Spring bear changes on the table!!!

[luvmystang67]

Submitted proposals.

Asked for significantly expanded spring permits and areas. (I told them that I thought this was as good as I could expect from WDFW).

My second proposal was for a spring general season at no extra cost.  I told them that perhaps they could get some of us back on their side by expanding opportunity without additional cost.  I said the only reason this is #2 is for that exact reason... they don't seem to be interest in expanding opportunity without some revenue generation.

I also mentioned that if harvest totals are a concern with two general seasons... they could make hunters pick one, spring or fall.  I think I would pick spring for something to do!

[jasnt]

If they needed to limit spring harvest they could run it like late season cougar with quota.  Call before you hunt. I think it could generate plenty of revenue, if your out hunting turkey you may as well have a spring bear tag just in case

[CackleBird98]

Just sent an email.  We'll see if it gets a response...  Probably not but hopefully does some good. 

[WildlifeAssassin]

I think we all agree more spring opportunity is in order. Having watched and listened to how the fall changes were presented, questioned and discussed I doubt OTC is going to happen because they love to ask worst case scenario questions. Depending on the math used the 23% overall success rate on spring hunts will stop that. So here is my suggestion for managing spring seasons.

Make bear season harvest reports due by the end of November. Based on the harvest data and a couple other metrics (conflict reports, fawn/calf survival rate, total bear population) on a unit to unit basis statewide provide spring tags that would match the desired harvest levels. This would allow yearly changes that would maximize opportunity without threatening the long term health of the population. Since they no longer publish spring hunts in the pamphlet, little changes on our end other than hunts may look a little different each year when we go to apply.

I don’t like the call in quota thing they have set up for lions as it prevents any long term planning because you never know if it’ll be open or not. If they set tag allotments every winter, then issue draw tags they still get their money and we are still able to plan trips in advance. I think adding more units would increase applicants as well, boosting revenue for WDFW without pissing hunters off.

If you see holes in my plan I would like to hear them.

[zackmioli]

i will be sending in an email, and will post about this opportunity to have our voices heard via the Pacific North Wild social media outlets! hope we can get even more emails sent in!

[Bango skank]

I think we all agree more spring opportunity is in order. Having watched and listened to how the fall changes were presented, questioned and discussed I doubt OTC is going to happen because they love to ask worst case scenario questions. Depending on the math used the 23% overall success rate on spring hunts will stop that. So here is my suggestion for managing spring seasons.

Make bear season harvest reports due by the end of November. Based on the harvest data and a couple other metrics (conflict reports, fawn/calf survival rate, total bear population) on a unit to unit basis statewide provide spring tags that would match the desired harvest levels. This would allow yearly changes that would maximize opportunity without threatening the long term health of the population. Since they no longer publish spring hunts in the pamphlet, little changes on our end other than hunts may look a little different each year when we go to apply.

I don’t like the call in quota thing they have set up for lions as it prevents any long term planning because you never know if it’ll be open or not. If they set tag allotments every winter, then issue draw tags they still get their money and we are still able to plan trips in advance. I think adding more units would increase applicants as well, boosting revenue for WDFW without pissing hunters off.

If you see holes in my plan I would like to hear them.

Holes in your plan: to have a desired harvest level they would have to know how many bears there are in each unit / region.  They dont.  there are no official population estimates.
  Even if they did come up with official popiulation estimates, they would be absurdly low, and so would our quotas.  Just look at our cougar problem if you doubt that.
  An otc spring hunt would never "threaten the long term health of the population." Idaho has otc spring, second bear tags, plus they have baiting, hound hunting, aand lots of non res hunters too, and their bear numbers arent in any danger.  we do NOT need quotas, we need our bear numbers reduced to help our ungulates, and guaranteed if we did end up with a quota system it would prevent that by being set absurdly low.  i think we would be worse off with a quota system than we are now in regards to our predator numbers.

Another hole in your plan.  in order to have a quota type system be meaningful at all, they would have to have a mandatory hide sealing program like with lions, to ensure everybody is actually reporting their harvest.  Who wants to deal with that? I sure dont, and im sure wdfw doesnt.  And no the tooth submittal isnt the same thing.  lots of guys still dont submit teeth or report harvest.  But a hide sealing requirement would have to be followed or a taxi wouldnt touch a bear, just like with lions.

Seriously, if they have a quota / harvest guideline type system that will determine spring permit numbers, but they do not have mandatory hide sealing in effect, a lot of folks simply wont report, in order to have more spring opportunity.  thats the reality.  We want our bear numbers reduced, and if hunters just not reporting their harvest and paying the $10 fee was seen as a way to accomplish that, then thats exactly what would happen.

[WildlifeAssassin]

Holes in your plan: to have a desired harvest level they would have to know how many bears there are in each unit / region.  They dont.  there are no official population estimates.
  Even if they did come up with official popiulation estimates, they would be absurdly low, and so would our quotas.  Just look at our cougar problem if you doubt that.
  An otc spring hunt would never "threaten the long term health of the population." Idaho has otc spring, second bear tags, plus they have baiting, hound hunting, aand lots of non res hunters too, and their bear numbers arent in any danger.  we do NOT need quotas, we need our bear numbers reduced to help our ungulates, and guaranteed if we did end up with a quota system it would prevent that by being set absurdly low.  i think we would be worse off with a quota system than we are now in regards to our predator numbers.

Another hole in your plan.  in order to have a quota type system be meaningful at all, they would have to have a mandatory hide sealing program like with lions, to ensure everybody is actually reporting their harvest.  Who wants to deal with that? And no the tooth submittal isnt the same thing.  lots of guys still dont submit teeth or report harvest.  But a hide sealing requirement would have to be followed or a taxi wouldnt touch a bear, just like with lions.

Seriously, if they have a quota / harvest guideline type system that will determine spring permit numbers, but they do not have mandatory hide sealing in effect, a lot of folks simply wont report, in order to have more spring opportunity.  thats the reality.  We want our bear numbers reduced.

I concede they don’t have good population data right now however there is a study coming out that is supposed to layout the scientific method for obtaining that data in a cost effective manner. In the meantime, they could use another metric such as not allowing harvest greater than 80% of the historical highest harvest (spring+fall). I recognize the metric would be decided in house of WDFW and that they would most likely estimate low, conservative management is their style.

While an OTC hunt wouldn’t threaten the population (you know and I know) I am talking about the the commission and the plan standing up to public scrutiny. This ain’t Idaho. Wa has 4.3X the population, ID has 2.67X as much public land and a population that isn’t made up of drug addled tranny SJW’s.

When it comes to quotas, they already exist to some degree it just isn’t transparent to those outside the department. They allow x amount of spring tags per unit. How they come up with them I don’t know. I also hate the lion system we have but 1 thing at a time.

In regards to actual harvest reporting, they can require a tooth to be submitted or you receive a fine and can’t buy a tag the next year. There are ways that can be enforced without having to set up an appointment and doing it in person. Taxidermists and tanneries are choke points that enforcement could watch. There are always ways to game the system but DNA would make it pretty easy to prosecute anyone trying to cheat.

Nothing is perfect and we just received a big bump in fall hunting opportunities so I think our best bet is for incremental change in the right direction. Swinging for OTC spring bear may result in no change at all, similar to what you said about bait and dogs. From what I have heard from bios during the fall season procedure they are pretty reasonable and do what they can in the limits of data and an overly emotional and uneducated general population. Bear hunters that buy a tag make up .0028% of the population in this state. Right or wrong, better or worse  we have to work with WDFW to have any progress.

[Bango skank]

Holes in your plan: to have a desired harvest level they would have to know how many bears there are in each unit / region.  They dont.  there are no official population estimates.
  Even if they did come up with official popiulation estimates, they would be absurdly low, and so would our quotas.  Just look at our cougar problem if you doubt that.
  An otc spring hunt would never "threaten the long term health of the population." Idaho has otc spring, second bear tags, plus they have baiting, hound hunting, aand lots of non res hunters too, and their bear numbers arent in any danger.  we do NOT need quotas, we need our bear numbers reduced to help our ungulates, and guaranteed if we did end up with a quota system it would prevent that by being set absurdly low.  i think we would be worse off with a quota system than we are now in regards to our predator numbers.

Another hole in your plan.  in order to have a quota type system be meaningful at all, they would have to have a mandatory hide sealing program like with lions, to ensure everybody is actually reporting their harvest.  Who wants to deal with that? And no the tooth submittal isnt the same thing.  lots of guys still dont submit teeth or report harvest.  But a hide sealing requirement would have to be followed or a taxi wouldnt touch a bear, just like with lions.

Seriously, if they have a quota / harvest guideline type system that will determine spring permit numbers, but they do not have mandatory hide sealing in effect, a lot of folks simply wont report, in order to have more spring opportunity.  thats the reality.  We want our bear numbers reduced.

In regards to actual harvest reporting, they can require a tooth to be submitted or you receive a fine and can’t buy a tag the next year. There are ways that can be enforced without having to set up an appointment and doing it in person. Taxidermists and tanneries are choke points that enforcement could watch. There are always ways to game the system but DNA would make it pretty easy to prosecute anyone trying to cheat.

How could they fine you for not submitting a tooth if they dont know if you harvested or not due to you not doing your hunt reporting? So basically the fine would be for not reporting.  that already exists.  the only change, based off what youre saying, would be to not allow somebody to purchase a license the following year if they dont report.  not gonna happen, loss of revenue..  and if they WERE to start denying people licenses for not reporting, then would they end up applying that to deer elk and cougar too? Huge loss of revenue.  no, they will never prevent you from buying a license for not reporting, and if you dont report they dont know if you harvested and cant nail you for not submitting a tooth.  A quota type system absolutely would require a physical check in and sealing of every bear, just like cougar.  thats why they do cougar the way they do.

[WildlifeAssassin]

By having taxidermist/tanneries take a sample for DNA sequencing compared to a DNA bank from tooth samples they can be matched to confirm reporting. If no match track down hunter and apply penalties. The data would also inform on population and be an excellent resource for bear studies. Obviously you could not get it tanned but let’s be real you can do that with a lion right now as well. That’s why we have wardens and have to keep each other honest. There is no perfect system.

[Bango skank]

By having taxidermist/tanneries take a sample for DNA sequencing compared to a DNA bank from tooth samples they can be matched to confirm reporting. If no match track down hunter and apply penalties.

Sorry, but i see that as totally unrealistic.  a burden on the state, and a burden on the taxidermist, expensive, and a huge logistical mess trying to implement and run, with a high likelihood of screwups on wdfws part resulting in major headaches for hunters, and a high liklihood of screwups on the taxidermists part also resulting in giant headaches for hunters.  it would never happen.  A physical check in like for cougars would be much simpler and more likely to happen.  the better option is simply to not use a quota system, especially considering our lack of a formal population estimate, and the absolute guarantee that if wdfw does come up with a formal population estimate for each unit, it will be way off base from reality, just like cougar numbers.

[WildlifeAssassin]

It really isn’t much of a burden. Taxis already send in teeth, hair is even easier. The state already has the labs, tech and people to do it. It would cost more but if they made spring bear an actual quality hunt with units statewide and appropriate numbers of tags I would have no problem paying the extra 6 bucks for a quality app.

We have been given the chance to get bear populations in check with 2 tags statewide and 3 1/2 months in the fall to fill said tags. I view spring as an opportunity to get out during a different season and put some pressure on the predators so they can’t just camp on fawning grounds with impunity.

I also recognize you’re coming from the perspective of the NE. I love your trail cam thread and obviously the area needs lots of hunter attention. I think you would be well suited to speak at a commission meeting with a slide show to prove this is an issue

[WildlifeAssassin]

https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/wdfw-director-susewind-take-online-questions-asotin-columbia-ferry-garfield-lincoln-pend

Another opportunity to be heard...

[Bango skank]

It really isn’t much of a burden. Taxis already send in teeth, hair is even easier. The state already has the labs, tech and people to do it. It would cost more but if they made spring bear an actual quality hunt with units statewide and appropriate numbers of tags I would have no problem paying the extra 6 bucks for a quality app.

We have been given the chance to get bear populations in check with 2 tags statewide and 3 1/2 months in the fall to fill said tags. I view spring as an opportunity to get out during a different season and put some pressure on the predators so they can’t just camp on fawning grounds with impunity.

I also recognize you’re coming from the perspective of the NE. I love your trail cam thread and obviously the area needs lots of hunter attention. I think you would be well suited to speak at a commission meeting with a slide show to prove this is an issue

Taxis already send in teeth, but if they screw up and get the names confused on them it wont end up causing legal trouble for the hunter.  and yes we have an opportunity to address bear overpopulation with our 2 bear bag limit and august opener now, but as soon as some absurd desired harvest guideline is implemented, that could go right out the window.  It would open the doors for them to decide on limiting fall harvest.  I think youre making everything more complicated than it needs to be, and your idea creates too much wiggle room for the state to restrict harvest, even in the fall, taking away our chamce for more aggressive predator management that we have achieved through the last proposal.  Everything about what youre suggesting would be excessively complicated and burdensome with too much room for screwups.  Better to keep everything simple.  Like just doubling current permit numbers, adding additional units, and thats that if no otc.

[WildlifeAssassin]

Fair enough. I’ll be in your neck of the woods in August to try to do my part. Looking forward to your harvest pics. Appreciate the discussion.

[Seabass]

Totally agree Bango! We are making progress...