Subject: RE: Nisqually: l-655, long
Date: Jul 14 07:01:37 1996
From: Don Baccus - donb at Rational.COM


>The number of attacks on humans, livestock =
>and family pets in this area is on the rise.

How many documented attacks on humans by cougar in Washington occured
before this supposed rise?

How many documented attacks on humans by cougar in Washington have
occurred after this rise?

When did the rise in population occur? (no fair picking the day before
the last documented attack, if any). What caused it? (I'll help
you out by stating the cause in Oregon - we changed status of cougar
from "vermin", to "game", which limited killing via introducing
a managed hunt rather than extermination efforts. There've been
no attacks on humans in Oregon that I've been aware of since that
change occured, the pro-dog hunting lobby couldn't document any during
their campaign against our law).

>Bait cannot be placed within 50 yds of water or within 200yds of any
>road open to vehicular traffic or any publicly maintained trail, or
>within 1/2 mile of any campground, dumpsite, or picnic area.

>Don Baccus was concerned about attracting bears into public =
>areas... these laws are designed to avoid those conflicts.

1/2 mile is well within the average daily strolling distance of
any bear. The point is about training bears to associate people,
as well as locales, with food anyway. You're likely to find signs in
that campground 1/2 mile from the baiting station warning that "this
is bear country" and sternly requesting that you keep a clean campsite
and food secured.

> If you remove the only effective means of controlling bear populations,
> human/animal conflicts will increase.

>Following all these regs is not an "easy score" on a =
>bear. Many animals are nocturnal in their movements and never even seen =
>by the hunter.

This why your conclusion, that bear baiting leads to reduced human/bear
conflicts, does not necessarily follow. Since many bears never get killed,
but perhaps just learn to associate people sign with food, it is entirely
possible that the population of problem bears might rise though the
absolute numbers may drop.

No one knows if this is true, but your unqualified statement is
undocumented as well.

Of course, it is an ethical issue, anyway, which is why it is not
difficult to find hunters who deplore bear baiting.

What's the size of the problem of "human/bear conflicts", outside of
NPs, in particular Oly and the North Cascades?

The human/cougar safety issue was raised during the campaign in
Oregon, but this is the first I've heard any mention of human/bear
safety being an issue. In Oregon, support for bear baiting came
mostly from the timber industry, which supports it because hungry
springtime bears strip trees which causes disease, rot, or outright
death if it is girdled. No one else cared much, which is why
the campaign on both sides focused on the cougar issue.

In Oregon, the hunters
of my acquaintance opposed bear baiting, though their feelings on
hunting cougar by dog varied. The two issues were lumped in Oregon,
unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned, though it did pass in this
form. Unfortunate, I say, because I too felt the issue on bear-baiting
was clear cut, and was not particularly opposed to hunting cougar
with dogs.

If bear baiting had appeared on the ballot alone in Oregon, it might've
come close to passing among the hunting population, even - many hunters
feel this is a very unsportsmanlike method of hunting.

>Baiting is extremely selective... sows with cubs and =
>young animals are simply not shot.

At least, when the cubs are visible, or if the hunter feels like
following the law that day.

>How is bear baiting any different =
>than using a worm for fishing?

According to many fly fishermen - not at all.

Fish don't learn to break your car door window open looking for food,
among other things.

Again, it's a matter of ethics and of consistent policy. On the
one hand we spend tax dollars to educate one part of the public to do
everything to keep bears uninterested in people - in which case they're
largely invisible. On the other hand, we bait them for hunting and, as
I mentioned in a previous post, for photography.

>How is shooting a deer over an alfalfa field any different than baiting?

I'll let this sentence stand without comment.

>Money- According to the bear DEIS, if hounding and baiting is banned in =
>WA, approximately $500,000 in state revenues will be lost. This amount =
>will be greater with banning cougar hunting.

We could probably raise another $50,000 by selling licenses to shoot
sandhill crane. And I'm sure some people would pay to shoot hummingbirds.
And lots would pay to shoot hawks.

I'm sure some people would buy licenses that would allow them to use
hand grenades to catch fish, too.

If your premise is that we should choose not only which species
we hunt, but the methodology used to do so, soley on the prospect of
revenue from license sales, then I, at least, reject it.

>Many well meaning people do not realize the ramifications of this law... =

And many do.

>If you live in metropolitan areas you may not experience these animals =
>on the daily-weekly basis that we do

Personally, I get really tired of this argument. You'll find that many
of the folks in this group, at least, spend a LOT of time in bear and
cougar habitat (actually, we get bear at PAS from time to time, about
three years ago one at 1/2 a raccon being rehabbed in a cage outdoors,
so there, I don't even need to leave town).

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza