Please comment: Black Bear Timber Damage CR-102

[mcrawfordaf]

Public comment is open for rule changes on Black Bear Timber damage: (1) Purpose. The purpose of the black bear timber damage permit is to reduce damage to commercial timber caused by black bears peeling and consuming tree parts resulting in permanent damage or death to the tree. A black bear timber damage permit allows a person to remove one or more black bears as conditioned on the permit. This section does not apply to federal employees and agents while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting private property.

https://publicinput.com/black-bear-timber-damage

[GOcougsHunter]

Comments made.

[starkeybomb]

done! it was an interesting read.  I think there is room for improvement.  Some ambiguous language that could use and update.  A little too easy to pull the hunts without much reasoning.

[ducks4days]

Done. Supported most of it, included requests that some parts be clarified or removed.

"Conservation concern" should be clearly defined
"Safety risk" should be clearly defined
'The Department' should be clearly defined

I dont like the idea of Lorna Smith thumbing through granted permits or pending applications and revoking or denying them by claiming bear hunting is fundamentally a safety risk or conservation concern across the board .

[HikerHunter]

Commented. I'm guessing since this is being called a "timber damage permit" that my spring bear points won't count towards it?

[fireweed]

Can the timber companies "charge" for hunting these damaging bears?  It's like a homeowner complaining to the WDFW about a mice infestation, the state offering the homeowner a free cat, then charging the cat for the privilege of killing mice.

[high_hunter]

Commented. I'm guessing since this is being called a "timber damage permit" that my spring bear points won't count towards it?

No, it's separate.

[high_hunter]

Can the timber companies "charge" for hunting these damaging bears?  It's like a homeowner complaining to the WDFW about a mice infestation, the state offering the homeowner a free cat, then charging the cat for the privilege of killing mice.

No.  If you read more of it, it states they cannot charge for access or sell the permit. 

[duckmen1]

I just can't help but question if recreation hunters will be left out and these permits will go toward the contract hunters.

[X-Force]

Done. We will see how far this goes.

[Special T]

Can the timber companies "charge" for hunting these damaging bears?  It's like a homeowner complaining to the WDFW about a mice infestation, the state offering the homeowner a free cat, then charging the cat for the privilege of killing mice.

No.  If you read more of it, it states they cannot charge for access or sell the permit.

I've read it page 4 6 C it states that they can deny a permitt if they don't allow public access. It does not however define what public access means. If it does please tell me where me where.

[hunter399]

Still a may need to look at what a current black bear timber application looks like first.
That's the application it said they will use.
Why would I support this if I will never be granted a damage permit.

And just to be honest here. All this is for is to cover the department and the commission for the spring bear decision.
Let's say on average a 100 bears would be harvested ,when spring bear hunt was active. Which was and always be a damage hunt.
Not recreational.

So how much projected timber loss each year does a 100 bears do in the spring? (Maybe a few foresters can chime in here).
5 logging truck loads ,a 100 loads.
Anyway see my point.
It's a liability that our great commission doesn't want over there head.

If I could ask one question?.....

How many permits will they issue?

They need to issue about 1000 permits for any average joe like you and I to even have a tiny,tiny,tiny chance of ever seeing a permit.
Otherwise it's just a friend and family thing,to cover liability on the commission behalf. We will never see a permit.

I don't know,I'm gonna have to do a little research,and look up a few things. Before I support it.
The commission made a decision on spring bear.
They should lay in the bed they made.
The fact that anybody thinks they will see one of these permits is crazy to me.

My comment will most likely say , reinstate spring bear hunt as a damage hunt. So that it is fair to everybody,and spring bear points can be applied towards this hunt. Permits are issued fairly in a drawing format.

[Special T]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

[high_hunter]

Can the timber companies "charge" for hunting these damaging bears?  It's like a homeowner complaining to the WDFW about a mice infestation, the state offering the homeowner a free cat, then charging the cat for the privilege of killing mice.

No.  If you read more of it, it states they cannot charge for access or sell the permit.

I've read it page 4 6 C it states that they can deny a permitt if they don't allow public access. It does not however define what public access means. If it does please tell me where me where.

I didn't see it defined.  Just read what you saw, that the permit could be denied.  Think this is grey and that any of the pay to play private timber companies would argue they did allow public access, just not open to ALL public.

One good thing is that if you are the "designated hunter" they cannot charge for access, keys, etc.

[Special T]

 

Yes but that does not address what access is doing the general season, only for the permitted hunt.

[hunter399]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

[mcrawfordaf]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

WDFW can and will determine how the carcass is to be treated.

(b) Based upon WDFW's evaluation of the permit application materials and local environmental conditions, the department may establish
permit-specific conditions in individual permits including, but not
limited to:

(iii) Requirements for final disposition of the black bear carcass, as a whole or any black bear parts;
(iv) The number of black bears that can be removed under the permit; and
(v) Procedures for reporting of any removals, including submission of biological samples and reporting documents.

[hunter399]

Commented 👍

If you guys believe this is about tree damage or giving you a hunt.
I'm sorry.

It's liability on the state for property damage.
In the future,from the commission hasty decision on the spring bear hunt that was already in place to deal with spring bear damage.

I'm not gonna support a private hunt that isn't fair for all that apply.
You guys support it like white bread,and peanut butter and jelly.
Not I.

[hunter399]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

WDFW can and will determine how the carcass is to be treated.

(b) Based upon WDFW's evaluation of the permit application materials and local environmental conditions, the department may establish
permit-specific conditions in individual permits including, but not
limited to:

(iii) Requirements for final disposition of the black bear carcass, as a whole or any black bear parts;
(iv) The number of black bears that can be removed under the permit; and
(v) Procedures for reporting of any removals, including submission of biological samples and reporting documents.

I believe you forgot one.

(ii) Black bears retained for personal use under a permit count toward the annual black bear bag limit;



When is says it counts towards your yearly bag limit.
I'm just assuming your gonna tag it.
But who knows.

So like I said.
Tag it with one of your two yearly bear tags,you can keep it.
Otherwise leave it to rot.
At least they give an option to use for personal use.
But ya they just want bear killed. After that it's up to you to tag or department to leave it.

[Tbar]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be. 

[ducks4days]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

This is a depredation permit, same as all other depredation hunts with the exception that the 'designated hunters' are allowed to keep the bear if they want to tag it. Normally you are required to leave the animals to rot with these types of permits.

[HillHound]

And starting next year if our commission gets their way this will be the only way to hunt predators. All the great meat we put in our freezers will be left to rot because we will eventually not even be able to get tags or have a hunting season only shoot them where they’re in the act of deprivation And then WDFW will take them straight to the dump. Wanton waste is against the law in Washington state unless of course WDFW says it’s OK. Bunch of crap. But like I’ve been saying for the last 10 or 20 years they will eventually change enough rules that every single one of us Is a criminal. Soon you’ll be a felon for killing a horsefly because there’s really no way to tell what the real population of horseflies are and if we don’t know the real population how do we really know that they aren’t endangered. Seems a bit extreme but so did taking our spring bear season. Them taking away all predator hunting seems pretty extreme to but looks like the commission will have that accomplished by April. Unprecedented times we live in. In the meantime we should all dedicate every spare moment we have to getting out and killing a predator or two or ten

[Tbar]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

This is a depredation permit, same as all other depredation hunts with the exception that the 'designated hunters' are allowed to keep the bear if they want to tag it. Normally you are required to leave the animals to rot with these types of permits.

Where are you getting information on depredation hunt? This is absolutely incorrect information and is a representation of why we continue to lose ground.  At a point in history I am sure this happened, I can actually recall some of the permits in the 80s and 90s. I would even say it's not out of the realm of possibly that a carcass is discarded but it's not the norm. Can I ask how many depredation hunts for any species either of you have been a part of since the last court decision limited the designee and tightened the conditions?

[hunter399]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

Please rethink what happens to animals killed under a depredation permit. It's not big game waste if the department does it.
They are exempt from most game laws.
Alot of game laws the last sub section will say if they are exempt.

Here is one law I found.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-440-220

Looks like it says the department will designate on the permit ,what will happen to the animal. Regardless of left to rot,tag it,keep it,donate to food bank,county pit,..... doesn't matter you do what it says in the permit or you'll never get another

I also read in there it says landowner will choose who gets permits.
Or landowner designee will choose the hunters .
Most likely the Forester for the given area.
This is not a draw hunt.

All this timber damage permits does do is release the department and our commission from thousands,maybe millions of dollars in timber damage liability from spring bears. Gives us hunters nothing.
Honestly the hunters and the timber company will get the shaft.
Cause they will never get rid of enough bears. And us hunters (except a handful of lucky ones) will get to spring bear hunt.
The timber will never be able to be compensated for damages.
The department will say.......
"Cause they attempted to mitigate damages" sorry it was all we could do. With our bait and hound laws.

As it stands right now any timber company that was allowing spring bear hunters to hunt. And now that they closed it and have significant damage would essentially make a claim to big money.

Our commission should of been raising spring bear permits.
Not closing the season,our department and state lawyers know this. The commission I'm sure is fully aware of this.
I'll bet it doesn't matter what you comment it will pass the commission.

[hunter399]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

This is a depredation permit, same as all other depredation hunts with the exception that the 'designated hunters' are allowed to keep the bear if they want to tag it. Normally you are required to leave the animals to rot with these types of permits.

Where are you getting information on depredation hunt? This is absolutely incorrect information and is a representation of why we continue to lose ground.  At a point in history I am sure this happened, I can actually recall some of the permits in the 80s and 90s. I would even say it's not out of the realm of possibly that a carcass is discarded but it's not the norm. Can I ask how many depredation hunts for any species either of you have been a part of since the last court decision limited the designee and tightened the conditions?

It's common knowledge bro.
You tell us what happens to every cougar removal and any animal the department kills that is a predator.
I suppose they fry up coyotes like fried chicken.
What the heck are we talking about.
Where do you think they go?
Don't have to go on a hunt,go look in the county pit.
That where your truth is.

Another thing our commission wants to end all predator hunting.
But you believe they are giving our spring bear back through these permits. 
There is a reason and I'm trying to tell ya why.

[Alan K]

Depredation permits always required the meat to be donated, hide/skull, and gall bladder to be turned over.  I'm not sure why they would all of the sudden allow animals to be wasted.

It's evident that folks are ignorant of what actually goes on. I suggest you guys give WDFW a call and get a grasp of the process before spouting off.

[Alan K]

And for what it's worth, last I'd heard the permits were for a 1 mile radius from a damage point and limited to either 15 or 30 days. Good luck with that. I don't know of any landowners that waste their time and energy for a near zero chance of success.

[hunter399]

Depredation permits always required the meat to be donated, hide/skull, and gall bladder to be turned over.  I'm not sure why they would all of the sudden allow animals to be wasted.

It's evident that folks are ignorant of what actually goes on. I suggest you guys give WDFW a call and get a grasp of the process before spouting off.

That's what's on the permit ,correct.
That's all I've been saying,is you'll do what is directed on the permit regardless.
So since you have chimed in. Figured it was coming.
How many hunters are you going to need?
How fairly are you going to give permits?
How many dollars estimate in timber damage do you have yearly?
Did you timber company charge access fees to hunters when there was a spring bear hunt.

I'm just curious and you personally as a Forester ,not a hunter.
Would you rather have a fair draw spring bear hunt or damage permits?
And why?
 

Figured I'd add,so all this stuff has to be donated.
So if I don't tag it ,I'll have a pile of work to do.
It's gets better and better.

I really don't care.
I've said what I said. I'm not deleting anything.
It's just my opinion,I don't care one way or the other.
It will pass the commission,I said why.

[Alan K]

No amount of hunters would make a meaningful difference boot hunting on these permits.

If a company did give it a try I'd imagine they'd want a resume of sorts that shows a person actually knows how to hunt bear, and are an honest person that is going to treat the permit and property with respect etc. It's not, and would never be just wide open to allowing any Joe Blow to operate under a permit in the company's name without a thorough vetting process.

The industry suffers mllions in damages annually.

Few units on the west side actually had a spring bear hunt. Damage was controlled, or at least mitigated in part historically with effective means - hounds.  Many timber owners didn't pursue depredation, and instead fed though the spring months.  Probably an ESG thing when investment groups started buying timberlands.  Boot hunting is a virtual waste of time on a depredation permit with such tiny hunt area.  Damaged areas are generally 10-25 year old reprod that you can't see 10 feet in.

As a forester, the current iteration of damage permits are a joke in terms of actually getting problem animals removed.  A traditional spring bear hunt is also a joke for damage control.  A spring bear hunt would be fine to try and help with overall population control, but wouldn't do much for damage reduction. 

Depredation permits are not a recreation hunt and should not be confused as such.  The most effective methods of stopping the damage as soon as possible should be allowed, but WDFW continually tightens the screws on permits to the point that they are even more restrictive than standard recreation hunts.

[Tbar]

Thank you @Alan K . There's a reason there seems to be a one way slide and hook and bullet crowds continue to be on the losing end. There are many issues with this as written and in in complete agreement on what they've done to the program.  As for now I'll check out on this one.

[Special T]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

This is a depredation permit, same as all other depredation hunts with the exception that the 'designated hunters' are allowed to keep the bear if they want to tag it. Normally you are required to leave the animals to rot with these types of permits.

Where are you getting information on depredation hunt? This is absolutely incorrect information and is a representation of why we continue to lose ground.  At a point in history I am sure this happened, I can actually recall some of the permits in the 80s and 90s. I would even say it's not out of the realm of possibly that a carcass is discarded but it's not the norm. Can I ask how many depredation hunts for any species either of you have been a part of since the last court decision limited the designee and tightened the conditions?

It's common knowledge bro.
You tell us what happens to every cougar removal and any animal the department kills that is a predator.
I suppose they fry up coyotes like fried chicken.
What the heck are we talking about.
Where do you think they go?
Don't have to go on a hunt,go look in the county pit.
That where your truth is.

Another thing our commission wants to end all predator hunting.
But you believe they are giving our spring bear back through these permits. 
There is a reason and I'm trying to tell ya why.

There is a difference between depredation harvests by the WDFW  and other depredation hunts. I believe you are referring to the fact that the WDFW killed more cats in depredation than in harvest by hunters like in district 1. Those cats were put in a hole.  I am not savy as to the permit requirements for timber damage, which is the topic. I think we would all be smarter if some one provided that information.

On a side note TBar knows plenty and I dont think you would come up on a winning side of an argument with him if he had the patience to educate you with citations. Unfortunatly he does not, we all could learn a lot from that discussion. I think what he is trying to impress upon people is that the Animal Rights crowd, and certainly the Commission pays attention to comments here an uses ignorant statements against sportsmen. 

[ducks4days]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

This is a depredation permit, same as all other depredation hunts with the exception that the 'designated hunters' are allowed to keep the bear if they want to tag it. Normally you are required to leave the animals to rot with these types of permits.

Where are you getting information on depredation hunt? This is absolutely incorrect information and is a representation of why we continue to lose ground.  At a point in history I am sure this happened, I can actually recall some of the permits in the 80s and 90s. I would even say it's not out of the realm of possibly that a carcass is discarded but it's not the norm. Can I ask how many depredation hunts for any species either of you have been a part of since the last court decision limited the designee and tightened the conditions?

You’re right, this isn’t a depredation hunt. I’m not entirely sure why I thought it was.

[hunter399]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

This is a depredation permit, same as all other depredation hunts with the exception that the 'designated hunters' are allowed to keep the bear if they want to tag it. Normally you are required to leave the animals to rot with these types of permits.

Where are you getting information on depredation hunt? This is absolutely incorrect information and is a representation of why we continue to lose ground.  At a point in history I am sure this happened, I can actually recall some of the permits in the 80s and 90s. I would even say it's not out of the realm of possibly that a carcass is discarded but it's not the norm. Can I ask how many depredation hunts for any species either of you have been a part of since the last court decision limited the designee and tightened the conditions?

It's common knowledge bro.
You tell us what happens to every cougar removal and any animal the department kills that is a predator.
I suppose they fry up coyotes like fried chicken.
What the heck are we talking about.
Where do you think they go?
Don't have to go on a hunt,go look in the county pit.
That where your truth is.

Another thing our commission wants to end all predator hunting.
But you believe they are giving our spring bear back through these permits. 
There is a reason and I'm trying to tell ya why.

There is a difference between depredation harvests by the WDFW  and other depredation hunts. I believe you are referring to the fact that the WDFW killed more cats in depredation than in harvest by hunters like in district 1. Those cats were put in a hole.  I am not savy as to the permit requirements for timber damage, which is the topic. I think we would all be smarter if some one provided that information.

On a side note TBar knows plenty and I dont think you would come up on a winning side of an argument with him if he had the patience to educate you with citations. Unfortunatly he does not, we all could learn a lot from that discussion. I think what he is trying to impress upon people is that the Animal Rights crowd, and certainly the Commission pays attention to comments here an uses ignorant statements against sportsmen. 

So I'm ignorant for wanting spring bear season back.
With a fair draw,point system,and game laws that will ensure every bear is tagged,and not wasted.
Ok ,whatever you guys say.
If you support this hunt,it will always separate "recreational" and damage hunt of spring black bear.
It's like the final nail in the coffin for a traditional spring bear hunt.
Is what it is.
If you believe I'm hurting our hunting rights in any way feel free to have one of the moderator delete it.
I'm ok with that. And clean up the topic.

Just because I won't follow you and Tbar like a herd of sheep.
Doesn't exactly make me ignorant.

Stubborn as a mule I might agree with.

[fireweed]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

In the past timber companies turned in the bears for donation and pay for processing.  Tribes often ended up with the meat.

[fireweed]

No amount of hunters would make a meaningful difference boot hunting on these permits.

If a company did give it a try I'd imagine they'd want a resume of sorts that shows a person actually knows how to hunt bear, and are an honest person that is going to treat the permit and property with respect etc. It's not, and would never be just wide open to allowing any Joe Blow to operate under a permit in the company's name without a thorough vetting process.

The industry suffers mllions in damages annually.

Few units on the west side actually had a spring bear hunt. Damage was controlled, or at least mitigated in part historically with effective means - hounds.  Many timber owners didn't pursue depredation, and instead fed though the spring months.  Probably an ESG thing when investment groups started buying timberlands.  Boot hunting is a virtual waste of time on a depredation permit with such tiny hunt area.  Damaged areas are generally 10-25 year old reprod that you can't see 10 feet in.

As a forester, the current iteration of damage permits are a joke in terms of actually getting problem animals removed.  A traditional spring bear hunt is also a joke for damage control.  A spring bear hunt would be fine to try and help with overall population control, but wouldn't do much for damage reduction. 

Depredation permits are not a recreation hunt and should not be confused as such.  The most effective methods of stopping the damage as soon as possible should be allowed, but WDFW continually tightens the screws on permits to the point that they are even more restrictive than standard recreation hunts.

 

Bear feeding has been used for decades, way before ESG and was started by a commercial bear hunter to provide an alternative food source in the spring to defer peeling.  If boot hunting doesn't work for damage (of which I disagree because walking logging roads in the spring in damage areas works) and these permits cant use hounds, how are these damage permits any more effective in the brush of reprod?  The brush is still there.  Is it only because it is in the spring?  Then this is a boot hunt in the spring by special permit.  If no amount of boot hunting makes a difference, and no hounds can be used, how are these permits special?  Can they hunt over bait?  Use snares?  What is the caveat that makes these permits more lethal?

[Special T]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

This is a depredation permit, same as all other depredation hunts with the exception that the 'designated hunters' are allowed to keep the bear if they want to tag it. Normally you are required to leave the animals to rot with these types of permits.

Where are you getting information on depredation hunt? This is absolutely incorrect information and is a representation of why we continue to lose ground.  At a point in history I am sure this happened, I can actually recall some of the permits in the 80s and 90s. I would even say it's not out of the realm of possibly that a carcass is discarded but it's not the norm. Can I ask how many depredation hunts for any species either of you have been a part of since the last court decision limited the designee and tightened the conditions?

It's common knowledge bro.
You tell us what happens to every cougar removal and any animal the department kills that is a predator.
I suppose they fry up coyotes like fried chicken.
What the heck are we talking about.
Where do you think they go?
Don't have to go on a hunt,go look in the county pit.
That where your truth is.

Another thing our commission wants to end all predator hunting.
But you believe they are giving our spring bear back through these permits. 
There is a reason and I'm trying to tell ya why.

There is a difference between depredation harvests by the WDFW  and other depredation hunts. I believe you are referring to the fact that the WDFW killed more cats in depredation than in harvest by hunters like in district 1. Those cats were put in a hole.  I am not savy as to the permit requirements for timber damage, which is the topic. I think we would all be smarter if some one provided that information.

On a side note TBar knows plenty and I dont think you would come up on a winning side of an argument with him if he had the patience to educate you with citations. Unfortunatly he does not, we all could learn a lot from that discussion. I think what he is trying to impress upon people is that the Animal Rights crowd, and certainly the Commission pays attention to comments here an uses ignorant statements against sportsmen. 

So I'm ignorant for wanting spring bear season back.
With a fair draw,point system,and game laws that will ensure every bear is tagged,and not wasted.
Ok ,whatever you guys say.
If you support this hunt,it will always separate "recreational" and damage hunt of spring black bear.
It's like the final nail in the coffin for a traditional spring bear hunt.
Is what it is.
If you believe I'm hurting our hunting rights in any way feel free to have one of the moderator delete it.
I'm ok with that. And clean up the topic.

Just because I won't follow you and Tbar like a herd of sheep.
Doesn't exactly make me ignorant.

Stubborn as a mule I might agree with.

The Commission has stated that they wont support a recreational hunt. Our old spring bear hunt is gone unless a clearing the seats of several of these bad commissioners happens. Forcing the issue wont make it any more likely to happen.

Is this what I would want in a rule change? No its not perfect. I recognize what I want wont get past them. Folks should also recognize WHO sets and approves permit levels, the commission. So they could pass our dream Spring bear hunt and not give us any allocated tags, or just allow professional hunters to do it.

Hunt Wa is very fortunate to have a wide variety of professionals that chime in. Foresters, Leos, Bios, Mechanics, politicians and such. We might not know their names but an observant person can pick it up by the way they write and respond. "You get out what you put in" is a favorite saying of mine. Assumptions, assertions, and Ignorance dont get you answers. Doing the work reading, and being honest enough to ask for explanation or proof when confronted with opposing statements.

[Humptulips]

Page 4 section 5 C states that the permitt holder/Hunter must have a bear tag.

 I can only assume that this is further proof of instituting a damage tag to hunters. Combine that with the public access portion and it sounds pretty good.

It also implies that since it requires a tag one person cannot kill more bears than they have tags for, so it incitivizes opening the hunting to more people. It does however give them control since the person has to be named by the landowner. This May change the way spring bear looked where the more local or active hunter has a better chance to increase harvest of trouble bears.

The way I read it.
You can kill more bears than you have tag.
Basically if you wanna keep the bear for hide or consumption then you would be required to use a bear tag.
Otherwise kill as many as you have permits for a leave them to rot.

Please rethink your post and consider deleting.  Big game waste is criminal as it should be.

This is a depredation permit, same as all other depredation hunts with the exception that the 'designated hunters' are allowed to keep the bear if they want to tag it. Normally you are required to leave the animals to rot with these types of permits.

Where are you getting information on depredation hunt? This is absolutely incorrect information and is a representation of why we continue to lose ground.  At a point in history I am sure this happened, I can actually recall some of the permits in the 80s and 90s. I would even say it's not out of the realm of possibly that a carcass is discarded but it's not the norm. Can I ask how many depredation hunts for any species either of you have been a part of since the last court decision limited the designee and tightened the conditions?

It's common knowledge bro.
You tell us what happens to every cougar removal and any animal the department kills that is a predator.
I suppose they fry up coyotes like fried chicken.
What the heck are we talking about.
Where do you think they go?
Don't have to go on a hunt,go look in the county pit.
That where your truth is.

Another thing our commission wants to end all predator hunting.
But you believe they are giving our spring bear back through these permits. 
There is a reason and I'm trying to tell ya why.

Cougar and coyotes are different than Bear. To my knowledge the depredation permits that were issued to use hounds and bear snares all required the bear be delivered to a meat cutter for processing and donated for consumption unless it was not salvageable.

[Alan K]

Bear feeding has been used for decades, way before ESG and was started by a commercial bear hunter to provide an alternative food source in the spring to defer peeling.  If boot hunting doesn't work for damage (of which I disagree because walking logging roads in the spring in damage areas works) and these permits cant use hounds, how are these damage permits any more effective in the brush of reprod?  The brush is still there.  Is it only because it is in the spring?  Then this is a boot hunt in the spring by special permit.  If no amount of boot hunting makes a difference, and no hounds can be used, how are these permits special?  Can they hunt over bait?  Use snares?  What is the caveat that makes these permits more lethal?

No doubt feeding was used pre-ESG, but it was also used in conjunction with hounds. Areas that guys could not easily recover their dogs, near urban areas, etc.  Bear feeding does limit damage, but doesn't eliminate it.  And sometimes there are bears that just aren't satisfied with bear feed.  The reason I think it could be ESG related, is it will be a landowner's entire damage mitigation strategy, regardless of how 'huntable' the ground is.  Hounds would have the problem taken care of the day after a permit was issued.  Now landowners are alright with damaging bears if the feed satisfies 2/3 of them because they don't have to tell BlackRock investors that they take lethal action on animals.  And now we as hunters get to deal with the side effects of a bear population at or even above carrying capacity thanks to the free meals they receive through the spring when food alternatives are slim.

One troubling thing I saw in the rule making, is that a landowner cannot feed at all in that calendar year.  So WDFW is telling landowners not to attempt non-lethal mitigation first, because it will prevent them from using lethal options if it ends up being necessary later.  If hounds could still be used, landowners would almost certainly just say to heck with feeding.  Now though, given there is a near zero success rate with these boot hunt permits, all the while the damage continues, landowners will just opt to feed - which is exactly what WDFW and the commission would prefer.  No bears taken.

These permits are no more effective than the old spring bear season.  Less so, and I said as much. More restrictive meaning less effective. 

Depredation permits are not a recreation hunt and should not be confused as such.  The most effective methods of stopping the damage as soon as possible should be allowed, but WDFW continually tightens the screws on permits to the point that they are even more restrictive than standard recreation hunts.

The permits are not special as they are today, they are a joke, as I also said.  If anyone doubts it, I'd encourage them to FOIA the data on how many permits were issued and what the success rate was.  If it was even 10% of historical permits I'd gladly insert my foot into my mouth.  Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once and a while, but there  is no convincing me that walking a road through reprod is going to have any more than as 1% chance at success in a stand being peeled.  Say a landowner gets a 30 day permit and signs Joe Hunter up after a vetting process that already took up a half a day of a company employee's time.  Joe Hunter makes it out there 8 times and walks 1.5 miles of road each time.  Joe hunter saw about 7 acres of that 80 acre stand that is being damaged and the surrounding ones (only the roadway plus 10' or so either side), and saw it for about an hour each time. The odds of Joe Hunter being in the right place at the right time is very low, and even lower yet if considering the bear may wind him, hear him, etc.  Then even lower yet if Joe Hunter isn't presented a shot. That, while I agree could happen, is not effective for depredation removal.  At least not in my book.  That whole 30 day period while Joe Hunter is giving it his best but coming up empty, the damage continues.

[Alan K]

So I'm ignorant for wanting spring bear season back.
With a fair draw,point system,and game laws that will ensure every bear is tagged,and not wasted.
Ok ,whatever you guys say.
If you support this hunt,it will always separate "recreational" and damage hunt of spring black bear.
It's like the final nail in the coffin for a traditional spring bear hunt.
Is what it is.
If you believe I'm hurting our hunting rights in any way feel free to have one of the moderator delete it.
I'm ok with that. And clean up the topic.

Just because I won't follow you and Tbar like a herd of sheep.
Doesn't exactly make me ignorant.

Stubborn as a mule I might agree with.

No, you are ignorant for having no idea what you're talking about and making wild assumptions that spread falsehoods, all without taking the 5 minutes to email WDFW requesting depredation permit info and educating yourself.

Obviously you are passionate about a spring bear hunt, which is great. I think any hunter that is worth half his or her salt can see what is going on with our ungulate populations and wants a spring bear hunt. Everyone fully understands that this state's bear populations could sustain a general statewide spring bear hunt without making a mark on the sustainability - WDFW's biologists included.  Depredation hunts are not and have never been recreation hunts, and there is no reason that they cannot co-exist.  You'd be better served to point this out in your rule making comments than spreading BS while railing against it in fear that depredation somehow replaces recreational hunting.

[hunter399]

So I'm ignorant for wanting spring bear season back.
With a fair draw,point system,and game laws that will ensure every bear is tagged,and not wasted.
Ok ,whatever you guys say.
If you support this hunt,it will always separate "recreational" and damage hunt of spring black bear.
It's like the final nail in the coffin for a traditional spring bear hunt.
Is what it is.
If you believe I'm hurting our hunting rights in any way feel free to have one of the moderator delete it.
I'm ok with that. And clean up the topic.

Just because I won't follow you and Tbar like a herd of sheep.
Doesn't exactly make me ignorant.

Stubborn as a mule I might agree with.

No, you are ignorant for having no idea what you're talking about and making wild assumptions that spread falsehoods, all without taking the 5 minutes to email WDFW requesting depredation permit info and educating yourself.

Obviously you are passionate about a spring bear hunt, which is great. I think any hunter that is worth half his or her salt can see what is going on with our ungulate populations and wants a spring bear hunt. Everyone fully understands that this state's bear populations could sustain a general statewide spring bear hunt without making a mark on the sustainability - WDFW's biologists included.  Depredation hunts are not and have never been recreation hunts, and there is no reason that they cannot co-exist.  You'd be better served to point this out in your rule making comments than spreading BS while railing against it in fear that depredation somehow replaces recreational hunting.

Maybe Im ignorant,I'm not stupid.
This is the first depredation hunt that a person will be allowed to tag an animal and keep it.
That I know of.
I don't know facts ,you are correct on that.
But depredation hunts of the past.
These hunters ,gut,skin,deboned,and packed the entire animal out ,so it could be donated.
I wouldn't do that,there are bear hunters,that hunt the general fall season that won't pack a hide out,unless it's a really nice one.

Yet you and others know for a fact that depredation hunts of the past,the whole animal was donated. Ok I believe ya.

Yes I'm very passionate about the spring bear season.
As a permit or OTC hunt. It always said in the reg book that the hunt was for tree damage. Your welcome to Google old reg books and look for yourself.
It turned into a recreational hunt,when the commission said it was a recreational hunt.

Also I want to agree with you .This damage hunt will not mitigate damage in a way you like. Boot hunter or your average joe hunter will not harvest enough bears to impact damage.
I've been in forestry work before,you and I know which kind of stands this damage takes place. Spot and stalking a bear in these tree farms is pointless.

I also want to say....
I don't blame anybody that wants to support it.
Something is better than nothing,take what you can get I suppose.
This hunt will pass anyway,So being angry with me is pointless.
Wdfw has an obligation to mitigate damage.

Maybe this will make you happy...
I've never been on one of these hunts. I have no facts.
Anything I wrote is just my opinion, Whether it is fact or not.
I'm intitled to my own,don't care if you like it,or not.

I have better things to do than sit here and argue with you all.
Like hunting my own fall tags ,while we still have a fall bear and cougar seasons.

[hunter399]

I have the reg book for the last spring black bear hunt.
Here I'll post a pic of two.
Show me where it says recreational hunt.
It says the opposite.
Our spring bear hunt was and is a damage hunt.
I'm not gonna trade it for this hunt.

Why should I support this,when as we speak the commission is plotting to take away our fall bear,cougar,and Coyote seasons,and turn elk into a permit season.
Give me one good reason?

You all like to call me names and say I'm ignorant.
But I see it the other way around
How long are you gonna let them piss down your back and call it rain.
I'm done here in this topic,hope you all get your damage hunt.
Like said....
I have better things to do,like hunt the fall season,we still have.

[mcrawfordaf]

The "distribute harvest" portion. That's aimed at spreading the fall "recreation" hunt between both season.

From the GMP:  "Spring hunts are designed to address emerging management needs, such as bear damage to trees in commercial timberlands, bear-human conflict, or to more evenly distribute harvest compared to fall seasons."

Either way, the public comment section has portions to comment on any part of the rule you may see unfit. I suggest commenting to those rules in the appropriate section.

Alan K. thank you for your insight. It sounds like these permits won't do much in the way of actually mitigating damage with boot hunters but I'll continue to push for any opportunity we can get.

[fireweed]

The bears in the spring do not just eat tree cambium, they also eat grass and other vegetation that sprouts first along logging roads.  The bears use these roads for feeding and for moving from place to place, even the peelers.  There is really no way to target a specific peeling bear unless hounds are used.  The next best and allowed way is to glass clearcuts and catch them eating grass along a road.  Is it the exact peeler bear--who knows, but its likely.  Heck, foresters driving the roads in the spring run into bears all the time.

[hunter399]

I just wanted to add.
That some of my comments in this topic are not facts and more of my opinion. I'm truly sorry.

Even though I'm extremely butthurt over our current spring bear situation. I would like to let everyone know that my comments on the comments page will always stand with hunters. I will always comment in favor of hunter opportunities even in a situation as this one. I have commented,I do wish that it does pass. Which I believe it will.

My comment as follows.

Reinstate the spring bear hunt. Which has always been in place to decrease tree damage. Which will fairly give opportunity to all hunters through a draw system hunt.
I support this hunt
I support our traditional spring hunt more.


If any of my actions or comments in this topic on the forum has hurt the effort in any way , I'm sorry for that.
Mike L

Please leave a comment in support.

https://publicinput.com/black-bear-timber-damage

[GASoline71]

I think what he is trying to impress upon people is that the Animal Rights crowd, and certainly the Commission pays attention to comments here an uses ignorant statements against sportsmen. 

The WWF group did that exact thing at the last commission meeting.  Taking off color comments made by sportsmen on Facebook and other online forums and quoting them in their testimony.

Gary

[hunter399]

I think what he is trying to impress upon people is that the Animal Rights crowd, and certainly the Commission pays attention to comments here an uses ignorant statements against sportsmen. 

The WWF group did that exact thing at the last commission meeting.  Taking off color comments made by sportsmen on Facebook and other online forums and quoting them in their testimony.

Gary

Don't care. Sorry.
I commented in support,Done with it.
They can quote me all they want.
Quotes like this.....
1)The spring bear hunt was not a recreational hunt,that we already had a hunt to mitigate tree damage.

2)This doesn't give hunter fair opportunity through a draw and points system.

3)This damage hunt is only to address liability that the state has to minimize property damage. It is not an opportunity for all hunters.

4) A hunt such as the spring bear hunt would minimize waste of any game animals, considering all game laws would be applied.
Instead of just doing what's written on the permit. (MY OPINION).


Like said above don't care.
Don't like my quotes or opinions,don't read them.
This is a piss/poor opportunity that will not replace what we had in place to deal with tree damage.

It doesn't matter what you say,quote, science,email, comment, get on your hands and knees and beg,this commission will do whatever they want. Point the finger at me all you want.
But it's not gonna change any decision this commission makes.(MY OPINION)

If spring bear hunt cancelled has proven anything.
Proof is in pudding. This commission will do whatever,and my care button is broken.

I commented in support,some opportunities are better than none.
I just can't wait to see or hear the harvest story,about a hunt that I can't participate in.