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

>I have documented no fewer than five attacks in the last 4 years. =

It would help if you'd learn to mark inclusions, nad to drop trailing "="
artifacts from DOS...

Could you provide details, since you have documentation? I'm not
challenging you, I'm curious.

>Cougar have been listed as a game animal long before that...

Then what's this about a rise in population? If the hunt's been
managed for many years, why is it rising? I presume WDFW has
a target population in mind, and the numbers are rising because
the population is below that target?

>>Don Baccus was concerned about attracting bears into public =3D
>>areas... these laws are designed to avoid those conflicts.

>Some bears associate people with food regardless of the occurance of =
>baiting. Some trapped and relocated animals may travel great distances =
>to return to their old haunts. Bait stations are not the only way bear =
>associate food with people...

Of course not! This is why we work so hard to educate people about the
need to avoid teaching bears that association! I've only stated this
about a half dozen times now...

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

>In north central Washington, conflicts are quite common. Bears commonly =
>get removed some areas and cabin "break in" is not uncommon. If you =
>were to get our local newspaper over the last winter, you would find =
>there were numerous incidences of cougar on peoples back porches =
>attacking cats, dogs, and livestock. =20

Please stop mixing in cougars when I ask about bears. And, please,
keep those cows and pigs off the back porch :)

Yes, cabin break-ins can be a problem, but I guess my position is that
it comes with the turf. If you want a sanitized woodland experience,
go to Frontierland at Disneyland.

It is not impossible to bear-proof a cabin. Self-education can end
that problem, and personally I wouldn't mind my state F&W agency
spend some time helping educate those who won't eductate themselves.

We will always have problem bears, regardless of hunting and bear
baiting, unless we exterminate them. Live-trapping of them is
already done by agencies, and the Oregon bill at least doesn't
stop this. Nor does it stop lethal control. These activities
continue unabated.

>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.

>>But baiting and hounding ARE lumped together in I-655.

Where did I say they aren't? I didn't know if they were, or weren't.
Fine - I think it is unfortunate in Washington, just as it was in
Oregon.

In Oregon, the combined initiative passed low-50s/high-40s percents.
I'm quite certain a stand-alone measure to end bear baiting would've
passed closer to 60-40 or even 65-35, while a standalone initiative
to stop hounding of cougar would've gone down high-40s/low-50s.

Personally, I probably wouldn't've voted on a standalone cougar
initiative at all, because I don't have strong feelings either way
as long as ODF&W manages hunting so that there's a healthy cougar
population in my state (and they do, and the initiative did not
address other management issues). I have several friends who
felt the same way, including a couple of hunters.

>>>Baiting is extremely selective... sows with cubs and =3D
>>>young animals are simply not shot.

>>At least, when the cubs are visible, or if the hunter feels like =
>>following the law that day.=20

>Although many people would like to deny this- most hunters are very law =
>abiding... there is always some individual who will break the law but =
>most people follow the regs closely.

Well, I didn't try to deny this, but since you bring it up, there is
evidence that bear poaching is a serious problem in some areas, esp.
with the Asian parts market being so strong.

And, a few years ago, law enforcement in my state bought a deer dummy
especially designed to withstand the rigors of being a target, and
began placing it along roads in certain parts of the state. Not only
did fines brought in from busting (illegal, by definition) road
hunters more than pay for the effort, but this decoy was literally
destroyed in the effort.

There is plenty of evidence that, while perhaps most (i.e. > 50%)
hunters are law-abiding, many, many are not.

Anyway, if you're going to put words in my mouth, I may just take 'em
on and use them to strengthen my position...

>According to the DEIS on Bear- the =
>number of orphaned cubs will INCREASE if baiting and hounding is ended. =
>The reason is because bears will be shot at greater distances and cubs =
>may not be able to be seen in the underbrush.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way, will F&W be unable to modify management
practice to account for this possibility? Personally, I think they can
handle it.

>>>How is bear baiting any different >than using a worm for fishing?
>>>According to many fly fishermen - not at all.

>>The people who initiated I-655 have as part of their agenda to end all =
>>fishing as being unethical expoitation of wildlife. You don't think =
>>bait fishing is going to be their next "easy sell"?

Along with changing the subject, you are simply speculating. The
"same people" have not done so in Oregon, nor are they talking about
doing so (I happen to know the director of the Oregon Humane Society),
so I'd have to claim that evidence down here suggests you're blowing
smoke, perhaps of an illicit variety.

So, no: I DON'T think bait fishing will be their next easy sell.

Curiously, ODF&W HAS proposed ending bait fishing in running-water
and most lake trout fishing areas, as part of its efforts to conserve
wild trout populations. They've been floating this idea, and a few
others, throughout the state in open forums - coincidently, an article
appeared in today's Oregonian about this. They've changed their minds,
as input from fisherman have made it clear that they'd rather see
daily limits halved than bait fishing ended. The whole debate
has not centered around humanitarian concerns, but rather on
diminishing the take by changing regs in ways most acceptable to
fishermen.

This seems entirely reasonable, to me. As you can see, the bait
debate has a rational foundation.

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

>>I'll let this sentence stand without comment.

>So- offer an alternative means of controlling agricultural damage by =
>wildlife... I'm including timber lands and tree damage under =
>agricultural damage.

OK. A few years ago, the Oregonian ran a couple of pieces on a
contract bear control person who killed spring time bears which
were causing problems with young timber (note: the idea that
bear hunting, with or without bear baiting, ends any need for
such efforts is simply untrue, otherwise we wouldn't be hiring
such people in the first place. Among other things, hunters
hunt their favorite places, not where bear damange is worst).

Anyway, on his own initiative he'd been working to provide food
for a very short period of time to bears at this time of year,
and timber damage went to nearly zero. After all, bears only
strip trees when no other food source is available.

He did some cost calculations based on his own efforts and claimed
that this was a cheaper solution that killing them. An interesting
line for a professional in the field of animal damage control to
take.

I'm not offering this as an alternate means - he did. He wanted to
see the state change its tune. He failed. Oh well.

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical of simplistic ideas like this, but
there are certainly alternatives to lethal control in many cases.

>In our state, the WDFW writes tens of thousands of =
>dollars of checks each year to pay for damage to crops by wildlife.

Yes, and many of us accept the fact that we should compensate for
such damage. How are the two issues linked? The Oregon initiative
didn't end the compensation policy. Nor has compensation risen
dramatically since the initiative passed.

>As another issue... how is bird feeding stations really any different =
>than a bait station? Using food to attract the birds for your viewing =
>pleasure?

I don't have a bird feeder. My understanding, though, is that folks
who have bird feeders generally aren't trying to acclimate birds in
order to shoot them. Perhaps a tweeters who owns a bird feeder could
correct me if my perception is incorrect.

>I-655 is =
>just the beginning in a long line of initiative drives to stop all forms =
>of hunting, fishing, and animal use.

This is a bogeyman. I know all sorts of folks who supported the Oregon
equivalent of this initiative, and personally don't know a single person
who opposes all forms of hunting, much less fishing. The director of
the Oregon Humane Society owns a couple of dogs herself, so somehow the
claim that she and her society plan to introduce initiative to stop
all animal use makes me laugh. Out loud. Long and hard.

Yes, there are extremists among the supporters who take the position
you describe, but they are greatly in the minority.

There are also hunters of cougar and bear who believe their status should
be returned to that of "vermin", rather than game animals, and that
they should be exterminated.

Should I start tarring hunters with that brush, or can we agree to
not attempt to stereotype the two sides by pointing to extremist
minorities?

>> What wildlife programs will suffer =
>>in order to pay hound hunters to remove nuisance bear and cougar?

What wildlife programs are suffering because we don't have the revenue
available that could be raised by issuing hunting permits for sandhill
crane, hummingbirds, and (one I'd snatch up in a minute!) leashless
dogs weighing less than 5 lbs (gawdamnedyappinganklebiters)?

Justifying various hunting methodologies by the revenue raised is
a dangerous game to get into, particularly when the proportion of
hunters in the population is dropping. Very poor long-term politics,
trust me on this.

> The = WDFW has programs for ALL wildlife, not just game animals.

In Oregon, at least, revenue raised by the sale of hunting and fishing
licenses can not be diverted to the non-game program, so declines (or
increase) in this revenue due to changes in the law can't hurt (or help) it.

>>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=20

>And many of you don't. How many of you regularly have bear and cougar =
>in your back yard?

How many rural people, do? You claim I'm an exception. Fine. So are
you.

In Oregon, at least, the vast majority of cougar live in the Wallowa
Mountains, so the vast majority of rural folks who don't live near
there will never see a cougar in their entire lives, unless they
seek them out.

>Over the winter, as we would lay in bed at night, we =
>could hear cougar every few nights behind our house.

Well, why didn't you apply for a hunting permit, and shoot the
sucker? A lion which is hanging around one's backyard is a
great candidate to become a target WITHOUT hounds.

Just chain the 'ole goat on the back porch and wait...after all,
as you've stated, many people are seeing them on their back porches
going after cats and dogs and things.

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