cougar plan

[myra]

i was wondering if anyone heard about the cougar plan that was passed the odfw is now going to pay bounty hunters to kill 2000 cougars . They are going to use public money to pay these bounty hunters to kill them. They are using 50 of them for tests and the rest they are going to throw in a bone pile. Me i think they should open ot to hound hunters and instead of paying to have them taken out get paid

[Limbhanger]

Well, we have been through this discussion about 20 times over the last few months. The bottom line is, without a successful ballot initiative and the current measure overturned by a vote, the dogs will not be back.

No one likes to see bounty hunting for any reason, but that is the only legal tool ODFW currently has at its disposal to reduce cougar numbers.

Join as many conservation groups as you can afford and let them know they need to fund and support a ballot measure and campaign to get the dogs back in the game in Oregon.

[C-lice]

I think a lot of people (ie: those who voted to ban dogs in the first place) probably are comfortable with the idea of using bounty hunters because the bounty hunters are WORKING, not RECREATING when they shoot cougars. I think a of people don't want to think that others enjoy chasing and shooting things, but are as OK with bounty hunters as they are with the Orkin Man.

This is the perception we need to change.

[oregoncritters12]

If they would just let people bait bears in Oregon even without the use of dogs we could do a much better job of controlling the bear population. I know this is a cougar thread but these two go hand in hand. It would be great to be able to hound hunt cougars again, bottom line is that it won't happen without the passage of a ballot member and it's been proben we are outnumbered on this one. If getting rid of 2000 cougars will happen, and that is our only option, those bounty hunter better get to work. The cats and bears are killing the deer populations on the south coast as well as everywhere else...

[ehunter]

I think it is better than not doing any thing. It would not be my first choice but some times you have to addapt to the times. If we had not gone along with this in a couple of years there may not have been any elk heards worth saving...I think this was the only hope that some of the counties had in getting help

[ScottD]

I agree w/ ehunter......at least they are doing something about the cougar problem.

It really doesn't sit well with me either that they hire these guys to go out there when hunters could accomplish the same thing if allowed to use bait (for bears) and hounds for bears and cougars.

Washington State has the same problems. I'd like to see an initiative to repeal the initiatives that made it illegal to use hounds and bait and then go one step farther and make it so that the public can't vote on game laws.

The general public should not be deciding wildlife management issues through initiatives. What happens when an initiative comes up on the ballet trying to outlaw bow hunting? Or an ititiative outlawing deer or elk hunting? Where is it going to stop? California, Oregon, and Washington all have too many animal loving, berkenstock wearing, tree hugging type people (and some of them are great people, just naive in my opinion).

That's enough rambling for me for now.

[Limbhanger]

Something I was thinking about, I sure hope they have a solid harvest plan that relates to the heavy predation going on in certain areas. Or, are they going to reduce numbers based on damage and or urban threats. I didnt see that in the plan, I might have to look again.

[bajadan2000]

Is it the perfect answer? Well no, however, with the present laws the ODFG has to work under I would like to them for spending the $$$$ to do the best they can while working with tight budgets, politics and heavy special interest pressure.

2000 less cougars = a lot more deer, elk, and other wild game, and will support a healthier wild game balance.

Again, thank you ODFG for duing the best you can with very difficult limitations. It is the right thing to do

The ODFW could have taken the easy road, spent their money elsewhere, and done nothing to solve the cougar problem, so lets give them so credit.

[Snakebite]

I'll probably be flamed for this bigtime, but from what I've seen hound hunters do to their dogs, I think they shot themselves in the foot. I'm sure (I hope) that there are ethical hound hunters out there, I just never ran into one. If hound hunting were allowed without radio collars on dogs, then the idea of fair chase would prevail. I've seen several dogs out there with collars on, and their owners where nowhere to be seen. I've talked with several rural owners who have reported the same. I talked to one person who fed a dog with a radio collar for a week before the owner showed up. I fed my lunch to a dog that was ripped up by some cat and totally exhausted, got contact info off the collar, called the number only to get the response, "oh, he was over there?, well I figured I'd find him in a couple of days"

When I was a little kid I remember my Mom getting me up in the middle of the night to see the bear my dad and his hound hunting buddy had brought home. Those guys were totally wiped from chasing the dogs for hours. Now they just monitor the radio reciver, and when the dog stops moving, animal treed, walk down and shoot it. Uh, wow, that's pretty tough.

I've run into several hound hunters in the woods after the moratorium on hound hunting, and asked "what are you hunting for?" Stock answer, coyotes...? why would one hunt coyotes with dogs? I smell a rat!

I say reinstate hound hunting with ONLY with severe rules on the use of radio collars.

[bajadan2000]

Snakebite,


I am not a hound hunter, howerver, I have hired hound hunters in the past, many years ago when it was legal to do so. Nothing I have exsperienced comes close to what you have mentioned.

What is your point? I have never seen an un-ethical hound hunter, actually, the ones I have meet and worked with are some of the most ethical, informed, wildlife wise people I know.

Did you report the unethical hound hunters to ODFW?

Yes, dogs can get lost, however, every hound hunter I have meet is very concerned for their partner (the hounds) safe return, after all, it is their dogs/hounds that make their living for them. Right?

[Snakebite]

Snakebite,

.

I am not a hound hunter, howerver, I have hired hound hunters in the past, many years ago when it was legal to do so. Nothing I have exsperienced comes close to what you have mentioned.

What is your point? I have never seen an un-ethical hound hunter, actually, the ones I have meet and worked with are some of the most ethical, informed, wildlife wise people I know.

Did you report the unethical hound hunters to ODFW?

Yes, dogs can get lost, however, every hound hunter I have meet is very concerned for their partner (the hounds) safe return, after all, it is their dogs/hounds that make their living for them. Right?

My point has everything to with the subject,
The point is that there is more than one reason hound hunting was banned. And poor treatment of their dogs was just one of them.

Coincidently, the area I have had my hound hunter experience was one where there were those that were eventually caught and prosecuted for poaching, illegeal selling of bear parts, like gall bladders, claws etc. So like I said, I'm sure that there are ethical hound hunters out there. I just never met one. Not one!

But it only takes one to give the impression that they are all bad. I don't go that route, but when I get the same strange answer to a simple question from random encounters, it appears that there is something strange going on.

No, I did not report it to ODFW, I reported it to OSP.

[Rank Amateur]

I think you bring up a good point Snakebite, not sure I agree, but still a good point.

Why would we ban an entire sport over a few aspects that we may have a guestion about, that is my take on the cougar/bear hound ban. If you don't like collars, then ban them.

I don't have hounds or have ever had them, but my Dad did. No collars or such stuff. Yet I would think the collars would help minimize the lost dog situation, not create it. I know you were over simplifying things when you said to just wait for the signal to stop moving and then walk down and take the animal. It just ain't so in the woods. I think these are just some of the misconceptions about hound hunting that the public bought into.

I do agree, that the example that some of the hound hunters set, has cast a shadow on all the rest. Not fair, but that is life and we has sportsmen should pay heed to this example.

You are probably right about what is going on in the woods, I am starting to see more and more dog boxes. Kinda hard for OSP to prove what you are running out there.

[C-lice]

The basic problem I had (and still do have) with the whole issue of outlawing bait and dogs was that I don't believe we should say that the way "you" hunt is wrong and the way "I" hunt is right.

As long as a hunter doesn't exceed his bag limit, hunt out of season, hunt closed areas, or break laws against spotlighting or break safety laws, I don't thnk that how that person chooses to hunt should be left to the voters to decide.

If the citizens of Oregon find hunting bears and cougars to be illegal, then so be it. But to say it can't be done in a certain way is what bothers me.

Is it unsporting to hunt birds with dogs? I am quite certain that a lot of upland birds that wind up shot would never be flushed if the hunters didn't have dogs.

What about decoys? Is it any different to hunt over decoys than it is bait?

What about using a dog and decoys?

So it's not "fair" or "sporting" to hunt cougars with dogs. But scopes, GPSs, Trail Cams, radios, rangefinders, quads, tree stands, 45x spotting scopes, etc. are fair and sporting? Come on.

If a hunter shoots across a road, or hunts out of season, or abuses his hounds, or destroys a yarder, then that person should be prosecuted for those offenses. His actions should not determine what other hunters are subsequently allowed to do.

[bajadan2000]

When hunting with dogs was banned, poor treatment of the dogs was never an issue. It was the pure emotional issue driven by videos shown on TV to the uninformed public of dogs treeing baby Cougars that got the sympathetic votes to change the laws.

For a professional hound hunter to treat his dogs poorly would be the same as a doctor that does not have his medical intruments cleaned properly or a mechanic that does not take care of his tools. The dogs are the tools that make the hound hunter his money. Period. Without his dogs, the hound hunter is not hunting or making money. Period. What you say does not make any sense at all.

So how do your issues in this post relate to the ODFW hiring of professional hound hunters to take care of the over population of Cougars we have today? It does not, does it? Two complete seperate issues. So why start a debate by moving the real topic off of the original point?

The ODFW has come up with the best plan that is within the law. It may not be the very best plan, and the antis may not like it, but ODFW is working within the law the way the antis had it changed.

[Snakebite]

And that's my final answer.

[Rauly]

You 2 play nice or don't play at all. No personal attacks as per the AUP. That is why the posts were edited.

Rauly

[ehunter]

Not sure but I think the reason we lost out on the whole hound hunter situation was what people saw was a poacher shooting a bear. The issue was there was a lot of division between hunters over the use of hounds. A lot of people probably did not care one way or the other but the anit's put out a message about the poor little cat and poor bear being chased though the woods by the dogs. Not that a cat or bear doesn't chase it's prey. They the anit's did a good job of getting the public perception that hound hunters were cruel. I don't think we put up much of a fight except to argue that this needed to be left with OFWD (science). My only comment is that the hound hunters I knew a couple really loved and valued their dogs over a bear or cat and if they lost a dog they searched for ever. In every thing we do there is always a bad apple to spoil it for every one. I will add that it never apealed to me to hunt behind hounds but I did vote to keep hound hunting..

[Critr Gitr]

Snakebite ... you said ... My point has everything to with the subject,
The point is that there is more than one reason hound hunting was banned. And poor treatment of their dogs was just one of them.

No the reason it was banned was because of a scientific issue charged with emotion being decided by an uneducated electorate.

Leave wildlife management to the experts ... not to the soccer moms.

[Salmo trutta]

Not sure but I think the reason we lost out on the whole hound hunter situation was what people saw was a poacher shooting a bear. The issue was there was a lot of division between hunters over the use of hounds. A lot of people probably did not care one way or the other but the anit's put out a message about the poor little cat and poor bear being chased though the woods by the dogs. Not that a cat or bear doesn't chase it's prey. They the anit's did a good job of getting the public perception that hound hunters were cruel. I don't think we put up much of a fight except to argue that this needed to be left with OFWD (science). My only comment is that the hound hunters I knew a couple really loved and valued their dogs over a bear or cat and if they lost a dog they searched for ever. In every thing we do there is always a bad apple to spoil it for every one. I will add that it never apealed to me to hunt behind hounds but I did vote to keep hound hunting..

I don't know about anyone else on this post but I worked both campaigns measure 18 and measure 34 so much so that measure 34 put me in the hospital for two days from fatigue. I didn't own dogs and have never hunter bears or cougars with dogs or over bait but I knew folks that did and I seen measure 18 as an all out attack on our hunting rights and I worked my butt off trying to thwart that attack. Boy after the dust settled did I get an education and an eye and ear full.

First of all the main reason the Oregon Humane Society was in the fight to ban hound hunting WAS the fact that dogs WERE treated inhumanely and were getting chewed up by cats and bears and were being lost and neglected for days on end. This was told to me by the ED of the OHS at an OHA Portland chapter meeting when we had her as a guest speaker. They had a list a mile long of vets who described the wounds and conditions of dogs that were brought into them after hunts. Someone stated (I think in another post) that dogs were only tools. Well I don't know about you but my dog is no tool. He is an intelligent pet and a part of my family. I sure hope the guy who made that statement doesn't own any animals.

Second there WAS quite a bit of an ethical problem with some of the hound hunters. I am not going to get into it but if you visit this discussion forum you know who you are and what I am talking about. (and it did involve the use of radio collars and keeping cats treed for an extended period of time)(we can all figure out why that was)

Third folks who use the forest other than hunters got real tired of all the freaking garbage from baiting bears. Some parts of the woods especially around the boundaries of Crater Lake turned into a dump and hog sty. Sorry people, but word gets around fast especially when you have a NP that gets a million visits a year.

I attended meetings involving hound hunters and couldn't even get a majority of them to go out and collect signatures for the measure 34 petition. Why? Are they ashamed of their "sport"? Do they have a hard time answering questions the non-hunting public might have about why they should bring back their "sport"? Heck alot of them wouldn't even donate money for the campaign.

I have heard many hound hunters state that they hope the deer and elk populations do drop off the face of the earth: "cause if I can't hunt why should you" was an attitude that was clearly shown. People just are not buying the one deer a week and in seven years all the deer will be gone logic that alot of mis-informed hunters are feeding people. It's been over 7 years and they are not all gone.

Sorry but I have a sour taste in my mouth for hound hunters. If they do ever bring it back I just wish that it is tightly regulated and controlled with education ethics, fair chase and dog safety and well being being the number one priority.

(Sorry ehunter I just attached to you. Not everything I stated is directed to you. You were just the "tool"!! )

[baltz526]

it seems people are missing what these hound hunters will be paid for, first on the list will be damage control complaints, and due to funding issues the last on the list will also be damage control complaints. if anyone thinks money will be spent on wildlife being killed by cougars, i will be very surprised if it is. bears in tree farms, dogs will be there, bears in orchards dogs will be there, cougar in a residential area, here comes the dogs. but if 50 deer carcases are found on a winter range, i'll be very suprised if any paid hound hunters will be sent after the offending cougars

[Limbhanger]

That was my thought exactly Baltz. They might thin 2000 cougar over time, but it wont be from the right areas to help the deer.

[bajadan2000]

[quote

I don't know about anyone else on this post but I worked both campaigns measure 18 and measure 34 so much so that measure 34 put me in the hospital for two days from fatigue.
First of all the main reason the Oregon Humane Society was in the fight to ban hound hunting WAS the fact that dogs WERE treated inhumanely and were getting chewed up by cats and bears and were being lost and neglected for days on end. This was told to me by the ED of the OHS at an OHA Portland chapter meeting when we had her as a guest speaker. They had a list a mile long of vets who described the wounds and conditions of dogs that were brought into them after hunts.


[/quote]

ST,

If you were working on the campaigns and only heard about the wounds to dogs at a private meeting, please explain to me how this affected the voting public. Ed is correct here, the real issue that turned the public against the hunting with hounds ballot issue was that darn bear video.

Trying to get back on the topic "the Cougar Plan", It seems many have the opinion that the state will be working closely with and hiring very unethical people. Plus they will only be taking 2000 Cougars that are vegaterians. Maybe these 2000 Cougars are on the new, very popular with the Cougar in crowd, mushroom diet. None of the 2000 Cougars has ever or will ever take a deer or elk so removing them will have no impact on the population of deer and elk.

Sounds like a very long reach to me.