Is this a new bear season or what.🤔

[hunter399]

Is this a new bear hunting comment thing or what.

So let's destroy the season we had that delt with spring bear damage ,now let's create a new one.

Just WOW.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development/black-bear-timber-damage-depredation-permits

Looks like comments need to be sent here.

beartimberdamage@PublicInput.com

[Gringo31]

The anti hunting groups seem to be fine with protecting trees if that includes killing bears.

Hunting bears for Harvest are no-no's.

You can not use either of those H words and get any headway with them. 

[hunter399]

The anti hunting groups seem to be fine with protecting trees if that includes killing bears.

Hunting bears for Harvest are no-no's.

You can not use either of those H words and get any headway with them.

I agree with that.
I was trying to read the CR thingy that goes with this.
I'm not sure if this is for hunters,or just a rule change to give more agricultural trapping permits out.

I can't really figure it out.

[Jake Dogfish]

The anti hunting groups seem to be fine with protecting trees if that includes killing bears.

Hunting bears for Harvest are no-no's.

You can not use either of those H words and get any headway with them.

Having listened to the commission meetings, this is what it comes down to.  The main concern is stopping recreational hunting.

[hunter399]

The problem I'm having is ,do we support this.
Or not support it.
Yes the commission is against recreational hunting of spring bears I already know this.
But why should I support trapping spring bears or just hunting spring bears through this depredation program.
When there is a need to hunt spring bears but won't give us opportunities.

Help me understand this.
Make no sense to me that a friend of a friend will get spring permits. Instead of having a fair and just draw system that we already had in place.
The Commission could of adjusted permit levels and called it a damage hunt only.

[hunter399]

Just to add.....

This seems like an attempt to fix the commission bad,political,unscientific,decision making that they made on the spring bear hunt ,which has always been both a recreational and damage hunt to begin with.

Seems to me I can't really support fixing there mistakes.
Honestly the commission should be liable for spring bear damage.
That was there decision.

[hunter399]

Here is a copy of what I sent.

I do not support any spring bear hunting or trapping. Until the commission gives opportunities to recreational hunters.
The recreational hunt was always a damage hunt. Our Commission decided to not allow the recreational/damage hunt.
The Commission should be liable for all spring bear damage occurred after there decision. Spring bear should only be dispatched on public safety reasons only.
The recreational hunt was in place to deal with damage caused by spring bears.
This opportunity should be give in to recreational hunters per the commission code of conduct to maximize recreational opportunities to hunters.

[Alan K]

Wow, this really goes to show just how little some people know about the issue.

This has nothing to do with the spring bear season being pulled by the commission. Spring bear permits on the east side had nothing to do with timber damage. Westside yes, but that's also why it was so sparse. Boot hunting is not effective in mitigating damage.

This comes from when CBD won the lawsuit against WDFW on appeal years ago regarding WDFW's issuance of depredation permits without going through formal rule making.  This is now the formal rule making.

Depredation permits and recreational opportunities are not mutually exclusive via WDFW, it would boil down to whether or not a landowner wanted to forego baiting/trapping or feeding as a means of damage mitigation to target problem areas/animals (most effective) in favor of a boot hunt in a tiny geographic area with no use of bait, traps, hounds, etc.... Aka good luck getting that problem bear out of that reprod jungle with 4' visibility.... Landowners are going to select the options that protect their property, period.

And depredation permits are available to ALL landowners that can show damage, not only timber companies.  It's portrayed that way since obviously companies are the largest landowners, but Joe Landowner's 40 acres of timber getting decimated by bears qualifies just the same.

[hunter399]

Wow, this really goes to show just how little some people know about the issue.

This has nothing to do with the spring bear season being pulled by the commission. Spring bear permits on the east side had nothing to do with timber damage. Westside yes, but that's also why it was so sparse. Boot hunting is not effective in mitigating damage.

This comes from when CBD won the lawsuit against WDFW on appeal years ago regarding WDFW's issuance of depredation permits without going through formal rule making.  This is now the formal rule making.

Depredation permits and recreational opportunities are not mutually exclusive via WDFW, it would boil down to whether or not a landowner wanted to forego baiting/trapping or feeding as a means of damage mitigation to target problem areas/animals (most effective) in favor of a boot hunt in a tiny geograpgic area with no use of bait, traps, hounds, etc.... Aka good luck getting that problem bear out of that reprod jungle with 4' visibility.... Landowners are going to select the options that protect their property, period.

And depredation permits are available to ALL landowners that can show damage, not only timber companies.  It's portrayed that way since obviously companies are the largest landowners, but Joe Landowner's 40 acres of timber getting decimated by bears qualifies just the same.

Well I could say if said timber company,land owner,ECT sued said Commission for damages occurring in the past two years our season might return.
If there is only four feet visable,shouldn't there be some thinning in order.
I still can't support it.
Not after taking all recreational opportunities away.
I've never support feeding anyway,that just makes bear population go up.Never really solving anything

[dlow]

I would guess this just means they’re considering giving the timber companies spring permits so they can hire federal trappers, similar to what they’re already doing.

[Alan K]

Thinning actually jump starts the damage again as the tree is released, which is why PCT is often delayed so that crown closure happens quicker and pushes the crown upwards and away from ground level where a bear's nose is most apt to identify it as a food source if there is a lot of tree growth there.

The bears removed under depredation permits was a small fraction of the state's bear harvest even when hounds were allowed.  Someone ought to do a FOIA to see how many permits have been sought, and how much success there has been since WDFW went to boot hunt only depredation  permits.  I'd bet success could be counted on your two hands, maybe even one hand. 

Also, trees aren't the only thing these bears feed on through the spring months, it's just the easiest for them. They hammer fawns in particular, but also calves once they drop.  Every bear removed via damage is also saving other wildlife at the same time.  A win-win...

Bellyaching about this is like cutting your nose off to spite your face... Makes sense...

[Alan K]

This is about WDFW permits, which are separate from any federal depredation.  The feds do some depredation work (with a number of species, not only bears) under MOU's with WDFW.

[dlow]

This is about WDFW permits, which are separate from any federal depredation.  The feds do some depredation work (with a number of species, not only bears) under MOU's with WDFW.

Gotcha. I wasn’t quite sure how that worked. I just know the feds do a good bit of trapping for the timber companies.

[Gringo31]

Thank you for your insight Alan!   

[hunter399]

Thinning actually jump starts the damage again as the tree is released, which is why PCT is often delayed so that crown closure happens quicker and pushes the crown upwards and away from ground level where a bear's nose is most apt to identify it as a food source if there is a lot of tree growth there.

The bears removed under depredation permits was a small fraction of the state's bear harvest even when hounds were allowed.  Someone ought to do a FOIA to see how many permits have been sought, and how much success there has been since WDFW went to boot hunt only depredation  permits.  I'd bet success could be counted on your two hands, maybe even one hand. 

Also, trees aren't the only thing these bears feed on through the spring months, it's just the easiest for them. They hammer fawns in particular, but also calves once they drop.  Every bear removed via damage is also saving other wildlife at the same time.  A win-win...

Bellyaching about this is like cutting your nose off to spite your face... Makes sense...

Putting a band-aid on top of a band-aid is what a feed barrel is.
I'm sure you are correct ,trapping with snares,and hounds are way more effective.
I can't remember which units on the West it was.
But wasn't timber company reducing boot hunter permits,just so they could use depredation permits.
When there was a recreational season.
You can't limit access to areas with damage for boot hunters and expect it to be more effective than trapping or hounds.
Or even come close to it.
I'm not gonna support an animal be left to rot cause it ate a tree.
I'm sorry I just wasn't raised that way.