Free: Contests & Raffles.
It only takes a few to ruin it. I understand the big land owners using a system that they can rely upon and they know works. Not to mention it always seems someone seems to get their nose bent one way or another and either complains or starts trouble. Why go through all that? It works for them as is. They are not in the ‘feel good’ business, and there really is no reason for them to want or need to open up to an unknown element of hunters. While it would be nice of them to spread it out, I would not blame them if they did not.
Regarding Depredation hunts and bear snaring, I'm very much against them both.Land owners have the ability to open their grounds to hunting just as much as anyone else, even limiting the weapon type (archery, shotgun, etc.) for safety if necessary. Some of our Timber lands are buttoned up drum tight and open to nobody for any form of recreational take. Then when the animals become a problem, they run crying to the State for special take permits. Somehow that just seems wrong that my tax dollars are spent to fund this practice when the solution is already there to be used.
Quote from: Goshawk on February 23, 2021, 08:45:43 PMRegarding Depredation hunts and bear snaring, I'm very much against them both.Land owners have the ability to open their grounds to hunting just as much as anyone else, even limiting the weapon type (archery, shotgun, etc.) for safety if necessary. Some of our Timber lands are buttoned up drum tight and open to nobody for any form of recreational take. Then when the animals become a problem, they run crying to the State for special take permits. Somehow that just seems wrong that my tax dollars are spent to fund this practice when the solution is already there to be used.One size does not fit all. I'll just take from the two examples near me I am familiar with.The one guy owns a pretty good chunk of land by most standards but it is in three different chunks surrounded by FS and some residential properties. He tried the depredation hunts in the Spring which didn't help. Pursuit has to be called off when the bear gets a ways off the property. In 4 years they never killed one bear although they chased a lot. The bears practically beat the hunters back to the property. He finally hired USDA and they snared them and the guy paid to have the bears professionally butchered and donated.This land and all adjacent land is the same age second growth or larger trees on the FS. No where can you see well enough to make boot hunting effective. It is open to public hunting.The other guy owns about 15 acres up against the ONP. Same thing with the trees, the age of trees bears peel precludes effective boot hunting and hound would just be on the Park in short order.The only way to take these bears is with bait, either baited tree stands, which the law does not allow even a permit for or snares which can be permitted. I view this as a matter of opportunity. Traditional boot hunters will never harvest any of these bears. The land owners are suffering because there is no way to realistically control the population. The only option at present is to hire USDA to snare the bears. The way the laws are the options are limited. If we could go back to the way things were prior to 1996, that would be great but we cannot.These animals are an opportunity for a user group, trappers, that no other group can take advantage of. Why not let trappers take advantage of the opportunity.Listing bears and cougar as furbearers would be a first step. That doesn't get a change in the rules but it opens the door on some things the Commission could approve down the road.My understanding of the law is that if they were furbearers the Department could issue a site specific permit to snare bears but the trapper could keep the bear as long as they did not sell it. They could also initiate (live traps) a bear trapping season but both would have to go before the Commission to be approved so anyone could have their comment pro or con before that happened.
