Special trapping permits and dam removal

[Humptulips]

Spoke to a trapper today about this.
It would be best if you did not mention any dam removal. Specifically any mention in the justification section.

The Department will not issue a permit unless two standards are met.
1. There must be damage of some sort.
2. Alternative actions have been tried unsuccessfully.

Recently WDFW has been getting a lot of FOIA requests for Special Trapping permits. The animal rights groups are looking at all your permits. They are looking for any reason to cause problems, mostly with the Department.
This brings us back to beaver dams. It is illegal to remove a beaver dam without a Hydraulic Permit. I know nobody gets them but mentioning it is asking for further scrutiny by animal rights groups and they are looking for anything to throw a monkey wrench into trapping.
The WCO I spoke with today had a permit refused specifically because he mentioned dam removal as part of the justification. Nothing happened to him except he was warned.
Best to be aware any mention of dam removal will be frowned upon.

[Machias]

 

[Naches Sportsman]

I guess common sense to keep your mouth shut about this topic isn't common these days

Can't the hippie fish kissing animal loving tree huggers see this post anyway?

[Pegasus]

I had some adults dam up a creek section below my property years ago. I didn't think too much of it until it was causing my property to flood. I contacted the state and the state examined the dam but claimed I had waited too long for them to remove it. One night I decided to remove the dam myself and went down with a shovel and crowbar. I about died when the dam broke loose. The surge of water evidently triggered the monitors further on down the stream and the next morning a satellite truck appeared trying to figure out what had happened. Unfortunately the creek had already been silted so much and so the cattail vegetation plugged it back up within a few months and the property was destroyed. In hindsight I know those adults intentionally damaged the property to create a wetland and they succeeded and I don't believe they were working alone.

[Cylvertip]

I had my first permits rejected with mention of dam breaching on them (as a means of hazing).   I used to say dams where removed, but that was not accurate.  So with the warning note at the head of this thread I changed to breaching.  I considered this hazing.  Now hazing is in question for beaver, per the note below from WDFW. 

"it was observed that “hazing” was marked as a non-lethal method. This method is not usual or often practical for beaver, and therefore it will require further information about what sort of hazing was conducted, when, and what the result was.

I have also used den breaching (in the past said removal, but it was really breaching) as a method of hazing on my permit requests when applicable.  Wonder if that one will cause a rejection now too?

And FYI -they have updated the permit request form with a line looking for Acres???  There are no explanation of what the specifics are for what they are looking for - Acres of property? or my guess is the number of acres that are to be trapped...

 

Never a dull moment. 


 

[Humptulips]

On the acres part they want approximate acreage of the property. They are only expecting your best estimate and will never check on it so take your best shot. This was put in because some timber companies are putting in permits asking for 3000 to 4000 animals on them. Of course they would never think of denying a permit for W. Just you little guys get questioned.
You might try hanging a bag of moth balls near the dam. Not sure how it would work but it should qualify as hazing. Call it noxious eviction fumes.
On another note I applied for a STP for coyotes and had my requested number cut in half but they hand out a permit to W for 3000 mountain beavers.

[Turner89]

I've been having trouble getting permits for beaver lately. I even had to have the city write an email to a wildlife biologist telling them why they wanted the beaver removed. The biologist responded by telling the city to hire a beaver trapper.
 I forwarded that email along with my 2nd app. They finally issued the permit for 2ea beaver.  What a pain in the butt.

[Cylvertip]

Turner89, at least the tribes aren't sponsoring the relocation of beaver up to you neck of the woods like they were previously... oh, wait, never mind

Yeah, I have had them cut a renewal permit number in half too.   Mothballs and maybe coyote urine it is.  I will share my results

[Skyvalhunter]

Your wrong Cylvertip they are sponsoring relocation of beaver in Turners neck of the woods.

[lewy]

I have had my # request cut in half on every permit as well

[Cylvertip]

Your wrong Cylvertip they are sponsoring relocation of beaver in Turners neck of the woods.

. Yeah - my poor attempt at a joke.   

[JakeLand]

Turner89, at least the tribes aren't sponsoring the relocation of beaver up to you neck of the woods like they were previously... oh, wait, never mind

Yeah, I have had them cut a renewal permit number in half too.   Mothballs and maybe coyote urine it is.  I will share my results

ya I caught a couple last year that had ear tags

[wags]

How about all trappers and NWCO folks just stop doing ANY fur bearer complaint trapping. It will be fun watching how the Department responds.

[Cylvertip]

My clients would be the ones that suffer. Some I have trapped for since before the ban was in place - AKA - before they were clients.
 

I resubmitted 5 permit requests yesterday. They were all approved today.   
Here is how I explained hazing under the Results/ Justification section of the permit:
 
"Hazing in the forms of:  physical harassment, the use of moth balls placed on dams as a chemical deterrent, as well as the use of coyote urine placed on runs has been ineffective in stopping damaging activity."

 Plagiarize away NWCO's. 

[Machias]

Nice!!