Post by: duckmen1 on March 12, 2013, 10:37:11 AM
What are your thoughts.
Post by: Smossy on March 12, 2013, 10:39:22 AM
Every year I think about this more and more. How we are limited to a few spring bear draws and no hound or bait hunting, while at the same time the timber companies are telling me how many bears the contract killers are taking. I think the contracting needs to stop and we need to open more permits for more areas and permits for hounds and bait in spring or fall. This would help sportsman, timber companies, and the state make even more money.:yeah:
What are your thoughts.
Post by: h20hunter on March 12, 2013, 10:44:42 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 12, 2013, 10:54:33 AM
At least offer one permit in every unit. Surely it won't affect the bear population much, and the state will sell more applications, and generate more revenue.
Post by: bearpaw on March 12, 2013, 11:06:13 AM
ALL GMU's that have bears, should have spring bear permits available. Even if it's only one permit. Capitol Forest at one time had 50 or 100 spring permits. Now zero. Why?
At least offer one permit in every unit. Surely it won't affect the bear population much, and the state will sell more applications, and generate more revenue.
:yeah: Defintely if a GMU has problems there should be bear hunting opportunity via spring permits. On the average only 1 in 6 hun ters will kill a bear, so the state could issue 50 permits in any area and likely only about 8 or 9 bear would be taken.
But, there are complications with baiting and hounds. I am a houndhunter and I wished there was a sport hunting season for hounds and for baiters. But WDFW cannot do that. The voters outlawed that, yes WDFW sat on their hands and allowed it to happen, but now WDFW has no authority over sport hunting bear with bait or hounds. Only the voters or legislators can authorize bait or hound sport hunting seasons for bear.
The only way WDFW can do bait or hound hunting is with agents of the state. That is why you see the system you see with the timber companies to address specific private timberland bear damage issues.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 12, 2013, 11:26:39 AM
ALL GMU's that have bears, should have spring bear permits available. Even if it's only one permit. Capitol Forest at one time had 50 or 100 spring permits. Now zero. Why?
At least offer one permit in every unit. Surely it won't affect the bear population much, and the state will sell more applications, and generate more revenue.
:yeah: Defintely if a GMU has problems there should be bear hunting opportunity via spring permits. On the average only 1 in 6 hun ters will kill a bear, so the state could issue 50 permits in any area and likely only about 8 or 9 bear would be taken.
But, there are complications with baiting and hounds. I am a houndhunter and I wished there was a sport hunting season for hounds and for baiters. But WDFW cannot do that. The voters outlawed that, yes WDFW sat on their hands and allowed it to happen, but now WDFW has no authority over sport hunting bear with bait or hounds. Only the voters or legislators can authorize bait or hound sport hunting seasons for bear.
The only way WDFW can do bait or hound hunting is with agents of the state. That is why you see the system you see with the timber companies to address specific private timberland bear damage issues.
The vote of the people, as uneducated as it was, prohibits the state from opening up a general season which includes baiting and/or hounding. The timber company-owned land which has problem animals represents conflict situations which must be dealt with as occasional harvest and on a case-by-case basis. It sucks, but that's the way it goes when we fail with hunting referendums.
Post by: duckmen1 on March 12, 2013, 12:25:02 PM
Post by: snowpack on March 12, 2013, 12:59:46 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 12, 2013, 01:16:25 PM
ALL GMU's that have bears, should have spring bear permits available. Even if it's only one permit. Capitol Forest at one time had 50 or 100 spring permits. Now zero. Why?The voters outlawed that, yes WDFW sat on their hands and allowed it to happen, but now WDFW has no authority over sport hunting bear with bait or hounds. Only the voters or legislators can authorize bait or hound sport hunting seasons for bear.
At least offer one permit in every unit. Surely it won't affect the bear population much, and the state will sell more applications, and generate more revenue.
WDFW "sat on their hands" because they are required to under state law. State agencies CANNOT support/oppose voter initiatives, they can only provide facts. In comparison, they CAN support/oppose legislative bills.
Post by: bigtex on March 12, 2013, 01:18:30 PM
thats the problem uneducated seattle people voting on something they know nothing about. Even if we cannot get baiting or hound permits I think we need to push as hunters to get rid of contract killing and make spring permits in those areas.
It won't happen. There are so many bears taken by contract hunters using bait then an "average" bear hunter without bait. Timber companies would be against it, a lot easier to manage one or two hunters with bait that are killing many bears. Then a hundred hunters who cant bait that may kill a couple bears.
Post by: bigtex on March 12, 2013, 01:20:52 PM
If it is legalized, it will be regulated like it is in other states (such as Idaho and Alaska) where you have to buy a permit, must mark/identify your bait sites, and are only allowed X amount of sites. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on March 12, 2013, 01:24:00 PM
thats the problem uneducated seattle people voting on something they know nothing about. Even if we cannot get baiting or hound permits I think we need to push as hunters to get rid of contract killing and make spring permits in those areas.
It won't happen. There are so many bears taken by contract hunters using bait then an "average" bear hunter without bait. Timber companies would be against it, a lot easier to manage one or two hunters with bait that are killing many bears. Then a hundred hunters who cant bait that may kill a couple bears.
Property owners ought to be able to do the same thing. Lot of private lands owners getting their trees peeled too.
Post by: bearpaw on March 12, 2013, 01:33:22 PM
I'd rather have more spring bear permits AND let the contractors continue. I don't want to start dictating over their ways, they have a good deal and provide a valuable service. On the wetside, we are allowed two bears anyways, so I don't see why we couldn't even have an early general season for bears.
:yeah: i agree completely
Post by: buckfvr on March 12, 2013, 01:36:45 PM
Not that that is meant to substitute for all the above, but more of a side note.....I support far more liberal bear hunts, spring and fall, no draw.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 12, 2013, 01:49:49 PM
I'd rather have more spring bear permits AND let the contractors continue. I don't want to start dictating over their ways, they have a good deal and provide a valuable service. On the wetside, we are allowed two bears anyways, so I don't see why we couldn't even have an early general season for bears.
:yeah: i agree completely
westside 2 bears, 1spring-1 fall, or 2fall-2 spring.
not rocket science, 2 bears is 2 bears no matter how you slice it. i don't see how spring verses fall bear hunting affects them negatively. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on March 12, 2013, 02:05:41 PM
Quote
not rocket science, 2 bears is 2 bears no matter how you slice it. i don't see how spring verses fall bear hunting affects them negatively.
I think I read somewhere that the lack of a spring hunting season on bears has to do with them not wanting sows with cubs killed.
Post by: h20hunter on March 12, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
Post by: snowpack on March 12, 2013, 02:30:34 PM
Post by: Rufous on March 12, 2013, 08:49:16 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 12, 2013, 09:16:18 PM
Yep the permit holders pay a large portion of it! :bash:
And yes it's the SW WA permit lands doing this.
If you can prove me wrong. :hello:
Laughing about it I'm sure, dumb hunters think its a special permit.
You would be money ahead to go to EA WA permits for spring bears and pay for a guide like Bearpaw.
Post by: huntnphool on March 12, 2013, 09:25:23 PM
thats the problem uneducated seattle people voting on something they know nothing about.Same thing will happen if those left wing nuts get to vote on mandatory background checks for firearm sales.
Post by: CementFinisher on March 12, 2013, 09:42:54 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on March 12, 2013, 10:19:32 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 12, 2013, 10:34:37 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on March 12, 2013, 10:38:01 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 12, 2013, 10:55:50 PM
When the campaining was started and the initiative written up, the big, special interest groups (timber companies), were protected so that they would not put their resources (money) and influence (political clout) into fighting it. The ads that were ran, showed only the sportsman hunters, in the worst, YouTube ways possible, tom play on the public's emotions. Try and take hounding away from the timber companies now and you will see what I mean about them jumping into action to fight it I bet!
Most people I would bet did not bother to read the entire initiative, they just went by what they saw or heard. Recent example was on another thread about gun legislation where a Legislator admitted to not having completely read the bill before signing on to support it...if they don't bother to do their homework before jumping on board, I guantee you the tree loving, bunny hugging, racoon licking, Starbuck drinking voters didn't either.
I used to work with a gal that was strong into the PETA movement. Meetings, contributions, etc. We were talking one night about hunting, because she knew I hunted. And got on the subject of the new bait and hound restrictions.
When I told her that the only thing that was accomplished was to take the average guy out of the loop, keep it inside a smaller select group that continued to hunt for timber companies and kill several more than the one per year that we had previously been allowed to as private sportsmen.
And she was absolutely shocked that this included spring hunts and killing sows that orphaned cubs. As wrapped-up in PETA that she was, she had no clue that was all that changed and that bears were still being killed by the methods that were supposed to be outlawed.
People on here say, one state, one law for every group reguarding other hot-botton topics, some of which will NEVER change, no matter how much complaining is done.
This however, could be changed, but would take effort, time, money, but with all the current legislative assaults on guns, gun ownership, assault weapons, etc, something like this will not even make the radar. Where is all the effort going right now? Letters, emails, calls to Olympia about the gun bills, which is understandably the more important issue.
It is what it is because they anti's had nothing to lose and everything to gain, they made sure to look out for the special interest groups that were the big threat (timber companies for example), protected the public at large by saadding the public health or safety clause, they didn't lie, they just didn't tell the whole story, and the story they did tell was the worst possible examples they could find and the public reacted on emotion and bought into it.
But please, don't label an exterminator as a hunter. Two entirely different catagories.
Post by: CementFinisher on March 12, 2013, 10:58:19 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 12, 2013, 11:03:38 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 12, 2013, 11:21:31 PM
I stand by that they are not hunters because they are not out pursuing and harvesting game for the same reasons as say you or I would or do, they are exterminating a pest...plain and simple.
Enjoy your evening CementFinisher, I have enjoyed sharing thoughts, perspectives and opinions with you in a cordial and adult way.
Time for the computer to be shut off and head for bed...I have a smoker to start building tomorrow :IBCOOL:
Post by: Humptulips on March 13, 2013, 12:30:18 AM
You think they don't want to deal with opening their land to spring bear hunters. They'd like it even less to see all their fir trees peeled.
I do disagree about the hound men not being hunters. They enjoy a good chase as much as they did before 1996. They are just making the best of a bad situation.
Oh, and anybody can get a permit. You just have to document bear damage on your land.
Post by: Bigshooter on March 13, 2013, 04:50:52 AM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 13, 2013, 06:23:48 AM
Post by: duckmen1 on March 13, 2013, 03:26:38 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 13, 2013, 03:31:01 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on March 13, 2013, 03:33:09 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 13, 2013, 03:33:43 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on March 13, 2013, 03:45:56 PM
But I do not agree calling them sportsman
Like another said exterminator is more like it
Post by: duckmen1 on March 13, 2013, 03:51:02 PM
When we were outlawed it was done and over. I think if enough people went to the state we could very well see a change in the law and see some hound and bait permits given. Educate people voting that its not just taking you pet out and treeing a bear or walking into the woods a no throwing out a jelly donut and harvesting a bear. Both methods take a lot of work and preparation as well as money to our community and state.
Post by: duckmen1 on March 13, 2013, 03:52:23 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 13, 2013, 06:10:15 PM
Look you will never be allowed to bait or run hounds, so you will never kill enough bears to make a difference. Quite trying to take the only way hound guys can hunt em away. Your trying to hurt other hunters to benefit yourself. STOP! we all better start getting on the same page or there will be nothing to squabble about
I'm not trying to take anything away from contract killers!
I'm trying to bring to light that people issued spring bear permits in the Capalis, and Kapowsin are being fleeced out of $100 for permits to access private timber lands. Without the knowledge of contract bear killing going on in those units.
Those units an be hunted pretty much all year by contract killers, thus the bears are pressured so much that permit hunters will have little to no success on their permit hunts.
Now take North Skagit, and Monroe have higher elevations in or near these units, thus permit hunters will have a better chance of seeing bears on slopes, plus higher elevation bears migrating down to feed in the lowlands.
Now with that said, if a person from out of area , or one not on a forum like this will not be wise to the fact that Copalis, and Kapwsin units are heavily hunted by contract killers with dogs. And the timber company they pay for trespass to hunt spring bears is charging them $100, which basically is a wild goose chase few will be successful at.
I see this as cunningly deceitful practice by the WDFW and the private timber company's involved.
I'm not against contract killing of bears, those people doing it need to feed their family's too. Just let hunters know which spring bear permit units that have contract killing going on in them, disclaimer if you will. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on March 13, 2013, 06:18:40 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 13, 2013, 06:46:35 PM
Post by: Basket Rack on March 13, 2013, 07:42:13 PM
I agree with most views on this thread of providing more spring opportunity for bear hunters but not by doing away with private landowners ability to protect their crops wether it be timber companies trees or a farmer's alfalfa field under the depredation system.
Post by: duckmen1 on March 13, 2013, 07:46:21 PM
Just a thought
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 13, 2013, 07:49:43 PM
I have a thought. Many trees are lost due to bears. When 2nd growth timber reaches a certain age they go in and thin half the trees to let others get more growth. What's the difference a chainsaw or a bear?
Just a thought
Tree thinners have a checker board system to the way they thin tree stands. Bears are lazy about , easy access trees near roads and stuff.
Post by: bobcat on March 13, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
I have a thought. Many trees are lost due to bears. When 2nd growth timber reaches a certain age they go in and thin half the trees to let others get more growth. What's the difference a chainsaw or a bear?
Just a thought
I had the exact same thought years ago. And you're exactly right. They plant way more trees than necessary to begin with. So in actuality, the bears are providing a benefit by thinning out the trees. All at no cost to the timber companies. :tup:
Post by: snowpack on March 13, 2013, 07:53:57 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 13, 2013, 08:04:31 PM
I have a thought. Many trees are lost due to bears. When 2nd growth timber reaches a certain age they go in and thin half the trees to let others get more growth. What's the difference a chainsaw or a bear?
Just a thought
I had the exact same thought years ago. And you're exactly right. They plant way more trees than necessary to begin with. So in actuality, the bears are providing a benefit by thinning out the trees. All at no cost to the timber companies. :tup:
When the stand of trees hit 4-8 inches around or so the bear will take em all out in big areas, and not mess with all the little scraggly volunteer trees 1-2 inches around, those are the ones which need culled - not the prime ones.
They like the trees when they can peel long slabs up the trunk, much more than 10 inch thick tree or so and the peeling gets harder/less rewarding
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_s-_-Phtl6C0%2FS_2s9ia1jII%2FAAAAAAAAAPI%2FOBPg2IPrtKA%2Fs1600%2FIMG_0873.jpg&hash=14c25bfc8dc885f4b05d168458f290c67629f649)
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 14, 2013, 05:48:01 PM
This didn't look to hard for them! :yike:
Post by: rosscrazyelk on March 14, 2013, 05:52:06 PM