Post by: bearpaw on April 26, 2018, 11:16:46 PM
https://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/accused-bear-poacher-breaks-silence-points-finger-at-wdfw/281-545006442
Post by: rasbo on April 27, 2018, 04:16:23 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on April 27, 2018, 05:34:15 AM
Post by: dreamunelk on April 27, 2018, 05:57:49 AM
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2018, 06:27:26 AM
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
Post by: Alan K on April 27, 2018, 06:39:12 AM
I'm all for expanded opportunity for boot hunters as well for sheer population control, but not as a replacement for depredation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 27, 2018, 06:42:33 AM
I say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2018, 06:55:17 AM
I say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Every bear killed with hounds is lost opportunity for more spring bear permits.
Every cougar killed with hounds is lost opportunity for cougar quota. :twocents:
I do see it as lost opportunity in the amount of permits given to legal Hunters and season length.
Post by: dreamunelk on April 27, 2018, 07:29:00 AM
I say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Pretty sure he was active in the removal for timber companies and got booted for unethical behavior or getting caught poaching.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 27, 2018, 07:35:10 AM
I say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Every bear killed with hounds is lost opportunity for more spring bear permits.
Every cougar killed with hounds is lost opportunity for cougar quota. :twocents:
I do see it as lost opportunity in the amount of permits given to legal Hunters and season length.
How is it lost opportunity? There remain plenty of both to hunt. :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2018, 07:55:56 AM
I will give exampleI say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Every bear killed with hounds is lost opportunity for more spring bear permits.
Every cougar killed with hounds is lost opportunity for cougar quota. :twocents:
I do see it as lost opportunity in the amount of permits given to legal Hunters and season length.
How is it lost opportunity? There remain plenty of both to hunt. :dunno:
A GMU has 20 spring bear permits
Same GMU has 20 hound bear permits
I would rather see wdfw give 50-60 spring permits for that GMU and cut the hound permits.
Hound hunting is illegal and should be for everybody.If it is that important to use hounds than wdfw should look at changing the law so we can all use them.
Every time you take away my chance to go hunting,less permits,shorter season, is lost opportunity.Regardless of the population of said Bears.
Post by: jackelope on April 27, 2018, 07:57:14 AM
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2018, 08:07:59 AM
When it comes to deer and elk management, every predator that is killed is a good thing, especially in this state.:yeah:
I agree I think we all know this state is a predator pit,us as hunters are tools to be use a management tool.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 27, 2018, 08:09:06 AM
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2018, 08:11:34 AM
How about all spring permits for bear , you are allowed to use hounds or bait .
Now something like that I can support give us equal opportunity.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 27, 2018, 08:19:58 AM
I will give exampleI say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Every bear killed with hounds is lost opportunity for more spring bear permits.
Every cougar killed with hounds is lost opportunity for cougar quota. :twocents:
I do see it as lost opportunity in the amount of permits given to legal Hunters and season length.
How is it lost opportunity? There remain plenty of both to hunt. :dunno:
A GMU has 20 spring bear permits
Same GMU has 20 hound bear permits
I would rather see wdfw give 50-60 spring permits for that GMU and cut the hound permits.
Hound hunting is illegal and should be for everybody.If it is that important to use hounds than wdfw should look at changing the law so we can all use them.
Every time you take away my chance to go hunting,less permits,shorter season, is lost opportunity.Regardless of the population of said Bears.
A bunch of questions for you because I don't know the answers. Do you know for a fact that the hound permits are allotted that way? It would seem to me that damage and depredation permits would be issued on an as needed basis, as opposed to a pre-set number. Also, do all of those spring bear permits get filled and are there a large number of hunters who are not selected? If the permits aren't being filled, then could the WDFW increase the number of draws for that GMU? Just wondering and making sure that the damage and depredation permits actually affect the number of spring bear permits allotted per GMU. I certainly would like to see way more GMUs that offer Spring bear permits here in SW WA and am not sure why there aren't. Is it because of all the hound permits that Weyerhaeuser and other timber companies get?
Post by: Southpole on April 27, 2018, 08:21:27 AM
:yeah: The guy is trying to turn the tables to deflect his self inflicted problems, has less to do about the policies of bear hunting.I say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2018, 08:36:11 AM
I admit I don't have all the answers.I will give exampleI say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Every bear killed with hounds is lost opportunity for more spring bear permits.
Every cougar killed with hounds is lost opportunity for cougar quota. :twocents:
I do see it as lost opportunity in the amount of permits given to legal Hunters and season length.
How is it lost opportunity? There remain plenty of both to hunt. :dunno:
A GMU has 20 spring bear permits
Same GMU has 20 hound bear permits
I would rather see wdfw give 50-60 spring permits for that GMU and cut the hound permits.
Hound hunting is illegal and should be for everybody.If it is that important to use hounds than wdfw should look at changing the law so we can all use them.
Every time you take away my chance to go hunting,less permits,shorter season, is lost opportunity.Regardless of the population of said Bears.
A bunch of questions for you because I don't know the answers. Do you know for a fact that the hound permits are allotted that way? It would seem to me that damage and depredation permits would be issued on an as needed basis, as opposed to a pre-set number. Also, do all of those spring bear permits get filled and are there a large number of hunters who are not selected? If the permits aren't being filled, then could the WDFW increase the number of draws for that GMU? Just wondering and making sure that the damage and depredation permits actually affect the number of spring bear permits allotted per GMU. I certainly would like to see way more GMUs that offer Spring bear permits here in SW WA and am not sure why there aren't. Is it because of all the hound permits that Weyerhaeuser and other timber companies get?
I think most of all spring permits started as target for bear damage to trees and has turned to a sporting season.
I do think if they wanted to raise harvest rates on spring bear they could allow all spring permits to use hounds and bait .
And yes this guy is scum poacher.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 27, 2018, 09:07:15 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on April 27, 2018, 09:55:10 AM
The answers are in the article. They historically were giving depredation permits based on last years damage. They stopped doing that this year, and are only issuing permits on an as-needed basis. My guess would be that permits decline significantly this year.
:yeah:
I honestly doubt that sportsman's use of hounds and bait will ever be gotten back, too hot of a political potato!
What I could see as a possibilty (remote maybe, but not necessarily out of reach), is a push for a statewide, OTC spring bear season.
With the spotlight being shined on the depredation process, the possibility of some expensive lawsuits to fight, now may the best opportunity to get spring hunts statewide and over the counter.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 27, 2018, 09:58:50 AM
The answers are in the article. They historically were giving depredation permits based on last years damage. They stopped doing that this year, and are only issuing permits on an as-needed basis. My guess would be that permits decline significantly this year.
:yeah:
I honestly doubt that sportsman's use of hounds and bait will ever be gotten back, too hot of a political potato!
What I could see as a possibilty (remote maybe, but not necessarily out of reach), is a push for a statewide, OTC spring bear season.
With the spotlight being shined on the depredation process, the possibility of some expensive lawsuits to fight, now may the best opportunity to get spring hunts statewide and over the counter.
They can't just wave off a referendum or initiative by restoring hounds and/or bait. Unless a referendum or initiative is passed rescinding the 1996 initiative, their hands are tied, even if they wanted to bring it back. I doubt they do, however.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 27, 2018, 10:01:02 AM
The answers are in the article. They historically were giving depredation permits based on last years damage. They stopped doing that this year, and are only issuing permits on an as-needed basis. My guess would be that permits decline significantly this year.
:yeah:
I honestly doubt that sportsman's use of hounds and bait will ever be gotten back, too hot of a political potato!
What I could see as a possibilty (remote maybe, but not necessarily out of reach), is a push for a statewide, OTC spring bear season.
With the spotlight being shined on the depredation process, the possibility of some expensive lawsuits to fight, now may the best opportunity to get spring hunts statewide and over the counter.
They can't just wave off a referendum or initiative by restoring hounds and/or bait. Unless a referendum or initiative is passed rescinding the 1996 initiative, their hands are tied, even if they wanted to bring it back. I doubt they do, however.
But it could go back to the ballot. I suspect that when more and more bears start showing up around schools, playgrounds, and backyard BBQs, people's opinions may change a bit.
Also, my *guess* would be that spring bear on the west side is going to continue to see more tags put out since the timber hound hunters will be on the decline.
Post by: Humptulips on April 27, 2018, 10:03:04 AM
I will give exampleI say good,wdfw needs to give more spring permits to legal hunters,or open a baiting or hound season for everybody .With hound and baiting being illegal it should be for everybody ,there hound permits take away opportunity for us legal boot hunters and needs to stop .
Now that dill guy is a d-bag and cause wdfw does it ,does not mean you can poach.
No one's stopping us from legal bear hunting and the state's structured use of hounds to target problem animals isn't affecting our opportunity. There are plenty of bears everywhere in the state. This guy is trying to justify his horrendous poaching activities by comparing them with how the state responds to landowners having wildlife depredation and damage problems (which is a major part of their job). And, unless I'm mistaken, they use private houndsmen to do the work. Maybe if this jackhole had contacted the state to be a contractor instead of choosing to be a poacher, this lawsuit would never have been initiated. Am I missing something here?
Every bear killed with hounds is lost opportunity for more spring bear permits.
Every cougar killed with hounds is lost opportunity for cougar quota. :twocents:
I do see it as lost opportunity in the amount of permits given to legal Hunters and season length.
How is it lost opportunity? There remain plenty of both to hunt. :dunno:
A GMU has 20 spring bear permits
Same GMU has 20 hound bear permits
I would rather see wdfw give 50-60 spring permits for that GMU and cut the hound permits.
Hound hunting is illegal and should be for everybody.If it is that important to use hounds than wdfw should look at changing the law so we can all use them.
Every time you take away my chance to go hunting,less permits,shorter season, is lost opportunity.Regardless of the population of said Bears.
A bunch of questions for you because I don't know the answers. Do you know for a fact that the hound permits are allotted that way? It would seem to me that damage and depredation permits would be issued on an as needed basis, as opposed to a pre-set number. Also, do all of those spring bear permits get filled and are there a large number of hunters who are not selected? If the permits aren't being filled, then could the WDFW increase the number of draws for that GMU? Just wondering and making sure that the damage and depredation permits actually affect the number of spring bear permits allotted per GMU. I certainly would like to see way more GMUs that offer Spring bear permits here in SW WA and am not sure why there aren't. Is it because of all the hound permits that Weyerhaeuser and other timber companies get?
I can't speak to bear but I do know every cougar killed on a depredation permit counts towards the quota in that cougar management area. This causes early closure of areas and reduced hunter opportunity.
Post by: Humptulips on April 27, 2018, 10:06:34 AM
The answers are in the article. They historically were giving depredation permits based on last years damage. They stopped doing that this year, and are only issuing permits on an as-needed basis. My guess would be that permits decline significantly this year.
:yeah:
I honestly doubt that sportsman's use of hounds and bait will ever be gotten back, too hot of a political potato!
What I could see as a possibilty (remote maybe, but not necessarily out of reach), is a push for a statewide, OTC spring bear season.
With the spotlight being shined on the depredation process, the possibility of some expensive lawsuits to fight, now may the best opportunity to get spring hunts statewide and over the counter.
They can't just wave off a referendum or initiative by restoring hounds and/or bait. Unless a referendum or initiative is passed rescinding the 1996 initiative, their hands are tied, even if they wanted to bring it back. I doubt they do, however.
But it could go back to the ballot. I suspect that when more and more bears start showing up around schools, playgrounds, and backyard BBQs, people's opinions may change a bit.
Also, my *guess* would be that spring bear on the west side is going to continue to see more tags put out since the timber hound hunters will be on the decline.
It's been 22 years now. Don't you think if an increase in problem bears to the extent it would cause public outcry was going to happen it would have happened by now?
Post by: NumaJohn on April 27, 2018, 10:14:32 AM
While many good reasons exist for debating bear and cougar seasons and regulations, I wish this poacher and his actions could be divorced from that debate. It gives him attention and a place in the discussion that he has not earned. As others have noted, he attempts a deflection, and it is a poorly executed attempt at that.
Just my two cents,
John
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 27, 2018, 10:17:47 AM
The answers are in the article. They historically were giving depredation permits based on last years damage. They stopped doing that this year, and are only issuing permits on an as-needed basis. My guess would be that permits decline significantly this year.
:yeah:
I honestly doubt that sportsman's use of hounds and bait will ever be gotten back, too hot of a political potato!
What I could see as a possibilty (remote maybe, but not necessarily out of reach), is a push for a statewide, OTC spring bear season.
With the spotlight being shined on the depredation process, the possibility of some expensive lawsuits to fight, now may the best opportunity to get spring hunts statewide and over the counter.
They can't just wave off a referendum or initiative by restoring hounds and/or bait. Unless a referendum or initiative is passed rescinding the 1996 initiative, their hands are tied, even if they wanted to bring it back. I doubt they do, however.
But it could go back to the ballot. I suspect that when more and more bears start showing up around schools, playgrounds, and backyard BBQs, people's opinions may change a bit.
Also, my *guess* would be that spring bear on the west side is going to continue to see more tags put out since the timber hound hunters will be on the decline.
It's been 22 years now. Don't you think if an increase in problem bears to the extent it would cause public outcry was going to happen it would have happened by now?
I don't know.
We have had a massive population explosion in those 22 years, and apparently some pretty questionable hunting activities in timberland that is now under scrutiny has kept the numbers low. Compound that with the already increasing bear sighting in urban areas over the last few years and I wouldn't be surprised if they start making the news cycle more often.
Not trying to get an internet argument going because frankly, I don't have a crystal ball. I just think this could be a possible outcome. Anytime you decrease predator hunting in our state, you see an increase in predators.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 27, 2018, 10:19:11 AM
Dear all,
While many good reasons exist for debating bear and cougar seasons and regulations, I wish this poacher and his actions could be divorced from that debate. It gives him attention and a place in the discussion that he has not earned. As others have noted, he attempts a deflection, and it is a poorly executed attempt at that.
Just my two cents,
John
Nobody believes him or cares about him.
Don't worry, justice will prevail here: He will get his minor fee and a possible small criminal record that'll likely be expunged in the future. :bash:
Post by: Buckmania on April 27, 2018, 10:19:40 AM
Post by: Southpole on April 27, 2018, 10:26:59 AM
Dear all,Very well put, my thoughts as well.
While many good reasons exist for debating bear and cougar seasons and regulations, I wish this poacher and his actions could be divorced from that debate. It gives him attention and a place in the discussion that he has not earned. As others have noted, he attempts a deflection, and it is a poorly executed attempt at that.
Just my two cents,
John
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 27, 2018, 10:28:28 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on April 27, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
The answers are in the article. They historically were giving depredation permits based on last years damage. They stopped doing that this year, and are only issuing permits on an as-needed basis. My guess would be that permits decline significantly this year.
:yeah:
I honestly doubt that sportsman's use of hounds and bait will ever be gotten back, too hot of a political potato!
What I could see as a possibilty (remote maybe, but not necessarily out of reach), is a push for a statewide, OTC spring bear season.
With the spotlight being shined on the depredation process, the possibility of some expensive lawsuits to fight, now may the best opportunity to get spring hunts statewide and over the counter.
They can't just wave off a referendum or initiative by restoring hounds and/or bait. Unless a referendum or initiative is passed rescinding the 1996 initiative, their hands are tied, even if they wanted to bring it back. I doubt they do, however.
Correct, but I doubt there will ever realistically be an initiative putting it back into place garner enough support to make the ballot, let alone pass, and anytime after two years I believe (which could possibly still be done?), the legislature could have then rescinded it.
They didn't back then and they haven't in the interviening 20 years, hence, why I defined it as "too hot a political potato."
Hounds and baiting for the average sportsman are long gone, sad to say, but I think that is the reality.
As for bears (or cougar) showing up in places they shouldn't, the current law addresses that with allowing removal by hounds in the interest of public safety.
Not a loophole, but a legal exception written into the original initiative and approved by voters. Nothing currently has to change to address those issues.
That is why I think the best approach and possibly now being the best time to push for an over the counter, statewide spring season.
Lots of applicats don't get drawn for spring tags now, so there is clearly a demand.
People who buy a bear tag, but might not want to "invest" in the spring permit/points race, might instead be willing to invest a few extra days or even a lot of time out in the spring chasing a bear now that they don't have to draw a permit or be limited to a specific permit area.
It would likely be way more hunters out than the limited number of current permit hunters.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on April 27, 2018, 02:50:22 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on April 27, 2018, 05:35:03 PM
I don't see his tactics gaining any traction. That's like me saying it was ok to spotlight and shoot an elk out of season at night, because a depredation permittee might be allowed to use those same methods. Poaching and management are apples and oranges.
:yeah:
But then again, pointing fingers at WDFW has worked in the past...
Anything to cause doubt!
Post by: Alan K on April 27, 2018, 05:46:05 PM
The depredation hunts for bears with hounds is not a "loophole" and is a legal and effective means of addressing the problem the state is forced to address. The State/WDFW HATE this program and would kick it to the curb tomorrow if they legally could. It is not a revenue generator, it's highly scrutinized (obviously), extremely arduous to administer given the continue piling on of regulations/rules/restrictions/paperwork to appease the opposition (both internal and external), and is ridiculously over-hyped. The houndsmen bear (no pun intended) a tremendous burden as well with the rules governing this program, and they continue to get more and more stringent each year. The ONLY thing the houndsmen get out of it, is the joy of listening to the music their hounds make. The timber companies use the houndsmen, the state hates the houndsmen, hunters who don't have or understand hounds hate the houndsmen, houndsmen who aren't a part of this program hate the houndsmen who are, etc. etc. etc.
Nailed it!
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2018, 08:25:20 PM
Not reallyThe depredation hunts for bears with hounds is not a "loophole" and is a legal and effective means of addressing the problem the state is forced to address. The State/WDFW HATE this program and would kick it to the curb tomorrow if they legally could. It is not a revenue generator, it's highly scrutinized (obviously), extremely arduous to administer given the continue piling on of regulations/rules/restrictions/paperwork to appease the opposition (both internal and external), and is ridiculously over-hyped. The houndsmen bear (no pun intended) a tremendous burden as well with the rules governing this program, and they continue to get more and more stringent each year. The ONLY thing the houndsmen get out of it, is the joy of listening to the music their hounds make. The timber companies use the houndsmen, the state hates the houndsmen, hunters who don't have or understand hounds hate the houndsmen, houndsmen who aren't a part of this program hate the houndsmen who are, etc. etc. etc.
Nailed it!
I was reading the laws for baiting and hounds,from the way I read it timber company's are allowed to have feeding stations to feed bears that peel trees .
Wdfw can use and give hound permits to property owners for all the same reason as cougar hound permits which is ,public safety,livestock attacks,pet attack,or person property damage.
Now the loop hole is they have timber company's feeding station to curve peeling bear.
And the personal property damage part of the law was meant for property owners not company property.
This loophole if you will has made it legal to give timber company hound permits.
Post by: Buckmania on April 27, 2018, 08:40:12 PM
Not reallyThe depredation hunts for bears with hounds is not a "loophole" and is a legal and effective means of addressing the problem the state is forced to address. The State/WDFW HATE this program and would kick it to the curb tomorrow if they legally could. It is not a revenue generator, it's highly scrutinized (obviously), extremely arduous to administer given the continue piling on of regulations/rules/restrictions/paperwork to appease the opposition (both internal and external), and is ridiculously over-hyped. The houndsmen bear (no pun intended) a tremendous burden as well with the rules governing this program, and they continue to get more and more stringent each year. The ONLY thing the houndsmen get out of it, is the joy of listening to the music their hounds make. The timber companies use the houndsmen, the state hates the houndsmen, hunters who don't have or understand hounds hate the houndsmen, houndsmen who aren't a part of this program hate the houndsmen who are, etc. etc. etc.
Nailed it!
I was reading the laws for baiting and hounds,from the way I read it timber company's are allowed to have feeding stations to feed bears that peel trees .
Wdfw can use and give hound permits to property owners for all the same reason as cougar hound permits which is ,public safety,livestock attacks,pet attack,or person property damage.
Now the loop hole is they have timber company's feeding station to curve peeling bear.
And the personal property damage part of the law was meant for property owners not company property.
This loophole if you will has made it legal to give timber company hound permits.
[/
That’s because you are ignorant and don’t know what you are talking about
Post by: hunter399 on April 27, 2018, 10:15:46 PM
Not reallyThe depredation hunts for bears with hounds is not a "loophole" and is a legal and effective means of addressing the problem the state is forced to address. The State/WDFW HATE this program and would kick it to the curb tomorrow if they legally could. It is not a revenue generator, it's highly scrutinized (obviously), extremely arduous to administer given the continue piling on of regulations/rules/restrictions/paperwork to appease the opposition (both internal and external), and is ridiculously over-hyped. The houndsmen bear (no pun intended) a tremendous burden as well with the rules governing this program, and they continue to get more and more stringent each year. The ONLY thing the houndsmen get out of it, is the joy of listening to the music their hounds make. The timber companies use the houndsmen, the state hates the houndsmen, hunters who don't have or understand hounds hate the houndsmen, houndsmen who aren't a part of this program hate the houndsmen who are, etc. etc. etc.
Nailed it!
I was reading the laws for baiting and hounds,from the way I read it timber company's are allowed to have feeding stations to feed bears that peel trees .
Wdfw can use and give hound permits to property owners for all the same reason as cougar hound permits which is ,public safety,livestock attacks,pet attack,or person property damage.
Now the loop hole is they have timber company's feeding station to curve peeling bear.
And the personal property damage part of the law was meant for property owners not company property.
This loophole if you will has made it legal to give timber company hound permits.
[/
That’s because you are ignorant and don’t know what you are talking about
And wdfw is supposed to document public property damage of bears and make public record of this the same as cougar also supposed to make attempts to relocate bears before hound permits are given. :twocents:
Post by: Alan K on April 27, 2018, 10:37:32 PM
Not reallyThe depredation hunts for bears with hounds is not a "loophole" and is a legal and effective means of addressing the problem the state is forced to address. The State/WDFW HATE this program and would kick it to the curb tomorrow if they legally could. It is not a revenue generator, it's highly scrutinized (obviously), extremely arduous to administer given the continue piling on of regulations/rules/restrictions/paperwork to appease the opposition (both internal and external), and is ridiculously over-hyped. The houndsmen bear (no pun intended) a tremendous burden as well with the rules governing this program, and they continue to get more and more stringent each year. The ONLY thing the houndsmen get out of it, is the joy of listening to the music their hounds make. The timber companies use the houndsmen, the state hates the houndsmen, hunters who don't have or understand hounds hate the houndsmen, houndsmen who aren't a part of this program hate the houndsmen who are, etc. etc. etc.
Nailed it!
I was reading the laws for baiting and hounds,from the way I read it timber company's are allowed to have feeding stations to feed bears that peel trees .
Wdfw can use and give hound permits to property owners for all the same reason as cougar hound permits which is ,public safety,livestock attacks,pet attack,or person property damage.
Now the loop hole is they have timber company's feeding station to curve peeling bear.
And the personal property damage part of the law was meant for property owners not company property.
This loophole if you will has made it legal to give timber company hound permits.
Putting out feed for bears is no different than joe blow putting out a pile of apples for trail camera pictures or someone putting out a bale of alfalfa for wintering deer or elk. It is not done for the purposes of hunting over. Just for good measure though, there is a very clear exemption written in.
And I-655 reads private property, not personal property, which I'm assuming you had taken as an individual person's property. Private property is protected, whether owned by an individual or company.
Quote
Definition of loophole
1 a : a small opening through which small arms may be fired
b : a similar opening to admit light and air or to permit observation
2 : a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
It is not a loophole when it is very clearly written out as an exemption in the initiative itself. Alison Morrow doesn't apparently know the definition either.
Post by: pd on April 27, 2018, 10:50:12 PM
They can't just wave off a referendum or initiative by restoring hounds and/or bait. Unless a referendum or initiative is passed rescinding the 1996 initiative, their hands are tied, even if they wanted to bring it back. I doubt they do, however.
Hi P Man. You are mistaken.
After an initiative has passed (simple majority of the votes cast by the public), the Legislature can change or revoke the initiative with a 2/3rds majority vote (within a 2 year window). After 2 years have elapsed, the Legislature can change or revoke any initiative with a simple majority vote. https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Washington
The Legislature could have changed this any number of years ago.
Post by: Buckmania on April 27, 2018, 11:16:47 PM
Not reallyThe depredation hunts for bears with hounds is not a "loophole" and is a legal and effective means of addressing the problem the state is forced to address. The State/WDFW HATE this program and would kick it to the curb tomorrow if they legally could. It is not a revenue generator, it's highly scrutinized (obviously), extremely arduous to administer given the continue piling on of regulations/rules/restrictions/paperwork to appease the opposition (both internal and external), and is ridiculously over-hyped. The houndsmen bear (no pun intended) a tremendous burden as well with the rules governing this program, and they continue to get more and more stringent each year. The ONLY thing the houndsmen get out of it, is the joy of listening to the music their hounds make. The timber companies use the houndsmen, the state hates the houndsmen, hunters who don't have or understand hounds hate the houndsmen, houndsmen who aren't a part of this program hate the houndsmen who are, etc. etc. etc.
Nailed it!
I was reading the laws for baiting and hounds,from the way I read it timber company's are allowed to have feeding stations to feed bears that peel trees .
Wdfw can use and give hound permits to property owners for all the same reason as cougar hound permits which is ,public safety,livestock attacks,pet attack,or person property damage.
Now the loop hole is they have timber company's feeding station to curve peeling bear.
And the personal property damage part of the law was meant for property owners not company property.
This loophole if you will has made it legal to give timber company hound permits.
[/
That’s because you are ignorant and don’t know what you are talking about
And wdfw is supposed to document public property damage of bears and make public record of this the same as cougar also supposed to make attempts to relocate bears before hound permits are given. :twocents:
Thanks for proving my point that you don’t know what you are talking about. Hint-“public property”.
L
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2018, 01:17:07 AM
Ya I was wrong they only have to report cougar damages,but don't be surprised to see changes bear hound hunting program that will be similar to cougar report of damages and removal cause wdfw seemed to abuse hound hunting permits for bears.Not reallyThe depredation hunts for bears with hounds is not a "loophole" and is a legal and effective means of addressing the problem the state is forced to address. The State/WDFW HATE this program and would kick it to the curb tomorrow if they legally could. It is not a revenue generator, it's highly scrutinized (obviously), extremely arduous to administer given the continue piling on of regulations/rules/restrictions/paperwork to appease the opposition (both internal and external), and is ridiculously over-hyped. The houndsmen bear (no pun intended) a tremendous burden as well with the rules governing this program, and they continue to get more and more stringent each year. The ONLY thing the houndsmen get out of it, is the joy of listening to the music their hounds make. The timber companies use the houndsmen, the state hates the houndsmen, hunters who don't have or understand hounds hate the houndsmen, houndsmen who aren't a part of this program hate the houndsmen who are, etc. etc. etc.
Nailed it!
I was reading the laws for baiting and hounds,from the way I read it timber company's are allowed to have feeding stations to feed bears that peel trees .
Wdfw can use and give hound permits to property owners for all the same reason as cougar hound permits which is ,public safety,livestock attacks,pet attack,or person property damage.
Now the loop hole is they have timber company's feeding station to curve peeling bear.
And the personal property damage part of the law was meant for property owners not company property.
This loophole if you will has made it legal to give timber company hound permits.
[/
That’s because you are ignorant and don’t know what you are talking about
And wdfw is supposed to document public property damage of bears and make public record of this the same as cougar also supposed to make attempts to relocate bears before hound permits are given. :twocents:
Thanks for proving my point that you don’t know what you are talking about. Hint-“public property”.
L
Post by: Tbar on April 28, 2018, 08:41:10 AM
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2018, 09:00:12 AM
Hunter 399 how did they abuse hound permits?Here ya go to get back on topic,here is a quote from the artical.
Hundreds of documents requested through public records reveal a different story from WDFW, who permits timber farms to contract with hunters to remove bears that peel trees for food. When they peel the trees, they peel away profits. But in hundreds of documents obtained by KING 5, it's clear the state's own staff thinks the hunting program is being abused against the spirit of the law. Hound hunters working for timber farms aren't targeting bears that damage trees. They're killing any bear that's nearby.
I will lay out a quick example.
Cop on his cell phone
Pulls u over ,tickets you for being on your phone
Do you think that's right?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on April 28, 2018, 09:52:08 AM
Hunter 399 how did they abuse hound permits?Here ya go to get back on topic,here is a quote from the artical.
Hundreds of documents requested through public records reveal a different story from WDFW, who permits timber farms to contract with hunters to remove bears that peel trees for food. When they peel the trees, they peel away profits. But in hundreds of documents obtained by KING 5, it's clear the state's own staff thinks the hunting program is being abused against the spirit of the law. Hound hunters working for timber farms aren't targeting bears that damage trees. They're killing any bear that's nearby.
I will lay out a quick example.
Cop on his cell phone
Pulls u over ,tickets you for being on your phone
Do you think that's right?
Not a good example, as the law allows a law enforcement officer to use a cell phone, see 1(d):
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.672
Post by: Alan K on April 28, 2018, 09:54:19 AM
Here ya go to get back on topic,here is a quote from the artical.
Hundreds of documents requested through public records reveal a different story from WDFW, who permits timber farms to contract with hunters to remove bears that peel trees for food. When they peel the trees, they peel away profits. But in hundreds of documents obtained by KING 5, it's clear the state's own staff thinks the hunting program is being abused against the spirit of the law. Hound hunters working for timber farms aren't targeting bears that damage trees. They're killing any bear that's nearby.
Is it really a suprise to you that WDFW might have at least one person in their ranks that doesn't like hound hunting and would claim it abuses the spirit of the law (which could in their mind be NO use of hounds, period)?
And the second flaw in the portion of that article you cite... On a depredation hound hunt, hounds must strike within a 1 mile radius of the damage center. Hunters go and start at the damage point, and work out from there until they hit the 1 mile radius. Without visually observing a bear peeling a tree and taking it right then, of course there is no way of being 100% sure it's THE bear. That shouldn't be misconstrued as the houndsmen not targeting the damaging bear though, it's the best they can do. "Any bear that's nearby" is within that 1 mile radius. Morrow of course paints it as though these houndsmen are out roaming the hills hunting.
Quote
I will lay out a quick example.
Cop on his cell phone
Pulls u over ,tickets you for being on your phone
Do you think that's right?
On you cop/cell phone example... Anyone can apply and go through the training that an officer must in order to become a cop and use his cell phone while driving. Just the same as any houndsman can call up a timber company and WDFW and work to develop a trust level of being both ethical and effective to participate on these depredation permits.
Of course not just any joe houndsman is going to be utilized on these without being vetted. Just the same as any joe driver cannot talk on their cell phone without the same training an officer gets.
I guess to formally answer your question then... Yes, it is right.
Post by: fish vacuum on April 28, 2018, 04:55:53 PM
And his defense is that timber companies use hounds for bears. Going on tv with this defense just proves how stupid he is.
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2018, 05:49:54 PM
What ever record or infomation these animals groups have gotten , they must feel it's enough info that wdfw has broken there own laws .
Links from the artical.
https://www.scribd.com/document/377219325/Center-for-Biological-Diversity-letter
https://www.scribd.com/document/377222105/Humane-Society-Letter
Now on another fact that if I'm a tree farmer , there is gonna be loss of trees every year for a number of reason.Its called the cost of doing business.If you don't like it get out of the tree business.
As far my example of cop on cell ,tickets you for being on phone.I think most cop try not to break laws that they enforce even though they can if need, be above the law.
The same should be said about wdfw that can be above the bait and hound laws but only should do if needed.
Now with that said ,when is it needed,public safety,livestock kills,tree damage.But one thing that is a fact is the majority of the state of Washington voted this law in,so abuse of this law paints a bad light on Hunter/houndsman ,wdfw.
Now with all that I have said,I hope these animal rights people due sue wdfw over this .
Cause you will see spring permits double or triple , maybe 4 times more permits in some areas.Which is the great for boot hunters.
More hunting opportunity for the average Hunter.
Post by: Tbar on April 28, 2018, 06:12:35 PM
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2018, 06:16:58 PM
Please don't bring center for biological diversity into the conversation and expect credibility.Don't really need credibility
Some facts,and truth hurts sometimes.
Post by: Tbar on April 28, 2018, 06:22:05 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on April 28, 2018, 06:35:27 PM
I will make a few points here.
What ever record or infomation these animals groups have gotten , they must feel it's enough info that wdfw has broken there own laws .
Links from the artical.
https://www.scribd.com/document/377219325/Center-for-Biological-Diversity-letter
https://www.scribd.com/document/377222105/Humane-Society-Letter
Now on another fact that if I'm a tree farmer , there is gonna be loss of trees every year for a number of reason.Its called the cost of doing business.If you don't like it get out of the tree business.
As far my example of cop on cell ,tickets you for being on phone.I think most cop try not to break laws that they enforce even though they can if need, be above the law.
The same should be said about wdfw that can be above the bait and hound laws but only should do if needed.
Now with that said ,when is it needed,public safety,livestock kills,tree damage.But one thing that is a fact is the majority of the state of Washington voted this law in,so abuse of this law paints a bad light on Hunter/houndsman ,wdfw.
Now with all that I have said,I hope these animal rights people due sue wdfw over this .
Cause you will see spring permits double or triple , maybe 4 times more permits in some areas.Which is the great for boot hunters.
More hunting opportunity for the average Hunter.
WDFW does not make the laws, the legisature or in this particular case, a voter inititative did. What they are being accused of are not abiding by or an overly broad interputation or just neglience concerning what they can or should be doing, totally seperate issues.
As to the cell phone analogy, it is clearly written into the RCW (the law) that they are exempt from the restrictions, so there is no "breaking of the law or being above the law" in that case. That is literally what being exempt means.
The real question is in what manner were the permits being issued, were they following proper protocol in determing if a kill permit was warranted, and in some cases deny a kill permit because it didn't meet the rquirements or were they just handing them out because the timber company said please??
With all this negative media attention regarding the spring/summer timberland depredation hunts, this may be the best time ever to push to do away with the spring permit hunts and get a statewide general spring season.
That would put alot more hunters out in the spring, hunters will go to areas that hold bear, and more hunters should increase the harvest rate, thus limiting or reducing the need to issue timber companies as many kill permits to remove problem bears since a larger number may already have been taken by the average Joe hunter, at least in theory.
But I think it does have some merit.
Lots of hunters, I am sure would be happy to head out after a spring bear, but can't because they weren't lucky enough to draw a permit.
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2018, 06:50:59 PM
You are sounding more like a troll. You lack truth and are advocating for an anti group that wants to end hunting opportunities, period.I guess I am a troll then.
The way I feel is I don't like the law on baiting and hound hunting , But like many have said, it's here to stay and not going away.
So then the hunting opportunity should go to regular boot hunters period.
OTC spring bear season sounds better every time I think about it.
I guess if wanting more opportunities for the average Joe Hunter makes me a troll so be it.
Post by: Alan K on April 28, 2018, 07:40:17 PM
What's wrong with defending the only effective means for protecting ones property from damage and also pushing for an OTC spring boot hunt? They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Populations were healthy enough to sustain boot hunts, baiting, and hounds before. There is no reason they couldn't sustain an OTC spring boot hunt while also targeting damage causing bears with depredation hunts.
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2018, 08:40:21 PM
The reason you come across like a troll is because your siding with the opposition that would gladly end all forms of hunting if they could.I do agree population is good enough for all users,but shouldn't the OTC tags come first legal harvest,or more spring permits come first,then when harvest goals are not meet , or property damage problems let hound hunters have some permits.The legal fair chase Hunter should get his chance first.
What's wrong with defending the only effective means for protecting ones property from damage and also pushing for an OTC spring boot hunt? They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Populations were healthy enough to sustain boot hunts, baiting, and hounds before. There is no reason they couldn't sustain an OTC spring boot hunt while also targeting damage causing bears with depredation hunts.
I've said what I have to say here , let your opportunity for spring bear be given to all the hound hunts.I'm gonna troll some other topics good nite.
Post by: Bigshooter on April 28, 2018, 09:11:39 PM
Post by: hunter399 on April 28, 2018, 09:12:42 PM
Post by: Alan K on April 28, 2018, 09:54:47 PM
Spring bear boot hunts don't target damaging bears. Sure an overall reduction of population would luck into some damage causers, but it is not an adequate replacement that would fix a landowners specific problem.
Think of it similarly to the wolf situation. If a certain wolf pack grew fond of easy cattle kills, a blanket open season for the region or GMU would not necessarily take care of that specific pack. Cattle owner still has a pack preying on his herd.
The depredation hunts aim for specific damage causing bears, in specific locations, on a case by case basis.
Folks, looking at the issue as though there is some hidden bear quota that is being filled by depredation take is wrong. And the amount taken at the end of the year is irrelevant because of it. And the fact that there is such rampant damage out there today does speak to how much the bear population has exploded since I-655. Prior to that, while I'm sure there were still areas with sporadic damage it's nothing compared to now.
Post by: lokidog on April 28, 2018, 10:14:22 PM
Spring bear hunts and depredation hunts are apples and oranges.
Spring bear boot hunts don't target damaging bears. Sure an overall reduction of population would luck into some damage causers, but it is not an adequate replacement that would fix a landowners specific problem.
Think of it similarly to the wolf situation. If a certain wolf pack grew fond of easy cattle kills, a blanket open season for the region or GMU would not necessarily take care of that specific pack. Cattle owner still has a pack preying on his herd.
The depredation hunts aim for specific damage causing bears, in specific locations, on a case by case basis.
Folks, looking at the issue as though there is some hidden bear quota that is being filled by depredation take is wrong. And the amount taken at the end of the year is irrelevant because of it. And the fact that there is such rampant damage out there today does speak to how much the bear population has exploded since I-655. Prior to that, while I'm sure there were still areas with sporadic damage it's nothing compared to now.
Spring bear boots would certainly target the damage causing bears IF there were more of them or OTC, IF timber companies allowed free access and IF they posted areas where there were problem bears, period!
Post by: syoungs on April 28, 2018, 10:26:20 PM
Post by: Alan K on April 28, 2018, 10:51:47 PM
Contrast that with a forester discovering fresh peeling in that same 12 year old stand, documenting the damage, applying for and receiving a permit within days, houndsman shows up, strikes bear almost always in that same stand with that quick of a turnaround, dogs root the bear out of the thick stuff and the problem is solved.
The targeting abilities of hounds on depredation permits compared to spring bear boot hunts just doesn't compare, I'm sorry, it just doesn't.
Again, I'm all for expanded spring bear opportunities. Frankly the population could sustain a year around OTC bear hunt here on the west side with how thick things are. Spring/fall, it doesn't matter. Success will always be low with the vegetation and where these animals spend their time. Over the long term if the overall population were brought down damage would as well since a percentage of the take would surely be damagers, but until that day comes property owners cannot be left out to dry.
Post by: bearbaito6 on April 29, 2018, 08:05:11 PM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on April 29, 2018, 08:13:01 PM
Post by: hunter399 on April 29, 2018, 08:31:26 PM
Alan is 100 percent right on the money with his posts..
No he’s not. And that’s a fact... maybe in a honest perfect world, but he’s not even close to a 100% right...I agree :yeah:
Timber company that charges access fees shouldn't complain about bear damage there not allowing hunters in to hunt bears .But think its wdfw problem that they have tree damage.
What a joke that is. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 30, 2018, 07:47:02 AM
Lokidog, look at the Kapowsin spring bear hunt. It does all of those things you mention (minus free access, which is irrelevant when discussing the efficacy of a boot hunt). 150 spring bear permits, more than any other spring bear hunt on the west side by a wide margin, damage area maps are provided by landowners last I saw, yet there is a harvest of only 4 to 8 annually. Those bears could be taken anywhere in the spring bear area too, and it's not a stretch to assume most are taken in clearcuts as opposed to the 12 year old stands that are being damaged where visibility is about 3 feet.
Contrast that with a forester discovering fresh peeling in that same 12 year old stand, documenting the damage, applying for and receiving a permit within days, houndsman shows up, strikes bear almost always in that same stand with that quick of a turnaround, dogs root the bear out of the thick stuff and the problem is solved.
The targeting abilities of hounds on depredation permits compared to spring bear boot hunts just doesn't compare, I'm sorry, it just doesn't.
Again, I'm all for expanded spring bear opportunities. Frankly the population could sustain a year around OTC bear hunt here on the west side with how thick things are. Spring/fall, it doesn't matter. Success will always be low with the vegetation and where these animals spend their time. Over the long term if the overall population were brought down damage would as well since a percentage of the take would surely be damagers, but until that day comes property owners cannot be left out to dry.
The property owners who've turned to charging for access as an income generator should be left out to dry or be required to allow free access to bear hunters before they're given hound permits. The same goes for elk damage permits. Unfortunately, we have a DFW with no intestinal fortitude and an inability to stand up to the big lobby money in Olympia - timber money. The big timber companies are still taking advantage of a deferred real estate taxes scheme which was implemented with a full expectation by the state to coincide with unfettered public access, while they now collect hundreds of thousands of dollars for public access to their lands. They have their cake, extra icing with the added fees, and they're eating it all the way to the bank. I have a hard time siding with these private land owners as long as they receive deferred taxation while I pay the full rate.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on April 30, 2018, 08:18:08 AM
Post by: saylean on April 30, 2018, 09:51:23 AM
Accused bear poacher breaks silence, points finger at WDFW
https://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/accused-bear-poacher-breaks-silence-points-finger-at-wdfw/281-545006442
I got no love for poachers. WDFW didnt make him do it, he chose to do it.
King 5's angle is just to stir the anti hunting pot as much as they can to get institutions like HSUS and the like to file suit, and to affect public opinion on hunters. Get a poacher on tv who is defending his poaching and it casts a negative light on those of us hunters who follow the rules.
Post by: fireweed on April 30, 2018, 10:43:59 AM
Post by: Elkcollector82 on May 15, 2018, 03:07:35 AM
Its Bat S Crazy to complain to the WDFW about problem bears, get a special hound permit season that circumvents the normal rules--and then turn around and CHARGE the hunters to hunt bears in spring hunts or fall hunts. Heck, they might even force their hound hunters to buy access permits, too. Total loss of credibility in the program. Don't tell me this is about targeting a few, specific problem bears because I have been around it enough to know overall population control is a goal when dealing with large industrial sized tree farms.
:yeah:
They list the bear parts that are required to be turned in. Pretty sad that meat wasn’t on the list. Boot hunters allowed to keep one whole bear. Hound hunters can’t keep any, but the meat of ONE bear. Two bears per permit. They say they average 100 bears taken during this time. That’s a lot of wasted meat laying out in the canyon. Guys who put out the supplemental feeder barrels are the same guys running dogs. Hmmmm. That’s a great tactic. Put a few barrels out, get bears in the area. Remove barrels and run dogs. They also claimed that a sow with cubs is recommended not to be taken. Isn’t required to let the sow go. Sounds like It’s Up to the hunter.
It’s a painful two hours to watch them two stumble and backtrack on everything they say. It’s priceless though when alison asked them why two bears per permit. Anis eyes couldn’t have gotten any bigger.
So that guy supposedly wasted game meat. Yet these two yahoo’s state on tv that the bear meat isn’t required to be checked in. So the department ok’s wasting bear meat on a depredation permit.
Post by: Special T on May 15, 2018, 10:00:51 AM
Small family farms CAN be an ally in increasing opportunity. Many on here like to hop on the big timber companies because they make good punching bags, but it's the smaller folks that really suffer.
The WFFA Washington Farm Forrestry Association is a group of small land owners that is crying for help. Ken Miller of Olympia has testified to the commision several times on this issue. It has appeared to me that they are open to supporting nearly any solution.
https://www.wafarmforestry.com
This article talks about the problems small farmers are having with elk in the Skagit valley floor. Much of it due to the fiasco that happened on the Johnson feild next to Hwy 20 a few years back.
The important part of the article
call to cull
Those suffering property damage and financial losses due to elk want the number of animals in the herd reduced.
"There needs to be a culling," dairy farmer Derek Blanken said while discussing the issue during a rainy day in March.
Some said they believe more hunting should be allowed in the valley and avoided in the forested hills enclosing it.
"I would like to see the agricultural zone between South Skagit Highway and Highway 20 have more of an open season ... to try to keep the numbers down on the agricultural land," Schmidt said. "We need a little more coordination between hunting and farming."
Cindy Ovenell-Kleinhuizen, who runs the Double O Ranch south of Concrete, said she believes more hunting is needed because for young elk born in the valley, it's the only home they've known and where they are likely to stay.
"The only way to fix it is to eliminate them," she said.
https://www.goskagit.com/news/state-acknowledges-need-to-reduce-elk-damage-in-the-skagit/article_9fb33363-3691-5852-a9f5-d370cd1db4f9.html
If sportsmen want more access we need to work with farmers for a solution. As a group we don't seem to have as much influence as we should. By partnering up with farmers we should be able to make inroads for access and opportunity. Jay Holzmiller is on the wildlife commission from Anatone and is concerned with property rights issues. Likely an Ally on these issues.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on May 15, 2018, 10:02:18 AM
Are you a member of WFFA?Alan is 100 percent right on the money with his posts..No he’s not. And that’s a fact... maybe in a honest perfect world, but he’s not even close to a 100% right...I agree :yeah:
Timber company that charges access fees shouldn't complain about bear damage there not allowing hunters in to hunt bears .But think its wdfw problem that they have tree damage.
What a joke that is. :twocents:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on May 15, 2018, 10:24:54 AM
I have a friend whom is in the MH program and has participated in the elk program in the upper Skagit. Because he is local the farmers loved to have him come up, because he would Come up several times a week even mid week. There currently isn't a way to discriminate between those whom apply. The most effective help likely comes from some one local and or retired or in school so that constant harrassment can take place.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 15, 2018, 10:53:49 AM
Post by: Special T on May 15, 2018, 10:55:41 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkcollector82 on May 15, 2018, 11:00:08 AM
I have problem discussing very real problems with WA's bear program in a thread about a serial resource stealer/poacher. People caught doing something illegal either lie about it or have an excuse. This guy is no different. He would've ended up being arrested for poaching multiple animals even if we hadn't changed the WA laws regarding baiting and hounds. Although the discussion about our bear and cougar laws is valid, it shouldn't be mixed in with the report on this lowlife's illegal activities, IMHO. :dunno:
I concur... but I can't start a new thread with taptalk.. only have my phone, and can't pull the forum up on the internet browser with Tap talk installed...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I started one