Post by: billythekidrock on February 15, 2009, 01:49:41 PM
This is a knee jerk reaction to an unfortunate shooting incident last fall.
Proposal from the “Green Sheet”
(1) For BBMUs that open Aug 1, the Aug 1-31 period is limited to
hunting on private lands only. The justification for this change is to reduce conflict with other recreational users on public lands during the summer while still allowing bears to be harvested for damage reasons (e.g., orchard damage).
This is a straight across ban of hunting bears in August on public lands. Not just rifle hunters, but all weapons groups.
There have been no alternatives given such as:
Hunting by permit only
Master Hunters only
Archery or Muzzle Loader only
If you could find a couple minutes of time to write an email to the WA Dept of F&W at the email addresses below and let them know that closing any public lands to hunting is unacceptable, we Washington hunters would be grateful.
Thanks.
The one who is pushing this is donny.martorello@dfw.wa.gov
commission@dfw.wa.gov
director@dfw.wa.gov
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
peter.goldmark@dnr.wa.gov
cpl@dnr.wa.gov
Post by: billythekidrock on February 15, 2009, 01:50:21 PM
Archery Talk
Backcountry
Hunt Talk
Bears East
Jesses Hunting Outdoors
Midwest Predator Hunters
Piscatorial Pursuits
Accurate Reloading
IFish
BigGameHunt
Huntingnet
Huntamerica
PredatorMasters
Blacktail country
24HourCampfire
Graybeard Outdoors
ModernSportsman
The Hunters Life
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on February 15, 2009, 01:54:15 PM
How many privlages has F&G already taken away from us?
Bear Baiting
The use of hounds for Bear and Cougar.
Trappers are now required to only use Cage Traps for fur trapping.
etc,
etc,
etc,
From what I have seen so far once we lose something it is gone! Once they close Public Land to Bear hunters in August chances are it is gone and we WILL NOT get it back.
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on February 15, 2009, 01:55:27 PM
Post by: norsepeak on February 15, 2009, 02:21:27 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2009, 08:47:20 PM
commission@dfw.wa.gov
director@dfw.wa.gov
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
peter.goldmark@dfw.wa.gov
cpl@dnr.wa.gov
That email address for Peter Goldmark probably should be @dnr.wa.gov
Correct ???
Post by: billythekidrock on February 15, 2009, 08:51:47 PM
commission@dfw.wa.gov
director@dfw.wa.gov
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
peter.goldmark@dfw.wa.gov
cpl@dnr.wa.gov
That email address for Peter Goldmark probably should be @dnr.wa.gov
Correct ???
I don't know. I copied it from your post. :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2009, 08:52:36 PM
Well then, yes it should be dnr, not dfw. My bad!
This is it: peter.goldmark@dnr.wa.gov
He is the new Public Lands Commissioner (Department of Natural Resources)
I'm not sure how to get an email to the Director of the WDFW.
Post by: FrankDown on February 15, 2009, 11:44:42 PM
Quote
BTKR I will post it over on TMan.Tman is where I first saw your name, you used the same name there right? Thats how you know Yancy?
Anyway,
Ill post it around too...
Post by: billythekidrock on February 16, 2009, 07:34:03 AM
Oh you did? :chuckle:
Well then, yes it should be dnr, not dfw. My bad!
This is it: peter.goldmark@dnr.wa.gov
He is the new Public Lands Commissioner (Department of Natural Resources)
I'm not sure how to get an email to the Director of the WDFW.
Too late to change all the posts now.
the CPL@dnr should get it to Peter
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on February 16, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
QuoteBTKR I will post it over on TMan.Tman is where I first saw your name, you used the same name there right? Thats how you know Yancy?
Anyway,
Ill post it around too...
Yeah I use the same name over on TMan and pretty much any forum I am a member of now. I have only been a member of TMan since the beginning of Novenber I believe. I don't know Yancy Personally I have just talked to him in PM and bought some of his traps.
Post by: runamuk on February 16, 2009, 03:55:35 PM
Given the light of this incident maybe would try to get baiting back as a safety issue? It is a lot safer method of hunting bears because the shots are so much shorter? What do ya think, would it fly?
I think bringing up the safety factor of both baiting and pursuit with hounds is worth mentioning.
This is a complete over reaction to an unfortunate incident I will try to fire off a letter.
Post by: Bofire on February 17, 2009, 10:57:00 AM
Carl
Post by: ICEMAN on February 17, 2009, 12:34:36 PM
Good idea, great having links, thanks.
Post by: Old Dog on February 17, 2009, 06:57:38 PM
Another thing to think about.
How many privlages has F&G already taken away from us?
Bear Baiting
The use of hounds for Bear and Cougar.
Trappers are now required to only use Cage Traps for fur trapping.
etc,
etc,
etc,
From what I have seen so far once we lose something it is gone! Once they close Public Land to Bear hunters in August chances are it is gone and we WILL NOT get it back.
I don't want to come off as some sort of defender of the WDFW, but I think it's important to be accurate in our arguments if we are going to be effective.
First of all there is no F&G, it's the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Secondly the WDFW did not take those privledges away the anti hunters did through our stupid initiative system. Finally it is the Wildlife Commission that has proposed all the changes. Admittedly some of the proposals where requested by personel within the WDFW.
Add your state lawmakers to that e-mail list as well. I fear we may take a bit of a whoopin' this time around, and Michelle is right when she says once we lose it we won't get it back, but we don't have to allow it without fighting back. Just remember to be respectful, and use spell check ;)
Post by: InsideWDFW on February 18, 2009, 08:09:41 PM
The unfortunate Sauk mountain shooting. We understand that this was an isolated incident. The last non-hunter death was 25 years ago. The kid broke every rule that all hunters should follow. Unfortunately this incident caught a lot of people's attention, including State Senators and Representatives.
Though hard to sometimes understand, studies have shown that non-hunting uses of public lands bring in more revenue then hunting does. While we (WDFW) do depend on license sales, a majority of our budget comes from the state's general fund. And Washington Legislators control how much of that fund we get, so basically they sign our paycheck. Some groups have put a lot of pressure on Legislators to outright ban hunting on public lands citing the fact that non-hunters spend more money than hunters.
We had to come up with a solution that made people ok.. not happy but ok - also known as a compromise. In order to make sure that bear hunting in Washington survived, we had to take the initiative regarding non-hunter/hunter interaction. Otherwise we would have been left with a law being passed by State Legislators without having any input. See the baiting/hound/trapping initiative from a few years back to see what happens when we we loose our voice.
So we came up with moving the general bear season to Sept 1. on public lands. Along with the biological reasons; this allowed us to make sure that bear hunting was both still available on private lands and that some odd ball law wasn't passed as a knee jerk reaction by State Legislators. You have no idea how close it came to having hunting banned statewide during the summer months.
Post by: runamuk on February 18, 2009, 08:18:05 PM
Though hard to sometimes understand, studies have shown that non-hunting uses of public lands bring in more revenue then hunting does.
I would be very interested in seeing those statistics, especially if broken down into user groups. I have found frequently that groups pushing anti hunting tend to overinflate, or borrow numbers out of context and even sometimes just flat out make them up to fit their goals.
I am not doubting you and find it very believable if the money made from land leases is included in that number i.e. timber sales and grazing leases ;)
thanks again for info from another perspective.
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2009, 08:19:14 PM
I guess I need to find something else to do in August. :'(
Post by: billythekidrock on February 18, 2009, 08:23:59 PM
Believe it or not the main reason (not the only reason) is biological. Bear populations are sitting on the edge of where we want them to be. Right now the big concern is numbers of sows being harvested. While this really has no effect now, it could be a huge deal in a couple of years. In order to slow harvest down a bit, we had to cut down the season. We had a choice to do it at the beginning or the end which leads to..
So we came up with moving the general bear season to Sept 1. on public lands. Along with the biological reasons; this allowed us to make sure that bear hunting was both still available on private lands and that some odd ball law wasn't passed as a knee jerk reaction by State Legislators. You have no idea how close it came to having hunting banned statewide during the summer months.
The "population" angle is a copout. We all know it is about managing people, not animals.
You may state that the bear population is not growing at the rate it once was, but we are also losing bear habitat faster then ever. Where will the excess go?
By not hunting bears in August we are bound to have more bear/human conflicts especially in times of food shortages. Who will be responsible for removal of these excess bears? F&W? At what expense? I do not want to see F&W or their contractors killing or relocating bear (and coincidentally spending more money) when they could have been legally harvested. It does not make sense to have the department do it when hunters will pay to hunt them.
Year Total
2007 1585
2006 1642
2005 1333
2004 1654
2003 1566
2002 1725
2001 1439
2000 1165
1999 1113
1998 1802
1997 844
We are currently harvesting about 1500 bears a year. That is up about 500 from the pre-ban days of baiting and hound hunting. We have sustained those pre-ban levels or exceeded them for more then 10 years and we are still seeing more bears than ever. This is obviously not about the bear population.
But if there is any concern about the bear population then start by removing the second bear tag. I have not found any data available to the public about how many hunters are successful in filling both tags though my own informal surveys online show it could be about 10 percent of the successful hunters. I have successfully filled both bear tags in four seasons and though this will cut into my hunting time, it would be a decision I would support if it were based on sound management. Removing bear hunters from public lands over a user group issue is not sound management and I will not support it.
F&W very easily could have offered August as Archery only or ML and the harvest numbers would have come down and allowed those user groups to hunt without competing with modern firearms.
Post by: woodswalker on February 18, 2009, 08:25:14 PM
OK, in a compromise both sides get something...I dont see where we as hunters gained anything. Its the same with the anti-gunners...take take take. All in the name of "Reasonable Restrictions"
On the issue of baiting/hounds for bears and cats....Let Mr and Ms Kitty eat Fluffy, Buffy and Spot, I REALLY AND TRULY DONT CARE. I'm all for the public having to sleep in the bed they made. No hounds? Gee, I'm sorry that the cougar ate your prized alpaca..really I am, but we just really cannot catch it without a hound. And NO, no special dispensation for a "trouble cat' to use hounds. Let them sleep in the bed that they made. Bear damage? Gee, I'm sorry but we cannot hunt bears in summer (August) your (insert crop here) will just have to wait until its opened again in Sept.
I am sick nigh unto DEATH with the urban idjits with their Disney-fied views of wildlife and the wild. Build a wall around them and dont let them OUT.
Post by: MichaelJ on February 18, 2009, 08:38:32 PM
Michael
Post by: InsideWDFW on February 18, 2009, 08:59:21 PM
woodswalker: There is a reason why we made it only public lands and not just all lands... we understand that bears cause havoc during August, hence leaving the general season open during August on private lands. As far as the "make your bed, sleep in it comment".. we like this one. The next Game Management Package is just three years away.. who knows how the public will respond to increased bear incidents during the next 3 years.
billythekidrock and most others: I know it's hard to believe that the decision to cut the season down was based on research rather then PR. Your numbers are nice, but they don't show the whole picture. Prior to the hounds initiative, most people assumed that in order to harvest a bear, you needed to use hounds. A lot of hunters didn't bother to purchase/hunt bear because they didn't have hounds. Once people realized that bear hunting was possible, more people started hunting bears. I don't have the figures at hand, but there was actually a sharp increase in the amount of bear tags purchased after the ban went into effect. So you have more people hunting bears, so more are going to be harvested.
What those numbers don't show is sow harvest, we have seen sow harvest slowly creep up the past few years, and in some areas jump up. During the last game management plan, we wanted to see a 35%-39% sow harvest rate. That number is starting to creep up to a place where we get a bit nervous. Because a sow won't have her first birth until after 2 years old, we have to think two years in advance. Going by past trends, and what we saw with the lastest hunter reports, in 2 years we are going to be over the 39%. The cuts to the seasons you would see during the next Game Management Package would make this years propposal seem like a nice fluffy puppy dog.
Take a look at last year's Status report: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/status/ and Game Harvest report: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/harvest/index.htm . Remember that these are just summaries of the research we've done.
Post by: Ridgerunner on February 18, 2009, 09:05:15 PM
This is SO frustrating. Thank you for at least coming on here and telling more of the story than what we otherwise would have known.
Post by: billythekidrock on February 18, 2009, 09:15:32 PM
Of course the number of tags went up after the ban, but you can't tell me that was because hunters went out and bought them. It was F&W's creative packaging that made them (and cougar tags) basically free and an attractive package to raise revenue.
As for the sow harvest...again, eliminate the second tag. Most people think there is a bear problem and with the option of a second tag they will shoot the first legal bear they see.
There are too many options that are not being used to make me believe it is truly a population issue. Like I said before, make it Archery only or muzzleloading only in August. Cut the season at the end when there are more hunters in the woods and the incidental harvest goes up. This would also allow bred sows to survive.
The problem is the precident F&W has set with this proposal. We as hunters know that once it is gone..it is gone.
There is a serious mistrust around F&G with hunters. Not only are you maintaining that distrust with this proposal, but you are also adding fuel to the fire by shutting us out of public lands over a user group issue and not sound management. There is no big game season in July. Let the hikers have July and then shut them out for August. If they want to be outdoors in August then let them purchase a hunting license. How long before we can no longer hunt public lands in September?
Post by: Ray on February 18, 2009, 09:20:27 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2009, 09:22:45 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on February 18, 2009, 09:30:08 PM
Post by: InsideWDFW on February 18, 2009, 09:54:06 PM
As some of you know, there is a lot of information we have that isn't published. It's not about trying to be secret about anything, it's just that we don't have the people to get everything out there. So I'm going to make you work if you want to have the real numbers for your arguments.
File a Public Disclosure Request ( http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/public_disclosure/ ). You are asking for "1998 through 2008 bear tag sales report and a separate 2nd bear tag sales report". You should also ask for the "raw excel files for the same years bear harvest reports" - This will give you an idea of the percentage of 2nd tag holders who harvest. Gut call here, but I'm guessing that for each year this number will be less then 200 and will have been mostly harvested in areas that we are not concerned about. You also see the sow harvest percentage creep up.
These reports are relatively easy to produce, so you should see a response in a couple of days. The request and response and be done via e-mail.
Next, actually read the section on the 2007 Game Status and Trend report relating to bears. Yea the numbers are ours, but all they show is total bear harvest for the entire state. Right now (as in this very second) there are only a few areas in the state that are throwing little flags, though the other areas are headed down the same path. Please keep in mind that we have to look 2, 3, 10 years down the road. Are goal here is not to piss off bear hunters (a lot of us at WDFW have a few hides in our homes) but to make sure that bear hunting stays around, and doesn't get banned by "antis" (who have more clout then WDFW does fyi) or the population goes down the drain.
And finally guys, keep in mind that these proposals where put together by guys and gals who, along with having multiple PH.D.s, spend 50-60 hours a week, 50 weeks a year working to maintain Washington's wildlife.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 19, 2009, 05:26:12 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 19, 2009, 06:28:18 AM
I would very much like the bear population to continue growing and any changes based on that are fine with me. But your comments about ....
Quote
You have no idea how close it came to having hunting banned statewide during the summer months.
...only confirm what I believe the real reason is for this proposal. Like I said before, there are other options not being used.
I would like to know what you think about August bear hunting in the future? Will it ever happen again or is it completely off the table?
Post by: Colville on February 19, 2009, 07:22:00 AM
Inside, you noted that there are areas raising flags, biologically. Fine. Obviously other areas aren't as you noted that the 2 bear kill individuals primarily have their success where they "aren't concerned". That was the counter argument that removing 2nd tags wouldn't be effective. Obviously, the issue can, like deer/elk, be managed by GMU based restrictions/changes. The fact that this isn't the approach tells one that the real driver here is politics rather than management. You've made it clear in one breath that certain areas can take the pressure and even 2nd tags and others can't, yet have relied only on the weak areas to justify a state wide restriction.
I'm not going to argue with the biologist on the numbers. But you've made no case that the whole state needs a bear management solution rather than regions in question... and that begs the question, what's at the heart of the change, politics or biology.
Post by: Shannon on February 19, 2009, 07:48:16 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 19, 2009, 07:02:50 PM
All users spend money on gas, food and lodging.
Hunters spend money on tags, licenses, guns, ammo, etc.
Hikers spend money on permits, camping equipment, etc.
Now how many hunters are hikers? Most hunters would be considered hikers but most hikers are not hunters. Are hunters hiking dollars added to the total of the hikers?
It is all based on how they spin it.