Diane:

>In regards to poachers- although some hunters poach, not all poachers =
>hunt. Don't confuse the two...

I feel the need for a precise definition of the terminology you have
in mind coming on.

My dictionary gives two relevant definitions (I assume you don't
mean that some poachers cook eggs):

1. to hunt or fish on another's property, by tresspass

2. to hunt or catch (game or fish) illegally.

So, OK - some poachers fish, some poachers trap, and some poachers
hunt.

We can limit this discussion to those who hunt if you wish.

>There are proposals in our state to =
>increase the fines for poaching bear with mandatory jail time. All of =
>the sportsmen organizations that we have been in contact with show =
>unanimous support for increasing fines and jail time for all poaching =
>violations. We have been writing our elected officials about this for =
>years.

Well, good for them, and good for you, but it is irrelevant to the
issue at hand.

I think child molesters should be locked up, so please vote to
end bear baiting.

>In WA some of the major proponents of I-655 are PAWS, PETA, and the =
>Human Society of the United States (not associated with most local =
>humane societies). The same groups that did the bear/cougar law in =
>Oregon tried to legislate ending archery hunting as being "inhumane". =

You might qualify this statement by saying SOME of the same groups.

As I pointed out earlier, please do not extrapolate actions of a
portion of the supporters in an effort to stereotype all.

You are doing the very thing I asked you not to do, and if you
insist on continuing to do so, I shall do the same when discussing
hunters.

>It was not successful according to what we heard.

Of course not. It was not successful because it was only a small
subset of the supporting groups which hold to this point of view.
It also didn't appear on the ballot as an initiative, I think they
know they have next to zero chance of even getting enough signatures
to put such a measure on the ballot, and an absolutely zero chance
of getting it passed.

>Yes, they have a specific agenda on what sportsmen groups to get first.
>They want to pick them off one at a time. Ending fishing is on their
>agenda- give them a call and they will send you the propaganda...

Let me lecture you a bit about practical politics. The folks
who opposed Oregon's initiative on this subject ran a bunch of
ads broadcasting this "next they'll come for your children" brand
of bullshit, in fine foaming-at-the-mouth panic-mongering style.

As far as I can tell, all it did was motivate folks like myself
and a circle of several of my friends to vote in favor. We'd
been undecided, disliking bear baiting but not the cougar hunt,
particularly, but the level of bullshit was so vile that we ended
up deciding opponents deserved a good thrashing just on principle.

I think a lot of Oregonians ended up feeling just as revolted and
pissed off at the tactics of opponents, and the effort to smear
supporters as "animal rights extremists" (yeah, tell that
to my dog-owning, hunting friend Bob who supported the proposal from
the day it was announced).

>And what about people who feed the birds only to allow their cats to
>eat them?

If someone puts a bird feeder out with the aim of feeding their cats,
I suspect they're breaking the law, if native species are involved.
If you actually know someone who does so, turn them in. It would
be an interesting case.

If they're setting up a feeder in order to shoot native birds - a much
better analogy to bear baiting - they are breaking the law, unless
they have a deprivation permit or whatever the hell it's called.

I'll repeat my earlier statement, though: I don't keep a bird feeder.
Take up this issue with those who do.

> (Oh No!- Not the dreaded cat thread again:) So, how ethical are feeding
> stations?

Even if we were to decide that bird feeders are unethical, in my mind
this does not sanctify other unethical behavior, such as bear baiting.

You've heard of the term "two wrongs don't make a right", haven't you?

> We could go on

ignoring my reponses. This is twice you've in essence asked "how is
a bird feeder different than a bear baiting station set up to aid
shooting birds". I'll say it once again, since it didn't sink in
the first time:

As far as I know, people don't set up "bird baiting" stations in
order to shoot them.

If you can't see the difference, well, there's not much point in
discussion.

>In regards to our comment about us living in a more rural environment...
>We love it and accept the consequences of it (forest fires, flooding, =
>severe winters, etc) but we will feel consequences of I-655 long before =
>the urbanites.

Since you're already suffering a veritable plague of cougar and bear,
suffering their intolerable presence, how will this act change things?

>In regards to our backyard cougar: We were going to use our goat in =
>order to get that cat but we were told it was "unethical baiting"... =

Told by who? Why did you care?

>could I use my next door neighbors three and four year old children =
>instead?:)

Since you continue to equate bear baiting with bird feeding, I wouldn't
be terribly surprised. You seem to lump a lot of disparate things
together in your system of ethics - I mean, lumping a station put
together for the purpose of killing with a station put together for
the purpose of helping a bird make it through winter is an amazing
stretch.

>This has been a very interesting discussion Don. It is obvious that =
>some of the wildlife management strategies do differ between our states =
>and it appears that Washington has cougar over a much brader area than =
>OR seeing as how yours are limited to the Wallowas.

I didn't say they are limited, I said the bulk of them (as I recall,
estimates run around 50%) live there.

> I think we just might have to agree to disagree...

I need to leave for a 9AM meeting in Bend, so I'm done with this
thread.

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