DGIF board again proposes separate bear tag
The Wildlife Division staff at the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries brought a bunch of proposed hunting regulations changes to the agency’s board of directors Tuesday.
The meeting’s proposed change that will likely generate the most discussion wasn’t among them.
Heeding requests from members of the Virginia Bear Hunters Association, the board decided to forward to the public the idea of pulling the bear tag off the big game license and establishing a separate bear tag. The bear tag would cost residents $25 and non-residents $150, prices that are set in the code that give the DGIF the authority to establish the separate bear tag.
The DGIF has been down this road before, and not long ago. The board made the same suggestion in 2009. Many hunters balked at the idea. Hunters who happen to encounter bear while hunting deer typically account for more than half of Virginia’s bear kill. But that is a relatively rare opportunity, and many of those hunters feel that a $25 fee annually just for the off chance of seeing a bear would make the separate tag cost prohibitive. Some say the tag is an attempt by the VBHA, a group for hunters who use hounds to pursue black bears, to largely monopolize the resource.
The VBHA says that the separate tag could generate much-needed revenue for the DGIF, with those funds not only being used to enhance the state’s bear program but also to help other fish and wildlife resources.
The meeting produced few suggested changes to deer rules, which was not surprising. Proposed changes have recently leaned heavily toward more liberal deer regs, but after a big drop in the kill this past fall the DGIF staff was understandably wary about hitting the herd too much.
The DGIF continues to look for ways to increase interest in fall turkey hunting, and not by allowing deer hunters more chances to shoot the birds. The board is proposing a two-week season in January, after deer season has gone out. The hope is that, with no opportunity to deer hunt, hunters will be willing to go after turkeys. Another proposal will move up the start of the December turkey season segment west of the Blue Ridge by a week, but will also end that four-week segment a week early, eliminating the overlap with the final week of the late muzzleloader season.
But, back to the bear license.
Again, general feedback the last time around was heavily against the proposal. Do you all feel any differently now? And, what would it take for hunters to support a separate bear tag? Or, for that matter, separate tags for deer, bear and turkeys (as was sought by a General Assembly bill that failed)?
March 2, 2011 - 8:17 AM
If the hound bear hunters want a separate license so that they can feel like the real bear hunters….. then let there be a hound bear hunting license. They can purchase a stamp much like the VA waterfowl stamp. Must be in possession of stamp if with hounds while bear hunting. (this would include those that go along for the ride but carry no gun since we do need the money)
For the rest of us who don’t mind the bear tag on our deer and turkey tag we will be happy and the hound bear hunters will be happy.
I have yet to shoot a bear even though I try to go on one bear hunt a year with just me and my rifle. I like having the option of taking a bear during bow and muzzleloader also without having to pay and extra $25.
NO SEPARATE BEAR TAG!!!!! We pay enough as it is. We didn’t get Sunday hunting. If the VDGIF would spend their money wisely we wouldn’t have the problem of ‘needing more revenue’. License increases and separate tags isn’t the answer. New leadership is the solution. The VDGIF needs to support the hunter not run him/her and future generations away. This undertaking is not for the good of hunters its to benefit a specific group. NOT GOOD!!!
I was and remain vehemently against a separate Bear tag or separate tags for any big game, particularly when license costs are already going up. The primary impact will be to lower the bear harvest and create an ethical hazard for deer hunters. It seems mutually exclusive to be raising the expense and further complicating the regulations while you are trying to attract more folks to hunting and retain the current hunter population. In this regard the VDGIF is going in the wrong direction; a thicker and more complicated regulation magazine is not a sign of success (how long before we have to buy it, to offset printing costs?). The VDGIF needs to go to the opposite direction and simply all aspects of seasons and regulations and increase affordability for all hunters and fisherman. It is particularly galling that this idea is floated while license costs are already going up and it is already a ridiculously expensive and complicated (regulation and calendar wise) struggle for anyone with kids, to take those kids hunting, especially west of the blue ridge on land I own! I have a lot of respect and admiration for the folks I interact with from VDGIF, but they need to rethink their strategic direction and mission on behalf state citizens, in my opinion.
Thanks for the comments on this issue. I’m sure (and I hope) many more are to come.
One thing that happened last time this came up was things got kind of ugly in some of the dialog. I know there are strong feelings on both sides of this but that doesn’t mean we can’t keep the debate civil.
Disagreement is fine. Heck, it can be healthy because it can result in good changes. But ultimately, hunters are hunters and getting nasty with each other is not productive.
The comments so far are good examples of how to firmly make a case without going too far.
I was telling someone the other day that I am continually amazed by the insight and intelligence I see in comments on this blog, though grammar and spelling can sometimes be another story!
I am also really proud of my readers for showing a ton more class than posters on many Internet discussions. Thanks!
Well, Mark this should push you ahead of Dan Casey by a mile. (LOL) Most people are not going to support ANYTHING that costs them one cent more on a hunting license. This has been proven time and again. We will listen to all the same old lame excuses. Too much money, as they drive around in a nice 4×4 burning $3.25 gas with a four wheeler in the back and probably 5 or 6 hundred dollars of gun/bow/muzzleloader in the cab. Bear hunters monopolizing the resource, but willing to buy more licenses than any other group, that will support game research for all species. You heard all of the lies thrown at the bear hunters in Richmond, stealing guns after breaking into the house (if they know it was a bear hunter how come they can’t give a description), putting human feces on the collars so people wouldn’t touch them (that was a new one to me) how about the one about hunting with the pit bulls and chocolate labs. Now you throw that three legged dog talked about, in with those pits and labs, and the bear population WOULD suffer!!5 or six deer and three turkeys aren’t worth a $5 dollar license increase? Just another spin on selfishness and greed.
I agree with TScottW, if they want a seperate tag so bad, then add a Bear w/Hounds tag. I was fortunate enough to harvest a bear this past fall while deer hunting. My first and probably only one. I don’t think I would purchase a seperate tag for bear. I missed out on a good opportunity for a color phase bear in Colorado while elk hunting because I didn’t buy a bear tag. We pay enough and can’t hunt on Sunday. Leave it alone.
When sound science backs this up then do it. With the bear population on the rise in the state now is not the time (or ever) to remove the bear tag from the big game stamp and charge $25 for it. How do you successfully manage the bear population when you limit the number of hunters in the woods? I attended the meeting the DGIF had at Glenvar Middle School in 2009 and was amazed at the rhetoric that the hound hunters used, “the bear should be given the status it deserves”. I hold all the animals we hunt in Virginia with high regard, I don’t think that label should be put on one animal over another, it’s silly! I just hope that the hound hunters realize that the more they push for this the more they drive a wedge between them and the rest of the hunting community. Lets all get together and push for needed changes in our regulations not limiting hunting opportunities. Quit being greedy!
If you separate bear from the “big game” license can you really call the license by that name?? It will become the deer and turkey license, and that’s not too far from becoming separate licenses for those two as well. When does it end?
TScottW -I agree 100% with what you said! If anybody should buy a seperate bear tag, it should be the hound hunters!!
I don’t really have a strong position one way or the other because I mainly hunt deer. I wouldn’t eat bear and I’m not interested in having a bear rug or a bear mount, therefore, I would not kill one if I ever saw one. However, I don’t see how they think this plan would generate significant revenue. I believe very few hunters would buy a separate tag, and we would all eventually have to buy bear-proof garbage cans. Maybe they can put a special tax on trash cans to generate this revenue?
I do have one other question. If they are going to take away the current bear tag on our big game license, shouldn’t the price be reduced by a third? Somehow, I think I know the answer to that question…
Good seeing you yesterday, Plott Dogs.
I don’t know that this will help me outpace Casey. You know, it’s hard to get more compelling than posting a strange picture, a quote then inviting readers post their random rants and raves on the “open thread.” (And I’m not sure what it says about me when Casey’s blog consistently crushes me soundly! Maybe I need to change my tune and encourage my readers to be jerks to each other.)
But, yeah, those stories from Alleghany County smacked of hyperbole. But that’s de rigueur for those meetings from speakers on ALL SIDES. And we’ll see it again at Northside on March 22, won’t we?
Pit bulls as bear dogs? Yeah, that’s a good one. As for the three-legged dog, I think those hunters deserve credit for not discriminating, don’t you?
I don’t see why the DGIF is so sure that the extra bear tage\s will net more revenue.
There could very well be some bear hunters who are buying a big game license now who would just now opt for the bear license only. Unless you have to buy both for bear and then it is clearly wrong.
If it is such a good idea, why not make it for turkeys too?
TScottW hit it right on the head. All involved with hunting bears with hounds should be required to have a $10 signed stamp in their possession at all times and a majority of the revenue generated from those stamp sales can go towards bear habitat, etc. I PROUDLY buy both a state and a federal stamp to hunt waterfowl ($25) and they should do the same for hound hunters.
Plott dogs,
Who is being selfish and greedy, me for wanting to keep my money or those who think I should give it up to support what they think is best for themselves ? As for the 5 dollars, spread those 5 or 6 deer across crossbow, muzzleloader and rifle and a couple of kids and it could easily be 30 or 45 dollars, just to maintain the status quo.
Two thoughts immediately come to mind when I hear, or read that the VDGIF needs more funds…….generalized Sunday hunting, and the billions of dollars in revenue lost due to the GA’s refusal to remove Sunday hunting restrictions for firearms. I’ll touch on this later.
Paying $43.00 for something next year that cost only $18.00 this year is a tough pill to swallow. If it were passed, I’d likely not purchase a bear tag, and perhaps that’s the underlying goal? Never seeing a bear in 40 years of hunting, I kind of feel like I was forced to buy something I would never use in the first place. Maybe I’m due a partial refund?
What I fear “COULD” happen, and I believe the VDGIF has the regulatory authority to do this, is that we’ll see individual deer, turkey and bear permits next season. I’m thinking they “COULD” divide the current cost of the big game combo of $18.00 by three, resulting in an individual cost of $6.00. I’m pretty confident that next year will be the first year they will have the authority to impose a license fee increase? If they impose the max fee of $5.00 each, the combo license that we paid $18.00 this year may cost a total of $33.00 next year. Sure, not everyone will buy all three, but the dept. is probably confident that most hunters will continue to buy at least two, and many will still need all three. They’d be able to defend this measure by saying that it no longer requires hunters to purchase something that they may not want, or use. The dept. could also say that it also could result in savings for many of VA’s licensed hunters, and their children. I hope I’m wrong, but this is what I fear may happen. If this does happen, we’ll likely continue to see $5.00 fee increases for each license every three years unless we force a legislative change.
Touching on the Sunday hunting topic again. Virginia probably offers more Sunday hunting opportunity than many of the states that have no Sunday hunting ban per se. No, we can’t go out and hunt deer, or turkeys, or upland game as most of us understand hunting, but any of us can hunt without a weapon, and only with hounds pretty much statewide, and every Sunday. I’m all for any, and all legal/ethical hunting, including hunting with hounds. I hope we all are…..as I think it’s important to the health of our sport. I think the VDGIF has missed, for years, a revenue source that they have every right to collect for. There should be a separate license required to hunt (chase) with hounds, especially since VA’s chase seasons are continuous, and make up all of the lawful Sunday hunting that VA permits. Those that don’t have access to hounds, and those that strongly oppose Sunday hunting for personal reasons are forced to fund Sunday hunting overhead through their license purchases. To me, this makes little sense, and isn’t right. I believe if the department had required a chase license years ago, there would be no need for license fee increases today, and we’d all be hunting on Sundays if that was our desire.
My above post was incorrect. The board has the authority to create a separate $25.00 bear license only, under code 29.1-305. The deer, and turkey license would remain a combo. I’m thinking to hunt bear $25.00, and deer and turkey $23.00 ($18.00 plus a max allowable increase of $5.00). So as much as a $30.00 increase over what we paid $18.00 for last year. Seems a bit stiff?
While I’m sure the dept. may need better funding, they appear to need better fundamentals as well?
Tony — The DGIF doesn’t have the authority to separate all of the tags. The bill that sought to grant that authority failed this year in the General Assembly.
I actually think there is some logic to support separate tags (for everything). For one thing it would provide for a better accounting of who is hunting what, and that might help the DGIF prioritize its management objectives. You know, if only 2,000 people are buying bear licenses and 300,000 are buying deer licenses, do you put equal resources into both?
That said, cost is certainly a huge issue. If you go from having an $18 license that covers everything to requiring an $18 license for each thing, hunters are not going to be jumping for joy. That’s what we saw with that bill this year, which came at a time when the DGIF also has that proposed per-license increase of up to $5 looming.
So let’s say you set the cost of those tags at a level that hunters would tolerate ($10, maybe?) and give them an assurance that you’re not going to just jack the prices up the max amount every chance you can. Even if you get hunter buy-in, that still might not solve the revenue issue.
For example, you might go from selling 220,000 licenses for $18 ($3.74 million net revenue, taking into account the $1 per license agent fee) to selling 330,000 total licenses (220,000 deer; 80,000 turkey, 30,000 bear for $2.97 million in net revenue, taking into account a $1 agent fee for each license). Granted, I’m just throwing numbers out there, but you get the idea.
So, do you charge different amounts for different critters? Many states do, following the basic economic laws of supply and demand. Wanna hunt rabbits? Great, small game is $10. Deer: $30. Elk: $50. Bighorn sheep? $250.
The bottom line? It’s one thing if that’s how the system starts from the beginning. If you drastically change from a system like our current one to a system of separate ones, you could present the most brilliant, foolproof, logical plan in the world and people are still going to be wary. It’s human nature.
Tony – FYI, I was writing my reply when you sent your follow-up.
Sounds like there are a lot of hunters against other hunters who choose to hunt with hounds!
I fail to see how the DGIF thinks that this will generate more revenue. In fact I feel it will further discourage many from perhaps even hunting at all seeing how its a constant “take and no give” situation just as the proposed licnse increase is. In a time when the department maintains that more hunters are needed they sure seem to be doing everything just the opposite to accomplish that goal. Along the same lines of of the first poster’s comment, why not leave the tags as they are then in turn require the bear hunters (each withing a hunting party) to have a hound stamp. Now that would be a nice revenue gain if you ask me and at a greater volume than that of singling out a single deer hunter for a rare chance at a bear. Think about it,if I bought a bear tag in addition to my regular license and the other 4 in my group dont,which they’ve already stated would be the case then the department gains only my 25 dollars. Now lets look at a group of “bear” hunters with hounds and let’s say for example there’s 5 in the group with the hounds and each has to pay let’s say 10 dollars each to partake in the hound hunt simple math equates to a 50 dollar gain for the depatment. My idea may sound like complete idiocy,but it would appear the department would get its increased revenue and the tags could remain the same for everyone. I can assure you one thing as well that any bear I would be lucky enough to get wouldn’t be hiding in a tree from hounds with no way of escape when it was shot,but in it’s own element with every sense it has to detect me at it’s advantage.
Mark, first, thanks for giving hunters a great platform from which to share thoughts. I wish our other major papers did the same as effectively. You, and Bill have probably done more for hunter awareness than any two people in the State.
I do get the idea, and actually proposed a menu licensing format sometime ago to the VDGIF. I think it makes more sense to let individuals choose the licenses they want on a need/interest basis. In fact, I suggested that the dept. not only separate big game licenses, but also offer additional/bonus tags for bear, antlered deer, and male turkeys which could be used where populations warranted additional harvests as a way to increase revenue. I applaud the job that the VDGIF has done. Today, we have our highest populations of bear, deer and turkey ever. It didn’t happen by accident. It’s the result of tons of research, lots of dedication, and hours of hard work. I don’t oppose the increases in license fees per se. My hunting license costs are likely my best entertainment value. I think over the past 40 years or so I’ve averaged about $42.00 a year in hunting license expendatures. It would be hard to disagree that $42.00 a year is well worth the experience.
As you stated human nature is a factor. If memory serves me right, our last license fee increase was the max of $5.00. Human nature tells me that our next license fee increase will be $5.00 as well, and so will those in the future. I’d be happy to pay an additional $5.00 per license every three years, honestly, as long as it kept our wildlife agency strong, and I continue to see at least the same hunting value I always have. It’s only when it appears that someone is trying to wedge in a $25.00 bear hunting license that I get uneasy. I ask myself how will it benefit the State, and how will it benefit me? I have to ask because I’ve never been provided with info. that explains the benefits. I actually wrote the bills sponsor twice. Not getting any answers makes me nervous.
I don’t know that the license will have much impact in my chances of seeing a bear….that’s based on never seeing one in 4 decades of hunting. No, I don’t hunt much in the mountains. I think change is what we need, but I think those changes will come much easier if we are assured that they will benefit all. I believe most feel that this is a measure that would only benefit few.
I have to ask, if the VBHA so strongly supports this, they must see the direct benefit to themselves? Why then wouldn’t they simply ask that all bear hunters that agree with the license changes donate the additional license fee monies, which could be gifted to the VDGIF? Seems like a much easier way to generate revenue, and keep peace throughout the hunting community?
How much is a bear tag worth? Deer tag? Turkey tag? Where are DGIF revenues going to come from in years to come. They don’t sell more licenses each year they sell less!
Nobody wants to pay more for the privilege of hunting, but it seems to be a good deal when you compare it to a single tank of gas these days. We as hunters can’t even stick together to maintain the opportunities we now have, and that in itself is a sad thing. We have to bicker over this or that, and the outcome is not going to be pretty. As the old saying goes “a house divided is the first to fall”. We can and should do better!
Mark, thanks for letting us comment on this and other important topics! My question is why would the VGIF bring this up again so soon? I believe they owe everyone an explaination. The vast majority of hunters was and still are against the separate license. I want to state for the record that I am not against bear hunting with hounds, however I am not in favor of a relatively small group having so much influence. I wonder what the VBHA thinks about the Hound/Bear stamp idea? Would anyone care to comment on that? It would accomplish a revenue increase and show their support to the resource. I like this idea!
Kevin, its apparent from your remarks that you have never been bear hunting with hounds. Just like I said in my remarks above, hunters are their own worst enemy!
If I choose to hunt by using hounds, which by the way is a legal method, why do you have to take jabs at me?
If the hound hunters want their own tag, I’m fine with it as long as they are willing to give up some of their hunting/chase seasons. The chase season is a constant interruption of my time in the woods and why would anyone even bother to go bear hunting while they are running dogs? We have one week of rifle season before they are allowed to turn the dogs out. I say we non-hound hunters should have equal opportunity to hunt without interruption for half the bear season as well. Fair is fair. I have had several run-ins with the houndsmen over the years, and most of the time, it’s not a very pleasant conversation. Harvest a bear that their hounds are chasing before they get the opportunity and see what happens. I can only speak from my experiences. It’s not a pretty conversation.
Randy,
I agree 100%. Hunters should stick together. My comment about hound bear hunters is just a return shot. The hound bear hunters want a separate tag for bears so that a bow/muzzleloader/rifle deer hunter won’t take a lucky shot at one of their bears. They do not like the idea of a deer hunter happening across a bear and shooting it. They prefer the idea of only bear hunters shooting a bear and that a separate tag would stop a lot of this.
When hound hunting was being questioned the other year I stood behind them. However they seem to want to separate the hunters, not me.
If those hunting bears have to utilize dogs then they are too damned stupid to even be allowed a license! I detest any so called “hunter” who uses dogs to terrorize intended finds and kills. I’d like to send a pack of dogs after the morons who do such.
But, back to the separate license bit. I’m for it.
for years now wardens have been telling hound hunters they need to kill more bear, with a bear stamp there would be less bear killed putting more of a burden on the game commission. i am NOT in favor of a bear tag.
Bear hunters want their own private season. I use the term “hunter” loosely.
There is not much sport in turning a pack of dogs loose on a bear, then track the chase using tracking collars , and cell phones.
I grew up in Craig county and have hunted all my life. I killed 1 bear while deer hunting. I would not kill another. I passes up killing one this season, and several over the years.
I have personally known , so called bear hunters, who treed a sow with small cubs, that shot the sow and left the cubs to die.
If Virginia is going to have a big game stamp, it should cover bear, deer and turkey.
DO NOT GIVE THE BEAR “HUNTERS” THEIR OWN PERSONAL SEASON.
Randy Mays,
I never “took at jab” at you personally and I’m well aware that hound hunting is perfectly legal. My problem is that why should I have a tag removed from my license in addition to possible upcoming rate increases and then getting absolutely nothing in return? I take no issue with “bear hunters” so lets make that clear ,however I do question the method and thats strictly my opinion in which Im entitled to just as a bear hunter questions my right to harvest a bear during the deer season. Now that I have your attention from my earlier comment I’d like to hear your thoughts as a bear/hound hunter. How would you feel if the DGIF proposed something along the lines of what I metioned as far as requiring a hound stamp for each hunter in a hound chase hunt? Please let us know because so far each of these past proposals have been one sided only. Enquiring minds want to know.
Every time a hound issue comes up, we hear from the hound hunters that “hunters should stick together”. Well they turned their backs on us regular hunters when the Sunday hunting issue came up. It’s hard for us to meet in the middle when they burned the bridge.
If the DGIF wants to increase interest if fall turkey hunting then perhaps they should let youth/kids shoot turkeys anytime in the fall. I don’t know how many days I had my kids out hunting this past fall and see turkeys only to tell them “they are not legal today”. They have changed the laws for kids for deer to give them more opportunities, why not do the same for turkeys.
It does sound like to me that the VBHA wants to monopolize the bear harvest through this proposal. I don’t know the specific numbers, but it would seem to me that the hound hunters are at an advantage anyway with the use of dogs to hunt bear vs those few deer hunters that are lucky enough to see a bear during the deer hunt. Personally I’m one of those deer hunters that wouldn’t raise my rifle at a bear anyway. I’m of the belief that if you “can’t grill it, don’t kill it” and bear meat has no appeal to me whatsoever, at least based on the couple of times i’ve sampled it. If the bear hunters want their seperate tag give it to them but I’d like to see the price of it maybe 50.00 for resident and 200.00 for nonresident. If they want special treatment let them pay for it, and if the extra cost deters deer hunters from killing these animals simply for trophies and rugs I see that as a good thing. Many hunters that post here have commented that they have hunted for years and NEVER seen a bear in the wild, which tells me their numbers aren’t what they could be. I hunted for nearly 30 years before seeing my first one myself. Thanks to a no kill policy on bears for myself and my fellow hunters at our deer camp in Franklin Co. , I’ve been able to show both my boys black bears in the wild during deer season before their 12th birthday. As a father its an experience that I shared with them from a tree stand I’ll never forget. I would not deny the right to kill a bear to anyone that has the desire to do so, I’m just stating the fact that they’re not running through the woods in numbers comparable to deer. If a seperate and more exspensive tag for bears would help increase their numbers I would support it.
In closing… To Randy’s response to Kevin… Just because running bears with dogs is legal doesn’t make it ethical or sporting to run an animal to near total exhaustion up a tree or under a rock and then kill it. But to each his own ….
TScottW, I thank you for supporting hound hunters and I promise I support ALL hunting methods that are legal.Thanks again.
A point to make:
A separate bear license will not take a single penny from anyone that doesn’t want to purchase one, they will still be able to turkey hunt and deer hunt for the same cost. Buy the tag and bow hunters, muzzleloaders, and rifle hunters will still get an earlier chance, during much better weather,to kill a bear. No one suggested taking a single day from any season for anyone.State code mandates kids under 12 are license exempt.
Dividing hunters is pointless and works against us all. The only people divided in this discussion are people with closed minds already. My opinion, popular or not, is what I believe in. I will support all other hunters, because in the end we are all hunters, whether we agree or disagree.If there is any resentment it will be against me not from me.
On the fall turkey hunting regulations: Why not open turkey hunting during deer season to bearded birds only? We have to identify bucks vs does so what’s the big difference? The closing of turkey season during deer season was put in place originally to protect hens to increase the population. Bearded birds only would accomplish the same thing and keep deer hunters interested in turkeys. If DGIF determines the gobbler kill would increase too much, put in a 1 bird limit during deer season.
A couple of thoughts on fall turkey hunting.
Mainly, it all comes down to whether or not you want to promote turkey hunting, or turkey shooting.
I am not a fan of turkey shooting, in large part because when you shoot a turkey with a high-powered deer rifle or muzzleloader, you risk wasting most if not all of the meat. That said, I have shot at a turkey while deer hunting, but it was with my bow. (I missed, and to add insult to injury lost my arrow.)
Interestingly, the bear debate also revolves somewhat around bear hunting and bear shooting. One difference is that you can shoot a bear with a rifle or muzzleloader and not waste meat. Another is that the DGIF is actually trying to increase hunting pressure on the bear population, while that isn’t the primary turkey management goal.
But I do think that whoever shoots a bear should utilize the meat. Processed and prepared right, bear meat is just fine.
I think the idea of offering a season when there isn’t another hunting option might get some more people out there focusing on turkeys. But, with that segment coming in January, when weather and burnout can be factors, I can’t see that being too huge.
Ultimately what could increase interest in fall turkey hunting is that more people need to start hunting with turkey dogs. It is a blast and also can help get youngsters interested. (The bear hound hunters aren’t blowing smoke when they say that young kids love bear hunting because of the dogs. Kids love dogs, pure and simple.)
Stand by for a new post on a proposed deer hunting regulation that has me really excited.
Plott Dogs….great post. You are right. It shouldn’t matter if we would rather have a standard poodle retrieve our waterfowl, hunt quail over a gordon setter, hunt bear with plotts, deer hunt with lemon and white walkers, or if we’d rather hunt exclusively without dogs. It’s our personal choice, and it should always be. What should matter much more is that we all understand the importance of unity….we’re all hunters, and need to stand together for what we love. We’ve had it pretty good, but I’m getting the feeling that we’ll have to fight a little more for what we love in the not too distant future.
You’re probably right too, in that a hunter that doesn’t wish to hunt bears won’t spend anymore than he would have in the past, and still be licensed to hunt deer and turkey. I think the issue really isn’t that we’ll spend no more, it’s that we’ll get 1/3 less for the same? That just doesn’t seem reasonable. Personally, I was basically forced to buy a bear license that I never needed for 40 years. Now they finally aren’t forcing me to buy the bear license, but the licenses I do need costs the same as what I’m use to paying including the bear license. Help us understand why?
Maybe you can shed some light on what the objective of the separate license is? I wrote Tony Wilt at least two times asking for clarification, but never received any. It concerns me when I don’t get answers from legislators. Seems like if it’s such a great deal it would have passed through the GA without any issue, and the entire hunting community would be jumping up and down until they got it.
Maybe if more hunters understood the benefits that the new licensing structure provided, we’d be less uneasy. Can you share how this benefits VA, bears, bear hunting, the dedicated bear hunter, the casual bear hunter, and the guy that might kill a bear because he was deer hunting at the right time, and place, and the non-bear hunter?
Thanks Plott Dogs!
Mark, would you consider feeding the bear’s carcass to the hounds proper “utilization” of the meat? I don’t know it for fact , but have heard it is a common practice to give the dogs a taste for the hunt. If thats true, those guys should be ashamed for lowering such a beautiful creature to mere dog food. And I know kids love dogs, but would your girls find them as appealing if they witnessed the end result of a good hound hunt with an exhausted,injured animal shot from the top of an oak tree only to be attacked when it hit the ground? I know my two boys wouldn’t enjoy that at all, and thats a 15 and 10 year old that have been well seasoned at the reality of pulling the trigger on a living creature.As you can tell, I’m not a fan of hound hunting of bears. I guess what I’m saying is I don’t feel its a level playing field for the bear when he’s got a pack of dogs taking away most of his chances of escape. Like I said though in an earlier post, to each his own…. thanks for giving us all a place to sound off Mark on this and other topics.
Hey guys, show me where I said I was in favor of a separate bear tag! My comments were about hunter unity. I support all hunting as long as it is done by legal means, and currently hunting with hounds is just that. Lets not kid ourselves, deer hunters have always looked out for themselves just as turkey hunters have, so don’t down bear hunters for trying to do the same.
I could sit here and tell about deer and turkey hunters doing unethical as well as illegal activities but what good would that do. I could include a few bear hunter stories as well. Lets not pretend that any group of hunters are exempt from these people.
I have hunted about anything you could hunt in this state for the last 45 years and have seen a lot of questionable and downright wrong hunter activity, and yes I let the authorities know when I need to. so basically what I’m trying to say is shame on the ones who want to tear down fellow hunters, we only hurt us as a whole when we do!
Sounds like a whole lot of hate going on against hound hunters to me!
Ok Guys, I get the hint, I’m not a real hunter, I’m stupid, and a moron to boot, because I use hounds to hunt bear. I don’t need this abuse, I’m out of here. You folks have fun!
I am totally for separate tags for all big game. I am a private land owner and still purchase my license every year. I’m sorry to here so many complain about helping pay for and protect the very sport we all CLAIM to love. If the hunting license costs too much, think about cutting back on some of that beer and cigarettes. The money saved in gas by actually parking and scouting your own deer instead of riding the back roads looking for deer will more than pay for any increase. I’m sure if hunting and protecting our game and rights were as important as you guys profess, $250.00 would still be a deal. The DGIF needs to wake up and cut back on the number of bucks allowed to be harvested and go back to checking ALL game at a check-in station. The laws in Virginia have become way to liberal and are not in favor of the game we pursue. ALL states that have True Trophy sized game have separate licenses. Look at the Midwest if you doubt this. If the black bear had an organization to protect it like the turkey has in the NWTF and the elk has in the RMEF, this separate bear license would be a done deal. I’ve read some pretty stupid comments on here about what a bear hunter will do or won’t do. I have personally witnessed what so called sportsmen do to deer. Just ride up Bradshaw Rd during deer season and look at the pile of deer carcasses thrown out at the Havens wildlife management parking areas.
Where is all that illegal bait sold DURING deer season at Walmart being used??? Before anyone gets to high on their horse, stop and think about what some people do. Deer riddled with holes because you did not make sure the shot was good before the trigger was pulled. I can honestly say that I have had more bad experiences in 30+ years of hunting with other deer hunters and never the first bad encounter with a turkey or bear hunter. No I am not a hound hunter and yes I am an avid turkey hunter, bow hunter, cross-bow hunter, muzzle load hunter and rifle hunter.
I’m sure I will be in the minority on here but hunting in VA is still a bargin.
Randy Mays
You are not an idiot nor stupid…You have a right to hunt any way you see fit. Maybe if the DGIF would allow baiting it would be easier to get a mature Bear or something of decent size.
Until the rules and regulation change. You have the right to do so and visit this blog and make any comment you see fit.
As I’ve said time and time again The anti-hunting groups have never changed their agenda, why do hunters remain petty and not stand together as those that seek to curtail hunting period.
(SMH)
mgc, I’m one of the few here that will agree with you about Va. hunting being a bargain. I would still make that statement even if they were to separate the tags AND raise the price on them five bucks. Virginia hunters have been taking 200,000 plus deer a year for a while, bear hunting reintroduced in counties where there was none previously. This didn’t just magically happen, it happened because of quality management of the game species here in the state and enough officers in the field to inforce the regs. All of this takes money to do and we all have to pay our share. There are many who would curse our conservation officers and their efforts, but I ask them to think about what the quality level of our game in the field would be without them. I’d dare say thanks to some of those unethical hunters you mentioned in your last post we wouldn’t have squat to get out here and pursue. And the unethical ones are in all catagories of hunters, not just one. In just the differences in the numbers (deer hunters vs. bear) there are more of those unethical ones in the deer hunters catagory. I also commend you for buying your license every year as a land owner, if thats the only spot you hunt. I believe if you’ve worked hard all your life and been successful enough to own your own land you should be able to hunt it scott free…even on a Sunday if you so choose. But thats a whole different fight…
Mr Rutherford, Thanks for the comments and having an open mind. I will try to explain my views briefly. I support the bear tag to give a buffer to the number of bear being killed. In 2000 the state kill was 1000, 2007-1500 and since 2008 over 2200 per year. In the 1990′s it averaged around 500. I don’t want to see that again and a large reason for the increase was because the dog hunters got their act together and started “catch and release” rather than kill every bear, good for the bear population and for EVERYONE. Here are some 2010 facts, not opinions, A-Archery M-muzzle loader R-rifle D-dogs for a few counties Rke-A-5 R-10 M-2=17 dog=10 Botetourt-A-14 R-37 M-17=68 Dogs=36 Bedford A-17 R-13 M-10 =40 Dogs=20
As you can see, and this is typical statewide, per county, dog hunters kill less than the other hunters. I do not see why anyone can say the dog hunters are monopolizing bear hunting. I have killed one bear and had the opportunity to kill more, we let the youngsters and new hunters kill the few we do harvest. As for the meat I canned some this year and it was delicious, no waste as quoted in a previous post which was admittedly here-say evidence. I will gladly pay $25 for the opportunity to enjoy a healthy, viable black bear population and can’t see why anyone else would not. If it is not worth the $25 then no one is forced to, just turkey and deer hunt for the same price as now. Good hunting to you and thanks for a civil conversation. Like said, in the end we had all better support one another, agree or disagree on some things. Hope this explains somewhat how and why I feel the way I do.
First of all let me note that I fully support hound hunting for bears. I think that the populations in many areas are too high. Fun to see, but they need to be controlled. Hound hunting is about the only way this can occur.
Some in the hound community are trying to “corner the market”. If they realized that in areas with a lot of national forest they take the greater majority of bears, they might relax their approach. I looked over the kill numbers the last time this came up and from what I could gather the ratio could have been as much as 10 to 1 where the national forest is most abundant. There is much less area in national forest to run hounds in the northeastern counties that account for so much of the bear kill (areas bordering the Shenandoah National Park).
Some of the hound hunters may find themselves hunting alone or with much less group participation if they get this passed. This will lead to fewer hound hunter participation and a greater division between hound/deer hunters. The beginning of the end? Sad. Also, with the division of the big game hunters (hound vs. deer) they may be opening up the opportunity for the anti groups to shut down the hound hunting altogether as has been done in many western states.
Similar issues have occurred in the past with the advocacy groups re: turkey hunting and trout regulations. Remember that some thought that trout should only be taken with a fly rod and some that a turkey should only be taken with a shotgun in the spring. A lot of people have a distrust now for Trout Unlimited and the National Wild Turkey Federation, myself included. Now the hound hunters are going the same route, but their method of harvest is much more politically tenuous with regards to anti groups from out west and the hunting ignorant (typical city dwellers and young wannabe environmentalists). They should be looking for allies, not enemies.
This has become a negative attack of the Hound Hunters instead of the real debate. ARE YOU IN FAVOR OR NOT???? Just answer the question. If people are so against seperating the bear tag to raise funds, the VDGIF should consider seperating the Deer tag instead. There seem to be more deer hunters than bear so in return more money for the department. I can assure you that not ONE single hound/bear hunter would come here or anywhere else trying to disgrace, put down, bad mouth or call names against fellow hunters. I AM FOR SEPERATIONG THE BEAR TAG!!!!!!
Thanks Plott Dogs. I was already familiar with the bear harvest data. Hunting has always been my first recreational love, and I have always had a thirst for Virginia hunting data. Without any intention of arguing, if a buffer is the main objective, why wouldn’t the bear hunting community, and/or the VBHA propose a reduction in bag limits. Say no more than one bear every two years? Maybe keep the total license cost the same, whether separated or not, and allow a license holder with a license number that ends in an odd number to harvest a bear in odd number years, and vice versa? Or seek to have kill seasons shortened, and chase seasons increased? Consider a chase only season? This would still provide a variety of bear hunting opportunity, as well as increase catch and release opportunities, and in addition create a bear buffer that most should find fair. Perhaps measures like these could effectively create a bear buffer, but not be so divisive of the overall hunting community? I’ve never bear hunted with or without hounds. I strongly support any, and all ethical hunting. I did pass on a great opportunity to hound hunt several years back, and still have bruises on my backside where I kicked it.
I think what makes this so tough to swallow is, first, we’ve been conditioned to have bear, deer and turkey combined on a license forever. I’ve never known anything different. It’s kind of a habit, and as many of us know, habits can be difficult to break. We do tend to break old habits when we are offered somthing different that seems much better. But now, not only are we asked to break a life long habit, but we’re also asked to pay more for 1/3 less. I’ll be the first to say our hunting licenses are an incredible value. I’ll also say that if the proposed license fee increases don’t fit within one’s budget, I feel for you…..sincerely. What’s most puzzling is that Virginia has fewer licensed hunters, yet we are seeing record bear harvests. Do we have higher bear populations, or just more effective hunters, or both? The thing is we’re doing all of this under the old “habitual licensing programs”. Based on these facts, it would seem that there is no need to fix something that’s working better than it ever has?
If the objective is to increase bear population density let’s do it just like we have deer, turkeys, and every other species for that matter……through sound management principles that are based on reliable research, instead of addressing the interest’s of a single group of sportsmen. The separate bear license at $25.00 is simply not the right thing to do. There isn’t even any evidence that says that’s it’s the best thing to do for either the hunter, or our bear population.
I’m proud of the VDGIF, but I’m confident there are much better ways to improve bear hunting, and at the same time increase revenue.
my thanks to leon turner for the way he voted on this issue
I have just finished reading all these comments,and would like to add one. A close friend of mine told me that a hound hunter in Catawaba said they had treed 30 some bear this last season, and shot 17. I know the hunter, and have no reason to question this info, even though I really question his ethics, because I have seen the way they deer hunt. However some of the numbers above would make me ask what happened to the other seven, if only 10 were killed in Roanoke County? I will say that I do not want to see the tags separated. I love to deer hunt, just like the hound hunter loves the chase, and would totally agree with the option of a hound hunting license.
Mark I have hunted all of my life and have only seen 5 bears not chased by hounds. The last few years I have hunted with hound hunters and we had a great time listening to the hounds and trying to keep up. Lately many of the dog hunters have been talking extensively about the “—deer hunters killing all of “our” bear; we think that if we can geta seperate lisence we can stop them and we will have a lot more bear to chase and kill. say what!
What about the guys that work hard for very little pay that likes to hunt and may only get to hunt 3 or 4 days a season and don’t have the money or vacation time to own and run a pack of dogs. These people proably can barely afford the current lisence. Don’t they have the right to enjoy the thrill of harvesting a bear as much as everyone else.
Lets all ;who enjoy the outdoors come together and get rid of the slobs ,road hunters and poachers and cleanup our own act.
We need to unite and take care of all types of hunting styles and defend it as a united front againts the anties because it is all of us hunters who have made hunting what it is today.
Just look at places like Colorado they argued among themselves; dog hunting was stopped and now there is a bear behind every tree and all hunting is declineing due to predators taking a large number of young.
Fred
I feel that the VDGIF should have offered individual deer, bear, or turkey licenses many years ago. If they had done so, they very well may be in much better financial shape today. In addition, if they had, our bear population would likely be much higher today, and so would interest in bear hunting. Bear hunting would attract more hunters, and command more dollars. This proposal goes against ever regulation, and or license fee change I’ve ever been a part of. It asks hunters to spend more and get less. It makes very little sense. It seems that no one from the VBHA has given much consideration to what the ripple effect of this will be. Ok, maybe fewer people kill bears because they refuse to pay the additional monies. Maybe some people are just fed up enough that they kill bears without buying a license? Maybe some are so fed up they just kills bears and let them go to waste…..just to make a point? Maybe more, and more hunters start to use the community license approach? One bear license goes a long ways when only a couple of thousand bears are registered each year. I hope none of this would happen, but it’s exactly what I fear will if the dept. adopts this proposal. If it does, the additional license revenues will be consumed by law enforcement expenses.
What about the local businesses that rely on hunter dollars for their survival…..how much will the license cost them in lost sales? What about the State tax revenue…..how will it be impacted? There’s is much more to consider than just the reduction of bear hunting competition from a fortunate licensed hunter that lucked into a bear, or even the serious bear hunter that prefers their own individual hunting method over another.
I propose that all big game tags be available on an individual basis, and at equal cost. With bear hunting success rates at less than 1 in 1,000 the majority of hunters would probably spend their bear tag money on turkey tags, or bonus deer tags.
The VDGIF knows from comments that this is not a good step to take, and they realize there are other steps that should be taken.
This proposal not only separates the bear tag, but more than anything, it separates hunters.
First of all, a bear does not belong to anyone but the person who accualy harvests the animal.over the years hunters have lost bow tags for dear,and muzzle loader tags. we have also lost turkey days due to speceial interest groups even though we had an incease of 2% over a six year study (VDGIF). We the hunters are loosing every year while the corupt profit from it(VDGIF). Many other groups use the same lands for there pleasures like hiking,biking,and horse riding and pay nothing but still chime up when sunday hunting is raised.let them pay for a national forest permit and your (hunting dogs) too.
P.S I have enjoyed hound hunting for bear but will probably not be invited back. that means more divided hunters. Thanks VBHA.
I say NO to the extra bear tag. My opinion we need to start catching more bear hunters that are killing more than their limit. How can 15 to 20 hunters kill 30 to 40 bears a season and hunt 24/7? And only a few of these bears are being checked in. Alot are being killed during chase season. Catch these illegal hunters and theres your extra revenue, instead of taking money from honest hunters. Even some of these bears being killed are mother bears with cubs, this I know for a fact because I have found them alone without their mothers.
Don,
I would like to respond to your statement about the bear hunter in Catawba. I believe I know who you are referring to in that statement. I would like to state that the particular hunter that you speak of is nothing but ethical!! That also goes to say for the hunt group this person is a member of, as well as myself. I have been a deer/turkey/squirrel hunter since I was a small child. I enjoy the outdoors and enjoy the time in the woods. Bear hunting is something new I have become interested in over the past few years since my husband and his family are avid bear hunters. I have two small children who will also be involved in hunting. It is a part of who we are. We will teach our children ethical hunting practices as we have always been taught.
In the defense of the numbers that Plott Dogs listed, 10 is correct. The 17 bear that were taken by this group were not all killed in Roanoke County. They were also taken in a couple of the other surrounding counties as they do hunt in other places besides Roanoke County. So there is your other 7. I hope this helps.
On to the separate licenses. Virgina hunting licenses are a bargain!! Separate all of them? I think that would be a great idea and fair for all. This is a new proposal and just like every other new proposal, it is going to have negative feedback. But hunters fighting against one another to make a point? We are all hunters and should be united as one, whether you are a bear hunter, deer hunter or a turkey hunter. Our goal should be to support our VDGIF and help them to be able to have the funding and resources to maintain an acceptable population of wildlife in order for us to continue our tradition. Bear hunting with hounds has long been controversial as has other hunting and trapping. It will probably always be that way. Let’s just not forget who we are.
Even some of these bears being killed are mother bears with cubs, this I know for a fact because I have found them alone without their mothers.
Comment by Hunter from the Past — March 8, 2011 @ 8:32 pm
(Above post)–Now here is a genius at work!!
Girl Hunter, Thanks, but the numbers are as copied previously:
Rke-A-5 R-10 M-2=17 dog=10 which is- Archery-5 Rifle-10 Muzzleloader-2 which equals 17. d-Dog hunters killed 10.Which was to show more bear were killed by NON dog hunters, 17 to 10. I didn’t even respond since it was pointless, it was just mathmatics for bear checked in Rke, the data was DGIF. You and your post are a credit to bear hunters, and all hunters, and our sport. I wish you the best for your family, and especially for the ethics and dignity you are obviously raising your children with. Some of the posters here can use your influence as to what we are about. Best wishes and excellent post!
I don’t believe we would hear any complaining about separating the bear tag if this was the 1970s when there was hardly any bear population. The houndsmen I believe gave up a couple of early weeks of kill season back in the 70s as suggested by the DGIF. They were told by giving up these early weeks, this would allow the sow bear to hibernate before the late kill season started. They made the sacrifices and also started practicing catch and release and hence the population started to grow to where we are today. It certainly wasn’t because of any sacrifices us deer or turkey hunters made. As a deer hunter I am now getting a taste of what those early houndsmen went through. I live in a county that used to be one of the best deer hunting counties in the state but now we are giving up bag limits and doe days in order to get the population back up. Who’s crying now?? I say let those houndsmen have the bear tag. They are the reason we have the bear population we have now.
Plott Dogs….I had wanted to share these numbers sooner. Hopefully, you will return to this thread and share your comments. You had said that the basis for the license proposal was to create a buffer for the number of bears that were being killed. I truly admire hunting enthusiasts that take initiatives to improve the wellbeing of the species they pursue.
Over the past two years, hound hunters have averaged better than half of all bears killed during general firearms seasons. As we know hounds are not permitted during archery, or muzzle loader. I have no way of knowing what percentage of the entire hunting population that hound hunters represent……I’ll assume it’s less than 25%, and I’d wager that the number is actually closer to 5%=10,000+. Essentially, during general firearms season probably far fewer than one fourth of all total licensed big game hunters are responsible for over half of all bear kills. No one would have any way of knowing how many bears are taken by hound hunters that are stand/still hunting during archery, muzzle loader, or non-chase kills during general firearms season. If a buffer is the basis, it should be based on population/harvest, and not on a concern of how many bears are killed by any method.
This is likely the worst regulation/license fee change that the dept. has ever been asked to consider. I will always support any type of ethical hunting, regardless of whether I participate in the method or not. I don’t participate in bear hunting, but I can’t support this proposal. I hope that all that oppose this will visit the VGDIF website and share their comments. Nothing personal Plott Dogs….this just makes no sense, and doesn’t provide the buffer you are seeking. It only provides additional opportunity for hound hunters to increase their take of the bear harvests.
I just want to say, the justification is to possibly provide more money to support the “enhancement of bear sports” is ridiculous to me and what does that really mean? I thought we were all in this together as hunters, now we are separating ourselves by the species we pursue, this is asinine in a time we should be working together to fix what is wrong .
I personally do not believe that the money taken in form the separation would be set aside for anything special nor should it be. I have hunted national forest all my life, going on 40 years and it has been many, many years since I have seen anything in the way of habitat enhancements. I also don’t feel it is appropriate to compare to other states and their fees because we do not get to hunt on Sunday and MOST states do allow this. For the working man this is all we have, so at most we have about 16 days to fill those tags. With the outcome for most of us down 25% from last year it just seems hard to swallow paying more for much, much less.
I feel it has become a one sided take only relationship with the DGIF and I am thinking very seriously of cutting back or even giving up hunting.
This comment is for Plott dogs: When I stated the comment about cubs being left alone because of hunters killing the mothers, I failed to mention I found the mother covered up with brush and her gall bladder removed. Weve got some bear hunters that hunt 24/7 and even have been seen hunting during bow season with dogs. I am not saying I am against bear hunters, I am only stating that we all need to abide by these laws so that it will be fair for all hunters. I feel when we are hunting we should have respect for each other not to mention the laws and the game we are hunting.
Tony, your facts are correct for hound hunters in 2010 which was %56 of the firearms kill or 808 bears, however your comments about dog hunters killing over half in firearems season for the past two years is incorrect. In 2008 it was %47 and in 2009 it was %48. Let’s look at some other stats that affect the bears and that is females killed, which affects the bear population in the long run propably more than anything.This is 5 year average for all groups Archery %40,Muzzleloaders %45,non dog rifle %42. dog hunters only %33. The dog hunters agreed to give up several weeks of their early season in the 60′s, by VDGIF proposal, since this would help protect the females before denning. We gave this up for years and then the VDGIF gives this time to the archery and muzzleloading hunters and expands their season in 2008 by at least a week. The dog hunters still get the latest season and worst weather to hunt in. Yes, I think the bears need a buffer or in the years ahead the population will suffer.When you hear a bowhunter (evidently not a good one, and not a slam on bowhunting either) in a shop say he has “stuck” five bears and is yet to check one in, yes it makes me wonder would he buy a tag to do this? Why so much drop in the turkey and deer kill if our biologists are always correct? They do not even know how many people are specifically bear hunting, but a separate tag would tell them that because only people willing to buy it would be bear hunting, regardless of method. We may not ever agree on some of these issues but I
promise, dividing hunters, as some are quite willing to expound, is the last thing I want.Bears, dogs, family, and friends are what makes my life worthwhile and I will continue to do what I feel is best for them.I respect everyone elses right to do the same, no bridges burned and no hard feelings.
Hunter from Past,What you describe is what makes it hard to defend any hunting, these people aren’t hunters, they are just thugs in the woods. I hope they get caught because these are the people that are stealing from us all, and what they are stealing is our right to hunt.I can’t see how these people get away being so blatant with their actions. You are %100 correct in your comments about about the laws and respecting each other.I misunderstood your intent from the way the post started and I apologize for my comment.Belive me, most bear hunters are good people. Unfortunately a few give us all bad reputations, whether they are deer, turkey, dog, or non dog hunters. Every group has a few bad apples that it seems are always the ones seen.
Plott Dogs, thanks for keeping the conversation civil, and hopefully productive. My statement that hound hunters have averaged better than half of all bears killed during general firearms was correct over the past two years is correct. During 2009 and 2010 the total combined firearms bear kill was 2,374. Hunters using hounds accounted for 1,255 of those kills, or just shy of 53%.
Hound hunters accounted for just shy of 28% of the total kill during that same two year period. The last data that I could find on the number of bear hunters was from 2000. The VDGIF estimated that the total number of bear hunter at that time was 17,000. I’m fairly sure that the number of licensed hunters has declined on average, 3% per year since 2000. Assuming that bear hunters have followed this general trend, the estimated number of bear hunters today would be about 12,000. I believe that estimated number of bear hunters included those that archery, muzzle, G/F, and hound hunt. Let’s assume that the total number of hound hunters is 10,000 just for comparision sake. Basically less than 5% of all licensed hunters account for 28% of all bear kills, and do so only west of the Blue Ridge, and some adjoining counties east of the Blue Ridge, and in the dismal swamp. The 5% doesn’t include those that are licensed exempt. Naturally these areas are the areas of highest bear population.
To summarize, it takes more than 100,000 non hound hunters statewide to equal the bear kills of 10,000 hound hunters hunting only about 1/3 of the state. Hound hunters have a buffer without a $25/$150 license.
Plott…..I sincerely understand how very important hunting with hounds is to many. I will do all I can to preserve the Virginia hound hunting tradition. After all hunting with hounds got it’s American start here in Virginia. It’s kind of like apples, country ham, and peanuts. I just can not find a way to support this proposal. The numbers say were doing better than we’ve ever done without any change.
If a reduction in sow harvests is what’s needed, then let’s all learn more effective ways to identify a bear’s sex. Maybe this is something the VBHA can do to create a better buffer without alienating so many other hunters?
I do believe this matter would receive much less opposition if the price of a bear license was more in line with the price of a deer/turkey license. I also believe it would see more support if the VDGIF staff had brought it forward instead of the two associations that did.
Bear hunters are sorry examples of hunters. I have never thought that shooting a bear that is perched in a tree is much of hunting. I do not want to see a separate bear hunting license. We pay enough already!
Copied comment from above.
“26.Randy,
I agree 100%. Hunters should stick together. My comment about hound bear hunters is just a return shot. The hound bear hunters want a separate tag for bears so that a bow/muzzleloader/rifle deer hunter won’t take a lucky shot at one of their bears. They do not like the idea of a deer hunter happening across a bear and shooting it. They prefer the idea of only bear hunters shooting a bear and that a separate tag would stop a lot of this.
When hound hunting was being questioned the other year I stood behind them. However they seem to want to separate the hunters, not me.
Comment by TScottW — March 3, 2011 @ 6:54 am”
Bingo! I used to bear hunt with dogs and I am around hound hunters all the time where I live and they really feel this way. They feel like they own every bear that walks.