davlandrum
New member
Buzz - I will try and ferret out the statistics.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bear Baiting
- Thread starter JustKev55
- Start date
davlandrum
New member
http://http://crab.informe.org/ifw/wildlife/species/bear/bearsummaryofsurveys.pdf
Here is a study put together by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife that compares info on states that have restricted bear hunting methods.
According to ODFW, despite longer seasons and more hunters purchasing tags, harvest rates in Oregon are down 19%. Average number of hunters went from 17,000 pre-ban (1994) to 33,000 average of 1998-2000, but actual number of harvested bears is still under pre-ban levels.
Here is a study put together by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife that compares info on states that have restricted bear hunting methods.
According to ODFW, despite longer seasons and more hunters purchasing tags, harvest rates in Oregon are down 19%. Average number of hunters went from 17,000 pre-ban (1994) to 33,000 average of 1998-2000, but actual number of harvested bears is still under pre-ban levels.
Webster Says...
Now that says we are only bound to attempt a clean kill to be "HUMANE"...
Intentionally shooting a critter in the butt to watch it do doughnuts bitting at the burning wound is inhumane IMHO!
Brent
Main Entry: HUMANE
Pronunciation:
\hyü-ˈmān, yü-\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English humain
Date:
circa 1500
1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals 2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture : humanistic <humane
Now that says we are only bound to attempt a clean kill to be "HUMANE"...
Intentionally shooting a critter in the butt to watch it do doughnuts bitting at the burning wound is inhumane IMHO!
Brent
Thanks for the link David.
After my last post I did a quick search but didn't find anything specific. I did find this pdf http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/01pubs/01-89.pdf that mentions a decrease after initiative 655 passed in 1995. They don't give a detailed account of the effect of I655 on the bear population to date.
What they do talk about is protecting private and state trees from damage by bears. That because lethal measures aren't as "popular" that the alternative is to set up feeding stations in the forest in order to lure bears away from tree farms. There are, as of 1999, 900 feeding stations in Western Washington.
As I mentioned above, restrictions on big cat hunting has been partially reduced. I don't know if the same is true of bear hunting. Currently there is a two bear limit and and a three month season on bears iirc. I'm not a bear hunter so I don't know if that's a change from 1995.
After reading the link you gave I see that there needs to be more information. That's pretty much always the case when you're working anything that's not addition.
The difference between how Oregon and Washington dealt with their initiatives is fairly revealing. The Washington State Harvest is up slightly and the population is steady or increasing somewhat.
Oregon, on the other hand has had a reduction in harvest of 19% But they also say the population is steady or increasing.
But the kicker is that Oregon fish and game attributes the increase in nuisance reports to increased awareness as Washington does.
They don't give specific pre and post ban harvest numbers as Washington does. So we don't know what that 19% decrease means. Is the 269 number of nuisance bears destroyed an increase from before the ban? Would that explain the reports that the bear population is stable?
It is completely reasonable to link an increase in bear encounters with an increased bear population. From what you've supplied it sure looks like Oregon should have a larger bear population. But our friends at Oregon fish and wildlife are dropping the ball on meaningful population studies.
It looks like a case of asking questions just generates more questions.
After my last post I did a quick search but didn't find anything specific. I did find this pdf http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/01pubs/01-89.pdf that mentions a decrease after initiative 655 passed in 1995. They don't give a detailed account of the effect of I655 on the bear population to date.
What they do talk about is protecting private and state trees from damage by bears. That because lethal measures aren't as "popular" that the alternative is to set up feeding stations in the forest in order to lure bears away from tree farms. There are, as of 1999, 900 feeding stations in Western Washington.
As I mentioned above, restrictions on big cat hunting has been partially reduced. I don't know if the same is true of bear hunting. Currently there is a two bear limit and and a three month season on bears iirc. I'm not a bear hunter so I don't know if that's a change from 1995.
After reading the link you gave I see that there needs to be more information. That's pretty much always the case when you're working anything that's not addition.
The difference between how Oregon and Washington dealt with their initiatives is fairly revealing. The Washington State Harvest is up slightly and the population is steady or increasing somewhat.
The increase in nuisance bear complaints is related to improved reporting of nuisance complaints and increasing human densities.
Oregon, on the other hand has had a reduction in harvest of 19% But they also say the population is steady or increasing.
Oregon has also increased bag limit (4 bears in Western Oregon) and lengthened the hunting season. They also have an in the act of predation law that allows property owners to shoot nuisance bears. That probably predates the baiting ban, but I don't know for sure.The public perceives that the bear population has exploded, and human safety is a big concern. However, data indicate the population is stable to increasing, but OF&W does not have adequate techniques for estimating bear population numbers.
But the kicker is that Oregon fish and game attributes the increase in nuisance reports to increased awareness as Washington does.
OF&W attributes the increase in nuisance complaints to increased awareness of bears and bear conflicts as a result of the referendum. Complaints are highest in years when natural foods are low. Nuisance bear complaints are related to concerns for human safety (increased from 0 to 20 complaints) and damage to timber or agriculture. Property owners are allowed to shoot or trap a bear if it is causing a conflict. In 1999, 269 bears involved in nuisance activities were destroyed.
They don't give specific pre and post ban harvest numbers as Washington does. So we don't know what that 19% decrease means. Is the 269 number of nuisance bears destroyed an increase from before the ban? Would that explain the reports that the bear population is stable?
It is completely reasonable to link an increase in bear encounters with an increased bear population. From what you've supplied it sure looks like Oregon should have a larger bear population. But our friends at Oregon fish and wildlife are dropping the ball on meaningful population studies.
It looks like a case of asking questions just generates more questions.
Last edited:
Dallas Jack
New member
Inhumane, maybe maybe not. Shooting an animal in the vitals will get you a kill with minimal suffering to the animal. A shot to the gut, a slow painful death ego inhumane. Baiting has nothing to do with the humanity of the kill.
Sporting? I see no difference sitting over a bait than sitting in a duck blind blowing on a call and watching your decoys. Or sitting in a woodline watching for coyotes with your caller going.
There are many different types of terrain and each has it's own obstacles. Hunting or shooting call it what you like. Just do it and enjoy it and do not worry what another thinks.
Personally, I draw the line at shooting penned animals or shooting on small high fence ranches.
Dallas Jack
Sporting? I see no difference sitting over a bait than sitting in a duck blind blowing on a call and watching your decoys. Or sitting in a woodline watching for coyotes with your caller going.
There are many different types of terrain and each has it's own obstacles. Hunting or shooting call it what you like. Just do it and enjoy it and do not worry what another thinks.
Personally, I draw the line at shooting penned animals or shooting on small high fence ranches.
Dallas Jack
Many responses
I didn't anticipate this many responses to my question. It's awesome to see so many views that coincide with mine.
A couple of people have expounded on my original question in ways that made me think I could have been a tad more specific but it seems to have worked out well in the end.
A couple of posts went out on tangents in at least part of the post. Such as, hunting over dogs and within enclosed areas. These, too, are under attack by non or anti hunting individuals. There again, they tend to use terms such as "inhumane" or "cruel". I'm not a big fan of hunting over dogs for big game nor am I a big fan of hunting the so called "game preserves". That being said, I find them neither inhumane or cruel in my own personal opinion. I can say the same about baiting.
The one thing that seems to hold true through many of the posts is the idea that we have to stand together on these subjects. Each time the anti-hunting crowd finds a particular style of hunting they think the can raise a stink about that makes that style seem unethical, inhumane, cruel or dangerous they are garnering more support amongst the general public who do not hunt or enjoy the outdoors in the same way we do. I think we all need to keep a united front, not necessarily "against" the anti's rather, a united front in support of the particular method being attacked. Point out, in the same way we have here, the reasons it is more humane, more ethical and less cruel in appearance than depicted by the other side.
Good hunting and good shooting.
I didn't anticipate this many responses to my question. It's awesome to see so many views that coincide with mine.
A couple of people have expounded on my original question in ways that made me think I could have been a tad more specific but it seems to have worked out well in the end.
A couple of posts went out on tangents in at least part of the post. Such as, hunting over dogs and within enclosed areas. These, too, are under attack by non or anti hunting individuals. There again, they tend to use terms such as "inhumane" or "cruel". I'm not a big fan of hunting over dogs for big game nor am I a big fan of hunting the so called "game preserves". That being said, I find them neither inhumane or cruel in my own personal opinion. I can say the same about baiting.
The one thing that seems to hold true through many of the posts is the idea that we have to stand together on these subjects. Each time the anti-hunting crowd finds a particular style of hunting they think the can raise a stink about that makes that style seem unethical, inhumane, cruel or dangerous they are garnering more support amongst the general public who do not hunt or enjoy the outdoors in the same way we do. I think we all need to keep a united front, not necessarily "against" the anti's rather, a united front in support of the particular method being attacked. Point out, in the same way we have here, the reasons it is more humane, more ethical and less cruel in appearance than depicted by the other side.
Good hunting and good shooting.
davlandrum
New member
Buzz,
I thought the most telling sentence was: OF&W does not have adequate techniques for estimating bear population numbers.
So, basically, they admit they have no way of knowing what impact any of this has.
Better data would also be interesting comparing western Oregon/Washington populations to eastern, but that requires actual data. If I had to venture a guess, the ban would have had increased impact on the west side, but who knows.
Good hunting!
I thought the most telling sentence was: OF&W does not have adequate techniques for estimating bear population numbers.
So, basically, they admit they have no way of knowing what impact any of this has.
Better data would also be interesting comparing western Oregon/Washington populations to eastern, but that requires actual data. If I had to venture a guess, the ban would have had increased impact on the west side, but who knows.
Good hunting!
David the article you linked to does seem to indicate that there was a greater increase in Western Oregon. That's why the bag limit there is four bears while Eastern Oregon is two bears. They say that hunting bears is easier on the East side than the West, so that might also explain the different limits.
One thing I have learned is that the web sites for WFW and OFW pretty much have sucky search functions
One thing I have learned is that the web sites for WFW and OFW pretty much have sucky search functions