intersting

The science is very clear. Bear population has been increasing under current regulations. Crop depredation and nusiance bear problems on the increase. Population expanding considerably outside the quota zones, a clear indication of high density. Plenty of interest in harvesting bear as indicated by applications and wait time for permits.
But now we need a month long public comment period to let that anti-hunting crowd weigh in to complete the new touchy-feely regulation setting process. Next will be a DEI populated advisory committee.

Some friends of mine run coyotes with hounds. They have been after the state to allow them to run bears for several years.

We had a bear on our deck a couple years ago. It's rare for them to be this far south.

We've noticed a big increase in numbers in my area and seen a lot of damage to crops in the past few years. Not uncommon for a farmer to call me and ask if I can trap a problem bear. Fortunately we are in a no quota area but that still doesn't mean one can harvest a bear.

Looking at some of the areas they might change to no quota I don't think looks very good. One area is where we hunt. It will bring us right back to where we were. There will be a bait behind every tree. I sure hope they really study what changes that are made. I can understand bumping the licences up a bit but wouldn't do it to much. Putting to many hunters in a given area will not help the hunting out any. Just my thought. I was getting drawn every 2 years before and at that time there were to many hunters in the woods.

I would like to see a spring season added. Instead of jamming everyone into a fall season make two different seasons to expand opportunity and regulate numbers.

Expanding non quota areas is disappointing to me, it would be nice to have a more wide spread population but I understand crop damage is a an issue.

This is simple. Up the quota.
Back around 2000 in Northern MN the drawing tags for my area I think were 2500, now down to225 during a twenty year run of increasing bear populations. 2500 tags may have been strong but watching it get slashed year by year made no sense.

Dave Gerallis was in charge of this situation, a bear loving liberal in charge of bear hunting seasons. Brilliant. Then again it’s Minnesota. He ran off some incredibly smart common sense people working under him, Karen Noyce was just one. If he could have closed the season period he absolutely would have. I’m not the only member here that’s run sideways into that condescending narcissist.

Complicate the matter to bore the interested away then do what they want. Toss in a little dog and pony show for visuals. It’s the Minnesota DNR. This is the way.

Osky

Poor reporting by people who don't really know what they are talking about. They are only talking about putting a few small areas into the no-quota, and making 451 no quota. It has already been OTC.

Andy Tri got an earful at the Minnesota Bear Guides Assn. Winter Meeting earlier this month. All he will say is that he is not recommending any decrease in tags. Public pressure is building and I think Dan Stark and Andy Tri both are finally accepting that most people who are in the woods every day believe their new population modeling procedures are flawed. This is a complex issue that can't be fully explained in a TV news bite or in a post like this.

There have been more bears killed in the no-quota area than in the quota area for quite a few years in a row.

when they went from 2 bears to ! in the Non quota area it was NOT done because of science. It was done because of Jealousy from the 1 bear Quota hunters.
We had the 2 bear season for years and our Bear population was still growing. Smaller bears killed but more kills

So hoping the DNR is now using science is just that, a Hope.

I'm deep into the non quota area, bears are very rare here, we have the habitat but they would be in fields. I was honestly hoping we could end up in a quota area and keep a few bears around long term.

Good fellow I know asked me how to go about baiting last year.. he lives in northern Andover Mn if I’m correct. Sent me pics of two different bears on his bait plus a sow with two cubs. One of the bears was a real decent boar. It was trickier than he thought to get an archery shot in good light that close to noisy humans but he was happy passing on the smaller single. Older boy eluded him.

That’s a decent showing of bears within throwing distance of Minneapolis/St. Paul.

Osky

Game division managers went thru college learning that humans will kill every last critter if allowed to do so. That is only true where a lot of humans have easy access to killing critters. Remember, critters will move into unfilled areas if allowed to do so.
Your state needs to have a spring and fall season. No tags, bag lmit 1 bear tho I bet there's areas could go 2. No quota. No sows with cubs, no cubs. Mandatory harvest reporting.
A few years of that and bear problems would go away. Bear pops would likely stabilize. As hunter success decreases due to less bears hunter numbers will fall. Will need to allow baiting.
Baiting is legal in most of Alaska. Even in populated areas. Baiting is work heavy. Average hunter won't participate. Won't sit on a stand for hours. Have your game managers talk to Alaska managers.
There will always be areas of poor or limited access to hold bears that will move into areas with higher harvest.

MT, Minnesota has been in the habit of managing hunters rather then bears.

Largely because hunters were complaining about too much competition

That's true, most of what they have done in the past 10 years has been good, limiting the number of baits, allowing barrels, cutting tags to limit competition. It made for a better quality hunt at first but it has gone way too far and now; it's Way overkill, the quality of hunt available is still there but the hope that hunters would harvest more adult males did work for a while, but now the pendulum has swung way too far the other way. It takes 5-7 years to get a tag. As a guide, I could put hunters on larger adult bears but the attitude of most guided and unguided hunters is more like this: "I waited five years for this tag I am going to shoot a bear. I'm not going to take a chance on waiting for a big one and risk not getting one at all when I won't get to hunt again for another 5 years"

5,326 hunters applied for zone 99 last year. Points creep is not going away any time soon.

To much competition does not help the hunting. If you have baits on top of each other you kill a lot of bears right away but that won't last. Smaller bears will be killed but the rest will go nocturnal. That's the way it was in the area I hunt.

I'm not s bear hunter and live in a no quota zone so I couldn't care less what they do.

What o do know is my time here on earth is limited so if the resource can handle it I would want more opportunity and deal with the competition.

To ask any government bureaucracy to limit hunters to enhance quality of experience and then be surprised they went to far is naive.

Manage the resource not people

Try to keep in mind that we live in a state that is run by an idiot who puts tampons in the boy's rooms in the schools.

The old saying, careful what you ask for


Quality of experience is a devious Midland set