Post by: denali on December 06, 2017, 12:29:33 PM
Voters outlawed baiting bears and hunting them with dogs 20 years ago. But those illegal hunting practices are still used on timber farms and the Humane Society is threatening to sue.
Author: Alison Morrow
Published: 7:42 AM PST December 6, 2017
The Humane Society of the United States sent letters to both Washington Governor Jay Inslee and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife calling an annual bear hunt on timber farms "illegal." They're threatening to sue unless changes are made quickly.
"HSUS is prepared to seek judicial review of this matter, but we are hopeful that the Department will immediately halt the Program and utilize a collaborative effort involving input from stakeholders and the public to develop a sound process for addressing any timber damage caused by bears," the letter to WDFW Director Jim Unsworth reads.
KING 5 asked WDFW for comment but the agency declined.
The letters come six months after KING 5's year-long investigation, The Bear Hunt. After combing through more than a thousand internal documents requested through public disclosure, KING found the Bear Timber Depredation Management (BTDM) program violates state law.
Related: Loophole allows illegal bear hunt involving dogs every year
Twenty years ago, voter initiatives 655 and 713 outlawed hunting bear with the use of dogs as well as bait. Those practices continued on timber farms, however, often kept secret from the public. Bait and hound hunting are used by timber farms across western Washington in the spring when bears peel trees to reach the sugary syrup under the bark. Timber farmers argue the bears hurt their bottom line.
A loophole allowed for the hunting practices to continue for damage control targeting problem animals, but KING found the program focused on generally reducing the number of bears on timber. According to documents we obtained, bears are often killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hunters tell KING that more bears are killed than permits even allow, and in areas outside permitted hunt zones.
"Moreover, as Department employees have acknowledged, the bear-killing program is ineffective and imprudent, taking the lives of bears not causing any problems. It's a program that seems geared more toward amassing a body count than meaningfully reducing economic damage caused by bears," writes HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle to Governor Inslee. "I respectfully request that you utilize your executive powers, to the maximum extent allowed under the law, to see that the Department remedies its legal violations."
KING 5 also learned about a supplemental feeding program, where hundreds of thousands of pounds of feed are put out to deter bears from eating the trees. However, the state has very few rules around the feeding program and rarely enforces the rules it does have. The feed is allowed out until the minute hound hunters begin, and has been found dumped on the ground and left out during hunts. One forester added cat food and a sticky syrup, despite warnings, but never faced consequences. WDFW has no rules about what is allowable supplemental feed.
Many offenses are not prosecuted because the rules are too inconsistent, KING 5 learned.
Related: Bear feeding program criticized for baiting
HSUS says the BTDM program violates I-655 and I-713 in the following ways: state law only allows baiting and hound hunting by agents of the state but WDFW allows timber farms control of nearly every aspect of the hunts, like choosing hunters; the program authorizes baiting, hounding, and trapping for unlawful purposes like population control and a recreational hunt without targeting problem bears; the program unlawfully uses supplemental feed as bait; the program fails to require reasonable exhaustion of nonlethal methods.
The letters also say that significant changes to the program have not gone through a formal rule-making process as required by law.
One major criticism is that hound hunting and baiting bears are only allowed by "agents of the state," according to the law. HSUS argues that WDFW considers hunters contractors, however, as hunters answer to timber farms and not the state.
"The Department chose to move forward with the illegal Program despite this knowledge, even outwardly acknowledging that it considers certain unlawful behavior acceptable. Therefore, the Department must immediately cease and desist issuing permits that allow persons who are neither agents nor employees of the state from baiting and hounding black bears, as required by state law," the letter to Unsworth continues.
HSUS is demanding a stakeholder group be formed, similar to the Wolf Advisory Group created to deal with wolf conflict. If not, the letter says, HSUS is prepared to sue. WDFW recently began the process of forming such a group, but admits it's moving slowly due to several challenges like finding a facilitator.
"We urge the Department to take immediate steps to come into compliance with the law. HSUS strongly urges the Department to convene a stakeholder advisory group to develop non-lethal management strategies to prevent and mitigate timber damage, and is glad to see that the Department has taken first steps toward that end," the letter ends.
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2017, 12:39:28 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2017, 12:42:48 PM
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2017, 12:43:01 PM
Post by: Curly on December 06, 2017, 12:43:54 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2017, 12:45:25 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
This state is only becoming more liberal, as evidenced by the last election. That law will never be repealed. The only thing we can hope for is more hunting opportunity. I'd like to see some spring bear hunting available in SW WA. There are plenty of bears but no seasons.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 06, 2017, 01:16:11 PM
Post by: bracer40 on December 06, 2017, 01:39:33 PM
I wonder why no one has ever gone after the HSUS for their corruption and deceitful fund raising practices. Of all animal rights groups, these guys are the least ethical.As I understand their legal war on hunting and other animal heart string tugging issues, one would need a pretty large war chest to take them on in court.
Post by: bearpaw on December 06, 2017, 01:41:31 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2017, 01:47:29 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 06, 2017, 01:52:17 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2017, 01:54:16 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?
No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.
Post by: bearpaw on December 06, 2017, 01:55:41 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
I'm sure you are not the only one, but like I said, that's part of how we lost hounds and baiting. I overheard archery hunters talking about voting to outlaw hounds and baiting so they would have the mountains to themselves in September.
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2017, 01:59:30 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
I'm sure you are not the only one, but like I said, that's part of how we lost hounds and baiting. I overheard archery hunters talking about voting to outlaw hounds and baiting so they would have the mountains to themselves in September.
Oh well, that's the way I feel about it. Won't be changing my opinion. I don't get to vote on this though, so what I think is irrelevant.
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 06, 2017, 02:00:36 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?
No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.
oh, i thought you were saying you hoped using dogs to do depredation kills on bear would be deemed illegal. i was just making an example of depredation more relateble (since you don't own a tree farm) that would also be deemed illegal.
Post by: CementFinisher on December 06, 2017, 02:26:07 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
thanks dale. :yeah:
Post by: CementFinisher on December 06, 2017, 02:28:53 PM
Post by: greenhead_killer on December 06, 2017, 02:35:14 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2017, 03:08:06 PM
The hsus is one of the biggest modern day scams! It would be nice to see them knocked down a bit. On the issue of bears in timber land, it’s private land and a business, let them keep control of it
Unfortunately or fortunately, private landowners don't own the wildlife on their land. The people do. Wildlife laws apply to animals anywhere within the state's boundaries, public or private.
Post by: CementFinisher on December 06, 2017, 03:12:20 PM
No laws are being broken on these hunts. there was an exception written into the law for depredation hunts. King 5 has blatantly disregarded this in all these special reports.The hsus is one of the biggest modern day scams! It would be nice to see them knocked down a bit. On the issue of bears in timber land, it’s private land and a business, let them keep control of it
Unfortunately or fortunately, private landowners don't own the wildlife on their land. The people do. Wildlife laws apply to animals anywhere within the state's boundaries, public or private.
Post by: CementFinisher on December 06, 2017, 03:14:36 PM
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2017, 03:25:40 PM
I also think it's fair that since timber companies have not lobbied in support of sportsmen, that sportsmen sit on thier hands in regards to this excemption... perhaps if They want to seek sportsmen support they could do something... thier lobby is much bigger, organized and financed than Sportsmen.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: X-Force on December 06, 2017, 03:26:52 PM
I don't see this suit going anywhere but its a big headline grabber and i can already see another initiative in the works.
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2017, 03:30:10 PM
Am I wrong or does the initiative not matter anymore because it has been 20 years? I thought those votes are only held as law for X number of years then they can be changed, modified, repealed by elective representatives.I think after 2 years the legislature can change or overturn... just look at how many times we have voted for $30 car tabs!
I don't see this suit going anywhere but its a big headline grabber and i can already see another initiative in the works.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on December 06, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
They are on firm legal ground with regard to the feeding stations as per I-655. I am not so sure how that would play out with not to long ago passed Legislation to keep people from feeding bears. Seems like a pretty easy fix if they are in violation there permit wise.
HSUS mentions trapping though and the Department is on firm legal ground there.
My guess is this will drive more timber companies to embrace bear snaring programs. I think this is already happening.
I think there may be an opportunity here. Right now in WAC 220-440-060 Section (3)(d) it says " Landowners are encouraged to allow general season hunting and trapping on their property to help minimize damage potential and concerns."
We should push for stronger language that would allow the Department to deny Special Trapping permits (Those are needed to snare bear) if public hunting and trapping is not utilized when the Department deems it appropriate.
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 06, 2017, 03:42:28 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 06, 2017, 03:42:39 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
:yeah:
Now thier gonna have to spend some cash on lawyers. :chuckle:
Probably just up thier trespass fees, but hey I don’t give them money for that. :twocents:
Post by: wheels on December 06, 2017, 03:52:19 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 06, 2017, 04:00:10 PM
Post by: hhack on December 06, 2017, 04:00:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 06, 2017, 04:08:17 PM
I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.
I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.
Post by: Stein on December 06, 2017, 04:10:58 PM
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2017, 04:15:08 PM
The state should push for more public hunting and access on that land as a first means of control before they go to any of the methods mentioned. There should be a way to strike a deal, maybe say the timber company can allow 50 free access special permit draw hunts and then the department will trap/shoot/bomb/whatever an equal amount of bears? I would look for a win/win/stick-it-to-HSUS option here.This is what the timber companies should push for...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on December 06, 2017, 04:17:14 PM
Post by: hhack on December 06, 2017, 04:38:38 PM
I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.
I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.
I don't see why hound hunters can't just chase bears without killing them. They can have a buddy tag along and wack the bear. Wdfw would have a fun time proving that if people were clever.
Post by: Humptulips on December 06, 2017, 05:01:10 PM
The state should push for more public hunting and access on that land as a first means of control before they go to any of the methods mentioned. There should be a way to strike a deal, maybe say the timber company can allow 50 free access special permit draw hunts and then the department will trap/shoot/bomb/whatever an equal amount of bears? I would look for a win/win/stick-it-to-HSUS option here.Legally the Department cannot force anyone to open their land to public hunting.
That should be a requirement before Special Permits are written except in unusual circumstances. See my post on the first page.
Now the department has nothing to give to strike a deal. Give them power to deny permits so they have some bargaining power.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 06, 2017, 05:07:49 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 06, 2017, 06:01:53 PM
Post by: Stein on December 06, 2017, 06:32:55 PM
The state should push for more public hunting and access on that land as a first means of control before they go to any of the methods mentioned. There should be a way to strike a deal, maybe say the timber company can allow 50 free access special permit draw hunts and then the department will trap/shoot/bomb/whatever an equal amount of bears? I would look for a win/win/stick-it-to-HSUS option here.Legally the Department cannot force anyone to open their land to public hunting.
That should be a requirement before Special Permits are written except in unusual circumstances. See my post on the first page.
Now the department has nothing to give to strike a deal. Give them power to deny permits so they have some bargaining power.
Not force, make a deal. I'm not sure if they are legally required to help with bear damage the same way they do with wolf damage, so they may have some bargaining chips. If nothing else, they could stop today until the lawsuits are over and settled.
Post by: fireweed on December 06, 2017, 06:51:05 PM
Where were they back 20 years ago when this was passed? Did you see them out working with sportsmen to stop the initiative? Nope--they got their open ended carve out courtesy of their lobbyists at WFPA, so they didn't care one bit that it passed. And you can bet the HSUS and other anti-hunting sponsors were happy to put in that carve out to keep big timber money from fighting their initiative.
This current bear situation is exactly why big timber needs the support of sportsmen, and visa versa. But timber companies have turned their back on that win-win relationship, and now their gonna pay (too).
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 06, 2017, 07:45:04 PM
I don't feel sorry for the timber companies one whiff. First off, they CHARGE for hunters to come and kill their problem bears, even for damage tags like west side spring bear. Its ridiculous--complaining to the state about bear damage, then charging hunters access fees to kill their bears.
Where were they back 20 years ago when this was passed? Did you see them out working with sportsmen to stop the initiative? Nope--they got their open ended carve out courtesy of their lobbyists at WFPA, so they didn't care one bit that it passed. And you can bet the HSUS and other anti-hunting sponsors were happy to put in that carve out to keep big timber money from fighting their initiative.
This current bear situation is exactly why big timber needs the support of sportsmen, and visa versa. But timber companies have turned their back on that win-win relationship, and now their gonna pay (too).
Here here! :tup:
Post by: HntnFsh on December 07, 2017, 05:34:47 AM
can a private land owner hold the state liable for damages done to private property caused by state owned (the people) wildlife
Yes. The state does crop damage mitigation all the time.
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 07, 2017, 07:25:58 AM
can a private land owner hold the state liable for damages done to private property caused by state owned (the people) wildlife
Yes. The state does crop damage mitigation all the time.
so then the state really doesnt have anything to bargain with :dunno: if they take away the hounds and snaring then the timber companies can just sue them for the damages... is what im guessing
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 07, 2017, 07:31:36 AM
:yeah: x2 Although, it'll probably be the taxpayers who pay for wildlife damages.I don't feel sorry for the timber companies one whiff. First off, they CHARGE for hunters to come and kill their problem bears, even for damage tags like west side spring bear. Its ridiculous--complaining to the state about bear damage, then charging hunters access fees to kill their bears.
Where were they back 20 years ago when this was passed? Did you see them out working with sportsmen to stop the initiative? Nope--they got their open ended carve out courtesy of their lobbyists at WFPA, so they didn't care one bit that it passed. And you can bet the HSUS and other anti-hunting sponsors were happy to put in that carve out to keep big timber money from fighting their initiative.
This current bear situation is exactly why big timber needs the support of sportsmen, and visa versa. But timber companies have turned their back on that win-win relationship, and now their gonna pay (too).
Here here! :tup:
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 07, 2017, 08:53:40 AM
Bearpaw is spot on. It will be a sad day in Washington when there are no houndsmen to call after someone is mauled by a cougar. Karelian bear dogs can't do everything.I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.
I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 07, 2017, 08:49:02 PM
Bearpaw is spot on. It will be a sad day in Washington when there are no houndsmen to call after someone is mauled by a cougar. Karelian bear dogs can't do everything.I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.
I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.
They don’t do crap now anyways. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on December 07, 2017, 08:55:54 PM
Bearpaw is spot on. It will be a sad day in Washington when there are no houndsmen to call after someone is mauled by a cougar. Karelian bear dogs can't do everything.I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.
I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.
They don’t do crap now anyways. :twocents:
:yeah:
I can think of a bigger waste of money ($800k wolf advocate errr mediator on the WAG) but not many
Post by: pd on December 07, 2017, 10:05:04 PM
I didn't live here when the initiatives were passed, so I can't comment on the history. But I, too, have felt a lot of frustration with the State regarding Spring bear hunts. For the average hunter (who cannot bait or use dogs), Spring bear hunting is a really tough proposition. Have you ever looked at the hunter success rates for a unit that is primarily private timber land (e.g. Copalis)? The odds are terrible! Thick vegetation, no dogs, no bait, and yet this is a draw only hunt, AND you pay to access the property. Yet, on the other hand, the private timber companies have been able (with WDFW's blessing all along) to use both bait and hounds to remove bears.
But the worse part about it is the waste: Bears taken by private timber companies cannot be salvaged (no meat, no fur, no skull may be taken). So they just waste the bear! This is insanity.
Washington state has one of the highest black bear populations in the lower 48, and bears are a serious cause of property damage. To remove bears during the Spring, the best solution is a combination of hounds and bait. WDFW already acknowledges this, and the state has been sanctioning this for 20+ years. There is a loophole in the initiative to allow the department to do this.
The solution is simple: Acknowledge the benefit of hound + bait hunting, regulate it tightly, but let licensed hunters in on the game.
HSUS has made some good points, and--frankly--I am happy they forced the issue. The end result is by no means tilted in our favor, in fact it could have dire consequences for us all. Too bad we don't have a split legislature anymore, we might have had some influence over the governor. I am not hopeful.
Post by: Humptulips on December 07, 2017, 10:09:41 PM
The state should push for more public hunting and access on that land as a first means of control before they go to any of the methods mentioned. There should be a way to strike a deal, maybe say the timber company can allow 50 free access special permit draw hunts and then the department will trap/shoot/bomb/whatever an equal amount of bears? I would look for a win/win/stick-it-to-HSUS option here.Legally the Department cannot force anyone to open their land to public hunting.
That should be a requirement before Special Permits are written except in unusual circumstances. See my post on the first page.
Now the department has nothing to give to strike a deal. Give them power to deny permits so they have some bargaining power.
Not force, make a deal. I'm not sure if they are legally required to help with bear damage the same way they do with wolf damage, so they may have some bargaining chips. If nothing else, they could stop today until the lawsuits are over and settled.
How pray tell is WDFW going to deal? Right now if you apply for a Special Trapping permit and you fill out the paperwork correctly the Department has no recourse but to grant it.
If the timber companies cannot get their bears killed for free by hound guys they will just snare them. A simple change would give the Department a little bargaining power to open closed lands to hunting and trapping.
To another point the Department does not have to pay crop damages for commercial timber.
Post by: KFhunter on December 07, 2017, 10:12:41 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 07, 2017, 10:32:49 PM
Say HSUS pushes the issue and gets the law changed to remove property damage as reason to lethally remove bears, be it with hounds or bait, but leaves the language regarding public safety.
The public safety clause would still allow hounds for instances where people are at risk, but not merely to protect property, what then would the timber companies alternatives be to address tree damage?
Use the USDA for lethal removal?
Thoughts on them pushing against the big timber lobby hard enough to bring them (and their money) into the mix as the opposition.
Just tossing these out for discussion from some different perspectives.
Post by: Humptulips on December 07, 2017, 10:36:37 PM
They could snare them? Over bait?
Yes, you didn't know it was happening? What is more you can't do it. There is a secretive process for permitting bear snarers. There are a small number of people that do this for timber companies plus APHIS does the work also.
Post by: KFhunter on December 07, 2017, 10:42:55 PM
I learn stuff all the time on this forum
Post by: Humptulips on December 07, 2017, 10:47:59 PM
For conversations sake:
Say HSUS pushes the issue and gets the law changed to remove property damage as reason to lethally remove bears, be it with hounds or bait, but leaves the language regarding public safety.
The public safety clause would still allow hounds for instances where people are at risk, but not merely to protect property, what then would the timber companies alternatives be to address tree damage?
Use the USDA for lethal removal?
Thoughts on them pushing against the big timber lobby hard enough to bring them (and their money) into the mix as the opposition.
Just tossing these out for discussion from some different perspectives.
Maybe a time to rehash the gist of HSUS's lawsuit.
I do not believe there is a problem with using hounds except the houndmen have to be agents of the State, County or Feds. That leaves out most if not all hound guys.
There is no such restriction for trappers. Trappers can work as contractors and be in full compliance. This from 655
(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the
10 killing of black bear with the aid of bait by employees or agents of
11 county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official
12 capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals,
13 private property, or the public safety.
Post by: lokidog on December 07, 2017, 11:29:14 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?
No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.
oh, i thought you were saying you hoped using dogs to do depredation kills on bear would be deemed illegal. i was just making an example of depredation more relateble (since you don't own a tree farm) that would also be deemed illegal.
Actually, your comparison is not valid. The law states, according to the article, that WDFW may remove problem bears (and cougar I would assume) using hounds. The law does not state that agents of Weyerhauser, etc. may do so.
BTW, I am not in support of HSUS, I am in support of opening up bear hunting opportunities to the public. Timber companies want bear removed, crawl to us hunters.... :tung:
Post by: Alan K on December 08, 2017, 06:32:14 AM
What they do have a problem with is specifically the damage causing bears. If anyone can provide a more realistic and effective way of targeting specific damaging bears, I'm certain they'd listen. When a forester discovers a stand being peeled, they can often secure a permit within a day or two with a photo of damage and GPS coordinates for proof. WDFW folks verify damage at their soonest availability, and if a photo or coordinates were fabricated the applicant is in BIG trouble. There are a number of hound guys (and I believe all of the ones the state is comfortable with issuing permits to are WCO's as well) ready to take care of the problem and be right there. The speed in which you jump on these things is paramount to getting the culprit bear. From what I know of things, the hunters show up, strike the bear typically right there in the damaged stand, and have it removed within hours of arriving.
Of course we'd all like additional hunting opportunity. In my opinion the -general- season should start July 1, about the time that peeling stops as the berries come on. There is no doubt the population could sustain it, and it would help ungulate populations out. The issue with spring bear boot hunting is that it is ineffective targeting specific bears, and cannot overlap with the effective and culprit bear targeting houndsmen. Same reasons there isn't supplemental feeding in areas with spring boot hunts. There would be questions in the mind of LEO's that a bear was harvested over a supplemental feeding site or with hounds under a spring bear tag.
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 08, 2017, 07:06:56 AM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?
No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.
oh, i thought you were saying you hoped using dogs to do depredation kills on bear would be deemed illegal. i was just making an example of depredation more relateble (since you don't own a tree farm) that would also be deemed illegal.
Actually, your comparison is not valid. The law states, according to the article, that WDFW may remove problem bears (and cougar I would assume) using hounds. The law does not state that agents of Weyerhauser, etc. may do so.
BTW, I am not in support of HSUS, I am in support of opening up bear hunting opportunities to the public. Timber companies want bear removed, crawl to us hunters.... :tung:
the bear hunters are not agents of the timber companies, they are in the state program, ran by state employees. they get tags from the state and have to find damage, in most cases take photo evidence with timestamp and gps concordance of damage for biologist to inspect before they are given tags.
also, if they are no longer allowed to use dogs or snares, they will just go to feeding programs, if theyre no longer able to do that then they will hold the state and tax payers liable for the state owned bears damage to their crop.
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 08, 2017, 07:09:09 AM
Believe it or not, timber companies don't have any problem with black bears. In fact, its a benefit for them in the eyes SFI to maintain broad biodiversity and have robust wildlife populations.
What they do have a problem with is specifically the damage causing bears. If anyone can provide a more realistic and effective way of targeting specific damaging bears, I'm certain they'd listen. When a forester discovers a stand being peeled, they can often secure a permit within a day or two with a photo of damage and GPS coordinates for proof. WDFW folks verify damage at their soonest availability, and if a photo or coordinates were fabricated the applicant is in BIG trouble. There are a number of hound guys (and I believe all of the ones the state is comfortable with issuing permits to are WCO's as well) ready to take care of the problem and be right there. The speed in which you jump on these things is paramount to getting the culprit bear. From what I know of things, the hunters show up, strike the bear typically right there in the damaged stand, and have it removed within hours of arriving.
Of course we'd all like additional hunting opportunity. In my opinion the -general- season should start July 1, about the time that peeling stops as the berries come on. There is no doubt the population could sustain it, and it would help ungulate populations out. The issue with spring bear boot hunting is that it is ineffective targeting specific bears, and cannot overlap with the effective and culprit bear targeting houndsmen. Same reasons there isn't supplemental feeding in areas with spring boot hunts. There would be questions in the mind of LEO's that a bear was harvested over a supplemental feeding site or with hounds under a spring bear tag.
:yeah:
Post by: Pegasus on December 08, 2017, 08:27:22 AM
Post by: Humptulips on December 08, 2017, 12:05:47 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?
No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.
oh, i thought you were saying you hoped using dogs to do depredation kills on bear would be deemed illegal. i was just making an example of depredation more relateble (since you don't own a tree farm) that would also be deemed illegal.
Actually, your comparison is not valid. The law states, according to the article, that WDFW may remove problem bears (and cougar I would assume) using hounds. The law does not state that agents of Weyerhauser, etc. may do so.
BTW, I am not in support of HSUS, I am in support of opening up bear hunting opportunities to the public. Timber companies want bear removed, crawl to us hunters.... :tung:
the bear hunters are not agents of the timber companies, they are in the state program, ran by state employees. they get tags from the state and have to find damage, in most cases take photo evidence with timestamp and gps concordance of damage for biologist to inspect before they are given tags.
also, if they are no longer allowed to use dogs or snares, they will just go to feeding programs, if theyre no longer able to do that then they will hold the state and tax payers liable for the state owned bears damage to their crop.
The bear hunters are considered contractors. I doubt the State wants to take them on as agents because of liability concerns.
The feeding programs do not work. Everyone I have spoken with say they increase damage in areas by concentrating bears near the feeder. A big boar will sit on the feeder and other bears will eat bark because they can't get in to the feeder.
You can say what you want about the majority of bears not being a problem but I do not think that is true if there are to many bears in an area. Population control is key to keeping damage down.
Post by: Alan K on December 08, 2017, 12:46:46 PM
Yes, boars will hog a feeder sometimes, but any forester paying attention will add a second feeder to the general area and the problem is solved. There usually wont be multiple dominant boars in an area since it's also breeding season.
The problem with feeding is that it costs money, tens of thousands of dollars each year when its all said and done depening on the size of the tree farm and amount of feeders. Most of the big timber companies try to mitigate damage with feeding, and if damage persists, thats when they apply for a depredation permit.
Some have started to just say heck with it and not spend the money on feeding and go straight to depredation permits, and its due in part I'm sure to the cost, but also the hassle dealing with removing feeders prior to a depredation hunt.
Feeders must be removed prior to any hunting, be it trapping, baiting, or hounds. The pain there is that if there is literally one pellet of rotton feed left behind folks are accused of trying to 'bait' to the depredation permit which is just ridiculous. Thousands and thousands of dollars are spent trying to get the problem taken care of non-lethally. If folks are going to be hassled to that degree after shoveling up buckets and buckets of the rotten feed a bear has scooped out, they throw their hands up and just say heck with it then.
The reality on the ground, and the motives of those who utilize depredation permits is far from what King 5, and now HSUS is painting. As at least some people have noted, thats nothing to be suprised by. Its just disappointing.
Post by: fish vacuum on December 08, 2017, 02:51:16 PM
They're specially bred to bark at, and chase, wild animals. Gotta pay a premium for a special dog that does that.Bearpaw is spot on. It will be a sad day in Washington when there are no houndsmen to call after someone is mauled by a cougar. Karelian bear dogs can't do everything.I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.
I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.
They don’t do crap now anyways. :twocents:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 08, 2017, 04:36:13 PM
They're specially bred to bark at, and chase, wild animals. Gotta pay a premium for a special dog that does that.Bearpaw is spot on. It will be a sad day in Washington when there are no houndsmen to call after someone is mauled by a cougar. Karelian bear dogs can't do everything.I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.
I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.
They don’t do crap now anyways. :twocents:
Seen them in action by the WDFW, I’m not real impressed. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on December 08, 2017, 04:51:37 PM
holy ruckus batman, that little dog was pulling fur out of that bears arse and the bear was giving it all it had for the nearest big pine tree.
I was kinda proud of her :IBCOOL:
(but I was more careful to check for bears as I didn't want her getting hurt next time)
Post by: fish vacuum on December 08, 2017, 05:01:11 PM
Leave it to the state to pay extra for a special dog breed that barks at animals. The bear dog breeders must be great salesmen.They're specially bred to bark at, and chase, wild animals. Gotta pay a premium for a special dog that does that.Bearpaw is spot on. It will be a sad day in Washington when there are no houndsmen to call after someone is mauled by a cougar. Karelian bear dogs can't do everything.I actually hope HSUS sticks it to the wdfw. Then the Wdfw has to play the card that the law itself unjust. Wa state constitution says a law cannot have two subject matters.
I agree that the law should have never been upheld. But who I see this hurting the most are the hound hunters who still had a way to hunt their dogs. That is why HSUS wants to stop this.
They don’t do crap now anyways. :twocents:
Seen them in action by the WDFW, I’m not real impressed. :twocents:
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 08, 2017, 06:09:19 PM
I hope this is found to be in violation of state law.I disagree, hunters should never support ending one type of management for personal gain. That is part of how we lost bear baiting and hounding in the first place, some hunters supported the ban! :twocents:
Maybe then there will be a chance of getting the law repealed, or at least opportunities increased for bear hunting without hounds and/or bait.
Well, sorry but I'm no longer sympathetic to the big timber companies who charge hunters for access and then poison our wildlife and destroy the habitat with their herbicides.
So if a cougar kills your dog, goat, horse or injures your child out playing in the yard, you dont want the state to be able to use hounds to catch that lion with the use of hounds? am i understanding you?
No, apparently you're not understanding me. I said nothing about the scenario you described.
oh, i thought you were saying you hoped using dogs to do depredation kills on bear would be deemed illegal. i was just making an example of depredation more relateble (since you don't own a tree farm) that would also be deemed illegal.
Actually, your comparison is not valid. The law states, according to the article, that WDFW may remove problem bears (and cougar I would assume) using hounds. The law does not state that agents of Weyerhauser, etc. may do so.
BTW, I am not in support of HSUS, I am in support of opening up bear hunting opportunities to the public. Timber companies want bear removed, crawl to us hunters.... :tung:
the bear hunters are not agents of the timber companies, they are in the state program, ran by state employees. they get tags from the state and have to find damage, in most cases take photo evidence with timestamp and gps concordance of damage for biologist to inspect before they are given tags.
also, if they are no longer allowed to use dogs or snares, they will just go to feeding programs, if theyre no longer able to do that then they will hold the state and tax payers liable for the state owned bears damage to their crop.
The bear hunters are considered contractors. I doubt the State wants to take them on as agents because of liability concerns.
The feeding programs do not work. Everyone I have spoken with say they increase damage in areas by concentrating bears near the feeder. A big boar will sit on the feeder and other bears will eat bark because they can't get in to the feeder.
You can say what you want about the majority of bears not being a problem but I do not think that is true if there are to many bears in an area. Population control is key to keeping damage down.
I understand they are not agents, but they are regulated through the state program not the timber company
If feed doesn’t work why do timber companies utilize it? Some instead of killing bears
Post by: Humptulips on December 08, 2017, 07:22:24 PM
Why are they still doing the feeding? IMO public relations.
Ralph Flowers was the guy that envisioned the feeding program. He passed it on to Kelly Lund. Kelly use to get all my beaver carcasses. They used them in conjunction with the mixture they use mostly. Kelly's son Denny was doing it also. Denny told me it was counterproductive. Heard the same from Bob Gilman in OR and a couple other guys I would not argue with.
Never did it myself but the guys I mentioned knew more about bears than all the experts in the NW so I have to give their opinions some credence.