Free: Contests & Raffles.
I’m all for a nuanced perspective on things but when we have a commission that’s not 100% on board with hunting as whole, and will bend the knee to groups like the humane society we have a serious problem. This is along the same lines of why we can’t hunt bear and cougar with hounds. Emotion based game management as a conservation model is laughable at best. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think we're just screwed to be perfectly honest, and have been for many years. I only bought WA tags to hunt predators, but as our ungulate species declines in the backwoods that's getting harder, you have to hunt the fringes of ranches and private property that still hold deer. I can walk through my hayfields of alfalfa and another of orchard grass and not see one track in the snow. I can toss out a premium compressed bale of alfalfa, throw a 50lb bag of corn on top of that, and then pour a half gallon of deer cane and only see turkey hitting it. The record deer count was 100 deer in the late 90's Now I got none, I can't even put a kid in a blind to get a first deer. Thanks WDFW and Inslee.
I got a canned reply from Lorna Smith... My reasons for voting against the spring bear hunt were:(1) The Department failed to incorporate their own science into their recommendations. The published science I refer to is the result of many years of fieldwork which has been published and peer reviewed in several professional journals. This best available science on bear densities in GMUs on both sides of the state should be the guiding science on setting black bear seasons, fall AND spring. That research shows us that bear densities are far from uniform across the state and in many cases are far less than the 30 bears per 100 sq kilometers presumed for eastern Washington and the 19 bears presumed for eastern Washington, as is currently the case.(2) We also know that the state-wide population is much smaller (19-20,000 bears) than the previously believed 30,000 bears that the current hunts are predicated upon. Science points out that the percent female/percent age of harvested bears approach that we currently use to estimate population and to set seasons is not a reliable indicator of population health. In fact, the SAME ratios reported currently at end of season could just as easily be indicative of a declining population, according to research. (SEE 2020 Game Status and Trends Report 2020 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02217 ) Of particular concern was the 50% increase in black bear harvest in 2019-20 documented in the report, following several years of devastating wildfires and drought in eastern Washington when habitat loss and resultant impact of a food shortage may have led to desperate bears finding themselves more exposed in a wider-ranging search for food during fall hunts. The Commission approved the increased bag limit and season length in 2019 which led to the increased harvest, based on little to no current population data.So while the argument is strong that spring hunting of bears as they emerge from hibernation when they are thin, starving, lethargic and less able to avoid threats violates the hunting ethics of fair chase, in my opinion, that is simply the underpinning of my vote against a spring bear hunt which was solidly based on the Department’s own data and failure to use that data in setting seasons and harvests. Why did staff not report what I am reporting to you now, and which is readily available online? Since I have been on the Commission we have not received a briefing on this research and the management implications, and I have had to do my own research, albeit of readily available sources on DFW’s own website. That apparent lack of transparency should be of concern to hunters and non-hunters alike who share a common dedication to being informed by the “Best Available Science” and to having that science made available to a well-informed Commission to factor into often difficult decisions.
My reasons for voting against the spring bear hunt were: (1) The Department failed to incorporate their own science into their recommendations. The published science I refer to is the result of many years of fieldwork which has been published and peer reviewed in several professional journals. This best available science on bear densities in GMUs on both sides of the state should be the guiding science on setting black bear seasons, fall AND spring. That research shows us that bear densities are far from uniform across the state and in many cases are far less than the 30 bears per 100 sq kilometers presumed for eastern Washington and the 19 bears presumed for eastern Washington, as is currently the case. (2) We also know that the state-wide population is much smaller (19-20,000 bears) than the previously believed 30,000 bears that the current hunts are predicated upon. Science points out that the percent female/percent age of harvested bears approach that we currently use to estimate population and to set seasons is not a reliable indicator of population health. In fact, the SAME ratios reported currently at end of season could just as easily be indicative of a declining population, according to research. (SEE 2020 Game Status and Trends Report 2020 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02217 ) Of particular concern was the 50% increase in black bear harvest in 2019-20 documented in the report, following several years of devastating wildfires and drought in eastern Washington when habitat loss and resultant impact of a food shortage may have led to desperate bears finding themselves more exposed in a wider-ranging search for food during fall hunts. The Commission approved the increased bag limit and season length in 2019 which led to the increased harvest, based on little to no current population data. So while the argument is strong that spring hunting of bears as they emerge from hibernation when they are thin, starving, lethargic and less able to avoid threats violates the hunting ethics of fair chase, in my opinion, that is simply the underpinning of my vote against a spring bear hunt which was solidly based on the Department’s own data and failure to use that data in setting seasons and harvests. Why did staff not report what I am reporting to you now, and which is readily available online? Since I have been on the Commission we have not received a briefing on this research and the management implications, and I have had to do my own research, albeit of readily available sources on DFW’s own website. That apparent lack of transparency should be of concern to hunters and non-hunters alike who share a common dedication to being informed by the “Best Available Science” and to having that science made available to a well-informed Commission to factor into often difficult decisions.Respectfully,Lorna Smith
