Should hound hunters allow Government.

[dwalton]

WE as hound men will never get our hunting back trying to do it our selves. WE have to use a professional to run the move to get it back. You need money for well done ads, someone with the knowledge to work within the system and direct the energy that we have to be at every gun, knife or outdoor show to talk to people. you need to work at getting politicians on your side and removing ones that oppose us. What controls wildlife and fish and wildlife is public opinion [POLITICS} we have to beat them at their own game. In the time OOC has been active we have been closer than ever in getting something back. Because of one person with help of others that understands how things work. You will never win being right or showing the right reasons why we should have this or that. Look at our government it sucks we the people are the only ones that can change it but be active not by splitting our own people. As long as we fight each other we will be doing most of the work for the antis. WE allowed them to have their own opinion, now that they have the money and knowledge as to how to THEY DO NOT ALLOW US OURS. It took them time to get here but by sitting back and not doing our PR it is our fault not theirs. As Larry said there are several ways to fight this battle and fighting smart and united is the only way we will make a difference. Dewey

[al baldwin]

Dewey how is it the houndsmen fault that measure 18 ban hunting cougar and bear with hounds in Oregon. I agree we will never stop the harvest of damage complaint bear and cougar and surely anyone who has lived in rural Oregon would not want to stop that. As for your defending the studies done on cougar by ODF&W agents, in my opinion those are a scam of tax payers funds. Collaring & treeing cougar numerous times is a great way to create a cougar that loses it/s fear of man and dogs & becomes a real problem critter. I recall being told by one of the ODF&W agents that he was giving a receiver by the biologist and could go tree cougar anytime to train his dogs. That must have been a real challenge for the agent to find a collared cougar to run. I Also recall being invited along to the tiller area to do a cougar count, was told the hounds would be boxed and when they struck from the rig that would count as proof a cougar had been there. About the dumbest thing I ever heard of, because I knew very well me or no one else could be certain if the hounds were striking bobcat or cougar, unless they were let down and treed the critter. On another subject did not realize you alone got the spring hound bear season back. Maybe, you should not have, I recall the antis warning ODF&W IF THE SPRING HOUND BEAR SEASONS WERE ALLOWED THEY WOULD PASS A BALLOT MEASURE TO STOP BEAR & COUGAR HOUND HUNTING IN Oregon. Dewey my hunting is pretty much behind me, but I would like the youngsters to enjoy some of the seasons I had. Nothing personal but throwing money at a lobby person in the past has been a complete failure. Is it time to try something more aggressive? Thanks Al

[LarryBeggs]

Dewey I don't disrespect you for fighting the fight the way you think you should. But my youngest son is 19. He was born the same year measure 18 passed. He has missed a lot compared to what I got to do buy the time I was his age. I have tried all that time to keep my nose clean and be nice. It has not got me any where. He is grown up now and we wont have the same memories that my dad and I do. If in the late rounds you find yourself loosing the fight. If you keep throwing jabs against a more experienced better trained fighter you are going to loose. You better start throwing some hard punches and hoping for a knock out. Take care,Larry

[covert]

You have to fight like a pit bull if you want to get your point across. And to get something changed you have to have a pack of pit bulls with the smarts of a German Shepeherd if you want to get anything changed. In order to get anything changed you must first have the facts strait, second have someone that can devote a ton of time to the issue that you want changed, third you have to petition your state rep that are voted to be your voice, and if that dont work you get an ass clown "lawer" to fight the fight if you are unable to get it done. There has to be a mediator that can speak the language of the law in order to get something repealed. This will be an on going fight to keep heritage where it should be. And that would make a valid fight if you bring up heritage that is being lost, a way of life that is going to the way side to make the anti's happy. You need to find your congress men and women that hunt that understand what you are trying to do and put it on their shoulders to bear. If they will not do it for you vote them out, run yourself and try to make a change from the inside. There is not one good way to get it done with out spending money. Everything cost something, you dont take one breat that is free, your taxing yourself doing so. So if you use the same breat to put up one hell of a fight at least it is not in vane. May all you OREGON hound hunters unite and make a heck of a fight one that will make nashional news. And I pray to God that it is in your favor.

[mark]

Tim Pittman for congress!

[CRA]

If you don’t think USDA/APHIS and HSUS aren’t connected think again. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack hired Sarah Conant, the head lawyer for HSUS as Chief Enforcer of APHIS. This USDA/HSUS connection becomes an extremely powerful “Business” advantage between a Powerful Government Agency and a so called Non-profit tax exempt corporation. With these two groups combined they can literally create a Wildlife Management Tyranny by forcing Sporting Hunters out of the woods with unjust laws they create so the Government gets all the revenue from the tax payers and rules over all Wildlife. This battle is being done a few species at a time.

[Buddyw]

If you don’t think USDA/APHIS and HSUS aren’t connected think again. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack hired Sarah Conant, the head lawyer for HSUS as Chief Enforcer of APHIS.

wow... I did not know that

[mike martell]

Charles
I rest your case!
Once more, I will paste the Trap Free Oregon ban bill wording.....Please folks, tell me how a bunch of radical Central Oregon Gals can articulate the wording so precisely in the anti trapping ban bill? This bill was written by HSUS with over sight from USDA-Aphis Wildlife Services and then proof read to meet the agenda of ODFW.....

A MEASURE RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PETS

1. Notwithstanding ORS 610.060, ORS 610.105, and ORS 498.012, it shall be unlawful for any person:


a) To trap any animal for commerce in raw fur or body parts, or for recreation;

b) To buy, sell, barter, or otherwise exchange, or offer to buy, sell, barter, or otherwise exchange, the raw fur or any other body part of any wild animal that has been trapped;

c) To poison or attempt to poison any animal using sodium fluoroacetate (also known as Compound 1080) or sodium cyanide.

d) To kill or attempt to kill any mammal with poison, except as provided in subsection (12) of this section.

e) To use or authorize the use of any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap.

2. Notwithstanding subsection (1)(e) of this section, a person is permitted to use a Conibear trap in water, a padded leg-hold trap, or a non-strangling foot snare on private land, subject to existing state and federal laws and regulations.


READ FROM HERE DOWN PEOPLE.......WHEN YOU GET DONE, REREAD UNTIL YOU GET THIS! CONVINCE ME THIS WAS WRITTEN BY RADICALS! Remember why we dropped black bear baiting and hounds from our recent failed legislation? OOC to Mike, if we keep bear with hounds and baiting we will lose the entire initiative. Mike to OOC, did we compare hounds and baiting to what replaced our hounds as a management tool, the snare? NO, OOC to Mike, we can't compare the snare vs. the hound or we will lose our mid term trapping initiative.......I don't know how to put this folks......This legislation worded as it is, will pass for the same reasons we lost all three previous campaigns in Salem.

3. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to state or federal employees or their agents to use a Conibear trap in water, a padded leg-hold trap, or a non-strangling foot snare on any public land including state owned or state leased land, lands administered by the United States Forest Service, the Federal Bureau of Land Management, The National Park Service, The United States Department of Defense, The State Parks Board and any county or municipality if it is established that there exists on the public land in question an animal problem that has not been and cannot be reasonably abated by the use of nonlethal control tools, including but not limited to changes in livestock management practices, the use of guard animals, barriers, alarm devices, hazing, or human supervision or if such nonlethal means cannot be reasonably applied. Upon making a written finding, freely available to the public, that the animal problem has not been abated by the reasonable use of nonlethal control tools and cannot be reasonably abated by nonlethal control tools or if the tools cannot be reasonably applied, the director may authorize the use, setting, placing, or maintenance of the traps for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.

4. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to federal, state, county, or municipal employees or agents to use any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap for the purpose of protecting people from threats to their health and safety.

5. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from issuing permits to use padded leghold traps or non-strangling foot snares for the conduct of legitimate wildlife research by credentialed professional biologists.

6. Nothing in this section prohibits the Director from granting a special permit to department employees or agents or other state agencies to use any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap where the use of the traps is the only practical means of protecting threatened or endangered species as designated under ORS 486.182.

7. Nothing in this section prohibits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, it employees or agents, from using any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap where the Service determines, in consultation with the Director, that the use of such traps is necessary to protect species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.).

8. When legally employing any Conibear trap or body-gripping trap, the immediate area where such traps are deployed, on public land or private property legally accessible to the public, shall be prominently marked with highly-visible, durable warning signs.

9. Any legally employed Conibear trap, body-gripping trap, or cage trap shall be checked at intervals not to exceed 24 hours.

10. A violation of this section is a class A misdemeanor.

11. Nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner to affect the taking of wildlife with firearms, with fishing equipment, with archery equipment, or other implements in hand as may be defined or regulated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, including the taking of wildlife pursuant to a hunting or fishing license issued by ODFW.

12. Nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner to affect the ability of any person to trap or poison mice, rats, gophers, moles, ground squirrels, or non-furbearing rodents.

13. Definitions:


a) "Trap" for purposes of this section incorporates the definition in ORS 496.004(18). For purposes of this section, this definition and the terms defined in subsection (b), (c) and (d) do not include lariats, head gates, catchpoles, or methods used to temporarily detain livestock.

b) “Conibear trap” means any trap of various manufacturers having design and operational characteristics essentially the same as or like that developed by Frank Conibear and designed and set to kill an animal instantly.

c) "Body-gripping trap" means a trap that grips an animal's body or body part.

d) "Cage trap" means a trap that allows the animal to be lured into an enclosure and closes the entryway to prevent escape and is intended to capture an animal alive.

e) “Padded leg-hold trap” means a trap designed and set to grip the foot or limb of an animal, both jaws of which are covered with rubber pads having a minimum thickness of one-eighth inch.

f) “Non-strangling foot snare” means a cable or wire designed and set to encircle and hold an animal’s foot or limb without tightening down as the animal’s limb moves.

g) "Raw fur" means the hide or pelt of any animal.

h) “Animal" means any nonhuman warm-blooded vertebrate.

i) “Person” as used in this section means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character.

................END OF BALLOT INITIATIVE..............


Yep, looks like a bunch of hippies from Oregon that don't like our trapping, or is it? Time to try something different and allow this to pass and become law? I really enjoyed the bobcat gathering, it remains the only event we as houndsmen can attend. This midterm bill passes and IT WILL PEOPLE. We will be attending our third and final gathering. What part of this do we not get?

Al, I'm like you, this big game bear and cougar hunting is behind me.....Larry, I totally understand what you wrote about you and your son and never having the chance. I remember you and your dad having some pretty good times, back then I was hunting a lot with your Dad's cousin Paul.....Come to think of it, I remember Jack and little Jack having some pretty good times, now I have lost track of how many other kids are in that family that will never get to go hunting either and the list goes on and on and on.....Roll over now and kiss your bobcat and coon hunting goodbye!

[covert]

why dont you guy try something likes this (The Appalachian Houndsmen Association is an association that was started on the basis of joining together all of our clubs from all the different hunting areas to be able to unite(sic) as one large voice to stand up and fight to protect our hunting and breeding rights. We want members from all types of dog hunting, coon hunters, big game hunters, beaglers, fox hunters and bird hunters. We need everyone to be able to make our voice heard. As our motto states "Preserving Our Hunting Heritage for the next Generation", is a large and bold undertaking and this cannot be accomplished by one person or one club or one group of hunters. Together as a united group we can fight and be heard.) Appalachian Houndsmen Association

[mike martell]

Covert
Great concept except in Oregon we are divided by all sport hunter groups and have been for decades. Simply look at the past legislation and you find your answer and proof. H.B.2971 in 2007, ended up being the death of any potential sport hound hunter sanctioned hunting. This defined the inception of the agent bill, Pushed by Al Elkins,the lobby for OHA. Two years ago H.B. 3636 passed by a 100% margin in the legislature to fund Government programs and to continue into the future for funding for the agent bills, again the lobby was OHA and Al Elkins. Then sitting beside our hound legislation during this legislative session, H.B. 2390A passed while our hound legislation was snubbed, this one more time is the agent bill. Al Elkins Lobbied for this as well on behalf of ODFW to get those nasty cougars under control. Yeah , the same guy that walked out on all of us the day before our last hearing in Salem, and then kissed and made up....

OHA is comprised of deer and elk hunters who have been indoctrinated or brain washed into believing they need to get cougar under control by any means or they are finished. This base is comprised of 10,000 members strong and represents the largest State lobby. OHA is staffed with many members who are also employed by ODFW. This becomes a direct conflict of interest one more time, it also reflects a pattern only a complete fool would try to dispute. Claims for our legislation state "we were closer than ever", an inch is as good as a mile when you miss hitting your target! You want to hit the bullseye, file a law suit! How about the right to the pursuit to happiness, how about our constitutional rights go on and on but constantly rejected. I remember being asked to sign a paper from ODFW that stated, ODFW does not discriminate against Age, Race, Gender, etc. and turns out to be one more lie! Based on that alone are grounds for one more law suit! This battle is like fighting an enemy combatant that is not in uniform, while you are confused and might think of them as friend, they simply kill you as foe....Brilliant strategy for winning any game....

I must go now and keep quiet in time out land, Grass Hoppers......

[outlaw13]

Clint and Dale you are both wrong. I saw the hound men of Oregon at the same place you were 20 years ago. How did that work out for them? The information attain from the studies with the cost to the public with the lose of funds from not hunting will get your season back with the right PR work. Their is no one back stabbing you they are just doing a job that needs to be done.

I respectfully disagree with you Dewey. If the information from the studies was going to get your season back with the right PR work why is it that you still don't have a season? 20 years is way more than enough time. Anyone and everyone who is doing this "job that needs to be done" is a direct threat to getting hound hunting back for everyone they way it should be. I can't help but think that you would feel a whole lot different if they took bobcat hunting away 20 years ago.

[mike martell]

Folks, how can you call yourself a bear and cougar lobby and have no idea how to fight for hound hunter rights? Here is my letter to the pin headed biologist Tim Hiller from ODFW who just released the black bear harvest numbers under the FOIA. We should have no problems defending a hound over this misconduct.

Timothy

I have a few concerns and would like an answer.

Last year between two independent snare contractors in the South Santiam drainage, both names I have, but will keep anonymous. During the 2011 snare season for Cascade Timber Consulting, Guistina resources, Fruit growers and possibly a name I have forgotten. Those two contractors snared fifty black bear combined. My report that you just sent me indicates a reduction of 30% fewer black bears or 14 bear snared in the Santiam Unit and 21 snared in the McKenzie unit. 35 for 2012 vs. 50 for 2011. Missing in this report are the baby cubs that were on the 2011 report. I see many that fall under 2 year olds and I suspect you are labeling those baby cubs as all 2 year olds? simply put, snares caught several sows and many of those should be first year cubs weighing 10-15 pounds and are not listed on the report.



Lets break down the Santiam gmu unit snare harvest. 14 total black bears and a combined age of 77 years at an average age of 5.5 years, now look at your chart and you will see only two bears over ten years old, one was 12 and one was 20 for 32 combined years, subtract this number from 77 and divide by 12 and this cuts your average bear snared ages down to 45 and divide by 12 and you have 3.75 years per bear on average of harvested bears. Where are the baby cubs? Why are you hiding them from this report?



Now lets compare the Mc Kenzie gmu where 21 bears were snared by these two hired guns. total age combined 94 years or an average age of 4.476. of the 21 caught, only 4 were older than 10 years of age. now subtract the 4 bears and their combined age of 43 and take the balance or 17 bears and divide by the total years and you have 51 years , now divide by the 17 remaining black bears and you have an average age of 3 years of age, now lets use your analogy not mine. Sow black bears come of breeding age between 3 and 4.



Please explain how the age of these eradicated bears could possibly be sustainable over the long haul if you were concerned about management and not eradication? Mr Hiller, here is my prediction and we will prove these numbers out again in one more snare season that is about to conclude soon. These two contractors kill numbers will reflect another 30 or more percent reduction in population, Why? simply because harvesting like this is unsustainable where your objective is management and not a complete eradication. Now if you took the real age of those baby cubs, you would actually drive your average age into the dirt, just the same place you allow those baby cubs to be left for fear of public outcry!.

Please feel free to debate my numbers and defend your position, you no longer can and we the people will change this level of behavior that is geared towards corporate interest and not animal management or sustainability.

Sincerely, Mike Martell
I Had to include the following on here to defend hounds vs. Government....What and who do you prefer?

[jcathunter]

Dewey, I have to ask why you feel that you are a good representative of houndsmen in Oregon? Personally, I want someone who represents conservation and game management and not someone who makes a living killing the game we love to hunt whether they do it by selling furs or getting paid by landowners. Don't get me wrong, I think its great that we all get to sell some fur at the end of the year and get a few tanks of gas back but I don't agree with killing as many cats as possible to fill the pockets especially if it involves filling as many other peoples cards as possible just to get the higher dollar furs. I can not and will not stand behind any man that is driven by the dollar because I know they are not looking out for the best interest of houndmen or sportsmen.