Oregon DFW May Be Sued Over Black Bear Plan

Send by email Printer-friendly version Share this

In legal maneuvering that looks similar to anti-hunting groups in New Jersey, an Oregon wildlife group called "Big Wildlife" filed notice that they intend to sue the Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding their black bear management plan. The Mail Tribune has a complete story on the potential lawsuit.

State wildlife managers plan to revamp their black bear management plan almost 13 years later than they were required to and under the threat of a lawsuit from an Applegate Valley-based group that wants sport-hunting suspended until the plan is done. Big Wildlife Program Director Spencer Lennard said the new plan should be much less hunter-oriented and that the general public would rather see a more "cautious" approach that reduces bear killing in sport seasons as well as for damage and nuisances.


jim boyd's picture

I hope this is one of the

I hope this is one of the instances where the anti-hunting group would have been smarter to leave well enough alone!

Maybe this is one of the instance where you poke a sleeping dog and get bitten for your trouble.

Harvesting 1700 of 20,000 to 30,000 seems like a very modest harvest.

If you look at the low end of only 20,000 bears, a harvest of 1700 is only 8.5% of the total bear population.

If you take the total population to 30,000 bears, the 1700 harvested becomes only 5.6%.

That seems a slight harvest by anyone's standards.

Take a look at the name - Big Wildlife - that in itself is a mockery - almost a taunt to me when it comes to a group that opposes hunting.

Here is what I do not get - and I am a black and white kind of guy - where does the anti-hunting sentiment come from in the first place?

Only an idiot would fail to see that hunters HELP wildlife and HELP taxpayers.

Not only do we spend a fortune hunting - and states, businesses, towns - everyone shares in this wealth... AND we help keep taxes low (OK, sorry - the word low and taxes really do not belong in the same sentence) because Federal, state or local administrations would have to create eradication programs to help curb wildlife were it not for hunters.

I would love to see one of these tree hugging idiots after an elk, deer, bear (fill in the blank) totalled out their silly looking little Beamers for the second or third time... then the tune would likely change - and right quick!

It would be nice if these idiots finally realized that these silly little lawsuits actually drive up taxes as a result of legal fees - the lawyers get rich while we accomplish nothing.

Uhhhhggg... disgusted in SC.


Ca_Vermonster's picture

Well, as I was saying in

Well, as I was saying in another post yesterday by hawkeye, these groups will stop at nothing to get what they want, which is the end of hunting.

They will use every and all means and legal loopholes to do so.  They will say there was no study done.  Once the study is done, which will show a healthy herd able to sustain hunting, they will then sue saying that the study was flawed.  When that fails, they'll find something else.

The title even said it, comparing it to the New Jersey anti-hunters.

How'd you like this line too. 

""The numbers don't necessarily mean there are more animals," he said. "It could be that there are less, they're having a hard time and they're stressed."

Talk about an idiot.  I'd like to see his scientific proof on this one. lol