onX Maps
California F&W New Bear Plan
Bears
Contributors to this thread:
DL 24-Apr-24
BOHNTR 24-Apr-24
elkmtngear 24-Apr-24
BOHNTR 24-Apr-24
Matt 24-Apr-24
BOHNTR 24-Apr-24
spike78 24-Apr-24
DL 24-Apr-24
DL 24-Apr-24
Rgiesey 24-Apr-24
Matt 24-Apr-24
From: DL
24-Apr-24

DL's embedded Photo
DL's embedded Photo
Looks like they’re about to screw hunters again.

From: BOHNTR
24-Apr-24
Why?

From: elkmtngear
24-Apr-24
Yep, CommieFornia Fish and Wildlife loves their predators!

From: BOHNTR
24-Apr-24
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like they are wanting to manage bears by regions (units) instead of just the entire state as a whole? If so, that’s probably a better way of properly managing the resource so regions that do not support a robust population of bears are not over harvested??? You know, like how most other western states manage bears???

From: Matt
24-Apr-24

Matt's Link
DL, guessing you didn't review the draft plan? It highlights that the abundant resource (estimated 65,405 black bear population, line 1,085) could support an annual sustainable take of 10,400 bears (15.9% of the population, line 556), but that there is an artificial limit of 1,700 which would require changes to the underlying law to address (line 1,018). There are other references to the challenges that are presented with increasing harvest, but they seem to be making the case that increased harvest is possible and, in some instances, preferable.

The department was separately exploring offering a second bear tag.

Roy, they are proposing bear management on a region basis (map p. 43), although that likewise would require a change in the law. Opening up the law has long been considered to be a significant risk, as the public could just as easily apply pressure to have bear hunting prohibited as expanded (which is biologically/scientifically supportable).

From: BOHNTR
24-Apr-24
Thanks, Matt. I agree, always a risk there, especially in that state! I've always felt that when they implemented the 'statewide' bear hunt with their annual quota(s), they should have created units at that time so they could manage them more effectively.....that was even suggested by the CBH legislative representative at the time if I recall.

Good luck, guys! That state has ample amount of bears, as we saw! :)

From: spike78
24-Apr-24
Yeah it’s gonna turn into a don’t feed the bears and we won’t have any conflicts therefore we don’t need to shoot them just like NJ and CT.

From: DL
24-Apr-24
Matt you’re correct I could not pull up the entire report. Without hounds I really doubt even a second tag will have increase the amount very much. It’s lower than 1500 now isn’t it? Then there’s the idiots like those in the Tahoe Basin that have posted signs to feed the bears to keep them healthy. Read that on a F&W site. I’m skeptical about anything the commission comes up with. Was there anything in there about Grizzly bear reintroduction?

From: DL
24-Apr-24

DL's Link
Then there’s these idiots. I don’t know what they think they would eat here? Two choices Livestock and People.

From: Rgiesey
24-Apr-24
Biologists don’t do well counting bears. Don’t predict it will end well.

From: Matt
24-Apr-24

Matt's Link
IMO CA DFW is actually making pretty good strides in more accurately estimating the bear population. They had the population in the mid-high 30K range just a couple of years ago, and now they estimate it at 63k. Some of this data came out just before the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit to challenge the hunt based on inadequate population survey work to support the hunt.

They are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to policy in terms of public opinion/politics and biology.

  • Sitka Gear