Contract killing of bears

[Goshawk]

PS. I'm a little lost as to how the posted pictures of people have something to do with bear hunting?

It was a joke.  You know, all the talk of contract killing, so I put in some pictures of Tony Soprano and his crew, Paulie Walnuts and Sil.

They're in the mafia, and know a thing or two about contract killing

Ok, now I get it.
I don't watch TV so these guys meant nothing to me outside of looking grumpy.

[gottatree]

Hi-Liter, we where paid per tree and all animals where killed whether at the tree or they overdosed on the way to the release spot. Cougars had a bad habit of overdosing. I finally quit when we put two twin cubs up a tree and the DNR guy who was with us told me to kill them. I refused and pulled my dogs and never went back.

[Hi-Liter]

DNR, they call themselves the protectors of the forest..................... I agree with you Gottatree, but I would have told the guy to and F*** himself.

[gottatree]

We pretty much told him a lot more than that. I was trying to keep it g rated for our younger people on here.

[bearbaito6]

Gotta tree, What your talking about is totally different then Timber co. hunts. Yes the game dept is supposed to pay hound guys for catching problem animals, Which the voters of this state should pay, They voted out responsible management.

[gottatree]

Bear bait, I was paid by plum creek, port blakley and the state. The reason I quit was the dnr. They paid me because I produced. When they needed bears removed they called me and the problem was solved. I had more time and money invested in my dogs than most. They hunted a minimum of three days a week all year long.

[bowman]

Last year I ran into some guys while checking my trail camera that were hounding bears.  They were on private timber land property and were able to kill up to 15 bears.  They weren't paid by the timber company. 

I actually found their "strike" dog wandering around near my camera.  The hunters had been looking for her all day.

[bobcat]

I have never heard of the DNR or WDFW using hound hunters to kill bears on state land. As far as I know, by law they are not allowed to do so. Unless of course it's just one specific problem bear in a populated area. This is why they had the spring bear permits in Capitol Forest for several years. If they could have got depredation permits and used hound hunters to reduce the bear population like the private timber companies do, then I'm pretty sure they would have done that.

[bearbaito6]

Exactly Bobcat!

[RadSav]

I'm not allowed to say much, but I was part of team in another state contracted to kill bear.  We were not paid, used no dogs except in extreme aggressive animal situations and only targeted bear in residential problem areas.  Not sure how much similarities there are in Washington, but rarely would we take more than a dozen bear per year under the program.  From stories of guys here that have taken part in DNR and WDFW programs it does sound like Washington had a much more aggressive program than we had.

In our case most of the bear issues were taken care of by the state.  They would live trap and relocate.  Some did die due to overdosing.  Those bear that returned to residential areas after being trapped once usually knew better than to get in a trap again.  That's when they would call us in for harvest.  Program was cancelled after the activists claimed feeding wild game to prisoners was unethical treatment of inmates.  We were never allowed to know how they handled problem bear after that.  I could only offer a theoretical guess.

Stories of 2,000 bear by a single hunter would seem to me to be either a wives tail or a government hunter many, many, years ago.

[Curly]

I guess my main gripe is that if a timber company is having problems with bears, they should have to open up their access for paying hunters before being allowed to have the state hire and pay for a professional trapper / hunter to kill them. That's OUR tax dollars being spent to hire someone to bear hunt on land that is closed to the public, yet enjoys a HUGE property tax break.
Just don't seem right...

I agree (except for the part about it being our tax dollars).  Private timber companies are paying for the removal of the bears.  It seems real crazy for the banning of hounds and banning of baiting bears by initiative to occur and then just allow timber companies to contract out for the removal of bears by hound guys.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that at least some hound guys get to run their dogs, but it would seem to make more sense to allow anyone to run their dogs and anyone to bait bears.

Another thing that doesn't make sense to me is why the whole state isn't open for general season spring bear?  Or at least have special permits for all GMU's or at least a whole bunch more for spring bear?

[billythekidrock]

Stories of 2,000 bear by a single hunter would seem to me to be either a wives tail or a government hunter many, many, years ago.

In the 60's and 70's the WA Forest Protection Ass. would regularly kill about 500 bears a year in WA. Ralph Flowers killed over 1,000 bears and Bill Hulet killed probably more than that....all on the Olympic Peninsula.

[HntnFsh]

I don't know any numbers but I know some master hunters are starting to bait and kill bears now.

Are you sure about that. I was in contact last spring with the person in charge of trying to set this up. They wanted to hit specific problem areas with heavy peeling.It didnt happen fast enough.So my understanding was that it is on hold.Maybe I better make a phone call.

[grundy53]

Stories of 2,000 bear by a single hunter would seem to me to be either a wives tail or a government hunter many, many, years ago.

In the 60's and 70's the WA Forest Protection Ass. would regularly kill about 500 bears a year in WA. Ralph Flowers killed over 1,000 bears and Bill Hulet killed probably more than that....all on the Olympic Peninsula.

  Weyerhaeuser also used to have a bounty on them. I know some old timers who would kill around sixty a year. Lincoln creek used to get hit hard. There was a ton of bear in their. They said they were like rats.

[gottatree]

I guess my main gripe is that if a timber company is having problems with bears, they should have to open up their access for paying hunters before being allowed to have the state hire and pay for a professional trapper / hunter to kill them. That's OUR tax dollars being spent to hire someone to bear hunt on land that is closed to the public, yet enjoys a HUGE property tax break.
Just don't seem right...

I agree (except for the part about it being our tax dollars).  Private timber companies are paying for the removal of the bears.  It seems real crazy for the banning of hounds and banning of baiting bears by initiative to occur and then just allow timber companies to contract out for the removal of bears by hound guys.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that at least some hound guys get to run their dogs, but it would seem to make more sense to allow anyone to run their dogs and anyone to bait bears.

Another thing that doesn't make sense to me is why the whole state isn't open for general season spring bear?  Or at least have special permits for all GMU's or at least a whole bunch more for spring bear?

Durring the fight over that initiative the anti's put in a provision that large land owners ( Timber Companies ) could use dogs to protect there crops ( Timber ) If this was not included you would have seen Millions of dollars being donated to the cause.
Timber companies pay not the state. What frustrates me the most on here is people fight over what has happened and what they think has happened. I spent Tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep my dogs in shape. The timber companies where happy to buy a couple of pallets of dog food a month to have there problem controlled. Hound guys have been hunting for the timber companies for years and will continue to do so. The ones who catch will get invited back the ones that don't will not hunt for them again.  whether or not you want to believe it the timber companies paid.