Re: montana bear hunting with hounds
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:42 pm
I have been doing some research and many of you will be pleased to know that hound hunting is good for bears. Ok, not so good for the ones that are killed, but it is good for the species. The number of human/bear conflicts is DRAMATICALLY lower in areas that allow hound hunting. The result of chasing bears with hounds is that many bears are not euthanized that would be if they were not aversely conditioned to humans. Idaho and Montana make a good comparison; they have similar harvest numbers and share a border, and have distinctly different hunting methods. This study done in Washington State in 2007 gives a lot of great information:
How agencies respond to human–black bear conflicts: a survey of wildlife agencies in North America
Rocky D. Spencer1, Richard A. Beausoleil2, and Donald A. Martorello
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501, USA
In it, a chart on population and complaint numbers give us this info, MT has about 16,500 bears and has 250 complaints per year and is increasing. Idaho on the other hand has 20,000 bears and has 35 complaints per year and they are considered a minor issue. Now keep in mind that this study is 4 years old, and recently one area in Idaho has had a rash of bear complaints. In the Selkirk/Cabinet Mt area of Boundary County, they have approx. 750 complaints per year! At first glance this may cause reason to believe that perhaps my initial assessment was incorrect, however that particular area of that county does not allow baiting or hound hunting due to its status as grizzly bear recovery area with about 30-40 griz in the county. The evidence also shows that hound hunting is enough of a deterrent to the bears, that the use of human foods at bait stations is negated as a potential cause for more conflicts with humans. Overall, Montana has 4 complaints per 10,000 people, whereas Idaho has less than 1 per 10,000.
Another reference worthy of note is Idaho Fish and Game's progress report from 2009. In it they give harvest numbers combined with harvest methods, so it is great ammunition for those who complain that hound hunters will kill too many bears. The study reveals that:
"Bear baiting is allowed across most of the state, and 35% of bears were harvested using this technique. Still hunting and stalking accounted for 31% of the harvest, incidental harvest accounted for 17%, and hound hunting for 16%."
Since both states harvest about 1350 bears per year, Montana could expect about 216 more bears per year to be harvested (16% of 1350). Of course we must keep in mind that hound hunting is the only method of "catch and release hunting" available. Therefore, after perhaps an initial spike in bears harvested, many bear hunters will elect to harvest only the trophy quality bears they tree, I know many hound hunters and regardless of their big game species of choice, bear, lion etc., after getting their first one, many, if not most choose to wait to harvest the “big one” due to the very high cost of taxidermy, especially the full body mounts commonly seen in predators. The advantage of hound hunting bears is not the numbers harvested, but rather the number of bears seen in a season. The potential is to see more bears each season and to be able to give a more thorough inspection of the bears before shooting. The result will be a decrease in the number of immature bears killed each season, and that is something that I hope everyone will agree is a good thing.
How agencies respond to human–black bear conflicts: a survey of wildlife agencies in North America
Rocky D. Spencer1, Richard A. Beausoleil2, and Donald A. Martorello
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501, USA
In it, a chart on population and complaint numbers give us this info, MT has about 16,500 bears and has 250 complaints per year and is increasing. Idaho on the other hand has 20,000 bears and has 35 complaints per year and they are considered a minor issue. Now keep in mind that this study is 4 years old, and recently one area in Idaho has had a rash of bear complaints. In the Selkirk/Cabinet Mt area of Boundary County, they have approx. 750 complaints per year! At first glance this may cause reason to believe that perhaps my initial assessment was incorrect, however that particular area of that county does not allow baiting or hound hunting due to its status as grizzly bear recovery area with about 30-40 griz in the county. The evidence also shows that hound hunting is enough of a deterrent to the bears, that the use of human foods at bait stations is negated as a potential cause for more conflicts with humans. Overall, Montana has 4 complaints per 10,000 people, whereas Idaho has less than 1 per 10,000.
Another reference worthy of note is Idaho Fish and Game's progress report from 2009. In it they give harvest numbers combined with harvest methods, so it is great ammunition for those who complain that hound hunters will kill too many bears. The study reveals that:
"Bear baiting is allowed across most of the state, and 35% of bears were harvested using this technique. Still hunting and stalking accounted for 31% of the harvest, incidental harvest accounted for 17%, and hound hunting for 16%."
Since both states harvest about 1350 bears per year, Montana could expect about 216 more bears per year to be harvested (16% of 1350). Of course we must keep in mind that hound hunting is the only method of "catch and release hunting" available. Therefore, after perhaps an initial spike in bears harvested, many bear hunters will elect to harvest only the trophy quality bears they tree, I know many hound hunters and regardless of their big game species of choice, bear, lion etc., after getting their first one, many, if not most choose to wait to harvest the “big one” due to the very high cost of taxidermy, especially the full body mounts commonly seen in predators. The advantage of hound hunting bears is not the numbers harvested, but rather the number of bears seen in a season. The potential is to see more bears each season and to be able to give a more thorough inspection of the bears before shooting. The result will be a decrease in the number of immature bears killed each season, and that is something that I hope everyone will agree is a good thing.