Great post Dogfish.

Onething they are trying to say in justification of this proposal is that there may be a slight decrease in the bear population. Here is a portion of my leter regarding the population.

Yes, upon rebuttal, you may state that the bear population is not growing at the rate it once was, but we are also losing bear habitat faster then ever. Where will the excess go?
By not hunting bears in August we are bound to have more bear/human conflicts especially in times of food shortages. Who will be responsible for removal of these excess bears? F&W? At what expense? I do not want to see F&W or their contractors killing or relocating bear (and coincidentally spending more money) when they could have been legally harvested. It does not make sense to have the department do it when hunters will pay to hunt them.

Year Total
2007 1585
2006 1642
2005 1333
2004 1654
2003 1566
2002 1725
2001 1439
2000 1165
1999 1113
1998 1802
1997 844

We are currently harvesting about 1500 bears a year. That is up about 500 from the pre-ban days of baiting and hound hunting. We have sustained those pre-ban levels or exceeded them for more then 10 years and we are still seeing more bears than ever. This is obviously not about the bear population.

But if there is any concern about the bear population then start by removing the second bear tag. I have not found any data available to the public about how many hunters are successful in filling both tags though my own informal surveys online show it could be about 10 percent of the successful hunters. I have successfully filled both bear tags in four seasons and though this will cut into my hunting time, it would be a decision I would support if it were based on sound management. Removing bear hunters from public lands over a user group issue is not sound management and I will not support it.