. I dont believe in hunting with hounds. And If you think about it baiting bear is similar to fishing. So if your against feeding bear you should not fish. You set out bait to bring in bear and then shoot them. What do you use to catch fish?? You use bait right. Im an avid hunter and fisherman. First of all in Southwest Washington there are not a ton of cougars. How often does a hunter see a cougar? How often does one get attacked? Did the guy on the Kalama get attacked or did he just see a cougar. Did he get killed? think about these questions and that may answer a few questions.

Just like our ballot box biology has in this state!

SPJ,,
You mentioned that you do not agree about hunting with hounds. Do you agree that it is a viable management tool that is "needed" by our WDFW ?
Which inturn allows our department to impliment best management practices.

If I'd seen a springer walkin up the bank I might of pounced on it too!!!! <img border="0" alt="[eat]" title="" src="graemlins/eat.gif" /> It must have looked very odd and irresistable for the kitty.
Seriously, interesting posts.

hey globall ---are you saying that wolves did not prey upon cougars? the misinformation on our wildlife is incredible. sorry pal the wolves curbed the cougar population and the bear population.

hey bear man ric- is it hard to type without opposable thumbs

hey driftboater---man are you a crybaby when it comes to the voters of washington. if you dont like how we vote... get out of our state!!!!

Chappy, your seeming a little fiesty today! did somebody slip sumpin into your green tea this mornin or was it fermented tofu?

Thanks for giving me a great laugh! I always enjoy your input