Post by: Goshawk on December 04, 2011, 06:44:11 PM
Thanks,
Goshawk
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 05, 2011, 11:21:01 AM
I have not talked to him since drawing my spring permit 2 years ago, so take it with a grain of salt...
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 05, 2011, 11:57:08 AM
Any idea how many bears are killed by contract in the state each year?
Some questions are best left un-asked
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.starpulse.com%2FPhotos%2FPreviews%2FSopranos-tv-92.jpg&hash=4a4f09fdb4e5085c14e395ef207419fcadb740bb)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 05, 2011, 12:09:22 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.starpulse.com%2FPhotos%2FPreviews%2FSopranos-tv-64.jpg&hash=97af2fea4e0ff6a48b22b3df5a62baa0af858b6d)
Post by: Arteman on December 05, 2011, 04:51:38 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on December 05, 2011, 05:03:29 PM
I know that ever since the hound / baiting ban went into effect the timber companies and state have contracted out for lethal removal of bears. Any idea how many bears are killed by contract in the state each year?
Thanks,
Goshawk
I posted this awhile back.
I went back through the old harvest reports and WDFW does keep track...if the reports given to them are legit.
They used to post the numbers in the harvest reports (but don't anymore) and in some BMU they would kill 40-80 a year. That is 40-80 bears a year in multiple BMU reported but I am sure more are killed than that.
Post by: summit creek on December 11, 2011, 06:55:09 PM
Post by: D-Rock425 on December 12, 2011, 08:46:08 AM
Post by: Goshawk on December 12, 2011, 05:27:25 PM
Just don't seem right...
PS. I'm a little lost as to how the posted pictures of people have something to do with bear hunting?
Post by: bearbaito6 on December 12, 2011, 05:36:56 PM
Post by: mtman on December 12, 2011, 06:35:16 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 12, 2011, 09:48:16 PM
PS. I'm a little lost as to how the posted pictures of people have something to do with bear hunting?
It was a joke. You know, all the talk of contract killing, so I put in some pictures of Tony Soprano and his crew, Paulie Walnuts and Sil.
They're in the mafia, and know a thing or two about contract killing
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 13, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
Post by: gottatree on December 13, 2011, 10:07:52 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 13, 2011, 10:31:47 AM
Post by: Goshawk on December 13, 2011, 10:40:02 AM
PS. I'm a little lost as to how the posted pictures of people have something to do with bear hunting?
It was a joke. You know, all the talk of contract killing, so I put in some pictures of Tony Soprano and his crew, Paulie Walnuts and Sil.
They're in the mafia, and know a thing or two about contract killing
Ok, now I get it.
I don't watch TV so these guys meant nothing to me outside of looking grumpy.
Post by: gottatree on December 13, 2011, 01:55:07 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 13, 2011, 03:18:25 PM
Post by: gottatree on December 13, 2011, 03:21:15 PM
Post by: bearbaito6 on December 13, 2011, 04:37:37 PM
Post by: gottatree on December 13, 2011, 08:11:15 PM
Post by: bowman on December 13, 2011, 11:34:12 PM
I actually found their "strike" dog wandering around near my camera. The hunters had been looking for her all day.
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2011, 11:51:54 PM
Post by: bearbaito6 on December 14, 2011, 04:19:54 AM
Post by: RadSav on December 14, 2011, 05:37:38 AM
In our case most of the bear issues were taken care of by the state. They would live trap and relocate. Some did die due to overdosing. Those bear that returned to residential areas after being trapped once usually knew better than to get in a trap again. That's when they would call us in for harvest. Program was cancelled after the activists claimed feeding wild game to prisoners was unethical treatment of inmates. We were never allowed to know how they handled problem bear after that. I could only offer a theoretical guess.
Stories of 2,000 bear by a single hunter would seem to me to be either a wives tail or a government hunter many, many, years ago.
Post by: Curly on December 14, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
I guess my main gripe is that if a timber company is having problems with bears, they should have to open up their access for paying hunters before being allowed to have the state hire and pay for a professional trapper / hunter to kill them. That's OUR tax dollars being spent to hire someone to bear hunt on land that is closed to the public, yet enjoys a HUGE property tax break.
Just don't seem right...
I agree (except for the part about it being our tax dollars). Private timber companies are paying for the removal of the bears. It seems real crazy for the banning of hounds and banning of baiting bears by initiative to occur and then just allow timber companies to contract out for the removal of bears by hound guys. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that at least some hound guys get to run their dogs, but it would seem to make more sense to allow anyone to run their dogs and anyone to bait bears.
Another thing that doesn't make sense to me is why the whole state isn't open for general season spring bear? Or at least have special permits for all GMU's or at least a whole bunch more for spring bear?
Post by: billythekidrock on December 14, 2011, 05:56:30 AM
Stories of 2,000 bear by a single hunter would seem to me to be either a wives tail or a government hunter many, many, years ago.
In the 60's and 70's the WA Forest Protection Ass. would regularly kill about 500 bears a year in WA. Ralph Flowers killed over 1,000 bears and Bill Hulet killed probably more than that....all on the Olympic Peninsula.
Post by: HntnFsh on December 14, 2011, 06:17:21 AM
I don't know any numbers but I know some master hunters are starting to bait and kill bears now.
Are you sure about that. I was in contact last spring with the person in charge of trying to set this up. They wanted to hit specific problem areas with heavy peeling.It didnt happen fast enough.So my understanding was that it is on hold.Maybe I better make a phone call.
Post by: grundy53 on December 14, 2011, 08:04:13 AM
Stories of 2,000 bear by a single hunter would seem to me to be either a wives tail or a government hunter many, many, years ago.
In the 60's and 70's the WA Forest Protection Ass. would regularly kill about 500 bears a year in WA. Ralph Flowers killed over 1,000 bears and Bill Hulet killed probably more than that....all on the Olympic Peninsula.
:yeah: Weyerhaeuser also used to have a bounty on them. I know some old timers who would kill around sixty a year. Lincoln creek used to get hit hard. There was a ton of bear in their. They said they were like rats.
Post by: gottatree on December 14, 2011, 08:46:00 AM
Durring the fight over that initiative the anti's put in a provision that large land owners ( Timber Companies ) could use dogs to protect there crops ( Timber ) If this was not included you would have seen Millions of dollars being donated to the cause.I guess my main gripe is that if a timber company is having problems with bears, they should have to open up their access for paying hunters before being allowed to have the state hire and pay for a professional trapper / hunter to kill them. That's OUR tax dollars being spent to hire someone to bear hunt on land that is closed to the public, yet enjoys a HUGE property tax break.
Just don't seem right...
I agree (except for the part about it being our tax dollars). Private timber companies are paying for the removal of the bears. It seems real crazy for the banning of hounds and banning of baiting bears by initiative to occur and then just allow timber companies to contract out for the removal of bears by hound guys. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that at least some hound guys get to run their dogs, but it would seem to make more sense to allow anyone to run their dogs and anyone to bait bears.
Another thing that doesn't make sense to me is why the whole state isn't open for general season spring bear? Or at least have special permits for all GMU's or at least a whole bunch more for spring bear?
Timber companies pay not the state. What frustrates me the most on here is people fight over what has happened and what they think has happened. I spent Tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep my dogs in shape. The timber companies where happy to buy a couple of pallets of dog food a month to have there problem controlled. Hound guys have been hunting for the timber companies for years and will continue to do so. The ones who catch will get invited back the ones that don't will not hunt for them again. whether or not you want to believe it the timber companies paid.
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 14, 2011, 11:22:43 AM
I have never heard of the DNR of WDFW using hound hunters to kill bears on state land. As far as I know, by law they are not allowed to do so. Unless of course it's just one specific problem bear in a populated area. This is why they had the spring bear permits in Capitol Forest for several years. If they could have got depredation permits and used hound hunters to reduce the bear population like the private timber companies do, then I'm pretty sure they would have done that.
What? "not allowed to do so,"Gottatree mentioned that he has paystubbs to prove DNR pays him to kill bears on state land.
Post by: Curly on December 14, 2011, 12:00:11 PM
I have never heard of the DNR of WDFW using hound hunters to kill bears on state land. As far as I know, by law they are not allowed to do so. Unless of course it's just one specific problem bear in a populated area. This is why they had the spring bear permits in Capitol Forest for several years. If they could have got depredation permits and used hound hunters to reduce the bear population like the private timber companies do, then I'm pretty sure they would have done that.
What? "not allowed to do so,"Gottatree mentioned that he has paystubbs to prove DNR pays him to kill bears on state land.
But then in another post he says:
Timber companies pay not the state.
Post by: gottatree on December 14, 2011, 12:18:41 PM
State paid on State land
Timber Companies paid on Timber company lands
I quit four years ago now, so currently what they do maybe completely different. I was not trying to get into a pi$%^ng contest I was just adding my :twocents:. I guess I should have made it clear what I wrote instead of just clear in my head. Sorry for the confusion
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 14, 2011, 12:23:47 PM
Stories of 2,000 bear by a single hunter would seem to me to be either a wives tail or a government hunter many, many, years ago.
It's no story I read this story many years ago in the Aberdeen Daily World, but here's a copy of it in the LA Times.
Ralph came up with a concoction that bears seemed to like to eat and changed from a hunter to a feeder of bears. Not sure how well it all worked out or if his "Bear Feed" is still used, but it's an interesting story none the less. Note this story is from 1986.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-09-28/news/mn-9706_1_bear-damage
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 14, 2011, 12:30:50 PM
I guess my main gripe is that if a timber company is having problems with bears, they should have to open up their access for paying hunters before being allowed to have the state hire and pay for a professional trapper / hunter to kill them. That's OUR tax dollars being spent to hire someone to bear hunt on land that is closed to the public, yet enjoys a HUGE property tax break.
Just don't seem right...
Pretty much the same thing happens on the wheat and other farms in Eastern WA. Farmers get 10's of thousands of dollars paid to them by the State of Washington for crop damage, but they close their land to public hunting or charge thousands to hunt it. I'd be inclined to make a rule that they can have private paid for hunting or the crop damage money, but not both. If you collect for crop damages, your land must be open to the public for hunting.
Post by: jackmaster on December 14, 2011, 12:42:58 PM
Post by: gottatree on December 14, 2011, 12:51:56 PM
how can a timber company hire someone to bait or use hounds when there is absolutly no hunting by use of hounds or bait :dunno:
Because the great liberal voters of Washington said so with the passing of I-655. The timber companies when I was hunting for them didn't let us hunt over bait stations. We could start a bear off there feeders but not shoot any at the site. What they are doing to control there problem now, I dont know about.
Post by: jackmaster on December 14, 2011, 12:58:04 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 14, 2011, 01:01:46 PM
Post by: gottatree on December 14, 2011, 01:12:55 PM
Post by: jackmaster on December 14, 2011, 01:34:59 PM
Post by: RadSav on December 14, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
It's no story I read this story many years ago in the Aberdeen Daily World, but here's a copy of it in the LA Times.
Ralph came up with a concoction that bears seemed to like to eat and changed from a hunter to a feeder of bears. Not sure how well it all worked out or if his "Bear Feed" is still used, but it's an interesting story none the less. Note this story is from 1986.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-09-28/news/mn-9706_1_bear-damage
Wow! Thank you for that.
I knew there were goverment hunters in the 60's that took a lot of bear, but had never read much in detail. Also knew Weye had used a baiting program, but thought they abandoned that idea in the late eighties.
Sounds like these gov hunters/contract killers made some serious cash. If they received even half of that $600.00 back then and took that many bear. Guess I was in the wrong state at the wrong time!
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 14, 2011, 03:16:25 PM
Bobcat, we did a lot of the work for them. they where very happy with us and the would ask us to go to a lot of different ares. In state out of state they didn't have to pay us they did pay us. When called we would go!!! We caught bears!!!! We produced!!! There are a lot of people who have hounds that don't catch much. If we put the dogs down we caught if we went out we caught. If you want to think im bsing on here than fine I know what I have done. People can try to pick this a part I don't care, I'm just going to sit back and watch this i'm done.
Gottatree I know what you are saying. There is always people on here micro-reading these forum threads. Then you call them out and they whine. I am not picking your thread. I knew of someone who was paid by WDFW for treeing and killing bears. He actually said that WDFW would shoot the S*** out of them. You can take this the way you want to but, I think Gottatree is right either way they don't need a depredation permit. They call you do your job...........
Post by: bearbaito6 on December 14, 2011, 03:48:52 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on December 14, 2011, 06:36:23 PM
I don't know any numbers but I know some master hunters are starting to bait and kill bears now.
Are you sure about that. I was in contact last spring with the person in charge of trying to set this up. They wanted to hit specific problem areas with heavy peeling.It didnt happen fast enough.So my understanding was that it is on hold.Maybe I better make a phone call.
Yes, MH's started baiting last year in regions 5 & 6. Apparently only a few people were contacted.
Post by: billythekidrock on December 14, 2011, 06:39:01 PM
how can a timber company hire someone to bait or use hounds when there is absolutly no hunting by use of hounds or bait :dunno:
I would assume timber companies are still getting depredation permits from the WDFW, which allow them to use hound hunters to kill bears. Not saying they don't, but I never thought timber companies had to pay the hound hunters to hunt bears. From what I know of hound hunters, they would be more than willing to just have the opportunity to chase bears with their dogs, and would do so without expecting any sort of payment whatsoever.
I don't think the WFPA has to get permission or permits. I was under the impression that they only had to report the amount of bears killed. :dunno:
Post by: Goshawk on December 14, 2011, 07:59:16 PM
:yeah:I guess my main gripe is that if a timber company is having problems with bears, they should have to open up their access for paying hunters before being allowed to have the state hire and pay for a professional trapper / hunter to kill them. That's OUR tax dollars being spent to hire someone to bear hunt on land that is closed to the public, yet enjoys a HUGE property tax break.
Just don't seem right...
Pretty much the same thing happens on the wheat and other farms in Eastern WA. Farmers get 10's of thousands of dollars paid to them by the State of Washington for crop damage, but they close their land to public hunting or charge thousands to hunt it. I'd be inclined to make a rule that they can have private paid for hunting or the crop damage money, but not both. If you collect for crop damages, your land must be open to the public for hunting.
Post by: Basket Rack on December 14, 2011, 09:16:09 PM
I don't think the WFPA has to get permission or permits. I was under the impression that they only had to report the amount of bears killed. :dunno:
[/quote]
All bears taken by private timber companies is done so under a depredation permit issued by WDFW. It is highly regulated and monitored by WDFW in that hides, meat , galls etc. all have to be accounted for bears harvested. Permits must list I believe it is 4 hunters and some alternates, this has changed over the past few years so my numbers could be off. The permits are issued for a specific area where damage is occurring. Majority of hunters are not compensated a few companies try to do something for the guys to at least cover gas. Someone mentioned feeding and it is still done by most private companies as the primary method to deter bear damage. A more wide spread spring season would be good for removing some bears but would not be real effective in removing problem bears that are doing lots of damage. When a timber owner discovers enough damage to quality to get a permit they can generally get a permit and have a houndsman in the permit area within a few days or less to remove that problem bear or bears.
Post by: billythekidrock on December 15, 2011, 05:23:21 AM
I don't think the WFPA has to get permission or permits. I was under the impression that they only had to report the amount of bears killed. :dunno:
Quote
All bears taken by private timber companies is done so under a depredation permit issued by WDFW. It is highly regulated and monitored by WDFW in that hides, meat , galls etc. all have to be accounted for bears harvested. Permits must list I believe it is 4 hunters and some alternates, this has changed over the past few years so my numbers could be off. The permits are issued for a specific area where damage is occurring. Majority of hunters are not compensated a few companies try to do something for the guys to at least cover gas. Someone mentioned feeding and it is still done by most private companies as the primary method to deter bear damage. A more wide spread spring season would be good for removing some bears but would not be real effective in removing problem bears that are doing lots of damage. When a timber owner discovers enough damage to quality to get a permit they can generally get a permit and have a houndsman in the permit area within a few days or less to remove that problem bear or bears.
Yes, I know. It was sarcasm....
Post by: plottwalker on January 12, 2012, 06:34:15 AM
some one brought up demoss, he started the cascade line of plott hounds, great hunter, he went over seas 3 times with his dogs to kill the asian man eating bears with sucess, after many others had attempted and failed. after his passing,his line is almost gone, but plenty of dogs carry the cascade blood.
hope this clears some stuff up
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2012, 11:22:01 AM
I have never heard of the state DNR authorizing any hound hunters to hunt state land, except if you remember there was a big controversy about the DNR giving tribal hunters keys to DNR gates to hunt bear. Perhaps some of the tribal hunters are using hounds or bait, I have no idea whether they are or not, I'm just trying to figure why some people think hound hunters are hunting state land.
I can verify that the WDFW does occasionally ask hound hunters for help with cougar damage removals. There was money earmarked for that program and the state would send $100 everytime we helped on a cougar complaint. This was usually eaten up in the fuel tank, it certainly didn't cover the depreciation of equipment and dogs. One of my hunting partners had a $3000 dog killed helping the WDFW with a cougar complaint, he got nothing for the dog, it was his loss.
Hound hunters enjoy what they do, but it needs to be emphasized, hound hunters are performing a great deal of public service in this state and most people don't even realize it's happening.
Post by: seth30 on January 12, 2012, 11:57:27 AM
Post by: plottwalker on January 12, 2012, 12:00:04 PM
Post by: seth30 on January 12, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
Post by: Goshawk on January 15, 2012, 09:57:20 PM
Again, my point is, if a timber lands owner is having a bear problem then open the gates and let all the bear hunters in. That's what the hunting seasons are for, not snaring, baiting, loaning keys out to gated areas for "coyote and coon hunters" or hired bear hunters.
I can't help but wonder what would happen if come spring bear season the drawing winners showed up at some of the pay to enter gates then refused to pay for access. If they all refused the timber company would either have to open the gates for free or put up with the damage.
I think that hunters as a group have a lot more power than they realize to influence company policies and state seasons, IF we would all stick together like a guild or union.
Just my .02 worth...
Post by: KopperBuck on January 16, 2012, 12:11:32 AM
I was mostly thinking about the folks who are paid to set snares for bears, not so much the paid hound folks.
Again, my point is, if a timber lands owner is having a bear problem then open the gates and let all the bear hunters in. That's what the hunting seasons are for, not snaring, baiting, loaning keys out to gated areas for "coyote and coon hunters" or hired bear hunters.
I can't help but wonder what would happen if come spring bear season the drawing winners showed up at some of the pay to enter gates then refused to pay for access. If they all refused the timber company would either have to open the gates for free or put up with the damage.
I think that hunters as a group have a lot more power than they realize to influence company policies and state seasons, IF we would all stick together like a guild or union.
Just my .02 worth...
If only all trespassers were responsible, ethical, and respectful. Sadly, I suspect the damage caused by the small percentage of offenders, and harvest #s by non-professionals given an option, don't make it an attrative offer. That's just off my noggin and my .02. Doesn't mean I like it. :dunno:
Post by: Arteman on January 16, 2012, 02:30:47 AM
I tried to read all of the post people made on this subject, first off i want to say we are not paid one cent for all the work we do, we find bear damage on our own dollar, cut and clear roads on our own dollar, you must have a good clean record to even be considered, even speeding tickets can keep you off permitts...we try to hunt the problem bears,not just any bear out in the woods. everything gets turned in, and we take the meat to food lockers on our time and money. same with gulls, tooth, hides. im not going to go into detail but yes 4 people on permitts, and we even have to beef up our vehicle insurence to be out there. there is alot of work that goes into doing all this.The timber company I hunted for already established the areas with bear damage, we had a small radius within that area to get it done, we didn't have to look for the damage it was all marked on map. And all the bear we took to the meat locker we just dropped off, the department took care of those expenses. Everything else sounds bout the same. All we did was seal the hides, gut them, bag the gull, pull a tooth, and drop them off. Then go grab another permit. Everything well worth the chance to hunt the dogs, never got paid for anything and no complaints here.
some one brought up demoss, he started the cascade line of plott hounds, great hunter, he went over seas 3 times with his dogs to kill the asian man eating bears with sucess, after many others had attempted and failed. after his passing,his line is almost gone, but plenty of dogs carry the cascade blood.
hope this clears some stuff up
Post by: Arteman on January 16, 2012, 02:45:57 AM
The hound hunters already got enough taken away from them in this state, now you want to take this? We have are seasons to hunt, let them have this, don't take this away also. Come on guys.I was mostly thinking about the folks who are paid to set snares for bears, not so much the paid hound folks.
Again, my point is, if a timber lands owner is having a bear problem then open the gates and let all the bear hunters in. That's what the hunting seasons are for, not snaring, baiting, loaning keys out to gated areas for "coyote and coon hunters" or hired bear hunters.
I can't help but wonder what would happen if come spring bear season the drawing winners showed up at some of the pay to enter gates then refused to pay for access. If they all refused the timber company would either have to open the gates for free or put up with the damage.
I think that hunters as a group have a lot more power than they realize to influence company policies and state seasons, IF we would all stick together like a guild or union.
Just my .02 worth...
If only all trespassers were responsible, ethical, and respectful. Sadly, I suspect the damage caused by the small percentage of offenders, and harvest #s by non-professionals given an option, don't make it an attrative offer. That's just off my noggin and my .02. Doesn't mean I like it. :dunno:
Post by: KopperBuck on January 16, 2012, 03:27:41 AM
Post by: KopperBuck on January 16, 2012, 03:31:08 AM
Post by: plottwalker on January 16, 2012, 10:07:34 AM
hell we have to have a tag to hunt and dont get to tag and keep nothing.
alot of hunters dont see the big picture, some dont want the hound dogers in the woods disturbing them, but look at how many lion and bear there are now, and the deer and elk population that most hunters go after are going down hill. yet when we lost hound season, very few cared, or care now...
as for snares and guys getting paid to use them, i dont have any info on that.our foresters dont use them. but in some situations i could see snaring. dont know about needing to pay some one for the service though.
to arteman, they still do find some damage as they come across it, but we also look alot and normally find the majority of it.
Post by: summit creek on February 09, 2012, 07:03:05 PM
I know that ever since the hound / baiting ban went into effect the timber companies and state have contracted out for lethal removal of bears. Any idea how many bears are killed by contract in the state each year?not sure about state wide i know in 2010 they took around 30 in the mineral area
Thanks,
Goshawk
Post by: CementFinisher on February 17, 2012, 08:46:53 PM
Post by: Goshawk on March 05, 2012, 09:21:10 PM
The hound hunters already got enough taken away from them in this state, now you want to take this? We have are seasons to hunt, let them have this, don't take this away also. Come on guys.I was mostly thinking about the folks who are paid to set snares for bears, not so much the paid hound folks.
Again, my point is, if a timber lands owner is having a bear problem then open the gates and let all the bear hunters in. That's what the hunting seasons are for, not snaring, baiting, loaning keys out to gated areas for "coyote and coon hunters" or hired bear hunters.
I can't help but wonder what would happen if come spring bear season the drawing winners showed up at some of the pay to enter gates then refused to pay for access. If they all refused the timber company would either have to open the gates for free or put up with the damage.
I think that hunters as a group have a lot more power than they realize to influence company policies and state seasons, IF we would all stick together like a guild or union.
Just my .02 worth...
If only all trespassers were responsible, ethical, and respectful. Sadly, I suspect the damage caused by the small percentage of offenders, and harvest #s by non-professionals given an option, don't make it an attrative offer. That's just off my noggin and my .02. Doesn't mean I like it. :dunno:
No.
I'm saying it should be equal access to all hunters; hound, stalking or bait.
I'm a little surprised that's such a radical concept or offensive to some; sorry...
Post by: Humptulips on March 05, 2012, 10:26:09 PM
I will tell you USDA and WFPA do snare bears and they get paid, not by the state but by the timber companies.
I believe they can do this on public land if there is a threat to human health and safety. Not likely to have that happen very often but the possiblity is there.
How much do they get paid? I know of one small land owner that had the USDA in snaring bear last spring. He told me it cost $500/bear.
Certain WCOs can snare bear also for hire but their numbers are few, probably no more then about three in the state. I also know of one OR company that snares bear in WA.
There was talk of having a training class for WCOs to qualify more for snaring but it has not materialized. Currently only those who have been permitted in the past can get snaring permits. I think this was brought up because some timber companies didn't want to have the hound men anymore but like I said it never happened. I think the threat of it is still there if the timber companies push for it.
Post by: summit creek on March 15, 2012, 05:14:07 PM
I know that ever since the hound / baiting ban went into effect the timber companies and state have contracted out for lethal removal of bears. Any idea how many bears are killed by contract in the state each year?ull probaly never find the real answer but i know one of the hound hunters that has a contract to tree and kill bears hes from chehalis and i run into him 2 or 3 times a year behind my house in the storm king unit of course hes driving and im walking hes a real cool dude anyway he tells me one year he took 12 behind my house in the spring of 09 but behind my house theres only about 25 miles of roads and they all dead end but i think he hunts all over lewis and cowlitz countiesand get this he gets no money and every bear goes to the game dept whole he dont even get a claw.
Thanks,
Goshawk
Post by: hornhunter1987 on April 04, 2012, 07:14:07 PM