Please comment: Black Bear Timber Damage CR-102

[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.