8 Responses to “California bear hunting: Stop proposal to expand bear hunting!”

1. laila Says:
   March 17th, 2010 at 8:41 am

   This is ridiculous. Is there a way we can help to stop this and save the bears?

2. Stephanie Woodyard Says:
   April 1st, 2010 at 12:29 pm

   April 1, 2010
   California Fish and Game Commission
   1416 Ninth Street
   P.O. Box 944209
   Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

   Via email: fgc@fgc.ca.gov, Director@dfg.ca.gov, eloft@dfg.ca.gov

   Dear California Fish and Game Commission:

   It hurt me greatly to hear of the proposed changes to expand black bear hunting. Our planet ‘s
   environment is so precious and we need not cave in to the twisting of arms by those with hunting
   interests and those who have mega bucks to exert coercions on others in office to make changes
   in the current black bear hunting rules regarding hunting season, expanded numbers of bears
   that can shot and killed and the allowance of devices and dog tracking devices that makes hunting
   no longer a sport – but a kind of “let’s go shopping for a bear.”

   I oppose the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) proposals to expand
   black bear hunting. The agency recently unveiled plans to: allow an unlimited number
   of bears to be killed across California during the hunting season; permit the use of high-tech
   global positioning equipment and “tip switches” on hound collars to make it easy
   to locate and kill a bear; open the first-ever bear hunting season in San Luis Obispo
   county and expand the hunts in Modoc and Lassen counties; and significantly expand
   the hound training season, allowing hounds to harass bears nearly all year long. I
   urge you to reject these proposals because they are scientifically indefensible,
   unnecessary, and environmentally harmful. Specifically, I contend the Commission
   should oppose CDFG’s plans for the following reasons:

   The agency has not demonstrated any need for these regulatory changes other
   than to placate hunting interests, nor does the CDFG provide sufficient
   information to assess the detrimental effects these changes may have on bears.
   According to CDFG data, the number of bears killed legally by hunters has steadily
   increased well beyond the agency’s own 1,700 annual season limit. Yet, the CDFG
   has yet to analyze how these dramatic increases have affected state and local bear
   populations, behavior, social structure, reproduction, and cubs. Increasing the quota
   or eliminating the cap altogether will further stress the state’s bear population and
   put some local populations at risk.

   2. There is no guarantee that expanding hunting into San Luis Obispo, Lassen, or
   Modoc counties will not adversely impact the black bear population in those
   counties. The CDFG has not conducted specific research in these counties to
   determine the size, distribution, or demographics of the populations to assess
   whether these local bear populations can withstand an increase in hunting activity.

   An expansion of bear hunting will place additional pressures on bears, who face a
   host of threats from poaching, habitat alteration, human encroachment into wildlife
   areas, aggressive government lethal control programs, and climate change.

   State wildlife officials have failed to assess the impacts of poaching. Illegal killing
   of bears has increased world-wide, fueled by a booming market, for bear parts,
   especially bear gallbladders used in traditional Asian medicine and bear paws,
   considered a delicacy in soup. Bear gallbladders can go for $5,000 a pound.
   Poaching of wildlife has become epidemic across the state. Violations rose from
   6,538 in 2003 to 17,840 in 2007. The illegal sale of California wildlife and wildlife
   parts generates an estimated $100 million a year, second only to the illegal drug
   trade, according to CDFG officials. Yet, the state has fewer than 200 game wardens
   patrolling 300,000 square miles of land and water. It makes no sense to expand bear
   hunting when state wildlife law enforcement capabilities are so crippled. Permitting
   hunters to use GPS devices on hounds will only exacerbate poaching.

   Trophy hunting ignores the ecological value of bears. Apex species, such as bears,
   cougars, and wolves, play critical roles in maintaining ecosystems. Black bears often
   scavenge for food, playing an important role in recycling carrion. Bears also help
   transport berry seeds. Along salmon spawning streams, bear scat and the remains of
   fish carried into the woods contribute to the long-term nutrient cycle in old-growth
   forest. Even cambium feeding by bears, which sometimes kills trees, creates widely
   scattered snags that benefit other species of wildlife.

   Hound hunting of bears is unsporting, unethical, and environmentally harmful.
   In California, bears can be legally chased by hounds, treed, and then shot by
   hunters. Hounds have been known to pursue bears with cubs, increasing the risk
   that cubs could be separated from their mothers, then orphaned. It is not
   uncommon for hounds to maim bears, especially cubs, and even more common for
   bears to maim or kill an entire pack of hounds. In addition, hounds may pursue
   non-targeted animals, including imperiled species, putting additional stress on
   those species. Allowing hunters to place GPS devices and tip switches on hounds
   will inevitably make it much easier for hunters, as well as poachers, to kill more
   bears.

   Hunting does not reduce conflicts with bears. Trophy hunters target the largest
   bears who may look good on a wall or as a throw rug, not the young males who are
   primarily responsible for conflicts. Furthermore, hunting takes place far from
   homes, while so-called “problem bears” usually live in the urban-suburban
   interface. Shooting bears at random is as effective at reducing conflicts as shooting
   into a crowded room is at reducing crime. And using hunting as an aggressive and
   expansive lethal control of bears ignores the root cause of bear-human conflicts.
   Most encounters with bears are the result of irresponsible human behavior (e.g.
   landowners who refuse to depose of garbage properly).

   Hunting of bears puts the public at risk. California is densely populated state and
   many people recreate in bear country. Since hunting hounds are usually off-leash,
   3 packs of hounds may trespass onto private land, harass companion, farm, and ranch
   animals, and destroy private property. The presence of packs of hunting hounds
   also disturbs the peace and tranquility of those who recreate in the backcountry.
   I therefore urge you to reject the CDFG’s proposals to expand bear hunting in
   California.

   Sincerely,

   Stephanie Woodyard
   Sierra Club Member
   Email: stephanie.woodyard@pamc.net

3. Kari Hohne Says:
   April 10th, 2010 at 3:40 pm

   If you are a member of Facebook, use this link to join the cause on Facebook, recruit your friends and educate others about CA Fish & Games Proposal. We started a similar cause for a sea turtle nesting area threatened by development in Mexico and actually were able to stop it.
   http://www.causes.com/causes/468303?m=f35d0ccf

4. S. Smith Says:
   April 21st, 2010 at 2:53 pm

   It is great that the tragic proposal has been withdrawn. It is a testament to all the people that cared enough to oppose a wrong. Maybe there is hope for people? Well, some people anyway.

5. David M. Says:
   October 19th, 2010 at 6:36 am

   If they were proposing such a plan, there is no way it would be done in malice. Wildlife departments don’t set regulations in attempts to punish wildlife, despite what you may think. You blindly wish for things to be fair, but that will never when it comes to humans and wild animals. This is because we are the dominate species and have higher functioning brains… well, most of us. If a plan like this came up, it is simply due to something such as overpopulation or bears wondering into areas inhabited by humans. Although they look cute and cuddly, bears are very dangerous animals and can be extremely harmful to humans and property. I realize that many of you bleeding hearts would give more rights to wild animals than to human beings, but in no way should an animals rights be placed above the safety of any human, even ones such as yourselves, despite my better judgment. Maybe you should find yourselves with a wild bear in your backyard while your children play. Maybe that would alter your ultra-liberal perception.

6. a Says:
   October 27th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

   wow you people are so stupid. try pulling your head out of your ass and realize that if bear hunting is gone whats stopping mr 500 plus lb bear from walking in and killing someone huh exactly

7. moncler uk Says:
   December 12th, 2011 at 2:49 pm

   Valuable information. Lucky me I discovered your site by accident, and I’m surprised why this accident didn’t came about earlier! I bookmarked it.

8. jake k. Says:
   December 16th, 2011 at 4:14 pm

   I stumbled upon this sight by accident and am disgusted by all the stupid activists saying how this is animal cruelity. If it werent for hunters then a big 600lb. bear could come walking up and kill your whole fasmily in a second. Get your head out of your freakin asses and actually think about something before you go about protesting for the stop of bear hunting.

   P.s. does anyone know what caliber they got this bear with and what bullets?

Leave a Reply