Debate over Nebraska cougar hunt continues

Yesterday, Nebraska’s Natural Resources Committee held its first public hearing on LB 127, a bill that would eliminate the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission’s authority to hold and regulate a cougar hunting season. Senator Ernie Chambers, the bill’s sponsor, along with a number of other citizens testified in support of LB 127. Much of their testimony focused on the extremely small lion population in Nebraska as well as the fact that order valtrex uk sport hunting is not a science-based management tool.

We supported efforts last year to repeal Nebraska’s cougar hunt, and have already written to the Nebraska Legislature in support of LB 127. We will continue to update our Policy Watch page with news related to LB 127 and opportunities for the public to comment.

To learn more about yesterday’s hearing & testimony, read the full news stories from the Lincoln Journal Star and the Omaha World Herald:

http://journalstar.com/legislature/mountain-lion-hunting-discussion-continues-in-committee/article_1f037911-fba2-5654-91af-bd8e136ea993.html

http://www.omaha.com/outdoors/sen-ernie-chambers-shows-his-claws-in-effort-to-foil/article_bfec659e-09bf-532b-9c93-4338ef14588f.html

Comment on Facebook

Again, I only see the use of dogs in going after a Rouge animal that has done serious wrong. Being hunted by a pack of dogs is so unfair and disrespectful to such an incredible animal. I think Ranchers should get double or even triple compensation if a Lion or Wolf takes down their livestock. One of one isn't enough. At least they will be happy and not be so hateful towards an Apex animal. I am from New England - we had the Eastern Mountain Lion subspecies. We killed them all off and they have been deemed extinct by Smithsonian. The last one was killed in Maine in 1938. This is why I have such an interest in them and am involved in their conservation. This will always be a hot topic - we shall see how it unfolds.

Just curious... I live in Colorado, and a common refrain you hear from opponents of this measure is that we should not be doing "ballot box biology", and that biology should be left to the biologists. I guess the problem I have with this argument is that all you have to do is read The Ninemile Wolves by Rick Bass or the chapter on "The Predatory Bear" in Dominion of Bears to see that wildlife agencies are frequently politicized, and they themselves have agendas that are not rooted in sound biology (CPW does actually have a decent reputation though). Utah's recent changes to their Mountain Lion hunting rules certainly weren't rooted in biology. When you dig deeper, it seems like a lot of the opposition to these measures has to do with protecting hunting and ranching interests. Ranchers don't want any depredations, and hunters want to be able to kill predators so there are more ungulates for hunters to kill (outfitters obviously have an economic stake in these decisions). I don't mean to demean either group of people... I have eaten plenty of beef in my life, and, while I don't hunt, I understand that it is a part of some people's way of life. But if I were sitting with a fellow Colorado resident who was telling me that the State should not be engaging in "ballot-box biology", what counterargument would you recommend that I make?