BigGameHoundsmen.com

Liz,

Your point regarding the potential for a repeat of what happened previously is well understood. There is always the threat of DFG incompetence or lack of appropriate administrative oversight-and as we have seen before, the lingering threat of DFG's lack of intestinal or testicular fortitude-that might threaten the season overall, but I do not think that we will be able to make any gains or inroads if we are not willing to take some risks. The loss of the general season in '89 and archery season in '90 was unfortunate, but it was, afterall, twenty years ago. I think DFG has demonstrated that they learned from their mistakes.

Furthermore, the bear take will still be known, hunting's impact on bear demographics will still be calculated, and all of the associated data will continue to reported per the expectations of the EIS. All options concerning bear management will continue to be considered per the requirements of CEQA. Note also that there is nothing inherent with the removal of the quota that would increase the likelihood of the EIS not being submitted in time which was the reasoning behind the previous closure.

There are far more bear and far more people in far more places in this state and far greater bear-human conflict than when we lost the season, and I do not believe that it would be easy for the anti's to make the case that the bear population is harmed by the elimination of the quota.

When I started hunting bear, the quota was about 750, bear depredation was managed solely by DFG, the season started in October, and a pre-determined number of tags were offered for sale. Now, there will not be a quota, the season starts in August, individuals are allowed to respond personally to bear depredation, and there is no limit to the number of tags sold.

The momentum continues to swing in our direction, and should this new season prove not to be detrimental to bear prosperity as I believe it will, we can look forward to the possibility of a pursuit season being reconsidered. To do that, however, will require cooperation with the Department rather than a continued and perpetual sense of animosity and adversarial perspective, and a MUCH greater effort to police our own ranks so that folks leave their arms at home during training season. The reported take of bear increased following the closure of the training season in '85, and DFG theorizes that the illegal take was equal to that of the legal season, and we have no one but ourselves to blame for that.

(I'm responding to several posts in this);
I'm not sure if all the statements (in past posts) regarding 'dislike' of DFG were regarding what I said, if so, well I never said I had anything against DFG or helping them out, the better a relationship (a relationship based on MUTUAL respect) we have with them as a hunting group the better things will be for us. All I said was that they have the potential to screw themselves with this...hopefully it will not happen that way. I was just pointing out that this may not be the golden child it sounds like when you first hear about it and we should all look into it a little closer before giving it a raving thumbs up.
Obviously they will still know the number of bears killed - they have to to complete the yearly EIS.
As far as having my facts straight, well I do. DFG was considering the 1900 kill amount as an alternative proposal to the unlimited kill and they decided not to accept that proposal as it would still involve mailing closure notices ($) if the season ended early. So the only proposal they are coming forward with is the unlimited number allowed to be taken with the season ending on the last Sunday in December regardless of kill amount.
Yes, the bear population has been increasing very well and there are many places in California where you can kill a pile of bears and not make a difference. However there are places (like where I live) where you can kill a pile of bears and make a serious impact on the population. California has no restriction on the amount of bear a guide is allowed to kill with clients or where they can do the killing. There are also no restrictions on out of state guides or hunters (like there is in vevery other state that allows hounding). It is also legal in most other states to sell bear parts, if you think bear parts taken legally in CA are not taken illegally across the border and sold legally in another state then you are hiding your head in the sand. I have a little concern that an unlimited kill will bring even more 'money killers' (both unethical guides and body parts sellers) out of the woodwork. Maybe it won't, we won't know until we have had the unlimited kill in place for a season or two.
I suppose in the end just like the rest of life we will just have to step out in faith. It should be interesting anyway and I really hope it works out well for the bears, us and DFG.

You have to look at the Bear Population in California and say that we can handle doubling the 1700 and still be doing right by the Bear population. I was told (not sure if its true) that most Wildlife Agencies control kill numbers to a 10% ratio. IF thats the case the 35,000 (with I think is more like 45,000) bears in California can handle 3500 tags filled. Our Bear population is getting stronger and stronger.

All that said, IF you want to read between the lines, there is a chance that the DFG based on the Bear Management Plan, thru monitoring the bear population, could shorten or legthen the season year to year based on the Bear population and the impact that habitate is having on them. If you put the wild life management back in the hands of the biologists like it should be, and like we as hunters should want it to be, our Bear population will continue to stay strong.

The DFG knows the bear tag numbers should be higher, shoot we've been in a drought for 3 plus years now, and they want to raise the limit. They start the season in general deer season, and they still want to raise the number of Bears we can take, and not shorten that season up. Also they are hurting money wise, the entire State is. Everything right now is about cutting costs and trying to make extra money. NOWs the time to purpose a pay to train season. Dang I would be willing to pay $200 a year for a training tag, as I'm sure all you would too. Plant the seed for next year. Get some level headed, inteligent people out to talk to the Bear Habitat Management Biologist, try to get letters from them stating a training season in itself wont hurt the bear population. Then try to get letters from the general population, and business's like Fire Camps ect... that have problems with bears year round except during Bear season, Then get all the Houndsmen in California to sign a petition asking for a pay to train season. Then approach the DFG Commission and propose it, BUT for today support the DFGs proposed plan, and plant the seed for change tomorrow. Lets show them that we are not a bunch of Outlaws and that actually the Outlaws are a very small % of us Houndsmen and that we're getting a bad rap. Lets let them know that for 90% of us it isnt about Killing Bears, but its about our dogs, and the chase.

Mt Goat,

CADFG indicates their intent that bear mortality caused by human sport hunting account for 8% of the population in the state. Given the estimate of 30-33,000 bears in the state by DFG, this would mean that we are taking just over 5% of the population. However, when you consider the fact that the take of bear is cumulative rather than additive, meaning that a certain number of bears will die every year regardless of how, we certainly could withstand whatever increase to the harvest that might happen from a full season. I cannot speculate specifically on the impact to certain areas, such as Liz' hunting spot, but I can say that the overall population would not be harmed.

With respect to a training season, I won't air the various strategies in place for all the world to see, but I will say that things are in motion that would lend themselves well to a pursuit-only season and that the circumstances today are different from, and more favorable than, those that existed in 1985 when the pursuit season was lost. DFG recognizes this. While I don't think the dog control zones will ever go away, I do think we may be able to come to a compromise with DFG should the momentum continue to swing in our direction.

Liz,

All I said was that they have the potential to screw themselves with this...hopefully it will not happen that way.

The way the EIS and CEQA work today (as opposed to '89) is that failing to comply with the stipulations regarding the submission of proposals would void only the provisions that are new for the year rather than voiding the whole season. The anti's would not be able to find a San Francisco judge who could arbitrarily close the season as they did before.

...there are places (like where I live) where you can kill a pile of bears and make a serious impact on the population. California has no restriction on the amount of bear a guide is allowed to kill with clients or where they can do the killing. There are also no restrictions on out of state guides or hunters (like there is in vevery other state that allows hounding). It is also legal in most other states to sell bear parts, if you think bear parts taken legally in CA are not taken illegally across the border and sold legally in another state then you are hiding your head in the sand. I have a little concern that an unlimited kill will bring even more 'money killers' (both unethical guides and body parts sellers) out of the woodwork. Maybe it won't, we won't know until we have had the unlimited kill in place for a season or two.

I guess I don't understand how this would be impacted by the proposal. Today, there is the potential for regional overharvest, significant take by guides, black marketing of bear parts, etc. The season has gone to the last Sunday in December without the quota being met for 66% of the last six years. The combined efforts of the in-state and out-of-state hunters, guides, money-killers, and black marketeers could not result in 1700 bears being killed in four of the last six years, so how would this change if the quota was eliminated?

I think if the change is made there will be more people hunting bear and more people willing to start killing earlier in the season. But like I said I guess we won't know until its been in place for a season or two.
Even with the new CEQA and EIS standards I think DFG could still be litigated against for the change...after all they didn't get to plant all those fish this year because they couldn't get the documents done right. The agency I work for gets litgated (and loses) on every move (talking timber stuff here) and they are a much larger and more powerful agency than CADFG.
We should all be preparing ourselves to back DFG and the bear hunt in 2010 cause I think they might need it.
All that being said I do agree about the proposal for a training season..I would also be willing to spend $bank$ to run all year. DFG and the state need money, the time is right, I have been putting this little bug in peoples ear for a while now. I hope something can come of it .

Hi All,

The Fish and Game Commission caught everyone by surprise this morning and decided not to adopt the proposal to open San Luis County to bear hunting or to eliminate the need for the notification of the take of 1700 bears. The commissioners have asked the Department to submit them for consideration for next year's scheduled mammal regulation review.

They sure as hell caught me by suprise. I was at the April 9 meeting, the ONLY independent hunter there. There were reps from the NRA,CHC, and CRPA but no other hunters. Everything I heard said the commission would support bear hunting in San Luis Obispo County because it "expands recreational opportunities", their words. There was one speaker against it from Friends of the Forest. His speech to the commission had a NIMBY attitude toward bear hunting and babbled alot about CEQA (California's Environmental Quality Act) and how bear hunting should come under its' auspices. My impression was the commission was going to approve the opening of San Luis Obispo County to bear hunting. Why they changed their minds in the twelve following days I don't know. I still have to review the audio of the April 21 meeting. It was held by teleconference. I may have been able to hear it live, but apparently when the commission comes to making a final decision they have already got all the public input they want or need. Now did they recieve e-mails, letters, or phone calls between the ninth and the twenty first that changed their minds? Should I have phoned, e-mailed, and written during those twelve days to help insure the outcome I desire? Does a teleconference meeting violate California's Brown Act regarding official government meetings and access to the public to attend or monitior said meetings? Does a webcast
or audio broadcast count in regards to the Brown Act? I don't know at this moment, but trust me, I am going to find out. In regards to the in season closure for bears, same thing. I took away from the meeting that the commission was in favor of lifting the season quota of 1700 in order to save the expense of mailing 25,000 plus letters to tag holders notifying them of a season closure. When I spoke I asked why not eliminate the letters and let bear hunters use the phone # or web page to see if the season quota has been met and the season closed. Why not let bear hunters take a little more responsibility in the sport they love and in bear conservation. Or raise the limit to 1900 bears and that should keep the season open to the closing date and again eliminate the letters. The bear population is increasing. The commission even said that the black bear population was between 10-15,000 in the mid-eighties. Now, 30-33,000. Last year when I took my bear in to be validated a game warden told me he would like to see the quota raised, even to two thousand. In some parts of the Sierras bears are becoming
an expensive nuisance, especially in the Tahoe basin. To the point that I heard Nevada has been considering a limited black bear hunt. I thought that by removing the season limit to save the expense of notification letters was a mistake. Anti-hunting activists were screaming that California was going to allow the wholesale slaughter of bears and hunt them to extinction. Check out www.allcreatures.org/alert-20090323.html The BS they spew will turn your stomach. But instead of any pro-active measures the commission did nothing. The reasonable alternative to regulatory action included increasing the in-season closure bear harvest quota from 1700 to 1900. And they refused to adopt that. Maybe if the quota was higher they could sell more tags.