2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

Introduced by Sen. Bob Morton on January 12, 2004, to establish a three-year pilot program to control better the cougar population in Washington. The pilot program would allow limited hound hunting during certain times of each year and would be administered by Washington State University. The bill appropriates twenty thousand dollars or “as much...as may be necessary" to carry out this pilot program.
Referred to the Senate Parks, Fish and Wildlife Committee on January 12, 2004.
Testimony in support offered to the Senate Parks, Fish and Wildlife Committee on February 3, 2004, by Mary Lou Peterson, Okanagon County Commission; Ed Owens, Hunters Heritage Council; Joel Kretz, Okanagon Farm Bureau, who testified that to protect public safety, counties with cougar problems need more ways to control the cougar population.
Testimony in opposition offered to the Senate Parks, Fish and Wildlife Committee on February 3, 2004, by Steve Pozzanghera, Bruce Bjork, Department of Fish and Wildlife; Katherine Bragdon, Humane Society of the United States; Mark Skatrud, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, who testified that the use of hunting dogs is cruel. The program of cougar control is fine now.
Substitute offered to the Senate Parks, Fish and Wildlife Committee on February 4, 2004, to develop a cooperative process so that five counties and the Fish and Wildlife Commission can address the problem. The substitute passed in committee on February 4, 2004.
Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on February 5, 2004.
Passed in the Senate (33 to 15) on February 13, 2004, establishing a three-year pilot program to control better the cougar population in Washington. [Vote Details and Comments]
Introduced in the House on February 14, 2004.
Referred to the House Fisheries, Ecology & Parks Committee on February 14, 2004.
Amendment offered to the House Fisheries, Ecology & Parks Committee on February 27, 2004, to allow counties other than Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Chelan, and Okanogan to participate in the pilot program, and directs the WDFW to work with counties in developing recommendations to the Commission. The amendment passed in committee but was not adoppted upon final passage by the House.
Referred to the House Rules Committee on February 27, 2004.
Amendment offered by Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson on March 4, 2004, to prohibit the selling, bartering, or mounting of cougar carcasses and pelts harvested under the cougar hunting pilot program. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on March 4, 2004.
Amendment offered by Rep. Bob Sump on March 4, 2004, to require that all rules adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission for the cougar hunting pilot project ensure that the hunting is done to protect public safety or property, is reflective of the most current cougar population information, is consistent with a study on cougar populations being conducted by Washington State University, and generates information that is useful in developing a required report. Removes references to dates. Allows additional counties to participate if they take certain actions. Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to prepare certain reports to the Legislature and to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on March 4, 2004.
Passed in the House (90 to 5) on March 4, 2004, establishing a pilot program to better control the cougar population in Washington. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on March 8, 2004, and the Senate concurred with the House amendments.
Passed in the Senate (34 to 14) on March 8, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed with partial veto by Gov. Gary Locke on March 31, 2004, regarding establishing a three-year pilot program to control better the cougar population in Washington.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

The flaw here is why is a College basically regulating something that should be up to the WDFW?

I know that with the stupid initative the Hippies took away that control on the issue, but why would they give WSU authority under this policy? Can't the WDFW do a study on the Cats? They do studies on all other wildlife?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for hound hunting and trap/baiting too but a College has no place in making Governmental policy.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

I totaly agree with you ...But from what I see they have to have a independent do the study

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

I was kind of thinking that too....but what is the sole prupose of the WDFW? I guess the Hippies probably think that they're not going to be balanced which they shouldn't as you know like we all do Hunting is a valuable tool to wildlife management,but then agian the Hippies really don't care about wildlife they're more interested in making sure no one can benefit from it...period.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

I believe you hit it right on the mark there...I also believe anything we can get back is a plus...That whole I655 was a illegal ballot anyway IMO...2 different syles of hunting and 3 different animals. Also herd that baiting for bear might be brought back aswell....WDFW is totaly unhapy with the amount of sows being shot..so lets cross our fingers and hope we get some of these styles back and protect them. I know that some bear do come to dinner at camping grounds...but thats not caused from the hunters that baited....the people who baited bears where not baiting at a campground..thats from the people who dont know how to keep there food up...not the baiters

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

I agree 100% anyway we can get back what is "Right" and not this PC feel good lying crap the Left has turned WA into is fine by me.

I'll support it all I can...I like the thought of them bringing back bait/bear because I really don't know a lot of guys who quit baiting?

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

For reinstatement all the way!!!!

Here is the link i found this post at http://www.washingtonvotes.org/SearchLegislation.aspx?Keywords=cougar+hunting it has all the comments and you can see how the house and senate voted and who voted for what!!!

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

Hi Nw and Trapper, WDFW is doing a study on cougars, at least here in my area. I know that a few cats were fitted with radio tracking collars this last winter. Don't know all the detail about the study but I will ask around.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

Great thanks PacNwHunter

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

I went to the web site, if you register you may vote in their polls for public input on this, I'd recommend doing so, I did.


Great web page Nw., nice to find one where I can keep up with the Nutjobs in Oly.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

no problem...every little bit helps :D

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

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

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

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?

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

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.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

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?

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

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

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

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

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

...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.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

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.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

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

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

Here is a email I received from: Buddy Woodberry



Hello, I seen your post on the hunting forum about the SB. I was in the process of trying to join and post to the tread but my firewall and permissions won’t let me login. You seem like you are a great proponent and it looked like there was some general support following you post on the issue. I’m not sure how close you follow the issues but I’ve been writing and contacting the commission, as well as the guys involved with the supreme court case with i655. Here is the post I was going to put on the forum. To let people know that the WDFW does take public comment for consideration. Most of the time they don’t listen, but that can change if we all start to get involved and send a consistent message.



IF you could pass this on to the list while I try and find out why my security settings or firewall won’t allow me to post, I would greatly appreciate it.



Buddy Woodberry









Here was the post I wanted to right.



There is allot going on in WA right now about predators. We’ll all need to step up and help where we can. Here are two issues that us hunters can help with today. Let’s do what we can and not just talk about these issues, while the humane society and Paw’s and the ANTI’s are diligently working to take more away from us. I guarantee they will not stop until all hunting is abolished. They admit that is their goal, they are trying to take piece by piece.







1: The SB for the pilot program using Hounds for cougars.

I totally agree with everyone that these type of issues should not be by a legislation or public vote decision. And It is WDFW’s duty to manage wildlife for the people of WA. Meaning they shouldn’t be able to pass their duties to the people, or Legislators. Wildlife is a replaceable resource which belongs to the people of WA state. WDFW is supposed to manage and make decisions based on what’s good for the overall wildlife management… NOT WHAT THE Anti’s think, or the anti’s emotional issues, and agendas.



What can you do? Let the WDFW commission, and WDFW staff know your opinion.



They need to do more than let the legislators, or popular votes make unsound decisions for wildlife management. If you can show up and give your opinions that would be better. Meeting are posted on their website.



E-mail the commission ( [email protected] ) and let them know they need to manage all wildlife correctly and you feel i655 is not right or lawful. it’s their responsibility to make informed decisions based on science, not the public vote. Tell them to put you on the mailing list for the agendas and information that the commission is working on. And PLEASE MAKE YOUR OPINION HEARD!!!! Keep it short and sweet, to the point but let them know what is best.



Commisions website with agendas, meetings, and email contact.

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/com/comintro.htm



2:

Jeffeson County Judge Ruled in June that I655 was unconstitutional. Currently the Attorney General has appealed to the Supreme court for a Decision. Hopefully the Supreme court will rule with the laws and not the anti’s. Sport’s Shack in Olympia is the owner that is paying for the lawyer. , he’s paying out of his pocket to fight something that affects us all. The number is (360) 943-4867 Ask for Tom, and let him know you want to support him fight for our rights as hunters.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

I was unaware that anyone was fighting it, that's good to know. But then again the media isn't going to broadcast something they're not in favor of happening anyway[:'(]


Do you know where that "Sports Shack" is located? I'm down that way from time to time, and knowing what he's doing I would gladly turn some of my business toward him.

I like to support those rather than just look for the cheapest price.I feel it's y way of giving back to those that help.

RE: 2004 Senate Bill 6118
 

I have herd of the place but have never been to it...