Timber farm bear hunts 'illegal,' Humane Society says

[Boss .300 winmag]

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.

They don’t do crap now anyways. 

[KFhunter]

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.

They don’t do crap now anyways. 

 

I can think of a bigger waste of money  ($800k wolf advocate errr mediator on the WAG) but not many

[pd]

@BearPaw, I hope that you have a bit of understanding towards what @BobCat has stated.  I think he speaks for many, out of great frustration.

I didn't live here when the initiatives were passed, so I can't comment on the history.  But I, too, have felt a lot of frustration with the State regarding Spring bear hunts.  For the average hunter (who cannot bait or use dogs), Spring bear hunting is a really tough proposition.  Have you ever looked at the hunter success rates for a unit that is primarily private timber land (e.g. Copalis)?  The odds are terrible!  Thick vegetation, no dogs, no bait, and yet this is a draw only hunt, AND you pay to access the property.  Yet, on the other hand, the private timber companies have been able (with WDFW's blessing all along) to use both bait and hounds to remove bears.

But the worse part about it is the waste: Bears taken by private timber companies cannot be salvaged (no meat, no fur, no skull may be taken).  So they just waste the bear!  This is insanity.

Washington state has one of the highest black bear populations in the lower 48, and bears are a serious cause of property damage.  To remove bears during the Spring, the best solution is a combination of hounds and bait.  WDFW already acknowledges this, and the state has been sanctioning this for 20+ years.  There is a loophole in the initiative to allow the department to do this.

The solution is simple: Acknowledge the benefit of hound + bait hunting, regulate it tightly, but let licensed hunters in on the game.

HSUS has made some good points, and--frankly--I am happy they forced the issue.  The end result is by no means tilted in our favor, in fact it could have dire consequences for us all.  Too bad we don't have a split legislature anymore, we might have had some influence over the governor.  I am not hopeful.

[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.

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.

How pray tell is WDFW going to deal? Right now if you apply for a Special Trapping permit and you fill out the paperwork correctly the Department has no recourse but to grant it.
If the timber companies cannot get their bears killed for free by hound guys they will just snare them. A simple change would give the Department a little bargaining power to open closed lands to hunting and trapping.
To another point the Department does not have to pay crop damages for commercial timber.

[KFhunter]

They could snare them?  Over bait?

[Blacktail Sniper]

For conversations sake:

Say HSUS pushes the issue and gets the law changed to remove property damage as reason to lethally remove bears, be it with hounds or bait, but leaves the language regarding public safety.

The public safety clause would still allow hounds for instances where people are at risk, but not merely to protect property, what then would the timber companies alternatives be to address tree damage?

Use the USDA for lethal removal?

Thoughts on them pushing against the big timber lobby hard enough to bring them (and their money) into the mix as the opposition.

Just tossing these out for discussion from some different perspectives.

[Humptulips]

They could snare them?  Over bait?

Yes, you didn't know it was happening? What is more you can't do it. There is a secretive process for permitting bear snarers. There are a small number of people that do this for timber companies plus APHIS does the work also.

[KFhunter]

No, interesting. 

I learn stuff all the time on this forum

[Humptulips]

For conversations sake:

Say HSUS pushes the issue and gets the law changed to remove property damage as reason to lethally remove bears, be it with hounds or bait, but leaves the language regarding public safety.

The public safety clause would still allow hounds for instances where people are at risk, but not merely to protect property, what then would the timber companies alternatives be to address tree damage?

Use the USDA for lethal removal?

Thoughts on them pushing against the big timber lobby hard enough to bring them (and their money) into the mix as the opposition.

Just tossing these out for discussion from some different perspectives.

Maybe a time to rehash the gist of HSUS's lawsuit.
I do not believe there is a problem with using hounds except the houndmen have to be agents of the State, County or Feds. That leaves out most if not all hound guys.
There is no such restriction for trappers. Trappers can work as contractors and be in full compliance. This from 655

(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the
10 killing of black bear with the aid of bait by employees or agents of
11 county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official
12 capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals,
13 private property, or the public safety.

[lokidog]

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.

So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?

No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.

oh, i thought you were saying you hoped using dogs to do depredation kills on bear would be deemed illegal. i was just making an example of depredation more relateble (since you don't own a tree farm) that would also be deemed illegal.

Actually, your comparison is not valid.  The law states, according to the article, that WDFW may remove problem bears (and cougar I would assume) using hounds.  The law does not state that  agents of Weyerhauser, etc. may do so.

BTW, I am not in support of HSUS, I am in support of opening up bear hunting opportunities to the public. Timber companies want bear removed, crawl to us hunters....   

[Alan K]

Believe it or not, timber companies don't have any problem with black bears. In fact, its a benefit for them in the eyes SFI to maintain broad biodiversity and have robust wildlife populations.

What they do have a problem with is specifically the damage causing bears. If anyone can provide a more realistic and effective way of targeting specific damaging bears, I'm certain they'd listen. When a forester discovers a stand being peeled, they can often secure a permit within a day or two with a photo of damage and GPS coordinates for proof. WDFW folks verify damage at their soonest availability, and if a photo or coordinates were fabricated the applicant is in BIG trouble. There are a number of hound guys (and I believe all of the ones the state is comfortable with issuing permits to are WCO's as well) ready to take care of the problem and be right there. The speed in which you jump on these things is paramount to getting the culprit bear. From what I know of things, the hunters show up, strike the bear typically right there in the damaged stand, and have it removed within hours of arriving.

Of course we'd all like additional hunting opportunity. In my opinion the -general- season should start July 1, about the time that peeling stops as the berries come on.  There is no doubt the population could sustain it, and it would help ungulate populations out.  The issue with spring bear boot hunting is that it is ineffective targeting specific bears, and cannot overlap with the effective and culprit bear targeting houndsmen. Same reasons there isn't supplemental feeding in areas with spring boot hunts. There would be questions in the mind of LEO's that a bear was harvested over a supplemental feeding site or with hounds under a spring bear tag.

[HighCountryHunter88]

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.

So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?

No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.

oh, i thought you were saying you hoped using dogs to do depredation kills on bear would be deemed illegal. i was just making an example of depredation more relateble (since you don't own a tree farm) that would also be deemed illegal.

Actually, your comparison is not valid.  The law states, according to the article, that WDFW may remove problem bears (and cougar I would assume) using hounds.  The law does not state that  agents of Weyerhauser, etc. may do so.

BTW, I am not in support of HSUS, I am in support of opening up bear hunting opportunities to the public. Timber companies want bear removed, crawl to us hunters....   

the bear hunters are not agents of the timber companies, they are in the state program, ran by state employees. they get tags from the state and have to find damage, in most cases take photo evidence with timestamp and gps concordance of damage for biologist to inspect before they are given tags.

also, if they are no longer allowed to use dogs or snares, they will just go to feeding programs, if theyre no longer able to do that then they will hold the state and tax payers liable for the state owned bears damage to their crop.

[HighCountryHunter88]

Believe it or not, timber companies don't have any problem with black bears. In fact, its a benefit for them in the eyes SFI to maintain broad biodiversity and have robust wildlife populations.

What they do have a problem with is specifically the damage causing bears. If anyone can provide a more realistic and effective way of targeting specific damaging bears, I'm certain they'd listen. When a forester discovers a stand being peeled, they can often secure a permit within a day or two with a photo of damage and GPS coordinates for proof. WDFW folks verify damage at their soonest availability, and if a photo or coordinates were fabricated the applicant is in BIG trouble. There are a number of hound guys (and I believe all of the ones the state is comfortable with issuing permits to are WCO's as well) ready to take care of the problem and be right there. The speed in which you jump on these things is paramount to getting the culprit bear. From what I know of things, the hunters show up, strike the bear typically right there in the damaged stand, and have it removed within hours of arriving.

Of course we'd all like additional hunting opportunity. In my opinion the -general- season should start July 1, about the time that peeling stops as the berries come on.  There is no doubt the population could sustain it, and it would help ungulate populations out.  The issue with spring bear boot hunting is that it is ineffective targeting specific bears, and cannot overlap with the effective and culprit bear targeting houndsmen. Same reasons there isn't supplemental feeding in areas with spring boot hunts. There would be questions in the mind of LEO's that a bear was harvested over a supplemental feeding site or with hounds under a spring bear tag.

 

[Pegasus]

All you need to know about the Humane Society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=X9nJSWpV49w

[Humptulips]

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.

So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?

No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.

oh, i thought you were saying you hoped using dogs to do depredation kills on bear would be deemed illegal. i was just making an example of depredation more relateble (since you don't own a tree farm) that would also be deemed illegal.

Actually, your comparison is not valid.  The law states, according to the article, that WDFW may remove problem bears (and cougar I would assume) using hounds.  The law does not state that  agents of Weyerhauser, etc. may do so.

BTW, I am not in support of HSUS, I am in support of opening up bear hunting opportunities to the public. Timber companies want bear removed, crawl to us hunters....   

the bear hunters are not agents of the timber companies, they are in the state program, ran by state employees. they get tags from the state and have to find damage, in most cases take photo evidence with timestamp and gps concordance of damage for biologist to inspect before they are given tags.

also, if they are no longer allowed to use dogs or snares, they will just go to feeding programs, if theyre no longer able to do that then they will hold the state and tax payers liable for the state owned bears damage to their crop.

The bear hunters are considered contractors. I doubt the State wants to take them on as agents because of liability concerns.
The feeding programs do not work. Everyone I have spoken with say they increase damage in areas by concentrating bears near the feeder. A big boar will sit on the feeder and other bears will eat bark because they can't get in to the feeder.
You can say what you want about the majority of bears not being a problem but I do not think that is true if there are to many bears in an area. Population control is key to keeping damage down.