Post by: fireweed on August 25, 2014, 07:38:59 AM
Check out the survey first question--should timber companies charge YOU to hunt their problem bears.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 25, 2014, 08:14:02 AM
Post by: rb2506 on August 25, 2014, 12:35:31 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 25, 2014, 12:45:46 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 25, 2014, 12:51:38 PM
Post by: Curly on August 25, 2014, 12:59:55 PM
No. But then again, I don't think the hound hunters should be helping them either since the ban was voted in....
:yeah:
:pee: on the timber companies.
Post by: Special T on August 25, 2014, 02:11:55 PM
No. This is one of the comments i made in the 2015-17 rules comments section - if they want help managing problem animals, including bears and elk, they should be granting unfettered hunter access for both. It's called the spirit of cooperation. If not, don't give out the tags and let them eat their barkless trees and their devoured seedlings.:yeah:
I said something very similar
I would also point out that they didnt require a wild ID # like thye have in the past.
Post by: whacker1 on August 25, 2014, 02:46:15 PM
No. This is one of the comments i made in the 2015-17 rules comments section - if they want help managing problem animals, including bears and elk, they should be granting unfettered hunter access for both. It's called the spirit of cooperation. If not, don't give out the tags and let them eat their barkless trees and their devoured seedlings.
this has been my opinion for some time. And in my opinion, the best approach to negotiating access for the fall season as well as the spring season. It would be interesting to compare the number of bears taken, vs the number of bears that they have paid for houndsmen to take bears, trapping, etc.
On Big Timber lands:
10 years from now when deer and elk populations are up, so will the bear population, so what does that do to their timber crop? And related point, what does that do to demand for their access permit system? Do prices go up based on Demand? Do permit numbers go up with more game? It will be interesting to watch unfold.
Post by: quadrafire on August 25, 2014, 03:09:05 PM
Post by: whacker1 on August 25, 2014, 03:53:26 PM
Dumb question here........ Is the bear damage from peels, or something else. I know a local tree farmer that doesn't like bucks on his place due to their rubs. I would imagine elk would be problematic as well.
I don't know if there are additional reasons, but yes to the Peels. If a Bear peels most of the tree, the tree dies or is messed up for life.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 26, 2014, 07:54:25 AM
No. This is one of the comments i made in the 2015-17 rules comments section - if they want help managing problem animals, including bears and elk, they should be granting unfettered hunter access for both. It's called the spirit of cooperation. If not, don't give out the tags and let them eat their barkless trees and their devoured seedlings.
this has been my opinion for some time. And in my opinion, the best approach to negotiating access for the fall season as well as the spring season. It would be interesting to compare the number of bears taken, vs the number of bears that they have paid for houndsmen to take bears, trapping, etc.
On Big Timber lands:
10 years from now when deer and elk populations are up, so will the bear population, so what does that do to their timber crop? And related point, what does that do to demand for their access permit system? Do prices go up based on Demand? Do permit numbers go up with more game? It will be interesting to watch unfold.
The highlighted part of your statement assumes an awful lot. At least in SW WA, I have a feeling that hoof disease will take a huge toll on elk populations in both the Willapa Hills and the St. Helens herds, and they will decrease over the next 10 years, maybe by as much as half. The WDFW has decided they know what's causing this and so far, their solution is to cull affected animals. Individual groups or sub-herds observed so far have been reported to have anywhere from 25-75% affected animals. They believe that culling will help prevent the spread of the disease to other herds. If they're wrong about what's causing this disease, and many feel they are, then culling will increase as the disease spreads.
Post by: whacker1 on August 26, 2014, 12:32:34 PM
No. This is one of the comments i made in the 2015-17 rules comments section - if they want help managing problem animals, including bears and elk, they should be granting unfettered hunter access for both. It's called the spirit of cooperation. If not, don't give out the tags and let them eat their barkless trees and their devoured seedlings.
this has been my opinion for some time. And in my opinion, the best approach to negotiating access for the fall season as well as the spring season. It would be interesting to compare the number of bears taken, vs the number of bears that they have paid for houndsmen to take bears, trapping, etc.
On Big Timber lands:
10 years from now when deer and elk populations are up, so will the bear population, so what does that do to their timber crop? And related point, what does that do to demand for their access permit system? Do prices go up based on Demand? Do permit numbers go up with more game? It will be interesting to watch unfold.
The highlighted part of your statement assumes an awful lot. At least in SW WA, I have a feeling that hoof disease will take a huge toll on elk populations in both the Willapa Hills and the St. Helens herds, and they will decrease over the next 10 years, maybe by as much as half. The WDFW has decided they know what's causing this and so far, their solution is to cull affected animals. Individual groups or sub-herds observed so far have been reported to have anywhere from 25-75% affected animals. They believe that culling will help prevent the spread of the disease to other herds. If they're wrong about what's causing this disease, and many feel they are, then culling will increase as the disease spreads.
You are right. I forgot to include the hoof disease as part of my analysis. It doesn't look good from any angle.
Post by: fireweed on August 27, 2014, 11:55:38 AM
If the WDFW revokes all bear damage permits and spring bear seasons for landowers charge, it does give companies that might be "re-thinking" their permit system after all the bad PR, an easy excuse that doesn't involve admitting to caving to us hunters.
Timber could say, the WDFW won't give away bears anymore, so we've had to review our permit requirements.
Post by: headshot5 on August 27, 2014, 12:13:54 PM
Post by: Tbar on August 27, 2014, 12:15:02 PM
Post by: bowbuild on August 27, 2014, 12:17:25 PM
A biologist told me BY LAW they are obligated to deal with problem animals. I was asking about Elk at the time. I would also like to know what law he was refering to, as I would like to read it.
Bowbuild
Post by: headshot5 on August 27, 2014, 12:26:14 PM
Quote
A biologist told me BY LAW they are obligated to deal with problem animals. I was asking about Elk at the time. I would also like to know what law he was refering to, as I would like to read it.
Bowbuild
Justly so on this. A farmer is in charge of/liable for his animals, so the WDFW should be for theirs. I imagine it is indeed the same for bears as for elk.
Post by: Curly on August 27, 2014, 12:52:28 PM
The department is in bed with the timber companies, it won't happen. The change to the trespass law was the kick off for everything that has happened since it's passage. Without the rewriting of the law there was no teeth to trespass.....now they can stick it to you.
Sure seemed to be the case, didn't it? Or one big coincidence.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 27, 2014, 01:06:34 PM
The department is in bed with the timber companies, it won't happen. The change to the trespass law was the kick off for everything that has happened since it's passage. Without the rewriting of the law there was no teeth to trespass.....now they can stick it to you.
Sure seemed to be the case, didn't it? Or one big coincidence.
I'm quite sure we will shortly hear from someone who says that's not the case. Tick, tock.... :rolleyes:
Post by: returnofsid on August 27, 2014, 01:37:03 PM
If timber companies need help protecting their assets, they sure as heck shouldn't be able to CHARGE for said protection!! Nor should they be able to PAY for said protection, using means that are illegal to the rest of our state's citizens, ie. hound hunting/baiting!
Heck, in a perfect world, for us hunters, timber companies should be required to PAY hunters AND PAY for the hunter's bear tag! Since that's never going to happen, they should at least be required to allow free access!