Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2023, 09:46:55 AM
So let's destroy the season we had that delt with spring bear damage ,now let's create a new one.
Just WOW.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development/black-bear-timber-damage-depredation-permits
Looks like comments need to be sent here.
beartimberdamage@PublicInput.com
Post by: Gringo31 on January 24, 2023, 09:57:58 AM
Hunting bears for Harvest are no-no's.
You can not use either of those H words and get any headway with them.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2023, 10:04:18 AM
The anti hunting groups seem to be fine with protecting trees if that includes killing bears.I agree with that.
Hunting bears for Harvest are no-no's.
You can not use either of those H words and get any headway with them.
I was trying to read the CR thingy that goes with this.
I'm not sure if this is for hunters,or just a rule change to give more agricultural trapping permits out.
I can't really figure it out.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on January 24, 2023, 10:35:36 AM
The anti hunting groups seem to be fine with protecting trees if that includes killing bears.:yeah:
Hunting bears for Harvest are no-no's.
You can not use either of those H words and get any headway with them.
Having listened to the commission meetings, this is what it comes down to. The main concern is stopping recreational hunting.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2023, 10:48:52 AM
Or not support it.
Yes the commission is against recreational hunting of spring bears I already know this.
But why should I support trapping spring bears or just hunting spring bears through this depredation program.
When there is a need to hunt spring bears but won't give us opportunities.
Help me understand this.
Make no sense to me that a friend of a friend will get spring permits. Instead of having a fair and just draw system that we already had in place.
The Commission could of adjusted permit levels and called it a damage hunt only.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2023, 10:56:24 AM
This seems like an attempt to fix the commission bad,political,unscientific,decision making that they made on the spring bear hunt ,which has always been both a recreational and damage hunt to begin with.
Seems to me I can't really support fixing there mistakes.
Honestly the commission should be liable for spring bear damage.
That was there decision.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2023, 11:37:55 AM
I do not support any spring bear hunting or trapping. Until the commission gives opportunities to recreational hunters.
The recreational hunt was always a damage hunt. Our Commission decided to not allow the recreational/damage hunt.
The Commission should be liable for all spring bear damage occurred after there decision. Spring bear should only be dispatched on public safety reasons only.
The recreational hunt was in place to deal with damage caused by spring bears.
This opportunity should be give in to recreational hunters per the commission code of conduct to maximize recreational opportunities to hunters.
Post by: Alan K on January 24, 2023, 11:52:17 AM
This has nothing to do with the spring bear season being pulled by the commission. Spring bear permits on the east side had nothing to do with timber damage. Westside yes, but that's also why it was so sparse. Boot hunting is not effective in mitigating damage.
This comes from when CBD won the lawsuit against WDFW on appeal years ago regarding WDFW's issuance of depredation permits without going through formal rule making. This is now the formal rule making.
Depredation permits and recreational opportunities are not mutually exclusive via WDFW, it would boil down to whether or not a landowner wanted to forego baiting/trapping or feeding as a means of damage mitigation to target problem areas/animals (most effective) in favor of a boot hunt in a tiny geographic area with no use of bait, traps, hounds, etc.... Aka good luck getting that problem bear out of that reprod jungle with 4' visibility.... Landowners are going to select the options that protect their property, period.
And depredation permits are available to ALL landowners that can show damage, not only timber companies. It's portrayed that way since obviously companies are the largest landowners, but Joe Landowner's 40 acres of timber getting decimated by bears qualifies just the same.
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2023, 11:57:10 AM
Wow, this really goes to show just how little some people know about the issue.Well I could say if said timber company,land owner,ECT sued said Commission for damages occurring in the past two years our season might return.
This has nothing to do with the spring bear season being pulled by the commission. Spring bear permits on the east side had nothing to do with timber damage. Westside yes, but that's also why it was so sparse. Boot hunting is not effective in mitigating damage.
This comes from when CBD won the lawsuit against WDFW on appeal years ago regarding WDFW's issuance of depredation permits without going through formal rule making. This is now the formal rule making.
Depredation permits and recreational opportunities are not mutually exclusive via WDFW, it would boil down to whether or not a landowner wanted to forego baiting/trapping or feeding as a means of damage mitigation to target problem areas/animals (most effective) in favor of a boot hunt in a tiny geograpgic area with no use of bait, traps, hounds, etc.... Aka good luck getting that problem bear out of that reprod jungle with 4' visibility.... Landowners are going to select the options that protect their property, period.
And depredation permits are available to ALL landowners that can show damage, not only timber companies. It's portrayed that way since obviously companies are the largest landowners, but Joe Landowner's 40 acres of timber getting decimated by bears qualifies just the same.
If there is only four feet visable,shouldn't there be some thinning in order.
I still can't support it.
Not after taking all recreational opportunities away.
I've never support feeding anyway,that just makes bear population go up.Never really solving anything
Post by: dlow on January 24, 2023, 12:03:01 PM
Post by: Alan K on January 24, 2023, 12:07:53 PM
The bears removed under depredation permits was a small fraction of the state's bear harvest even when hounds were allowed. Someone ought to do a FOIA to see how many permits have been sought, and how much success there has been since WDFW went to boot hunt only depredation permits. I'd bet success could be counted on your two hands, maybe even one hand.
Also, trees aren't the only thing these bears feed on through the spring months, it's just the easiest for them. They hammer fawns in particular, but also calves once they drop. Every bear removed via damage is also saving other wildlife at the same time. A win-win...
Bellyaching about this is like cutting your nose off to spite your face... Makes sense...
Post by: Alan K on January 24, 2023, 12:11:56 PM
Post by: dlow on January 24, 2023, 12:24:23 PM
This is about WDFW permits, which are separate from any federal depredation. The feds do some depredation work (with a number of species, not only bears) under MOU's with WDFW.
Gotcha. I wasn’t quite sure how that worked. I just know the feds do a good bit of trapping for the timber companies.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 24, 2023, 12:43:45 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 24, 2023, 12:55:27 PM
Thinning actually jump starts the damage again as the tree is released, which is why PCT is often delayed so that crown closure happens quicker and pushes the crown upwards and away from ground level where a bear's nose is most apt to identify it as a food source if there is a lot of tree growth there.Putting a band-aid on top of a band-aid is what a feed barrel is.
The bears removed under depredation permits was a small fraction of the state's bear harvest even when hounds were allowed. Someone ought to do a FOIA to see how many permits have been sought, and how much success there has been since WDFW went to boot hunt only depredation permits. I'd bet success could be counted on your two hands, maybe even one hand.
Also, trees aren't the only thing these bears feed on through the spring months, it's just the easiest for them. They hammer fawns in particular, but also calves once they drop. Every bear removed via damage is also saving other wildlife at the same time. A win-win...
Bellyaching about this is like cutting your nose off to spite your face... Makes sense...
I'm sure you are correct ,trapping with snares,and hounds are way more effective.
I can't remember which units on the West it was.
But wasn't timber company reducing boot hunter permits,just so they could use depredation permits.
When there was a recreational season.
You can't limit access to areas with damage for boot hunters and expect it to be more effective than trapping or hounds.
Or even come close to it.
I'm not gonna support an animal be left to rot cause it ate a tree.
I'm sorry I just wasn't raised that way.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on January 24, 2023, 01:05:52 PM
Thinning actually jump starts the damage again as the tree is released, which is why PCT is often delayed so that crown closure happens quicker and pushes the crown upwards and away from ground level where a bear's nose is most apt to identify it as a food source if there is a lot of tree growth there.
The bears removed under depredation permits was a small fraction of the state's bear harvest even when hounds were allowed. Someone ought to do a FOIA to see how many permits have been sought, and how much success there has been since WDFW went to boot hunt only depredation permits. I'd bet success could be counted on your two hands, maybe even one hand.
Also, trees aren't the only thing these bears feed on through the spring months, it's just the easiest for them. They hammer fawns in particular, but also calves once they drop. Every bear removed via damage is also saving other wildlife at the same time. A win-win...
Bellyaching about this is like cutting your nose off to spite your face... Makes sense...
You seem very well informed on this subject, why don't you do the public records request and let us know what you find?
Post by: jrebel on January 24, 2023, 01:09:35 PM
Post by: Alan K on January 24, 2023, 05:12:21 PM
Thinning actually jump starts the damage again as the tree is released, which is why PCT is often delayed so that crown closure happens quicker and pushes the crown upwards and away from ground level where a bear's nose is most apt to identify it as a food source if there is a lot of tree growth there.
The bears removed under depredation permits was a small fraction of the state's bear harvest even when hounds were allowed. Someone ought to do a FOIA to see how many permits have been sought, and how much success there has been since WDFW went to boot hunt only depredation permits. I'd bet success could be counted on your two hands, maybe even one hand.
Also, trees aren't the only thing these bears feed on through the spring months, it's just the easiest for them. They hammer fawns in particular, but also calves once they drop. Every bear removed via damage is also saving other wildlife at the same time. A win-win...
Bellyaching about this is like cutting your nose off to spite your face... Makes sense...
You seem very well informed on this subject, why don't you do the public records request and let us know what you find?
Because I'm already informed. Of the group of foresters that I know, NONE of their respective companies went beyond seeing what a depredation permit would look like. The chances of success are slim to none.
The information is out there for the uninformed to educate themselves before forming their opinion. Just pick up the phone and ask WDFW, and if they're coy about it, force their hand.
Post by: Alan K on January 24, 2023, 05:28:54 PM
Thinning actually jump starts the damage again as the tree is released, which is why PCT is often delayed so that crown closure happens quicker and pushes the crown upwards and away from ground level where a bear's nose is most apt to identify it as a food source if there is a lot of tree growth there.Putting a band-aid on top of a band-aid is what a feed barrel is.
The bears removed under depredation permits was a small fraction of the state's bear harvest even when hounds were allowed. Someone ought to do a FOIA to see how many permits have been sought, and how much success there has been since WDFW went to boot hunt only depredation permits. I'd bet success could be counted on your two hands, maybe even one hand.
Also, trees aren't the only thing these bears feed on through the spring months, it's just the easiest for them. They hammer fawns in particular, but also calves once they drop. Every bear removed via damage is also saving other wildlife at the same time. A win-win...
Bellyaching about this is like cutting your nose off to spite your face... Makes sense...
I'm sure you are correct ,trapping with snares,and hounds are way more effective.
I can't remember which units on the West it was.
But wasn't timber company reducing boot hunter permits,just so they could use depredation permits.
When there was a recreational season.
You can't limit access to areas with damage for boot hunters and expect it to be more effective than trapping or hounds.
Or even come close to it.
I'm not gonna support an animal be left to rot cause it ate a tree.
I'm sorry I just wasn't raised that way.
Like anything, there isn't a one size fits all solution for bear damage. Feeding absolutely satisfies some bears, I'd even say a majority of bears in getting through the spring months without hammering timber. Does it stop it all? Of course not.
It absolutely does reduce damage when done correctly. Boars will often hog a feeder causing the rest of the concentrated bears to seek food sources around the feeder which often times means timber. A second feeder in those cases must be added a few hundred yards away so that he cannot lay claim to both at once.
Most companies hire the labor of stocking feeders out, and I seriously doubt that someone paid to lug sacks of feed to feeders is paying attention and reading the sign to the level that a forester trying to protect his timber would.
The Kapowsin spring bear permits went away last I think, maybe others too in that time frame due to dismal results, not only poor success, but not actually reducing damage.
Something like 150 permits and 10ish bears taken over a couple months. The bears taken were almost certainly out in harvest units pulling stumps, or feeding on roadside grasses. That's great for the hunters and helping reduce bear populations, but doesn't do anything for bear damage. Those bears aren't the problem ones that depredation intentions are meant to target.
Recreation hunting and depredation removals should not even be in the same conversation. One does not replace the other, and populations are in no jeopardy in having either.
Not sure what you're taking about with animals being left to rot? Look up WDFW's rules post removal, they have to donate hides, turn over gall bladders, and donate the meat (though there was talk of people being able to keep meat I think if taken during a boot hunt?). If you know of any violation, I hope you turned it in.
Post by: Torrent50 on January 25, 2023, 11:45:17 AM
Just tossing the info out there so that it's available, for what it's worth.
Post by: WSU on January 25, 2023, 11:52:32 AM
Post by: elkh8me on January 26, 2023, 08:57:45 PM
It will not be for hunter it will apply to timber land owners hiring folks to take care of the “issue” causing damage to the trees.The anti hunting groups seem to be fine with protecting trees if that includes killing bears.I agree with that.
Hunting bears for Harvest are no-no's.
You can not use either of those H words and get any headway with them.
I was trying to read the CR thingy that goes with this.
I'm not sure if this is for hunters,or just a rule change to give more agricultural trapping permits out.
I can't really figure it out.
Post by: PsoasHunter on January 26, 2023, 09:09:59 PM
This is from 2019.
Dang it. Thank you for pointing this out, I wish this was one of the first comments instead of page 2...
Post by: Alan K on January 27, 2023, 07:14:15 AM
Post by: Alan K on January 27, 2023, 07:25:42 AM
I did an FOI request to the USDA APHIS section last year about the number of bears that they or their contractors killed. They provided me with a response that showed between May 2020 and July 2021 they had taken out 47 black bears. My request covered the entire state of WA, but their records indicated that the only bears taken were from Skagit, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Thurston, Cowlitz, and Lewis Counties. Those numbers don't really line up with information that I was told by a Fish and Game Sgt about the numbers taken out from a particular area in Pacific/Lewis county, so I really don't know how accurately this stuff is reported to them. Getting good numbers is probably next to impossible to do.
Just tossing the info out there so that it's available, for what it's worth.
Bear in mind APHIS is federal, and WDFW is state. While they share information at a high level, I'd be shocked if an officer had any hard numbers. They are (or were years ago and I assume still) notified of active permits so that they could keep an eye on folks, but were in no way the repository for removal numbers.
Post by: Torrent50 on January 27, 2023, 06:44:48 PM
I did an FOI request to the USDA APHIS section last year about the number of bears that they or their contractors killed. They provided me with a response that showed between May 2020 and July 2021 they had taken out 47 black bears. My request covered the entire state of WA, but their records indicated that the only bears taken were from Skagit, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Thurston, Cowlitz, and Lewis Counties. Those numbers don't really line up with information that I was told by a Fish and Game Sgt about the numbers taken out from a particular area in Pacific/Lewis county, so I really don't know how accurately this stuff is reported to them. Getting good numbers is probably next to impossible to do.
Just tossing the info out there so that it's available, for what it's worth.
Bear in mind APHIS is federal, and WDFW is state. While they share information at a high level, I'd be shocked if an officer had any hard numbers. They are (or were years ago and I assume still) notified of active permits so that they could keep an eye on folks, but were in no way the repository for removal numbers.
His info came from a person he usually donates bears that he has to remove to. He called her up and she couldn't take anymore because she had just taken 15 in from a USDA trapper.
Post by: highmuley on March 01, 2023, 05:41:11 PM