Timber farm bear hunts 'illegal,' Humane Society says

[bearpaw]

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.

I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.

[Stein]

The state should push for more public hunting and access on that land as a first means of control before they go to any of the methods mentioned.  There should be a way to strike a deal, maybe say the timber company can allow 50 free access special permit draw hunts and then the department will trap/shoot/bomb/whatever an equal amount of bears?  I would look for a win/win/stick-it-to-HSUS option here.

[Special T]

The state should push for more public hunting and access on that land as a first means of control before they go to any of the methods mentioned.  There should be a way to strike a deal, maybe say the timber company can allow 50 free access special permit draw hunts and then the department will trap/shoot/bomb/whatever an equal amount of bears?  I would look for a win/win/stick-it-to-HSUS option here.

This is what the timber companies should push for...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[KFhunter]

feel free 2 hunt -  or they can 

[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.

I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.

I don't see why hound hunters can't just chase bears without killing them. They can have a buddy tag along and wack the bear. Wdfw would have a fun time proving that if people were clever.

[Humptulips]

The state should push for more public hunting and access on that land as a first means of control before they go to any of the methods mentioned.  There should be a way to strike a deal, maybe say the timber company can allow 50 free access special permit draw hunts and then the department will trap/shoot/bomb/whatever an equal amount of bears?  I would look for a win/win/stick-it-to-HSUS option here.

Legally the Department cannot force anyone to open their land to public hunting.
That should be a requirement before Special Permits are written except in unusual circumstances. See my post on the first page.
Now the department has nothing to give to strike a deal. Give them power to deny permits so they have some bargaining power.

[JimmyHoffa]

It would only affect state houndsmen.  Tribal houndsmen would have another monopoly.

[CAMPMEAT]

The Humane Society is one of the biggest frauds in the USA. They kill more animals than what they save.

[Stein]

The state should push for more public hunting and access on that land as a first means of control before they go to any of the methods mentioned.  There should be a way to strike a deal, maybe say the timber company can allow 50 free access special permit draw hunts and then the department will trap/shoot/bomb/whatever an equal amount of bears?  I would look for a win/win/stick-it-to-HSUS option here.

Legally the Department cannot force anyone to open their land to public hunting.
That should be a requirement before Special Permits are written except in unusual circumstances. See my post on the first page.
Now the department has nothing to give to strike a deal. Give them power to deny permits so they have some bargaining power.

Not force, make a deal.  I'm not sure if they are legally required to help with bear damage the same way they do with wolf damage, so they may have some bargaining chips.  If nothing else, they could stop today until the lawsuits are over and settled.

[fireweed]

I don't feel sorry for the timber companies one whiff.  First off, they CHARGE for hunters to come and kill their problem bears, even for damage tags like west side spring bear.  Its ridiculous--complaining to the state about bear damage, then charging hunters access fees to kill their bears.

Where were they back 20 years ago when this was passed?  Did you see them out working with sportsmen to stop the initiative?  Nope--they got their open ended carve out courtesy of their lobbyists at WFPA, so they didn't care one bit that it passed.  And you can bet the HSUS and other anti-hunting sponsors were happy to put in that carve out to keep big timber money from fighting their initiative. 

This current bear situation is exactly why big timber needs the support of sportsmen, and visa versa.  But timber companies have turned their back on that win-win relationship, and now their gonna pay (too). 

[Boss .300 winmag]

I don't feel sorry for the timber companies one whiff.  First off, they CHARGE for hunters to come and kill their problem bears, even for damage tags like west side spring bear.  Its ridiculous--complaining to the state about bear damage, then charging hunters access fees to kill their bears.

Where were they back 20 years ago when this was passed?  Did you see them out working with sportsmen to stop the initiative?  Nope--they got their open ended carve out courtesy of their lobbyists at WFPA, so they didn't care one bit that it passed.  And you can bet the HSUS and other anti-hunting sponsors were happy to put in that carve out to keep big timber money from fighting their initiative. 

This current bear situation is exactly why big timber needs the support of sportsmen, and visa versa.  But timber companies have turned their back on that win-win relationship, and now their gonna pay (too).

Here here!

[HntnFsh]

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

Yes. The state does crop damage mitigation all the time.

[HighCountryHunter88]

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

Yes. The state does crop damage mitigation all the time.

so then the state really doesnt have anything to bargain with  if they take away the hounds and snaring then the timber companies can just sue them for the damages... is what im guessing

[pianoman9701]

I don't feel sorry for the timber companies one whiff.  First off, they CHARGE for hunters to come and kill their problem bears, even for damage tags like west side spring bear.  Its ridiculous--complaining to the state about bear damage, then charging hunters access fees to kill their bears.

Where were they back 20 years ago when this was passed?  Did you see them out working with sportsmen to stop the initiative?  Nope--they got their open ended carve out courtesy of their lobbyists at WFPA, so they didn't care one bit that it passed.  And you can bet the HSUS and other anti-hunting sponsors were happy to put in that carve out to keep big timber money from fighting their initiative. 

This current bear situation is exactly why big timber needs the support of sportsmen, and visa versa.  But timber companies have turned their back on that win-win relationship, and now their gonna pay (too).

Here here!

x2 Although, it'll probably be the taxpayers who pay for wildlife damages.

[DOUBLELUNG]

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.

I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.

Bearpaw is spot on.  It will be a sad day in Washington when there are no houndsmen to call after someone is mauled by a cougar.  Karelian bear dogs can't do everything.