This thread is so long one more post can't hurt that much.

Driftboater,

You're entitled to your opinions, and generally keep them separate from your facts. However, you describe hounds and bait as viable and needed management for cougar and bear. I agree that the hound and bait alternative may be viable, but "needed" is a personal value term, like an opinion. It seems to me that you believe it's needed because otherwise we have to pay someone to kill problem cougars. Actually, it's a social choice, and the public apparently has choosen to disallow the general use of hounds to hunt cougar, but allows (altho this wasn't part of the public initiative decision as I recall) hounds for ridding problem cougars, even if it costs extra money. An equally valid social choice would be for WDFW to do nothing about cougar complaints, simply saying they were being responsive to the initiative, and allowing those who are pestered by cougars to take care of the situation themselves - as long as they didn't use hounds.

I'm just pickin' on ya' a little bit because you made quite a deal about your and others facts and opinions. Just wanted to let you know that one of your "facts" is an opinion.

All in all, this has been an interesting thread because of the way it has illustrated differing views of the sporting ethic. Bait for bears is non-sporting, yet bait for fishing is sporting. Hmmm, I like that one. And if it weren't for the scarcity of fish, I suppose we could have sport gill-netting and dupont spinner seasons on the rivers, since some people, or cultures, would no doubt consider those activities as having sporting value (how long do you hold the lit fuse before tossing the dynamite into the head of a pool? Gutsy, huh?). It looks like society, thru its fish and wildlife agencies, or thru initiatives, decides what is sporting, and therefore permissible. And apparently those values can change over time, so that an act that formerly was sporting and allowed, isn't any longer.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.