Post by: saylean on June 24, 2023, 07:09:39 PM
By Douglas Boze (these are my personal thoughts)
From the beginning, this opinion piece starts off asking, ‘Why hunt black bears in the spring? The WDFW Commission has wrestled with this … for more than a year.’ Right off the bat, this should not even be a question. This entire debacle started off, not to discuss the validity of the hunt or the ethics of the hunt, but to reduce two tags from one GMU unit (where human/bear conflict has been occurring) and adjust some minor text issues within the Big Game Rules and Regs book. That’s it. But, with the diversion from (at the time) certain Commissioners (some of which remain, some are gone), it turned into something that was completely out of their realm of discussion. Ignoring SEPA, ignoring GMAC, ignoring their own state biologists, all of which recommended the hunt, we now end up where we are today, without a hunt. But let’s continue dissecting his article shall we?
30,000 comments were received, according to the article (which I can tell you were repeat comments from multiple users, many of which did not even live within this state or country for that matter). Lots of comments for, lots against, at least we can agree on that. What does that tell us? Some people want to hunt and some people want to stop hunting. So, what must we ask ourselves here? Should we manage wildlife by the popular vote of what makes people feel good? Or, should we rely on the science of state wildlife management for the betterment of the species overall population? The majority of the commission obviously chose the first option.
Let’s continue though. He continues to say, “…the hunt has evolved into a recreational sport hunt that secondarily addresses …management issues (such as timber damage, predation on deer and elk calves, or human-bear conflicts). That change in purpose from management to sport is the heart of the controversy.”
My question to Mr. Lemkuhl is this, “Since when did the spring bear hunt turn from a management hunt to a so called, “sport hunt”. The hunt was never over the counter, it is a draw, with very small and specific areas to hunt to help alleviate the spring bear damage to trees, neonate ungulates and human bear conflict. It is not there to solve the issue, but help it. As spring bear hunters, we are given specific maps of GMU’s with partial areas that we can hunt or that are expressly shown to us that have issues. Also, can you define “sport hunt”? Are you insinuating that recreational hunters just shoot animals for so called, “sport” and let them go to waste or to satisfy some carnal blood lust? I think you would find that is not the case if you took the time to listen to half of the hunters’ comments during that time. Does this also mean that fall bear hunting is a “sport hunt” and should be cancelled according to this logic? The slope here is very slippery.
As you stated during public testimony, you found the legal term, “recreational hunting” almost offensive when it came to spring bear. When, in reality, that is the legal term used for all hunting and fishing that is not commercial, which was pointed out by WDFW staff during the meeting. It is semantics that you based at least in part; you vote to end the hunt. Wording that you found disagreeable, not science.
I think it is a misconception by many that hunters believe we own all wildlife. We know that is not true. We also know we are the greatest contributors monetarily and through physical management that the state could hope to have. There is not a $300 bird watching fee or a non-hunting hiker physically removing of an animal to help avoid car wrecks, overpopulation, human conflict and the list continues. Frankly, hunters bear (no pun intended) the burden of financial contribution and physical management that the non-consumptive users simply cannot compare to. Period. The other option are state hired hunters to kill and let the animals go to waste, which any hunter I knows finds offensive.
Opponents of the hunt claimed they wanted to hike around without fear of running into spring hunters. I can say with certainty, 99% of these people have never run into a spring bear hunter, since most of the hunting areas are miles behind locked gates during an unpopular time to hike. Snow, locked gates and distance makes spring bear hunting particularly lonesome and the odds of running into the average hiker is slim to none.
He continues to write, “Science is the cornerstone of wildlife management in North America.” I would agree with that. Then why did half the commission completely ignore the recommendations of the biologists? Why did the commission ignore the in the field observations by hunters all over claiming we have an abundance of bear? I can tell you why. Because some on the commission found that hunting bear in the spring is “unethical” that the term “recreational hunting” didn’t sit right and that text messages from Wolf Haven advised them otherwise. None of which had to do with science, but personal agenda and feelings.
If the killing of sows was a concern, great. We as hunters (and Commissions McIsaac at the time) worked to make an amendment to the policy where it would be against the law to shoot a sow with cubs. But did those on the commission (who voted against spring bear) even consider this while maintaining at least some tags? No, they did not want to compromise in the least. It didn’t fit their narrative. Just like the science provided, it didn’t fit what they personally wanted.
“Data to prove or disprove the spring hunt’s effectiveness simply have not been collected in Washington.” This is a false statement. Again, time and time again, the WDFW bios showcased this and other data from several other states, saying even the presence of hunters in spring damage areas can affect the bears movements, causing them to relocate to other areas that aren’t calving grounds or vulnerable tree stands. Of the two spring bear hunts I was drawn and successful on, I killed mature boars. Both of which were stripping trees at the time. And I can promise you, after they died, they no longer stripped trees. That tells me it was effective.
He then states, “…spring bear hunting is a sticky issue that involved the public trust, science and legitimate use.” Need I remind the Commissioner that it is against the law to let a bear go to waste? Both bears I killed, I used all the meat and still have their hides and skulls. Seems legitimate use to me.
He ends the article with, “WDFW Commission decided by a 5-4 vote (which a commissioner illegally received text messages during a closed public comment period by the way) in November to disallow recreational sport hunting for black bears in the spring while allowing for well-planned and monitored management hunts by recreational hunters to resolve documented issues.” But again, the previous spring bear hunts were well-planned and monitored management hunts. Nothing has changed in that respect with the exception of the fact we no longer have the hunt and if we were to get a management hunt” it would again have to pass through a vote of the heavily skewed anti-hunting commission.
The real issues, besides losing the hunt, is how we lost the hunt (ethics were never part of the original conversation, only tag allotment), why we lost the hunt (personal political motivations by commissioners), the ignoring of the WDFW bios, the ignoring of historical data, the ignoring of the mandate, the ignoring of tribes and GMAC, the ignoring of SEPA, the underhanded backdoor dealings with anti-hunting organizations and previous affiliates and the complete lack of any sort of comprise resulting in broken trust between the hunting public and commission. We can already see the outcome of this decision with multiple bear conflicts this spring and early summer ranging from Oak Harbor to the 520/I 90 interchange and beyond.
My hope is, the commission will stick to their word and reconsider the hunt for management purposes, but I am not holding my breath, since those needs never left in the first place. I also wouldn’t hold my breath for the average citizen to hire their own biologists as Commissioner Lemkuhl suggested during his rant on Thursday the 22nd of June after hearing public testimony.
Post by: High Climber on June 24, 2023, 07:31:43 PM
Post by: storyteller on June 24, 2023, 08:59:19 PM
Post by: RC on June 24, 2023, 09:13:36 PM
Post by: blumtnelkndeer on June 24, 2023, 09:47:14 PM
Post by: saylean on June 24, 2023, 09:55:44 PM
Also, please feel free to send your responses to the commission on his article which can be found if you google his name and spokesman review.
Post by: Slamadoo on June 24, 2023, 11:57:04 PM
Post by: hunter399 on June 25, 2023, 07:22:22 AM
I always suggest to bring back spring bear with double the amount of permit.
Spring bear should be a general season hunt,OTC.
Never needed a permit or draw.
Idaho and Montana just sell tags and say go hunt.
Even Oregon has a draw hunt.
They are screwing us,then don't want to cough up the money for damages that occur from there decision.
That's the only reason they have even thought about a management hunt.
All we need is a timber company to sue them for spring bear damage and the hunt will be reinstated.
They have created a legal liability on to themselves,you better believe they have been advised from our state that they may be liable. That's why they get so worked up about the issue.
Just if someone could get a timber company on board to sue for tree damages,for a huge amount of money. They would get the money,and we could get our hunt back.
It would also show the commission to manage based on science,not your feelings.
Post by: Rainier10 on June 25, 2023, 08:22:57 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on June 25, 2023, 09:33:01 AM
Lehmkul is a punk.
Yep.
Claims to be all about the science, but when the rubber hits the road it's all about politics.
Post by: snit on June 25, 2023, 11:12:38 AM
Post by: hunter399 on June 25, 2023, 01:17:20 PM
I wouldn’t want to be on the commission currently. My history wouldn’t mix well with some on there. Two commissioners left when I started speaking on Thursday, to give you an idea.Ya they keep wanting me to subscribe to read it.
Also, please feel free to send your responses to the commission on his article which can be found if you google his name and spokesman review.
What I could speed read ,it's trash. Not even good fire starter.
No way I'm paying them that publish his trash..
I can still send an email if you like about the key points.
There has to be some law that says they have to manage spring bears to mitigate property damage.
Post by: hunter399 on June 25, 2023, 01:39:25 PM
Of course most say they can authorize a hunt or kill permits to mitigate damages,which there not doing.
Under this law ,it looks like to me .
All the timber company has to do is lease me a chunk of land for 1 penny an acre.
Or make me an employee for 30 days at a penny a day.
We could harvest any bear causing damages ,without a license,tag,or anything.
Here is a link to what I'm reading.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.36.030
I'm still digging ,give me time here.
Need to find a case where the commission deny kill permits or hunts that mitigate damages.
See what happened historically.
I know this law authorizes the commission to mitigate damages.
Since there the only ones that are "authority" to issue.
Technically leaves them liable in a situation such as spring bear.
My opinion,I'm not a lawyer.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-440-060
Post by: Moose Master on July 08, 2023, 12:24:35 PM
Post by: 509 on July 08, 2023, 06:08:42 PM
A bear hunters’ response to Commissioner Lehmkul Op Ed in Spokesman Review of Feb 16th 2023.
By Douglas Boze (these are my personal thoughts)...........................
Did the Spokesman print your letter as a op-ed piece??
Post by: Alan K on July 08, 2023, 06:40:30 PM
I've been reading up on a few laws.
Of course most say they can authorize a hunt or kill permits to mitigate damages,which there not doing.
Under this law ,it looks like to me .
All the timber company has to do is lease me a chunk of land for 1 penny an acre.
Or make me an employee for 30 days at a penny a day.
We could harvest any bear causing damages ,without a license,tag,or anything.
Here is a link to what I'm reading.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.36.030
I'm still digging ,give me time here.
Need to find a case where the commission deny kill permits or hunts that mitigate damages.
See what happened historically.
I know this law authorizes the commission to mitigate damages.
Since there the only ones that are "authority" to issue.
Technically leaves them liable in a situation such as spring bear.
My opinion,I'm not a lawyer.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-440-060
Last I talked to someone in the know about the depredation options, it's a joke now. A 1-mile radius circle hunt area from documented current year damage coordinates. No bait, no traps, no dogs, just a boot hunt on a tiny tiny fraction of the GMU. 15 day or 30 day permit. Good luck, especially when damage is generally on 15 year old or so stands that the only visible areas are roads. The other thing is animals can't be retained, everything has to be donated.
The only people allowed to use dogs or bait now are government folks. APHIS does a little trapping but are so under staffed they only take care of a small fraction that used to be removed when houndsmen could be utilized. Most timber companies opt to just supplemental feed through the spring because getting boot permit hunts in place preclude them from doing any feeding in the area for fear of someone hunting over it. Feeding is more of a band-aid and doesnt help with population control which is needed to benefit other wildlife, but certainly mitigates timber damage more than a handful of boot hunt depredation permits.
Post by: Alan K on July 08, 2023, 06:43:28 PM
Post by: saylean on July 12, 2023, 05:27:40 PM
A bear hunters’ response to Commissioner Lehmkul Op Ed in Spokesman Review of Feb 16th 2023.
By Douglas Boze (these are my personal thoughts)...........................
Did the Spokesman print your letter as a op-ed piece??
No, I didnt submit it.