The Washington Legislature is considering a bill that will allow handlers to train their hounds to pursue cougars.

OLYMPIA — Two sheriffs from northeast Washington testified Wednesday against a bill that would require counties to get permission from the Department of Fish and Wildlife to chase cougars with dogs.

Although Senate Bill 5613 stems entirely from Fish and Wildlife’s feud with Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer in Central Washington, the legislation would bar sheriffs throughout the state from using hound-handlers.

Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke and Pend Oreille County Sheriff Glenn Blakeslee said they will send hounds if state wildlife officers aren’t around to handle dangerous animal calls.

“There are frequent occasions when (Fish and Wildlife) staff is just flat not available, and we need to take independent action,” Manke said. “Sometimes it’s actually very difficult to get ahold of a live body.”

The bill has passed the Senate. It must pass the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee by Feb. 24 to remain alive for this session.

Songer has angered Fish and Wildlife and animal advocates by deputizing hound handlers to pursue cougars in his south-central Washington county. His office has killed 27 cougars since mid-2019. Fish and Wildlife acknowledges that prior to Songer taking the lead role, it was removing cougars in Klickitat County at about the same rate.

To regain control, Fish and Wildlife seeks to change state law, making the pursuit of cougars, bears and bobcats by counties dependent on the department’s approval.

Fish and Wildlife Southwest Regional Director Kessina Lee accused Songer of overusing hounds. “The KCSO policy takes the de facto position that the presence of a cougar is a threat to public safety,” she said.

Songer has dubbed the bill the “Mother, May I? Act.” He didn’t testify Wednesday, but said in an interview he watched the hearing. He said charges that he’s targeting every cougar seen in his county is a “total fabrication.”

Songer said he deputized hound handlers because of Fish and Wildlife’s “bad reputation with the citizens of the county, especially the ranchers.” Wildlife advocates want to stop other sheriffs from adopting his policy, he said.

“If they can destroy our program, then they’ve won the battle,” he said.

No other sheriff has so publicly announced he was taking the lead in removing cougars. But Manke said his office removed about seven cougars in the past year when Fish and Wildlife was unavailable.

His wildlife deputy, a hound handler, has gone to several other counties as well, Manke said.

Blakeslee said that if Fish and Wildlife officers are not available, he will call out hound handlers to haze cougars. “I have never done a lethal removal — yet,” he said. 

“As the elected sheriff, I am the chief law enforcement officer in my county and any attempts to infringe on my authority are not appreciated, especially when it comes to public safety,” Blakeslee said.

Lee said that while Songer has “one tool in the toolbox,” Fish and Wildlife has an “extensive toolbox” and advises landowners on how to avoid repeated conflicts.

“It’s really imperative we use a comprehensive outreach program to reduce negative human-wildlife interactions,” she said.

Manke said advice on protecting domestic animals is “generally an after-the-fact issue, after the problem has occurred.”

Rep. Joel Kretz, a northeast Washington Republican, said sheriffs in his district took a role in pursing cougars because of Fish and Wildlife’s shortcomings.

The partnership between sheriffs and the department has worked well in northeast Washington, he told Lee.

“It really troubles me to think we’re going to make major changes to something that’s functioning everywhere in the state except your region,” he said.