Post by: remington300mag on February 20, 2009, 02:13:56 PM
Anyway, read this and let me know if I read it right!! As far as I can tell, WDFW is just trying to cover up another stupid decision on there part!!!
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/2009-2011_recommendations/bear_&_cougr_general_seasons_232-28-272_287.pdf
Post by: ThePascoKid on February 20, 2009, 02:25:45 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 20, 2009, 02:28:30 PM
I don't think WDFW has any clue on the actuall bear numbers though
Post by: Machias on February 20, 2009, 04:23:10 PM
We told the WDFW that this would happen, it was one of the arugments used during the so called debate back in 1995/96.
Post by: RubblesPH on February 20, 2009, 04:27:57 PM
Post by: luvtohnt on February 20, 2009, 04:30:47 PM
Brandon
Post by: ThePascoKid on February 20, 2009, 05:06:16 PM
Post by: rasbo on February 21, 2009, 06:57:55 AM
Post by: PWN Kurt on February 21, 2009, 11:54:00 AM
My understanding is that the bear complaints (getting into bird feeders, garbage, bbqs) were at an all time high last year. They say that some of that was due to snow lingering in the high country last spring...but I'm sure its also a sign that numbers are good.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on February 21, 2009, 01:59:39 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 21, 2009, 02:27:48 PM
I wish there were more studies available that showed the harvest reports on post ban (hound and bait ban) hunting of bears and cats. Maybe if there was the ban would have never happened. Bears and cats climbed in population for about 5 or 6 years after the ban and now because of open hunting methods the numbers of both are starting to fall.
The numbers were on the rise before the ban. The population boom would have happened with or without the ban. When the breeding base gets so large the population grows exponentially.
For nearly ten years before the ban we were killing about 800 bears a year. For the first ten years since the ban we are killing 1500 bears a year. Mostly in due to cheap/free bear tags that are now in everyone's pocket.
Are they on the decline? I don't know and I doubt F&W knows for sure.
Post by: Abolt338 on March 10, 2009, 03:31:08 PM
Statewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels, but a disproportionate number bears are being taken East of the Cascades as incidental harvests by deer / elk hunters who would otherwise not have purchased a bear tag.
As a result, populations West of the mountains (and those with heavy timber) are booming. Populations in more open terrain are taking a bit of a hit, though I don't think it's a major decline.
Speaking with WA bear Biologists, there's no concrete way to measure bear populations. Their estimates are guesses at best based on estimated sow mortality, hunter reports, estimated cub survival data, etc.
If you want to know whether or not bear populations are hurting on the West side (where nearly 2/3 of the state bear population resides), ask the timber companies.
Lacking the ability to bait and use hounds is not ideal for hunters or bear populations, but neither are hurting to the point where one would suggest a further reduction in hunting opportunity.
RW
Post by: 7mag. on March 10, 2009, 04:55:07 PM
We also have to take into account that the bear population in WA is not one unique body. Prior to the bans, pressures on the western populations was higher. People could effectively hunt bears in the western timber using bait and hounds. After the ban, regulation changes - cheaper tags, more liberal limits, longer seasons - switched the bear hunting pressure to the more open country East of the mountains.
Statewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels, but a disproportionate number bears are being taken East of the Cascades as incidental harvests by deer / elk hunters who would otherwise not purchased a bear tag.
As a result, populations West of the mountains (and those with heavy timber) are booming. Populations in more open terrain are taking a bit of a hit, though I don't think it's a major decline.
Speaking with WA bear Biologists, there's no concrete way to measure bear populations. They're estimates are guesses at best based on estimated sow mortality, hunter reports, estimated cub survival data, etc.
If you want to know whether or not bear populations are hurting on the West side (where nearly 2/3 of the state bear population resides), ask the timber companies.
Lacking the ability to bait and use hounds is not ideal for hunters or bear populations, but neither are hurting to the point where one would suggest a further reduction in hunting opportunity.
RW
Good info. I have no information to back myself up, but through my own observations, bear numbers seem to be up over the last several years. I have seen more bears and sign than ever as a kid (pre ban).
Post by: huntnphool on March 10, 2009, 04:58:18 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on March 10, 2009, 06:32:49 PM
Quote
Statewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,
In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.
Post by: Machias on March 10, 2009, 07:31:08 PM
Post by: Abolt338 on March 10, 2009, 07:39:08 PM
QuoteStatewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,
In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.
I should have said "returned and then surpassed" pre-ban levels. You're right, we actually harvest more bears now than before the ban; but a greater percent of those harvests occur in more open country as incidental kills as a direct result of liberal (meaning loose) policies set due to the ban and the likely decline in harvests that resulted from it.
RW
Post by: billythekidrock on March 10, 2009, 07:44:03 PM
QuoteStatewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,
In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.
I should have said "returned and then surpassed" pre-ban levels. You're right, we actually harvest more bears now than before the ban; but a greater percent of those harvests occur in more open country as incidental kills as a direct result of liberal (meaning loose) policies set due to the ban and the likely decline in harvests that resulted from it.
RW
I thought you meant that, but wasn't sure.
I agree that there are too many incidentals as a result of the cheap tags and longer season.
Post by: Abolt338 on March 10, 2009, 07:48:24 PM
QuoteStatewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,
In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.
I should have said "returned and then surpassed" pre-ban levels. You're right, we actually harvest more bears now than before the ban; but a greater percent of those harvests occur in more open country as incidental kills as a direct result of liberal (meaning loose) policies set due to the ban and the likely decline in harvests that resulted from it.
RW
I thought you meant that, but wasn't sure.
I agree that there are too many incidentals as a result of the cheap tags and longer season.
And don't forget the few of us (you included) who choose to chase more than one ;)...
RW
Post by: rasbo on March 10, 2009, 07:50:13 PM
yeah you dirty rotten killers :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :hello:QuoteStatewide harvest rates eventually returned to their pre-ban levels,
In over ten years it has not returned to preban levels. We are killing nearly 1/3 more now then when we could use dogs and bait.
I should have said "returned and then surpassed" pre-ban levels. You're right, we actually harvest more bears now than before the ban; but a greater percent of those harvests occur in more open country as incidental kills as a direct result of liberal (meaning loose) policies set due to the ban and the likely decline in harvests that resulted from it.
RW
I thought you meant that, but wasn't sure.
I agree that there are too many incidentals as a result of the cheap tags and longer season.
And don't forget the few of us (you included) who choose to chase more than one ;)...
RW
Post by: billythekidrock on March 10, 2009, 07:56:42 PM
I have only filled both tags 4 times and all of them on the Westside. Only one was an incidental. Actually I have only killed one ever as an incidental. All the others were targeted. :chuckle:
Post by: hogsniper on March 10, 2009, 08:04:01 PM
Post by: rasbo on March 10, 2009, 08:16:39 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on March 11, 2009, 06:25:22 AM
I'd be interested to see what the age and sex of harvested bears has done, I bet it's quite a few more sows and young bears are taken now then in the past. I wonder how many cubs are left on their own now.
I also agree and wonder about that.
Post by: lokidog on March 13, 2009, 09:30:26 AM
I dont believe it for a minute...I saw bears absolutly everywhere last year from 10 one day 6 another, in all elevations and times of year...I saw a total of 34 last year...33 of em in washington...But like said before I doubt the game department knows whats going on either...Too many of the damn things in my opinion, keep on killin em!!!
Anytime you want help reducing their numbers, feel free to call! :drool: :drool: