Free: Contests & Raffles.
I wish there were more studies available that showed the harvest reports on post ban (hound and bait ban) hunting of bears and cats. Maybe if there was the ban would have never happened. Bears and cats climbed in population for about 5 or 6 years after the ban and now because of open hunting methods the numbers of both are starting to fall.
We also have to take into account that the bear population in WA is not one unique body. Prior to the bans, pressures on the western populations was higher. People could effectively hunt bears in the western timber using bait and hounds. After the ban, regulation changes - cheaper tags, more liberal limits, longer seasons - switched the bear hunting pressure to the more open country East of the mountains. Statewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels, but a disproportionate number bears are being taken East of the Cascades as incidental harvests by deer / elk hunters who would otherwise not purchased a bear tag.As a result, populations West of the mountains (and those with heavy timber) are booming. Populations in more open terrain are taking a bit of a hit, though I don't think it's a major decline.Speaking with WA bear Biologists, there's no concrete way to measure bear populations. They're estimates are guesses at best based on estimated sow mortality, hunter reports, estimated cub survival data, etc.If you want to know whether or not bear populations are hurting on the West side (where nearly 2/3 of the state bear population resides), ask the timber companies.Lacking the ability to bait and use hounds is not ideal for hunters or bear populations, but neither are hurting to the point where one would suggest a further reduction in hunting opportunity.RW
Statewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,
QuoteStatewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.
Quote from: billythekidrock on March 10, 2009, 06:32:49 PMQuoteStatewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.I should have said "returned and then surpassed" pre-ban levels. You're right, we actually harvest more bears now than before the ban; but a greater percent of those harvests occur in more open country as incidental kills as a direct result of liberal (meaning loose) policies set due to the ban and the likely decline in harvests that resulted from it.RW
Quote from: Abolt338 on March 10, 2009, 07:39:08 PMQuote from: billythekidrock on March 10, 2009, 06:32:49 PMQuoteStatewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.I should have said "returned and then surpassed" pre-ban levels. You're right, we actually harvest more bears now than before the ban; but a greater percent of those harvests occur in more open country as incidental kills as a direct result of liberal (meaning loose) policies set due to the ban and the likely decline in harvests that resulted from it.RWI thought you meant that, but wasn't sure.I agree that there are too many incidentals as a result of the cheap tags and longer season.
Quote from: billythekidrock on March 10, 2009, 07:44:03 PMQuote from: Abolt338 on March 10, 2009, 07:39:08 PMQuote from: billythekidrock on March 10, 2009, 06:32:49 PMQuoteStatewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.I should have said "returned and then surpassed" pre-ban levels. You're right, we actually harvest more bears now than before the ban; but a greater percent of those harvests occur in more open country as incidental kills as a direct result of liberal (meaning loose) policies set due to the ban and the likely decline in harvests that resulted from it.RWI thought you meant that, but wasn't sure.I agree that there are too many incidentals as a result of the cheap tags and longer season.And don't forget the few of us (you included) who choose to chase more than one ...RW
I'd be interested to see what the age and sex of harvested bears has done, I bet it's quite a few more sows and young bears are taken now then in the past. I wonder how many cubs are left on their own now.
I dont believe it for a minute...I saw bears absolutly everywhere last year from 10 one day 6 another, in all elevations and times of year...I saw a total of 34 last year...33 of em in washington...But like said before I doubt the game department knows whats going on either...Too many of the damn things in my opinion, keep on killin em!!!