Post by: bobcat on February 24, 2009, 10:39:49 PM
Quote
The rationale for limiting the bear season to private
lands in August was based on a couple of concerns.
The primary reason was bear harvest over the last three
years exceeded some of our indicators for sustainable
populations in some of the bear management units. So
our objective was to reduce harvest slightly during the
fall season. Shortening the fall seasons also facilitates
additional spring harvest on industrial timberlands to
address bear damage to trees. As we increase spring
seasons, we may continue to exceed the thresholds for
maintaining sustainable populations. Spring seasons
not only help address tree damage, but the harvest tends
to include mostly males; which helps manage for
sustainable black bear populations.
The decision to reduce take during the early portion of
the season (August) rather than the end of the season
was because then it also helps reduce conflict with
other summer recreational users (e.g., campers, hikers,
berry pickers). The reason for allowing harvest on
private lands in August was to still provide a
mechanism to take bears involved in nuisance activity
(e.g., orchard damage).
The Department has received numerous comments on
this recommendation and all of the comments do not
support the change to the August bear season. Because
we’re “on the bubble” in terms of the biological
justification for reducing bear harvest, the Department
has altered our recommendation to open the 2009 fall
bear season August 1 (for the subset of Bear
Management Units). The revised recommendation tries
to balance the emerging biological concern, provide
early fall hunting opportunity, and address public input.
We will continue to monitor bear harvest trends and
biological information and provide the Fish and
Wildlife Commission with a recommendation for the
2010-2011 fall bear hunting season in March 2010.
The Fish and Wildlife Commission does not have the
authority to regulate hikers.
Post by: Ray on February 24, 2009, 11:05:00 PM
Post by: Aneoakleaf on February 24, 2009, 11:12:53 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 25, 2009, 05:43:29 AM
Quote
The Department has received numerous comments on
this recommendation and all of the comments do not
support the change to the August bear season.
This needs to continue.
Post by: shanevg on February 25, 2009, 10:45:56 AM
BTW: Just emailed this to WDFW:
In your revisions to the 2009 hunting proposals you say that the original plan to limit August hunting was due to management and too many bears being harvested. Although you have changed bear season in 2009 back to the August 1 opener, you have yet to make a decision for 2010-2011 and beyond. If the true reason for the reduction in bear seasons is sound management and not pressure to close down seasons due to hunter-hiker conflicts, then maybe you should consider limiting harvest limits to 1 bear per hunter and maintain the August 1 - November 15 season that we are used to. It seems the most logical step to reducing harvest would be reducing harvest limits not season lengths.
Post by: billythekidrock on February 25, 2009, 05:27:55 PM
They are going to revisit this next year so we will need to be ready with proposals of our own.
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2009, 05:32:53 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 25, 2009, 05:44:12 PM
I do agree that we need to keep an eye on this issue for the 2010 season. I'm sure this will be back on the table again.
Here is what it says on page 268 of the revised version.
"The change is due to public input supporting the August portion of the fall bear seasons for 2009 to the maximum extent possible within biologically sustainable limits. The Department plans to recommend the 2010-2011 fall bear hunting seasons to the Fish and Wildlife Commission in March 2010."
I could be way off, but I read this as "we need to back off this year, but next year we will push this through with the "bear population" angle instead of the "hunter/nonhunter angle".
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 25, 2009, 05:54:55 PM
Post by: PWN Kurt on February 28, 2009, 10:45:49 PM
Kurt
Post by: billythekidrock on March 01, 2009, 06:27:54 AM
If the concern is harvest it higher than planned, I like the idea of limiting the tags to one per hunter...or raising the prince on the 2nd tag. I'm glad that the season is staying the same this year...and I'd like to keep the high number of bears.
Kurt
I agree. I would like more bears. Bears, bears everywhere, not a spot to... well you get the idea.
I think cutting the season in Nov or even Oct would help on incidentals.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 01, 2009, 07:14:44 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on March 01, 2009, 07:33:45 AM
>:(
? :dunno:
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 01, 2009, 07:35:41 AM
Quote
Because
we’re “on the bubble” in terms of the biological
justification for reducing bear harvest
More junk science
Post by: billythekidrock on March 01, 2009, 07:38:35 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 01, 2009, 07:40:34 AM
Post by: fc2038 on March 01, 2009, 01:47:01 PM
Looks like we will have to fight this every year for the next couple. I do agree with the tag limit. If they want to lower the rate they need to drop the second tag. that would be a better starting point if this, "biological justification" BS is true.
Post by: billythekidrock on March 01, 2009, 02:28:43 PM
Post by: top-pin on March 01, 2009, 09:53:58 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on March 02, 2009, 11:53:28 PM