Spring bear survey

[Bango skank]

Now that the proposal is out, im just curious to see how people responded to the survey.  Poll up top.  Survey.  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GBQYXCN

[johnnyaustin44]

I agreed with added tags but felt like there should of been every unit in the state getting added tags for spring. I also don’t agree with the pelt sealing. 90% of the time the hide stays in the woods with me. How many rugs/soft tans does a guy need. Especially when you actually target bears, killing a couple a year isn’t as difficult as it seems.

[Stein]

I took it in support.  More tags and more areas open are better.  It's easier to deal with the minor stuff in the future than it is to increase tags or areas.  I'll probably never agree 100% with a proposal, but it looked like a step in the right direction.

[Bango skank]

I took it in support.  More tags and more areas open are better. 

Except we have the same number of areas open, and a total of 111 less tags.

[Special T]

Is it possible the data from the mandatory sex/hide inspections will be used to support future changes?

Isn't one of the biggest concerns that too many females will be harvested during the spring?

It looks like the Monroe tags are not coming back anytime soon. 

[X-Force]

I surveyed against. We have a state wide 2 bear fall season we should be able to carry that into the spring as well. Hunter success would go way up in the spring if people were able to harvest 2 bears. The draw odds aren’t good so when people draw they treat it like a trophy tag and hold out for a large bear. Most people eat it. If we could harvest 2 bears lots of people would harvest one bear then hold out for a large one

[Stein]

I took it in support.  More tags and more areas open are better. 

Except we have the same number of areas open, and a total of 111 less tags.

Maybe I should have read closer.    Here is what I saw:

The purpose of the proposed amendments are to align the rules with the appropriate season dates; increased permit numbers in areas where needed, open a new hunt area to address needs, and expand and improve upon information and biological samples collected from harvest bears through a pelt check (with evidence of animal sex included).

Added language to adjust the numbers of permits offered in:
Blue Creek, GMU 154 increased permits from 15 to 18
Dayton, GMU 162 increased permits from 15 to 18
Wenaha, GMU 169 increased permits 45 to 60
Mt. View, GMU 172 increased permits 15 to 24
Lick Creek, GMU 175 increased permits 15 to 18
Added a new hunt area: Peola, GMU 178 with five permits
Remove Kapowsin hunt area

How many permits were in Kapowsin?  If there was a reduction in permits by that much, the survey wasn't exactly forthcoming about that.  It mentioned Kapowsin was being closed on request of the land manager, so that may be going away either way. 

[Bango skank]

150 in kapowsin.  Theyre all gone.  They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits.  Its all right there in the proposal.  Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?

[buckfvr]

I support hunting bears as the predator they are and not purely as a big game trophy.........ya if you kill a big one, great, have it scored, have a rug or mount done, whatever.  Me......its another predator thats ruining the deer, elk, and moose hunting.

[Bango skank]

Here is a link to the proposal.  If you havent read through it yet, please do so before taking the survey.  https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development#19-13-096

[JakeLand]

I opposed it ! With the little information that there was and how fewer tags and the Monroe unit still not open

[Stein]

150 in kapowsin.  Theyre all gone.  They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits.  Its all right there in the proposal.  Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?

I did.  My understanding of it was that the Kapowsin permits were going away per the land manager, so that would happen regardless of what anyone thinks since those permits are all for tree farm land.

[BULLBLASTER]

150 in kapowsin.  Theyre all gone.  They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits.  Its all right there in the proposal.  Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?

I did.  My understanding of it was that the Kapowsin permits were going away per the land manager, so that would happen regardless of what anyone thinks since those permits are all for tree farm land.

I commented that if they don’t want general public hunters in there then they shouldn’t be able to run feed stations or run hounds either. 

[KFhunter]

150 in kapowsin.  Theyre all gone.  They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits.  Its all right there in the proposal.  Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?

I did.  My understanding of it was that the Kapowsin permits were going away per the land manager, so that would happen regardless of what anyone thinks since those permits are all for tree farm land.

Ya, no.

I've always had a problem with timber companies baiting for bear and just killing them when hunters could do it and pay the state to do it.  If they want more success, allow hunters to bait and run hounds on a damage permit but I'm sick of timber companies getting aphis to do it on taxpayer dime and can't use the carcass for anything.

This survey removes a lot of bear hunting opportunity from hunters, and gives APHIS a lot more bears to kill around bait stations. 

loose loose!

[hunter399]

150 in kapowsin.  Theyre all gone.  They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits.  Its all right there in the proposal.  Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?

I did.  My understanding of it was that the Kapowsin permits were going away per the land manager, so that would happen regardless of what anyone thinks since those permits are all for tree farm land.

Ya, no.

I've always had a problem with timber companies baiting for bear and just killing them when hunters could do it and pay the state to do it.  If they want more success, allow hunters to bait and run hounds on a damage permit but I'm sick of timber companies getting aphis to do it on taxpayer dime and can't use the carcass for anything.

This survey removes a lot of bear hunting opportunity from hunters, and gives APHIS a lot more bears to kill around bait stations. 

loose loose!

I'm sick of it as well.Timber company's a.k.a (oj simpson) of bear baiting and hound hunting.Just cause you own tons of land and have dump trucks of money doesn't give you the right to break Washington laws.In the mean time take hunting opportunity away from hunters.BS all the way around.

[Bango skank]

And kapowsin had 367 applicants last year.  Thats going to be more names in the hat for other hunts next year, with 111 less tags to go around.

[cougforester]

I’m getting 38 tags added, so net loss of 112. Not a huge deal, but worth noting if folks want to use the math when making comments.
+3, +3, +15, +9, +3, +5 = 38
150-38=112

[Bango skank]

Thanks for the correction there

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I took the survey in neutral, stated that I thought that if a private timber company wanted to use lethal control practices then the WDFW's first priority should be to the sportsmen/women of Washington state.
I advocated a general spring season like were historically offered in Washington, in select units that showed high tree damage, low calf/fawn recruitment and increased bear/human conflicts.

[ibuyre]

I opposed. There should be a general spring season and that's what I told them. Along with the fact that they should be adding opportunity not reducing it, and not everyone recovers the hide, some are in bad shape and some of this is in really steep country. Plus as someone that has drawn and hunted the Copalis tag and hunted mostly in GMU 648 makes me a little ticked to learn now that the forest service lands where open there, when the way I read there regs my tag was only good for private timber land..... If drawn for that tag again, I am going to phone them for clarification on that, since to me it still isn't clear. Shame, saw a really nice bear on forest service land in 648 and would have shot it.... BUT my tag went unfilled because I couldn't find anything bigger than a yearling on private timber land. Well... I found there tracks and other signs, but couldn't call them out in the day, seemed like they where strictly nocturnal on private land if they had any size to them.

[justyhntr]

And kapowsin had 367 applicants last year.  Thats going to be more names in the hat for other hunts next year, with 111 less tags to go around.

If the WDFW and Hancock had retained the Kapowsin tags this next season you would not have 367 applicants put in for it this year based on all the BS Hancock pulled last year. I doubt that they would have gotten 150 applicants if the season was retained, Hancock turned that hunt into a total joke.


I took the survey opposing the rule changes, the pelt sealing is total BS. I hunt bear for their delicious flesh and do not retain the hide so why would I need to have the hide sealed.

[dilleytech]

I took the survey and did not support it. It’s a step in the wrong direction as I see it. I told them we need a open spring season and bear baiting again.

[Special T]

I wanted to share this Status and trend report with you all. It essentially covered 2006-2017. From asking around i have heard that 2 areas of concern are at play. To small of a sample size. The Department wants 30% or more of folks to submit teeth for study. The 10 year average is 24%. Statically this sample difference is not large, however the larger the sample the better data they get.  The second area of concern is the havest % of females over 40%. the long term average is good in every unit. that said there are spikes above in 3 units. the worst offender is BBMU 2 which is all of GMU407 and wraps around the Puget Sound.  This also happens to be where there is the most population density.

I would suggest you read this WDFW document and make your comment.  It appears to me that the mandatory hide sealing requirement is overkill.

I also think it is imperative, if we want to keep those that want to reduce predator control at bay, to submit harvest data. I know every year we have friendly reminders on here about hunter reporting, but also the Tooth on bears is important.

I hope this information helps you make a more informed comment for this survey.

[dilleytech]

Me and the wife were looking into getting the envelope for bear tooth submitting and we found it would be about a 2 hour drive to our nearest office. They need to make this a bit more convenient.

[Special T]

Me and the wife were looking into getting the envelope for bear tooth submitting and we found it would be about a 2 hour drive to our nearest office. They need to make this a bit more convenient.

You need a special envelope?  why?

[dilleytech]

Me and the wife were looking into getting the envelope for bear tooth submitting and we found it would be about a 2 hour drive to our nearest office. They need to make this a bit more convenient.

You need a special envelope?  why?

Good question, I would post a picture of the reg rules but hunt Washington won’t let me post pics anymore for some reason.

[Bango skank]

Me and the wife were looking into getting the envelope for bear tooth submitting and we found it would be about a 2 hour drive to our nearest office. They need to make this a bit more convenient.

Just call the nearest regional office, theyll mail the envelopes to you

[pianoman9701]

From the Human Society of the US to Director Susewind. PDF attached:

September 19, 2019
Kelly Susewind, Director
Larry Carpenter, Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 43200
Olympia, WA 98504-3200
Re: Spring black bear (Ursus americanus) permits for 2019-2020
Dear Chairman Carpenter and Director Susewind:
On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and our supporters in
Washington, we submit the following comments on Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife’s (WDFW’s) Proposed Rule on the spring black bear hunting season for
2020. Fig. 1. We oppose the proposed increases because of the risk of killing even more
female bears with newborn and dependent yearling young. According to multiple bear
biologists, spring hunts put females at risk, and also orphan cubs and occur when bears
are physically distressed after months of starvation; hunting vulnerable bears is not
only cruel, it is not in keeping with Washingtonians’ values.
1. Springtime bear hunts are cruel and should be abandoned
Springtime black bear hunts are problem plagued. Despite WDFW’s best intentions,
hunters kill nursing mothers, which orphans cubs leaving them to suffer from
starvation, predation, or exposure.1 Also, spring hunts occur when bears are physically
stressed from months of not eating—when they are literally in a starving state. In
springtime, bears are in “declining physical condition” and are especially vulnerable to
hunter “harassment,”2 which Washington permits to forestall tree damage. Springtime
hunting may cause damage to roads, including causing siltation in streams, or harm to
vulnerable ungulate and other wildlife populations.3 Most Americans do not want
wildlife cruelly treated, and most want black bears protected, and surprisingly, even if
they have attacked someone.4... (continued, see PDF attached)

[pianoman9701]

I see an initiative in our future.

[TheStovePipeKid]

From the Human Society of the US to Director Susewind. PDF attached:

September 19, 2019
Kelly Susewind, Director
Larry Carpenter, Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 43200
Olympia, WA 98504-3200
Re: Spring black bear (Ursus americanus) permits for 2019-2020
Dear Chairman Carpenter and Director Susewind:
On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and our supporters in
Washington, we submit the following comments on Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife’s (WDFW’s) Proposed Rule on the spring black bear hunting season for
2020. Fig. 1. We oppose the proposed increases because of the risk of killing even more
female bears with newborn and dependent yearling young. According to multiple bear
biologists, spring hunts put females at risk, and also orphan cubs and occur when bears
are physically distressed after months of starvation; hunting vulnerable bears is not
only cruel, it is not in keeping with Washingtonians’ values.
1. Springtime bear hunts are cruel and should be abandoned
Springtime black bear hunts are problem plagued. Despite WDFW’s best intentions,
hunters kill nursing mothers, which orphans cubs leaving them to suffer from
starvation, predation, or exposure.1 Also, spring hunts occur when bears are physically
stressed from months of not eating—when they are literally in a starving state. In
springtime, bears are in “declining physical condition” and are especially vulnerable to
hunter “harassment,”2 which Washington permits to forestall tree damage. Springtime
hunting may cause damage to roads, including causing siltation in streams, or harm to
vulnerable ungulate and other wildlife populations.3 Most Americans do not want
wildlife cruelly treated, and most want black bears protected, and surprisingly, even if
they have attacked someone.4... (continued, see PDF attached)

Have people entirely lost the ability to make factual statements and back them up with legitimate proof? According to multiple biologist, who are these people and what are their credentials? Most Americans want to protect dangerous black bears who've attacked people? Where is the proof to back that ridiculous statement? They might as well have written, "Dear WDFW, stop being big meanies to bears cause we don't like it".

[syoungs]

I opposed.

Same reasons already posted, loss of overall tags, need to have a spring bear season, and kapowsin needs to let hunters help with the problem, or not get to run dogs/bait, all while paying reduced taxes.

[pianoman9701]

From the Human Society of the US to Director Susewind. PDF attached:

September 19, 2019
Kelly Susewind, Director
Larry Carpenter, Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 43200
Olympia, WA 98504-3200
Re: Spring black bear (Ursus americanus) permits for 2019-2020
Dear Chairman Carpenter and Director Susewind:
On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and our supporters in
Washington, we submit the following comments on Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife’s (WDFW’s) Proposed Rule on the spring black bear hunting season for
2020. Fig. 1. We oppose the proposed increases because of the risk of killing even more
female bears with newborn and dependent yearling young. According to multiple bear
biologists, spring hunts put females at risk, and also orphan cubs and occur when bears
are physically distressed after months of starvation; hunting vulnerable bears is not
only cruel, it is not in keeping with Washingtonians’ values.
1. Springtime bear hunts are cruel and should be abandoned
Springtime black bear hunts are problem plagued. Despite WDFW’s best intentions,
hunters kill nursing mothers, which orphans cubs leaving them to suffer from
starvation, predation, or exposure.1 Also, spring hunts occur when bears are physically
stressed from months of not eating—when they are literally in a starving state. In
springtime, bears are in “declining physical condition” and are especially vulnerable to
hunter “harassment,”2 which Washington permits to forestall tree damage. Springtime
hunting may cause damage to roads, including causing siltation in streams, or harm to
vulnerable ungulate and other wildlife populations.3 Most Americans do not want
wildlife cruelly treated, and most want black bears protected, and surprisingly, even if
they have attacked someone.4... (continued, see PDF attached)

Have people entirely lost the ability to make factual statements and back them up with legitimate proof? According to multiple biologist, who are these people and what are their credentials? Most Americans want to protect dangerous black bears who've attacked people? Where is the proof to back that ridiculous statement? They might as well have written, "Dear WDFW, stop being big meanies to bears cause we don't like it".

It was mainly the HSUS that spread misinformation and spent $1m in 1996 which lead to the initiative which banned hounding and baiting. Did you expect them to change their tactics now? These people will end hunting by any means necessary, including lies. It's the expressed goal of their organization.

[Jpmiller]

I responded neuteral. Don't like seeing Kapowsin leave (possibly outside wdfw control) and wish they'd added more Cascade and ne tags but commented I did like seeing an increase in SE tags.

[ctwiggs1]

kapowsin needs to let hunters help with the problem, or not get to run dogs/bait, all while paying reduced taxes.

So very, very true.

[HillHound]

kapowsin needs to let hunters help with the problem, or not get to run dogs/bait, all while paying reduced taxes.

So very, very true.

[pianoman9701]

kapowsin needs to let hunters help with the problem, or not get to run dogs/bait, all while paying reduced taxes.

So very, very true.

Kapowsin will do exactly what our government allows them to do. The WDFW needs to put pressure on these big landowners to use hunters to solve their problems or not issue the permits. Good for them and good for us.