Timber farm bear hunts 'illegal,' Humane Society says

[CementFinisher]

I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.

I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! 

thanks dale. 

[CementFinisher]

Spring bear boot hunters will never replace the effectiveness of hound hunting. also your talking population control by having spring bear hunts, this is not how the depredation hunts are ran, they are targeted hunts with a ton of rules.

[greenhead_killer]

The hsus is one of the biggest modern day scams! It would be nice to see them knocked down a bit. On the issue of bears in timber land, it’s private land and a business, let them keep control of it

[pianoman9701]

The hsus is one of the biggest modern day scams! It would be nice to see them knocked down a bit. On the issue of bears in timber land, it’s private land and a business, let them keep control of it

Unfortunately or fortunately, private landowners don't own the wildlife on their land. The people do. Wildlife laws apply to animals anywhere within the state's boundaries, public or private.

[CementFinisher]

The hsus is one of the biggest modern day scams! It would be nice to see them knocked down a bit. On the issue of bears in timber land, it’s private land and a business, let them keep control of it

Unfortunately or fortunately, private landowners don't own the wildlife on their land. The people do. Wildlife laws apply to animals anywhere within the state's boundaries, public or private.

No laws are being broken on these hunts. there was an exception written into the law for depredation hunts. King 5 has blatantly disregarded this in all these special reports.

[CementFinisher]

all private landowners can work with the state on property loss due to wildlife, even though they don't own the wildlife

[Special T]

I don't think they broke the law, there is an exemption  for timber farms. Not a shocker that  5 spewed a bunch of B'S.

I also think it's fair that since timber companies have not lobbied in support of sportsmen, that sportsmen sit on thier hands in regards to this excemption... perhaps if They want to seek sportsmen support they could  do something... thier lobby is much bigger, organized and financed than Sportsmen.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[X-Force]

Am I wrong or does the initiative not matter anymore because it has been 20 years? I thought those votes are only held as law for X number of years then they can be changed, modified, repealed by elected representatives.

I don't see this suit going anywhere but its a big headline grabber and i can already see another initiative in the works.

[Special T]

Am I wrong or does the initiative not matter anymore because it has been 20 years? I thought those votes are only held as law for X number of years then they can be changed, modified, repealed by elective representatives.

I don't see this suit going anywhere but its a big headline grabber and i can already see another initiative in the works.

I think after 2 years the legislature can change or overturn... just look at how many times we have voted for $30 car tabs!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Humptulips]

The Department is on shakey legal ground with the hound hunting because of the wording saying the hound hunter has to be an agent of State, County or Federal government.
They are on firm legal ground  with regard to the feeding stations as per I-655. I am not so sure how that would play out with not to long ago passed Legislation to keep people from feeding bears. Seems like a pretty easy fix if they are in violation there permit wise.
HSUS mentions trapping though and the Department is on firm legal ground there.

My guess is this will drive more timber companies to embrace bear snaring programs. I think this is already happening.

I think there may be an opportunity here. Right now in WAC 220-440-060 Section (3)(d) it says  " Landowners are encouraged to allow general season hunting and trapping on their property to help minimize damage potential and concerns."
We should push for stronger language that would allow the Department to deny Special Trapping permits (Those are needed to snare bear) if public hunting and trapping is not utilized when the Department deems it appropriate.

[HighCountryHunter88]

can a private land owner hold the state liable for damages done to private property caused by state owned (the people) wildlife

[Boss .300 winmag]

I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.

I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! 

Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.

 

Now thier gonna have to spend some cash on lawyers.

Probably just up thier trespass fees, but hey I don’t give them money for that. 

[wheels]

first i far from against  hound hunting  / baiting i hope we get it back some day  but i see this as more as pest control protecting  there property  maybe if they had more spring bear tags  wouldnt need to pay for it

[bearpaw]

I will not be affected either way on this issue, I hunt my dogs in Idaho, but this is one of the few legal ways that someone who owns hounds and lives in Washington can still use their hounds in Washington. Take this away and you are taking away about all that's left for those hunters to use their dogs. 

[hhack]

I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.