From what I've read, they have found that relocating problem bears doesn't work well anyway. They have a very well-developed homing instinct and usually make their way right back to where they were originally trapped.
Welcome Guest!
Bear hunting...while you still can.
- Thread starter jerry russell
- Start date
Hopefully it will sooner or later. As much as I would love to see a season where you can still-hunt bears with no dogs, I don't want to see it at the expense of destroying a very old, valuable and honorable tradition.
jbogg
Senior Member
It is a shame that this thread has devolved into some name calling and piling on. I realize emotions run high on both sides of this issue, I have made it clear where I stand on this, and I think others have as well. The quickest way to kill a good robust debate is for people to start making insinuations and assumptions. Where someone lives should have nothing to do with their right to voice an opinion. All these references that I have seen on here referring to local mountain folks not putting up with Yankees coming down and telling them how to live has no place in this discussion. Using that logic I could turn it around and say that some administrator that lives in North Carolina should not be telling me how we should hunt here in Georgia. It cuts both ways. If The name calling and the piling on continues we will have people going elsewhere. At some point you end up with a small like-minded group and that doesn’t benefit anyone.
Last edited:
All the while ignoring the initial hostile/superior attitude and insults of those you agree with, along with comments about "murdering" of bears by fellow hunters, which started the whole pileup. I want to hear your opinion and consider it. Until you start shoving it down my throat, and telling me that I'm too ignorant to understand it, instead of conceding that my opinion might have just as much validity as yours. I honestly do not believe that this dog hunt has destroyed bear hunting forever in north GA, as the OP seemed to believe; any more than I believe the alarmist global warming folks when they say that we will die in 12 years if we don't "do something." Emotional feelings about something doesn't make it a fact.
And btw, an imaginary line on the ground doesn't separate the people of a natural region who are kin and share the same culture. The previous two generations of my family were born and raised in the north GA mountains. The people or their culture don't change when you go from Clayton to Franklin. They might when you go from Clayton to Boston.
Last edited:
jbogg
Senior Member
We could go back-and-forth all day hillbilly if only we had time. Like it or not there IS an imaginary line on that ground, and and while the culture and Kin may be synonymous, I don’t want the same hunting that is practiced in North Carolina to become the rule of the day in Georgia. A three week gun season. No thank you. Now that hound hunters have a foot in the door I worry that it’s just a matter of time.
spurrs and racks
Banned
some of the finest bear hunting with dogs is in the Ga, NC, Tenn corner....
it's not going to stop
it's not going to stop
Buckman18
Senior Member
I agree, even though I am cautiously open to bringing in some hound hunting where it makes sense we don't want none of the rules, regs, or politics from NC here in our state.
Sadly enough, if we had more than those three weeks of rifle season here in western NC, we wouldn't have any deer within a few years, likely. I really wish that they would take away our one either-sex day in a way, at least for a decade or so.
BTW, that three-week season is just in the far-western mountain counties. The game zones in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of NC, where there is a really good deer population has a much more liberal season more similar to GA. I would like to see more selective timber harvest here. That would do more good than about anything else for deer and grouse.
I would also agree with you in that you definitely don't want a NC-style law that opens all bear season to dog hunting. As I have complained about before, it makes still-hunting bears on public land here almost impossible. Don't let them go that route, you will not like it. But, I also think that limited dog hunts aren't going to have a big negative effect on your bear population, as long as the bears have areas where the dog hunts aren't allowed, and they aren't season-long. One option would be to have them later in the year, which would reduce the numbers of females killed as they go off to den up much earlier than the males. I would agree that the timing of this one wasn't the best. I think that there is a way to work out room for both. I wish we could here.
Last edited:
Buckman18
Senior Member
It still blows my mind that still hunters cant shoot bears. On the length of deer season, i dont think lengthening the season would make a huge difference. Hunter harvest is not the root of the deer problem, and there arent very many harvested to begin with, and there are 1000's of acres of NF thats more than 1/2 mile from the road do not get enough pressure to make a difference one way or the other. At least here in GA.
There is no rule that still-hunters can't shoot bears, it's just a side effect of the whole bear season being open to dog hunting. The bears pretty much go nocturnal after the first day of the season. You can still do good still hunting on private land if you have access to a good chunk where nobody runs dogs. Public land is pretty much out of the picture, though.
Buckman18
Senior Member
Can you not shoot them during the ML season? I thought you just posted something of the like recently? Im still struggling with literacy so I may have fouled that up somehow?
Nope. Because muzzleloader season for deer here in the western zone is usually the first two weeks of October, and bear season doesn't open until the third Monday of October.Can you not shoot them during the ML season? I thought you just posted something of the like recently? Im still struggling with literacy so I may have fouled that up somehow?
I agree. No need for anyone to leave because their opinion differ. Do you feel the OP and Mr Sautee didn’t make any backhanded comments in their posts? It works both ways as you stated. They drew first blood by “educating” us poor hillbillies in a condescending way. We may have retaliated a bit less tactful but the end result was insult for insult. In no way is that a justifiable excuse but you get smart and people get smart back!
humdandy
Banned
I did not read that into either of their posts. I read it as being more frustrated with the way the hunt was handled and the DNR..........pretty sure one said he has hunted with hounds and owns one...
There is no way for me to predict how people will read my post or read into any posts I make.
That’s a fair assessment, and an honest one. Maybe everyone had a knee jerk reaction to protect our opinions. I don’t have a problem with differing opinions at all. My dearest friends and family can all sit and have a disagreement and still have love for one another. It’s the misrepresentation of facts to argue a case that people get upset about. To my knowledge, there hasn’t been any factual information released by Hammond such as age structure, size, and sex of harvested bears. Hearsay, but not actual data. Therefore, the only reaction people can have is to the number 61 being it’s the only data published thus far. Some have jumped to some wild conclusions and are condemning the DNR, the biologists, and hunters for legally harvesting a renewable natural resource. Those type of attitudes are not well received among hunters because we fight that same battle from the outside everyday. I don’t know everything, but I do know the biologists of our past and present got us to where we are today. We have an over abundance and they are working toward a solution to help bear, hunters, residents in bear country, and the state. Mr. Jerry guides bear hunts and has a hand in killing many more bear than you or I have tags to kill. But he condemns others for killing too many bear. Then Sautee uses data from one man that’s not a scientist and hasn’t been cited in any publications I’ve read nor acknowledged even in North Eastern scientific studies where he is at. He’s not a credible source because Scientists have a strict distinction between captive and wild populations. The only time he is cited are in public formats and media where he is heralded as a rehabilitation expert. That makes the public feel good but it is not science. Have an opinion and leave it at that. When you make up things or cite false information people will discredit you.
https://www.bearbiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Hristienko_Pastuck_15_1_.pdf
I have no idea how to post a document or make it a link. This should calm Jerry and Sautee with some facts about sows and cub orphanage.
-Cubs at 5.5 months and as little as 18 pounds are self sufficient. 50% being an acceptable survivorship rate.
-41 cubs orphaned per year on average makes up less than 2% of cub mortality due to natural causes.
-55% of females harvested in spring seasons were between the age of 2-5. 86% of those females had never had a litter.
-food quality and availability largely influence reproductive potential in an independent-density manner. (Beecham 1980, McLaughlin et al. 1994, Miller 1994, Samson and Huot 1995)
-probability of a 77 pound female ovulating is 36%. No females were recorded under that weight.
-94% of females weighing 176 pounds had young the following spring
-0% of the females weighing less than 147 pounds had young the following spring.
- low lactation rate (6%) of 4 year old females indicates difficulty of young females reaching threshold fall weight required to successfully raise a litter. (Observed by Jolicoeur and Lemieux 1994)
Just a few high points of statistical data by real scientists. This is in Ontario and it states that data is consistent with a number of other research articles and list a bunch that everyone can read for themselves.
I have no idea how to post a document or make it a link. This should calm Jerry and Sautee with some facts about sows and cub orphanage.
-Cubs at 5.5 months and as little as 18 pounds are self sufficient. 50% being an acceptable survivorship rate.
-41 cubs orphaned per year on average makes up less than 2% of cub mortality due to natural causes.
-55% of females harvested in spring seasons were between the age of 2-5. 86% of those females had never had a litter.
-food quality and availability largely influence reproductive potential in an independent-density manner. (Beecham 1980, McLaughlin et al. 1994, Miller 1994, Samson and Huot 1995)
-probability of a 77 pound female ovulating is 36%. No females were recorded under that weight.
-94% of females weighing 176 pounds had young the following spring
-0% of the females weighing less than 147 pounds had young the following spring.
- low lactation rate (6%) of 4 year old females indicates difficulty of young females reaching threshold fall weight required to successfully raise a litter. (Observed by Jolicoeur and Lemieux 1994)
Just a few high points of statistical data by real scientists. This is in Ontario and it states that data is consistent with a number of other research articles and list a bunch that everyone can read for themselves.
Last edited:
Joe Brandon
Senior Member
I want to personally apologize for my sarcasm and ego. As others have said we have to stick together. This is obviously such a passionate issue, I'm sure it will get worked out. Again I appreciate you guys and have learned so much from so many of you.
Heck, I’m the worst one. My wife says I’m relentless. We all in this together, share and let a neighbor enjoy his way and you enjoy yours. I apologize as well for losing focus and slipping in digs occasionally.
Al Medcalf
Senior Member
No apologies from me, I learned a long time ago not to say something that I don't mean
splatek
UAEC
^^ If those data/intuitions are correct, then many of the bear that were maybe run off Chestatee and Chattahoochee will make their way back after they stop hearing and fearing hounds...? Maybe...?
Also, did I miss an official report that broke down how many were taken from each WMA respectively. I know a lot of the talk was about Chattahoochee, and for good reason, but me personally, I am a little more interested in Chestatee; it's a little closer to home and I know the terrain a bit better. I realize Chestatee might not be "prime" bear habitat, but seems like they will go where the food and water are. I would be really interested to hear about those data. I think I hear 61 across both, but then I thought I read 61 at Chattahoochee... If that info is out there, I would appreciate someone letter me know. Cheers!
