BigGameHoundsmen.com

Here's a copy of a letter sent to the WDFW commissioners regarding Hound hunting and the insulting quota recently approved- We need to be sending lots of these to let them know we're watching thier actions...and we are represented by sound biology, not politics.

Dear Commissioners-

I am interested in learning the reason behind the forty percent cut on hound hunting cougar tags in Washington. Thus far I have not been able to view any conclusive data that shows a decline in the population in Northeast Washington, where I live and hunt (and work as a professional wildlife biologist). There are 23 tags allotted for Pend Oreille and Stevens counties, this number appears to be quite low. The collar study in Cle Elum was the basis for the 40% cut in tags. Let’s look at the differences in the habitat and prey availability between Kittitas County and Stevens/Pend Oreille Counties. We (NE WA) have a different prey base, we have whitetail deer that are doubly prolific than the mule deer in Kittitas County, Northeast Washington has lots of deer to feed the cats. Northeast Washington also has a more dense shrub and forest canopy to serve as hide and escape cover for both cats and prey animals. There’s clear evidence that the home range of cougars will decline as prey abundance and habitat quality increases. The population model was designed on the home range for cats in the Cle Elum study. That makes a lot of sense in areas that are similar to Cle Elum, but none at all when applied to most of the state. The cougars here are very likely to live in smaller home ranges and, assuming the GPS data from Cle Elum was applied statewide, the population has been underestimated in much of the state. This makes me believe that applying the Cle Elum model to the rest of Washington was a mistake and leads to less hunting opportunity for the rest of Washington, as well as the consequences of higher cat populations i.e. predation, complaints and wasted time for Officers, who are already spread thin in this area.

I realize that funds are tight; we would all love to see research in all parts of the state, but it’s simply not possible. I’m not sure that cutting the tag numbers by such a significant amount was a prudent biological decision; it appears to be more of a “knee jerk” reaction to inconclusive data. Please consider reversing the quota to the previous level of forty tags. There is no indication of a decline in cougar population in Pend Oreille or Stevens Counties. The higher harvest statistics are more likely a result of higher cat populations and a better hunter reporting system.

Regrettably, I am not able to attend the public meeting in Olympia this week. If you, or anyone from the WDFW would like to reach me, please feel free to call 509 XXXX, or reply to this email.

Thank you,

would you please put up the e-mail address you mailed it to? Thanks.

'commission@dfw.wa.gov'

Thank you.
I adjusted your letter (since I am not WA hunter or wildlife biologist!) and sent it on as a concerned Oregonian. I hope they do not make the same mistakes Oregon has.

I don't think they really care, but it's better than Not doing anything...

Guess we'll just have wait and see how the permits come out.

I don't think it's going to matter much between 20 or 40 permits if they all go to Deer and Elk Hunters..

Buddy

Yep, with a limit of nine females there's a chance the hound guys will not get to hunt. There's no biology behind any of this, just emotion. The biologist is getting attached to 'his' cats and making some very presumptious claims about the population.

WAcoyotehunter wrote: The biologist is getting attached to 'his' cats and making some very presumptious claims about the population.

I am remembering right, a WA wildlife biologist 'planted' some lynx fur somewhere? They were trying to manipulate something...logging maybe?

Everyone is screwed when scientist lie for their cause.

I don't know about that. Anything is possible around here...

The rediculous quota was approved, but they might be listening to arguments for a pursuit only season...which is great. (or at least better than nothing).

I've emailed the biologist twice requesting some of his data that backs the declining population theory and have not heard back yet... He seems to have forgotton that he works for the STATE OF WASHINGTON and its residents, that data belongs ot all of us and should be public information. I'm a professional wildlife biologist also, just not for the WDFW, and I'm not sure he's too excited about showing the unsculpted data to me. Probably because it's totally inconclusive.

Six or so years ago I attended one of the meetings to "discuss" the three year plan. They wanted to moved the bear season back to after Labor Day because they wanted to seperate user groups, ie berry pickers and hikers from bear hunters. Everyone at the meeting git riled up and they said, well actually we are worried about the sow number declining. So as we all know they moved the season to after Labor Day. Three years later I went back to the same meeting and when I asked how the later season had affected the sow population they looked at me crossed eyed. There had been no study done, they had shortened the season because someone up there wanted to seperate the berry pickers and hikers from the bear hunters. No biological reason, purely political IMO.

You're exactly right Fred- The WDFW has a biologist that is anti hound hunting and is pushing this rule w/out any science to back it up. I see lion tracks regularly in Pend Oreille County and I suspect they're all over Stevens County as well, but he's saying that the hound hunt is causing a decline...GET A CLUE MAN- hound hunters have been up here for a long time and they argue that the population goes down when the new no-hound laws come into effect...are you kidding me!!!!?????