Post by: Bango skank on September 04, 2019, 03:09:00 PM
Post by: johnnyaustin44 on September 04, 2019, 04:28:25 PM
Post by: Stein on September 04, 2019, 04:36:48 PM
Post by: Bango skank on September 04, 2019, 04:39:52 PM
I took it in support. More tags and more areas open are better.
Except we have the same number of areas open, and a total of 111 less tags.
Post by: Special T on September 04, 2019, 04:42:24 PM
Isn't one of the biggest concerns that too many females will be harvested during the spring?
It looks like the Monroe tags are not coming back anytime soon. :(
Post by: X-Force on September 04, 2019, 04:44:16 PM
Post by: Stein on September 04, 2019, 05:15:03 PM
I took it in support. More tags and more areas open are better.
Except we have the same number of areas open, and a total of 111 less tags.
Maybe I should have read closer. :o Here is what I saw:
Quote
The purpose of the proposed amendments are to align the rules with the appropriate season dates; increased permit numbers in areas where needed, open a new hunt area to address needs, and expand and improve upon information and biological samples collected from harvest bears through a pelt check (with evidence of animal sex included).
Quote
Added language to adjust the numbers of permits offered in:
Blue Creek, GMU 154 increased permits from 15 to 18
Dayton, GMU 162 increased permits from 15 to 18
Wenaha, GMU 169 increased permits 45 to 60
Mt. View, GMU 172 increased permits 15 to 24
Lick Creek, GMU 175 increased permits 15 to 18
Added a new hunt area: Peola, GMU 178 with five permits
Remove Kapowsin hunt area
How many permits were in Kapowsin? If there was a reduction in permits by that much, the survey wasn't exactly forthcoming about that. It mentioned Kapowsin was being closed on request of the land manager, so that may be going away either way.
Post by: Bango skank on September 04, 2019, 05:16:32 PM
Post by: buckfvr on September 04, 2019, 05:16:47 PM
Post by: Bango skank on September 04, 2019, 05:19:19 PM
Post by: JakeLand on September 04, 2019, 05:27:10 PM
Post by: Stein on September 04, 2019, 05:35:17 PM
150 in kapowsin. Theyre all gone. They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits. Its all right there in the proposal. Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?
I did. My understanding of it was that the Kapowsin permits were going away per the land manager, so that would happen regardless of what anyone thinks since those permits are all for tree farm land.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on September 04, 2019, 05:52:26 PM
I commented that if they don’t want general public hunters in there then they shouldn’t be able to run feed stations or run hounds either. :twocents:150 in kapowsin. Theyre all gone. They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits. Its all right there in the proposal. Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?
I did. My understanding of it was that the Kapowsin permits were going away per the land manager, so that would happen regardless of what anyone thinks since those permits are all for tree farm land.
Post by: KFhunter on September 05, 2019, 01:21:03 PM
150 in kapowsin. Theyre all gone. They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits. Its all right there in the proposal. Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?
I did. My understanding of it was that the Kapowsin permits were going away per the land manager, so that would happen regardless of what anyone thinks since those permits are all for tree farm land.
Ya, no.
I've always had a problem with timber companies baiting for bear and just killing them when hunters could do it and pay the state to do it. If they want more success, allow hunters to bait and run hounds on a damage permit but I'm sick of timber companies getting aphis to do it on taxpayer dime and can't use the carcass for anything.
This survey removes a lot of bear hunting opportunity from hunters, and gives APHIS a lot more bears to kill around bait stations.
loose loose!
Post by: hunter399 on September 05, 2019, 02:08:08 PM
I'm sick of it as well.Timber company's a.k.a (oj simpson) of bear baiting and hound hunting.Just cause you own tons of land and have dump trucks of money doesn't give you the right to break Washington laws.In the mean time take hunting opportunity away from hunters.BS all the way around.150 in kapowsin. Theyre all gone. They added a total of 39 in se units, so a net loss of 111 permits. Its all right there in the proposal. Did you take the survey without actually reading the proposal?
I did. My understanding of it was that the Kapowsin permits were going away per the land manager, so that would happen regardless of what anyone thinks since those permits are all for tree farm land.
Ya, no.
I've always had a problem with timber companies baiting for bear and just killing them when hunters could do it and pay the state to do it. If they want more success, allow hunters to bait and run hounds on a damage permit but I'm sick of timber companies getting aphis to do it on taxpayer dime and can't use the carcass for anything.
This survey removes a lot of bear hunting opportunity from hunters, and gives APHIS a lot more bears to kill around bait stations.
loose loose!
Post by: Bango skank on September 05, 2019, 02:31:10 PM
Post by: cougforester on September 05, 2019, 03:10:34 PM
+3, +3, +15, +9, +3, +5 = 38
150-38=112
Post by: Bango skank on September 05, 2019, 05:53:10 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on September 06, 2019, 12:13:37 AM
I advocated a general spring season like were historically offered in Washington, in select units that showed high tree damage, low calf/fawn recruitment and increased bear/human conflicts.
Post by: ibuyre on September 06, 2019, 03:21:48 PM
Post by: justyhntr on September 06, 2019, 08:46:34 PM
And kapowsin had 367 applicants last year. Thats going to be more names in the hat for other hunts next year, with 111 less tags to go around.
If the WDFW and Hancock had retained the Kapowsin tags this next season you would not have 367 applicants put in for it this year based on all the BS Hancock pulled last year. I doubt that they would have gotten 150 applicants if the season was retained, Hancock turned that hunt into a total joke.
I took the survey opposing the rule changes, the pelt sealing is total BS. I hunt bear for their delicious flesh and do not retain the hide so why would I need to have the hide sealed.
Post by: dilleytech on September 09, 2019, 09:14:33 AM
Post by: Special T on September 19, 2019, 03:31:17 PM
I would suggest you read this WDFW document and make your comment. It appears to me that the mandatory hide sealing requirement is overkill.
I also think it is imperative, if we want to keep those that want to reduce predator control at bay, to submit harvest data. I know every year we have friendly reminders on here about hunter reporting, but also the Tooth on bears is important.
I hope this information helps you make a more informed comment for this survey.
Post by: dilleytech on September 20, 2019, 11:09:11 AM
Post by: Special T on September 20, 2019, 11:24:38 AM
Me and the wife were looking into getting the envelope for bear tooth submitting and we found it would be about a 2 hour drive to our nearest office. They need to make this a bit more convenient.
You need a special envelope? :yike: why?
Post by: dilleytech on September 20, 2019, 11:31:03 AM
Me and the wife were looking into getting the envelope for bear tooth submitting and we found it would be about a 2 hour drive to our nearest office. They need to make this a bit more convenient.
You need a special envelope? :yike: why?
Good question, I would post a picture of the reg rules but hunt Washington won’t let me post pics anymore for some reason.
Post by: Bango skank on September 20, 2019, 11:34:55 AM
Me and the wife were looking into getting the envelope for bear tooth submitting and we found it would be about a 2 hour drive to our nearest office. They need to make this a bit more convenient.
Just call the nearest regional office, theyll mail the envelopes to you
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 25, 2019, 06:49:09 AM
September 19, 2019
Kelly Susewind, Director
Larry Carpenter, Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 43200
Olympia, WA 98504-3200
Re: Spring black bear (Ursus americanus) permits for 2019-2020
Dear Chairman Carpenter and Director Susewind:
On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and our supporters in
Washington, we submit the following comments on Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife’s (WDFW’s) Proposed Rule on the spring black bear hunting season for
2020. Fig. 1. We oppose the proposed increases because of the risk of killing even more
female bears with newborn and dependent yearling young. According to multiple bear
biologists, spring hunts put females at risk, and also orphan cubs and occur when bears
are physically distressed after months of starvation; hunting vulnerable bears is not
only cruel, it is not in keeping with Washingtonians’ values.
1. Springtime bear hunts are cruel and should be abandoned
Springtime black bear hunts are problem plagued. Despite WDFW’s best intentions,
hunters kill nursing mothers, which orphans cubs leaving them to suffer from
starvation, predation, or exposure.1 Also, spring hunts occur when bears are physically
stressed from months of not eating—when they are literally in a starving state. In
springtime, bears are in “declining physical condition” and are especially vulnerable to
hunter “harassment,”2 which Washington permits to forestall tree damage. Springtime
hunting may cause damage to roads, including causing siltation in streams, or harm to
vulnerable ungulate and other wildlife populations.3 Most Americans do not want
wildlife cruelly treated, and most want black bears protected, and surprisingly, even if
they have attacked someone.4... (continued, see PDF attached)
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 25, 2019, 06:56:07 AM
Post by: TheStovePipeKid on September 25, 2019, 06:58:38 AM
From the Human Society of the US to Director Susewind. PDF attached:
September 19, 2019
Kelly Susewind, Director
Larry Carpenter, Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 43200
Olympia, WA 98504-3200
Re: Spring black bear (Ursus americanus) permits for 2019-2020
Dear Chairman Carpenter and Director Susewind:
On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and our supporters in
Washington, we submit the following comments on Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife’s (WDFW’s) Proposed Rule on the spring black bear hunting season for
2020. Fig. 1. We oppose the proposed increases because of the risk of killing even more
female bears with newborn and dependent yearling young. According to multiple bear
biologists, spring hunts put females at risk, and also orphan cubs and occur when bears
are physically distressed after months of starvation; hunting vulnerable bears is not
only cruel, it is not in keeping with Washingtonians’ values.
1. Springtime bear hunts are cruel and should be abandoned
Springtime black bear hunts are problem plagued. Despite WDFW’s best intentions,
hunters kill nursing mothers, which orphans cubs leaving them to suffer from
starvation, predation, or exposure.1 Also, spring hunts occur when bears are physically
stressed from months of not eating—when they are literally in a starving state. In
springtime, bears are in “declining physical condition” and are especially vulnerable to
hunter “harassment,”2 which Washington permits to forestall tree damage. Springtime
hunting may cause damage to roads, including causing siltation in streams, or harm to
vulnerable ungulate and other wildlife populations.3 Most Americans do not want
wildlife cruelly treated, and most want black bears protected, and surprisingly, even if
they have attacked someone.4... (continued, see PDF attached)
Have people entirely lost the ability to make factual statements and back them up with legitimate proof? According to multiple biologist, who are these people and what are their credentials? Most Americans want to protect dangerous black bears who've attacked people? Where is the proof to back that ridiculous statement? They might as well have written, "Dear WDFW, stop being big meanies to bears cause we don't like it".
Post by: syoungs on September 25, 2019, 07:08:59 AM
Same reasons already posted, loss of overall tags, need to have a spring bear season, and kapowsin needs to let hunters help with the problem, or not get to run dogs/bait, all while paying reduced taxes.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 25, 2019, 07:32:16 AM
From the Human Society of the US to Director Susewind. PDF attached:
September 19, 2019
Kelly Susewind, Director
Larry Carpenter, Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 43200
Olympia, WA 98504-3200
Re: Spring black bear (Ursus americanus) permits for 2019-2020
Dear Chairman Carpenter and Director Susewind:
On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and our supporters in
Washington, we submit the following comments on Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife’s (WDFW’s) Proposed Rule on the spring black bear hunting season for
2020. Fig. 1. We oppose the proposed increases because of the risk of killing even more
female bears with newborn and dependent yearling young. According to multiple bear
biologists, spring hunts put females at risk, and also orphan cubs and occur when bears
are physically distressed after months of starvation; hunting vulnerable bears is not
only cruel, it is not in keeping with Washingtonians’ values.
1. Springtime bear hunts are cruel and should be abandoned
Springtime black bear hunts are problem plagued. Despite WDFW’s best intentions,
hunters kill nursing mothers, which orphans cubs leaving them to suffer from
starvation, predation, or exposure.1 Also, spring hunts occur when bears are physically
stressed from months of not eating—when they are literally in a starving state. In
springtime, bears are in “declining physical condition” and are especially vulnerable to
hunter “harassment,”2 which Washington permits to forestall tree damage. Springtime
hunting may cause damage to roads, including causing siltation in streams, or harm to
vulnerable ungulate and other wildlife populations.3 Most Americans do not want
wildlife cruelly treated, and most want black bears protected, and surprisingly, even if
they have attacked someone.4... (continued, see PDF attached)
Have people entirely lost the ability to make factual statements and back them up with legitimate proof? According to multiple biologist, who are these people and what are their credentials? Most Americans want to protect dangerous black bears who've attacked people? Where is the proof to back that ridiculous statement? They might as well have written, "Dear WDFW, stop being big meanies to bears cause we don't like it".
It was mainly the HSUS that spread misinformation and spent $1m in 1996 which lead to the initiative which banned hounding and baiting. Did you expect them to change their tactics now? These people will end hunting by any means necessary, including lies. It's the expressed goal of their organization.
Post by: Jpmiller on September 25, 2019, 07:48:25 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 25, 2019, 09:36:37 AM
kapowsin needs to let hunters help with the problem, or not get to run dogs/bait, all while paying reduced taxes.
So very, very true.
Post by: HillHound on September 25, 2019, 10:56:07 AM
:yeah:kapowsin needs to let hunters help with the problem, or not get to run dogs/bait, all while paying reduced taxes.
So very, very true.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 25, 2019, 11:31:50 AM
kapowsin needs to let hunters help with the problem, or not get to run dogs/bait, all while paying reduced taxes.
So very, very true.
Kapowsin will do exactly what our government allows them to do. The WDFW needs to put pressure on these big landowners to use hunters to solve their problems or not issue the permits. Good for them and good for us.