Editorial Page staff
The Seattle Times
The anti-bear-and-cougar-hunting initiative on the November ballot carries all the emotion and dispute that goes with hunting as recreation, all the conflicts that come from killing creatures in the wild by modern means and all the questions about how wildlife is perceived in a state increasingly out of touch with the hunting life.
Initiative 655 proposes to ban baiting of bears and hound-hunting of cougar. Bear baiting is already regulated by the type of food used to lure black bears to the hunter's sights. Bait is specified in the regulations, as is the size and type of container used and when bait containers must be removed from the woods. Similarly, treeing cougars with packs of hounds is regulated, specifically by season, location and type of equipment. The question for voters is if regulating the hunt should be supplanted by an outright ban.
Both black bear and cougar are abundant in Washington in biological terms; there's no foreseeable danger they will become rare. The Biological, Recreational and Economic Assessment of Initiative 655 by the Department of Fish and Wildlife places black bear populations steadily increasing, at about 25,000 animals in the state. Estimates of cougar populations are always speculative but state biologists believe between 2,400 and 3,000 range over Washington.
Because hunting is intensely regulated, the normal challenge to bear baiting and hound hunting would be through the Legislature and the state Wildlife Commission.
Proponents argue they have tried legislative reform of hunting laws but have been stymied. The state Wildlife Commission, the body responsible for hunting dates and methods, was also unmoved by their pleas. Proponents may be frustrated, but bypassing the commission and the Legislature to overturn relatively narrow game laws adds to the argument that backers of I-655 are less interested in the regulations than in raising public outcry over the hunt itself.
As a result, Washington voters have been positioned to cast a vote for or against cruelty, hardly a fair test of wildlife management.
Blowing a pheasant out of the sky with high-velocity pellets could also be considered cruel. While bear baiting may be odious, geese are lured with decoys onto sown fields toward camouflaged hunters and their dogs. Enticing game is more dramatic in the bear hunt but not unique.
Proponents want voters to place bear and cougar into a special breed of animal, a Disneyfication of the topic that inevitably leads to an emotional and understandable aversion to hunting.
Instead, voters should consider the results of wildlife studies and the estimated impact of I-655 on bear and cougar.
Bear hunting even with bait is hardly a sure thing. While black bear populations are rising, successful hunts are in a slight decline. Bear hunts using dogs dropped from 274 in 1992 to 244 successful hunts last year. About four out of five hunts are unsuccessful. Hunting bear without dogs or bait, only six out of 100 hunters are successful. Current success rates for cougar are somewhat better, in recent years as high as 80 percent. But removing dogs from the hunt alters the success rate dramatically, from 283 cougars taken in 1995 to just three without dogs in 1994 and three in 1995.
In Oregon, where a similar ban went into effect, cougar populations grew at eight to 10 percent a year, suggesting the ban virtually eliminates public hunting of the species. That saves some cougars, but the populations of bear and cougar are not the issue, since even baiting and hunting with dogs does not dramatically impact their numbers. I-655 is not about wildlife management but about far different considerations, including a cultural chasm between those who hunt with dogs and those who cannot abide the idea.
Contrary to its promise, I-655 would not eliminate bear baiting or hound hunting in the state. Timber companies and wildlife agents would still use both practices to control animal populations. But if the practices are cruel, why allow the state and private landowners to use them?
The argument comes down to tolerating or not tolerating the way a few people hunt. On that issue, both hunters and non-hunters can find honest areas of disagreement. The cultural and even totemic value of bears and cougars is a powerful emotion. A vigorous debate about hunting, including a debate about the role and purpose of the Wildlife Commission, would be informative and useful. Unfortunately, that's not what is happening.
The trouble with I-655 is that as public policy, it is full of holes and ultimately bad law.
