Changes in Attitudes About Predator Management in Washington
George K. Tsukamoto, Staff Biologist

Predator management is a controversial and sometimes contentious issue in today’s society. This is far different from the attitudes and actions of people in Washington at the dawn of the twentieth century. Back then it was a good thing to protect the desirable game species and domestic livestock from predators.

The prevailing values of the time are reflected in the first wildlife-associated bill passed by the Washington Territorial Legislature in 1871. This bill established a bounty for killing undesirable wild animals. A bounty of $2.50 was established for each cougar, panther, wolf and .50¢ for each coyote and wildcat. In 1879 the bill was amended to raise the bounty to $5 for cougar, panther, wolf, $4 for black bear, $2 for wildcat and 10¢ for muskrat.

During the last century many changes in predator management have occurred and yet the issue remains controversial. Through it all one thing is clear; people have strong feelings about wildlife whether they are hunters or not and whether they live in a rural or urban seting. The proponents of predator control feel they have a right to protect their property and the safety of their family and pets. Some hunters take the view that for every animal killed by a predator there is one less animal for the hunter's bag. The opponents of predator control feel equally strong that predators, particularly large carnivores, are a necessary component of a healthy and natural ecosystem. Our recent public opinion survey indicates predator management remains controversial but we are making progress.

In 1949 the bounty on the coyote was removed and special trappers were hired to reduce coyotes, at approximately the same cost. In 1950 Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) was introduced experimentally in Okanogan County and subsequently used extensively to control coyote and other mammalian predators. In 1972, an Executive Order prohibited the use of Compound 1080 on federal lands.

In 1953 the Washington State Game Commission Eleventh Biennial Report stated, “The game manager has the same basic responsibility as the farmer to minimize any interference with the production of his crop. Farmers spray their crops against insects; game manager must also act against predators, which interfere with the production of the game crop. It is the policy of the Game Department to control game depredation as completely as possible…The Department’s goal was never to obtain the largest number of animals possible for its record, but rather to minimize the amount of depredation to game and agriculture.”

Today, public attitudes toward predators have changed dramatically. The payment of bounties on predators was eliminated in 1980 when the Washington State Legislature repealed RCW 77.24.01 -120. There is a greater appreciation for predators now and some people have a desire to reintroduce large predators (wolves, grizzly bear, lynx) and protect them. Initiative Measure No 713, approved November 7, 2000 stated, "The people of the state of Washington find that this act is necessary in order to protect people and domestic pets and to protect and conserve wildlife from the dangers of cruel and indiscriminate steel-jawed leghold traps and poisons, and to encourage the use of humane methods of trapping when trapping is necessary to ensure public health and safety, protect livestock or property, safeguard threatened and endangered species, or conduct field research on wildlife."

In a recent public opinion survey in Washington several questions were asked concerning predator management in Washington.

• In general it was found the hunters are more supportive of reducing predator numbers than the general public.
   
• Both the general public and hunters showed strong support for reducing predators to address human safety, protect endangered species, and to prevent the loss of livestock and pets.
   
• There was a significant divergence of opinion between the general public and hunters when asked about reducing predators to increase game populations. Hunters, as expected, showed strong support, though less than for all other purposes (prevent loss of livestock and pets, human safety, protect endangered species). The general population opposed (54%) predator control to increase game populations.
   
• Neither the general public nor hunters supported reducing the number of black bears to prevent timber damage and the general public opposed (53%) spring hunting seasons to control damage.
   
• Figure 1 shows the responses between hunters and general population concerning specific actions to reduce predator populations.

During the last century many changes in predator management have occurred and yet the issue remains controversial. Through it all one thing is clear; people have strong feelings about wildlife whether they are hunters or not and whether they live in a rural or urban setting. The proponents of predator control feel they have a right to protect their property and the safety of their family and pets. Some hunters take the view that for every animal killed by a predator there is one less animal available for the hunters bag. The opponents of predator control feel equally strong that predators, particularly large carnivores, are a necessary component of a healthy and natural ecosystem. Our recent public opinion survey indicates predator management remains controversial but we are making progress.