Cougar-hunting bill still faces House opposition
OLYMPIA, Wash. —
A House lawmaker is leading a renewed effort to stop a Senate measure that would extend a pilot program that allows the hunting of cougars with hounds by questioning the assessment by a state agency behind the bill.
In 1996, voters approved with 63 percent of the vote a statewide initiative banning the use of hounds in cougar-hunting. In 2004, lawmakers created a pilot program allowing such a practice. The program has been extended twice so far in an effort to address concerns of cougar encounters with people and livestock. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says the use of dogs in tracking and killing cougars makes for better population management because hunters get enough time to identify the sex and age of the cat.
But Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish, says the department's assessment needs to be reviewed by an outside source. "I think the public should be able to verify what the department says and feel confident in it," Dunshee said. "I think an open peer review will help (the department) make their case on decisions they have to make, and it'll let the public have better confidence in their decisions." To that end, he added an amendment onto an omnibus Fish and Wildlife Senate bill as it came through the House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee that would establish an independent biological science review board made up of researchers from the University of Washington and Washington State University. That way, he says, decisions about wildlife management will receive unbiased, unpaid review from an independent third party.
The department, however, opposes the amendment for time and cost reasons, saying they don't have the financial or staff capacity to provide the reviewers with all the information related to all wildlife management decisions being made."I believe that over time, there would be a cost for the work (the review board) would do, and I'm very concerned that the Department of Fish and Wildlife would have to bear the cost for that in the future," department director Phil Anderson said. They don't have any problem with the idea of peer review, he said; it's been a part of their process on several management decisions in the past, and will be in the future.
The Senate cougar bill would extend the hound-hunting program by another five years. It was approved 37-11 by senators and now awaits a House vote after clearing committees.
Dunshee's doubts about the department's reliability began over the cougar issue when he read literature from a WSU researcher that conflicted with what the department was espousing. He cited studies by Dr. Robert Wielgus, director of the large carnivore conservation lab at WSU, which suggest that heavy hunting of cougars gives rise to an influx of younger male cougars, which are more likely to get into trouble with people and livestock. "For me, this is about the science," he said. "We all agree that safety should be paramount, and there is good evidence that the sport hound-hunting increases danger."
Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, says there's a big difference between heavy "boot hunting" of cougars, which is legal during regular season statewide, and tightly controlled hound-hunting. For him, indiscriminate boot hunting is the biggest problem with cougar management. "That's where most of the cougars are getting killed, and it's typically not the ones who have a high potential to offend," he explained. "Hound-hunting, by its very nature, is more likely to get cats that have a higher likelihood to offend."---scientific evidence to back up that statement Mr Kretz?????--blogger Rick
Kretz's home county of Okanogan had the highest number of cougar complaints before the pilot program took effect, and has seen the most dramatic decline since it began. But Dunshee says the department's own figures show complaints decreased by the same amount in counties without the pilot program. Data from Fish and Wildlife shows a 48 percent drop in the number of confirmed cougar complaints in participating counties since the pilot program began. Those counties are Chelan, Ferry, Klickitat, Okanogan, Pend Oreille and Stevens. In counties not included in the pilot program, however, the decline in complaints is almost identical: 46 percent between 2004 and 2009.
Kretz was quick to point out that just because counties don't have the pilot program doesn't mean there's no hound-hunting: The 1996 ban still allows for the use of hounds to control public safety and livestock depredation problems. His main problem with the opposition is that they have no personal experience with cougar attacks."All these counties voted to support hound hunting when the initiative went through," he said. "I think it's wrong that urban people in Olympia are able to dictate against the will of people out in the country that actually have some skin in the game."
In 1996, voters approved with 63 percent of the vote a statewide initiative banning the use of hounds in cougar-hunting. In 2004, lawmakers created a pilot program allowing such a practice. The program has been extended twice so far in an effort to address concerns of cougar encounters with people and livestock. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife says the use of dogs in tracking and killing cougars makes for better population management because hunters get enough time to identify the sex and age of the cat.
But Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish, says the department's assessment needs to be reviewed by an outside source. "I think the public should be able to verify what the department says and feel confident in it," Dunshee said. "I think an open peer review will help (the department) make their case on decisions they have to make, and it'll let the public have better confidence in their decisions." To that end, he added an amendment onto an omnibus Fish and Wildlife Senate bill as it came through the House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee that would establish an independent biological science review board made up of researchers from the University of Washington and Washington State University. That way, he says, decisions about wildlife management will receive unbiased, unpaid review from an independent third party.
The department, however, opposes the amendment for time and cost reasons, saying they don't have the financial or staff capacity to provide the reviewers with all the information related to all wildlife management decisions being made."I believe that over time, there would be a cost for the work (the review board) would do, and I'm very concerned that the Department of Fish and Wildlife would have to bear the cost for that in the future," department director Phil Anderson said. They don't have any problem with the idea of peer review, he said; it's been a part of their process on several management decisions in the past, and will be in the future.
The Senate cougar bill would extend the hound-hunting program by another five years. It was approved 37-11 by senators and now awaits a House vote after clearing committees.
Dunshee's doubts about the department's reliability began over the cougar issue when he read literature from a WSU researcher that conflicted with what the department was espousing. He cited studies by Dr. Robert Wielgus, director of the large carnivore conservation lab at WSU, which suggest that heavy hunting of cougars gives rise to an influx of younger male cougars, which are more likely to get into trouble with people and livestock. "For me, this is about the science," he said. "We all agree that safety should be paramount, and there is good evidence that the sport hound-hunting increases danger."
Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, says there's a big difference between heavy "boot hunting" of cougars, which is legal during regular season statewide, and tightly controlled hound-hunting. For him, indiscriminate boot hunting is the biggest problem with cougar management. "That's where most of the cougars are getting killed, and it's typically not the ones who have a high potential to offend," he explained. "Hound-hunting, by its very nature, is more likely to get cats that have a higher likelihood to offend."---scientific evidence to back up that statement Mr Kretz?????--blogger Rick
Kretz's home county of Okanogan had the highest number of cougar complaints before the pilot program took effect, and has seen the most dramatic decline since it began. But Dunshee says the department's own figures show complaints decreased by the same amount in counties without the pilot program. Data from Fish and Wildlife shows a 48 percent drop in the number of confirmed cougar complaints in participating counties since the pilot program began. Those counties are Chelan, Ferry, Klickitat, Okanogan, Pend Oreille and Stevens. In counties not included in the pilot program, however, the decline in complaints is almost identical: 46 percent between 2004 and 2009.
Kretz was quick to point out that just because counties don't have the pilot program doesn't mean there's no hound-hunting: The 1996 ban still allows for the use of hounds to control public safety and livestock depredation problems. His main problem with the opposition is that they have no personal experience with cougar attacks."All these counties voted to support hound hunting when the initiative went through," he said. "I think it's wrong that urban people in Olympia are able to dictate against the will of people out in the country that actually have some skin in the game."
No comments:
Post a Comment