montana bear hunting with hounds

[Ringo]

I think it would be way better for managing are bears, once again as far as Iam concerned we have more then enough bears. I think all our predators need to be kept in way better check. I dont think the states that run bears with hounds have a lack of bears, every state and province around us is doing it and they seem to be doing just fine. I also hate seeing sportsman singling out in to groups and trying to pass laws like choose your weapon archery or rifle, artificial lures only, cross country skiing only no horses, and all that other stupid stuff. I realize we all have are own opinions and I do think that this is one of the greatest states you can hunt or live in for that matter. I just thought it would be great to be catching bears with dogs.

[Gary Gentry]

Ringo if we had a chase season what is or opinon on when it should be? and how long? what kind of regulations do you think that it should have?

[larry]

May 1 through Aug 15 sounds pretty good to me. Leave the archery deer and elk guys season out of it. Kill through June 15 or May 31, chase til middle of Aug.

[jbc67]

1) I agree that there needs to be a balance between all sportsmen: spot and stalk hunters, biggame hunters, duck and upland game hunters and fly fishemen, etc. But why can't hound hunters be included in that balance?

2) Look at real studies: in most cases hunting has very little effect on animal population numbers--the real problems to bear numbers are usually loss of habitat, other human conflict, construction, urbanization, etc. (for example, before Washington State lost its hunting rights, it had outstanding bear numbers and there were many hunters--the big key to the population was habitat--so long as the WFW used reasonable control in issuing bear permits, drawing numbers or quotas, there were a lot of bears). The only time hunters hurt population numbers is when the state authorities are negligent and issue too many tags. Here in Montana, hound hunting quotas (I prefer drawing limitations) could be placed low to avoid "inconvenience" to other bear hunters. Most of us houndsmen get our jollies from the pursuit anyway, and don't have to kill every time out.

3) Montana has a lot of bears. You can ask Jamie Jonkel of the MFWP, in Missoula, whether there are any bear problems. In some places they are overpopulated and wreaking havoc on farmers, ranchers and locals . . . why can't houndsmen be part of the solution? I think we can be one of the most effective management tools for taking out large boars, old bears and problem bears. This can be done without hurting population numbers in spot and stalk areas. They already hire/use a few select houndsmen to take out problem bears, and they trap more than they need to because there just aren't that many bear hounds around. Why shouldn't the state make money off ten hunters by selling tags rather than pay one hunter to harvest ten bears? If FWP sees us as a tool for managing bears and bringing in revenues, we're less likely to lose hunting rights (bear hunting rights will be the first thing bunny-huggers attack, think of it as a buffer to protecting our lion hunting rights).

4) Bear hunting with hounds and/or bear pursuit could bring in a lot of revenue which would enable the FWP to manage the bears more effectively and only distribute tags to areas of overpopulation and avoid over-harvest.

5) There are states that have effectively run black bear hound hunting seasons (even three per year if you count training seasons) without hurting their sacred grizzlies and without hurting hibernation habits. It can be done, and the increased revenues brought in by hound hunters could pay for the studies needed to leave the larger bears and in peace and needed to prevent overrunning of black bears.

6) I'm taking my state rep out coon hunting tonight--his first hound hunt (hopefully this weather clears up). He's already agreed to back a bill for us if I write it. He is optimistic about any possible alliances between ranchers and houndsmen, but we both still believe that getting rights to chase bears will be an uphill battle. All of the doubters and houdsmen wanting to resist this movement can think of it this way: if we fail, you lose nothing and still send a message to the extremist arms of the humane society and PETA groups that there is a politically active group of houndsmen here. If we succeed, though, then you'll have a few more good experiences to share with your son underneath a tree. And hound hunting in Montana will be that much safer.

7) We can include always include language which protects bear numbers and requires effective management to avoid overharvest and conflicts with other hunters (it seems like summer would be a great time to have a bear season). Several houndsmen on here have mentioned their connections with representatives that will back a bill like this.

[Gary Gentry]

"The only time hunters hurt population numbers is when the state authorities are negligent and issue too many tags. Here in Montana, hound hunting quotas (I prefer drawing limitations) could be placed low to avoid "inconvenience" to other bear hunters."
Well said.

I remember... I think it was in 96 the quota's with the lions!

[Bearkiller]

[pistol]

I vote that jbc67 be are representative! He makes very good points and I like how hes trying to be serious about all this and is actually trying to get something done and not bickering! We all have to be in this together to try and better the future our sport and arguing about dumb s#%@ is not going to help. Time is wasting and we need to get this point brought up with are local representatives asap cause if we dont were never going to see it happen.

[Ringo]

Hey guys I agree I would really like to see something get going. If someone wants to take the lead thats great I would be willing to help in any way. I really thought there would be alot more houndsmen from the state that would be interested in this

[dhostetler]

jbc67,

You seem to be the guy we need to push this, you make a lot of good points. The only thing that sucks is the next legislature session isn't till 2013. Most reasonable Fish and Game bills introduced in the last session passed without a problem, so I really think a good written bill will be no problem to get passed in 2013.

I personnally don't really care about a kill season but would like to have the option to kill one however I desperately want a chase season. I think a bill introduced should be very simple such as be worded: The MTFWP shall allow the use of hounds to hunt bears and shall also provide a bear chase season upon the closing of the bear take season.
Once this bill gets passed and is signed by the governor, it will be part of coded law which will force the FWP to provide us with seasons, then is the time we need to flood the FWP with what we want in season dates and lengths. The more wording you put in a legislative bill the harder it will be to get passed.

If this gets passed in 2013 the earliest we would have a season would be in 2014, to speed this up we could just bypass the legislature and go directly to the FWP Commission, if that is done we will need a very detailed and carefully pitched plan. It would also help to have someone pitch the plan to the Commission that knows one of the Commissioners personally.

[dhostetler]

To find out actually how much support there is on this site for a season, we should try to get Buddyw to post a survey on the forum Big Game Hunting with dogs with the following questions.

Support a season in MT to pursue bears with hounds. Select yes or no.

As a MT resident would you pay $100.00 for a pursuit tag. Select yes or no.

As a non resident would you consider traveling to MT to pursue bears. Select yes or no.

As a non resident would you consider paying $300.00 for a MT Bear pursuit tag. Select yes or no.

If we get 1,000 yeses to the last question we will know that we could potentially have a major nonresident problem.

[jbc67]

By the way, my rep said he would back or present a bill for us in 2013, assuming that he will still be in office. I think everyone on here who personally knows a state rep or state senator should see if he/she be willing to present a bill. It's easier to get commitments this far ahead of time.

I really like dhostetler's idea about influencing the FWP, if possible. Our chances increase the more directions we push. This route is more foreign to me though. Does anyone personally know any FWP commissioners? Also, does anyone know whether the Montana State Houndsmen Association would be willing to help or head some of these efforts? I think it's a good idea to put that war chest or resources they have to use.

If we do a survey to try to determine nonresident participation then I would be careful about locking in $300.00 as the price. A problem with nonresident flooding at $300.00 can possibly be resolved by increasing the price to $400.00 or a little more, and price-specific questions won't reflect that.

[Deff]

My ranch is enrolled in the Montana Block Management program and is in prime black bear habitat. It is located in high foothills with a great deal of aspens, hawthorns, willows, spruce and douglas fur timbered canyons to provide excellent cover for the bears.

Most bears taken are in a very brief shooting opportunity with snap decisions required before the bear disappears. I have seen several bears taken that might have been passed up had the hunters a better opportunity to size them up before taking the shot.
I have also heard tales of angus heifers killed because of this.

I believe that the harvest of mature black bears would increase with less yearlings and young sows killed if hound hunting was allowed. From a biological standpoint it would be an excellent management tool.

I fear that it will be a tough sell in the legislature. A bill presented in the last session to allow the use of dogs for blood trailing wounded game went down in flames amid concerns that it would "disrupt other hunters" and innuendos that hounds are “poachers tools”.




update:
Thanks, Dhostetler for correcting me that the wounded dog tracking bill did pass the legislature overwhelmingly. The last I had checked on it in committee, the transcript showed that testimony was overwhelmingly opposed and it had been tabled. I had assumed that that had been the end of it.

[Cold Track]

Dhostetler question, What do you mean if you get a lot non resident interest that could be a problem? Most hunting oppourtunity is pushed through when there is a lot of interst in numbers, secondly more revenue also pushes hunts and seasons. Believe me the Fand G are all about $ I don't care where you are. Not just the $ in permit sales, but the revenue it could bring for the state. You as Montanans trying to push this alone is great, but if there are non residents also helping and showing interest it will strongly help increase your odds. I know there has got to be a lot of houndsmen that would jump at the chance to run bear in Montana. If you were to be concerned about too many houndsmen in the mountains due to large numbers of non residents, do a draw for out of state bear pursuit permits then you would have control on the number of hunters out there.

[Gary Gentry]

I THINK THAT IS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE OUT OF STATE HUNTERS. SET A NUMBER AND LET THEM DRAW FOR THERE TAGS AS FOR MONTANANS I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE A QUOTAS ON HOW MANY BEARS ARE ALOWED TO BE TAKEN WITH THE USE OF HOUNDS IN DIFFRENT AREAS.

[pistol]

I totally agree with Cold Track...we definitely need help from out of staters on this cause they already have a season and can give good pointers and feedback on pros and cons for are own bear season. And the extra revenue from them would help look good to are $$$$$ hungry FWP and congress. This is going to be are only shot at ever getting something going and if we dont go to the table with a full plate and with all the ammo and help we can get or were going to get shut down perty fast and a bear season will never happen. Like i said this is are last and only shot to get this done and we all need to be apart of it.