Letter to WDFW regarding 2009-2011 Bear Hunting Rule Change Proposals

[shanevg]

**Update** - even more changes - I hope you don't mind Abolt338 - I took some of your ideas from your letter, just let me know if you don't want me to have these.

I have composed a letter to WDFW regarding the new proposals we have probably all read by now.  I have decided to split up my letters by species.  I will be writing them concerning Bear, Mountain Goat, Deer, and Elk.  So far, I have only completed my bear letter, but I will definitely post my other letters when they are completed.  I am posting the letter so that you guys can read through it and comment if you think any changes are necessary.  I won't necessarily make all changes suggested... but you get the idea.  I have also posted it so anyone who feels the same I do can email or send the same letter (or a slightly modified version of it) to WDFW to make our voices heard.  Hopefully the flood of emails and letters will convince them to change some of these ridiculous proposals.  Again, feel free to send this as your own letter and make any changes to it you feel are necessary.  I will probably send it in tonight (both by email and snail mail!)




After reading through the new hunting proposals for the 2009-2011 seasons, I am very concerned about a number of issues.  One issue that concerns me is the proposed change in bear hunting rules stating:

"For BBMUs that open Aug 1, the Aug 1-31 period is limited to hunting on private lands only. The justification for this change is to reduce conflict with other recreational users on public lands during the summer while still allowing bears to be harvested for damage reasons (e.g., orchard damage)."

This rule is a giant change from the past rules and very frustrating for an avid bear hunter such as myself.  It seems that this proposed rule change is a knee jerk reaction to the Sauk Mountain incident of August 2008.  This new rule change says very little for compromise between the two recreational groups at conflict (hikers and hunters) as a result of the incident, and more of a way to appease the hikers. 

The August 1 bear opener provides an opportunity to hunt when no other big-game seasons are available. As a positive consequence, bear hunters have an entire month to spend in the woods before the majority of big-game hunters - deer hunters, elk hunters, etc. - fill popular public hunting grounds. Because of this, August is the ideal month for serious bear hunters to fill their tag – long before bears become spooked by a massive influx of other hunters.

The proposal states that moving opening day to September 1 aims to “reduce conflict with other recreational users on public lands.” In theory, this makes sense. It begs the question, however, “what is the actual justification for the decision?”

In my experience, as the season currently stands, there is very little conflict between these two groups. Most bear hunters make it a point to access areas away from people. When they do encounter other people, most hunters – who are well aware that they are under a microscope – make certain to act with respect and avoid any negative interaction.

Is it a coincidence that just this last season, a young bear hunter accidently shot and killed a hiker during the August season? I would wager not. But let us not forget that this accident was the first of its kind in the last twenty-five years. That’s a quarter century of harmless interaction between hunters and other recreational users.  I fully understand how terrible of an accident the Sauk Mountain incident was.  And worst yet, the accident was not wholely a result of too many hikers mixing with hunters, it was the result an unsupervised and careless minor who disregarded some of the most basic fundamentals of hunting when he took his shot.  There are talks of increasing the minimum hunting age, particularly the age at which hunters are allowed to hunt alone, this seems to be a reasonable response to this accident, not the complete elimination of a large portion of the bear hunting season. Is the proposed season change justified based on one accident and the emotional public discourse that followed?

Some hunters, like myself, are limited in their hunting opportunities. For some, the August bear season is the only opportunity to pursue big-game. College students who have to return to campus before September, high-school students who have extra-curricular commitments once the school year begins, these are just a couple examples of people who this change affects.  But closing down hunting seasons on all public lands for the entire month of August not only seems to be a bit of overkill, it also completely disregards any form of compromise between the hikers and the hunters.

If in fact a compromise is necessary between hikers and hunters beyond just increasing the minimum hunting age and requiring minors to be accompanied by an adult, there are many, more satisfactory possibilities that would appease both sides of the issue.  A great way to deal with an issue such as this is to look at the way that other states deal with similar issues.  In Colorado for example, the Mountain Goat hunts take place on very popular hiking/climbing trails.  In order to deal with hunter/hiker conflict, the state permits allow for hunters to hunt Monday through Friday only.  Saturday and Sunday (the days which are more popular for hikers) are hunter free for the safety of the hikers.  It would be very easy to implement this kind of rule in Washington during the month of August for bear hunting.  It may be wise to make this rule take effect only on hiking trails in National Forest where hikers are most prominent.  There are many wilderness areas not accessible by trail where hunters frequent but seeing a hiker is particularly unusual.  This option would also allow all forms of hunting to be open and still allow hiker's there sense of comfort during hunting season.  If they want to avoid the hunters, just hike on the weekends.

Furthermore, the danger of hunters to hikers comes in the form of modern firearms.  When hunting with a modern firearm, it is much easier for an accidental discharge, or a rushed shot to have catastrophic, unwanted results.  Muzzleloaders on the other hand are much less dangerous as the hunter must be within 100 yards of their target before they can even take a shot.  And archery is even less dangerous as it is hard for a hunter to shoot a target over 50 yards and therefore essentially impossible to mistake a person or any other unwanted target for a bear.  If public land hunting needs to be closed down in the month of August to protect the increased number of hikers on the field, then WDFW should only cloes down the weapons that pose a threat to hikers, modern firearms.

This raises another issue, many hikers support the new proposal to close down hunting on public lands altogether in the month of August.  This is because they don't want to see any hunters out on "their trails."  But an effort must be made on the part of WDFW and the Forest Service and any other interested party to compromise between the different recreational users.  The forest service and wilderness land is available for all forms of recreation, including hiking, climbing, skiing, and hunting.  It is not the purpose of the WDFW to close down a form of recreation in order to "protect" hikers from what they do not want to see (namely a hunter shooting, or packing out a bear.)  I understand that it is vital for WDFW to think of the safety of all citizens including hunters, hikers, and climbers which is why I have already pointed out that there is no need to close down muzzleloader or archery hunting for bear in the month of August on public lands.

There are further ideas that would be a better compromise than the current proposal which would also allow modern firearm hunters to take part in hunting.  One of the best ideas is to allow Forest Service to close down certain "high volume" hiking trails for hunting access in the month of August.  This is probably another great compromise because a lot of areas people bear hunt (such as logged out forests in Capital Forest) do not even see many hikers on a regular basis and are more of a place for hunters to spend time.  Sauk Mountain is a particularly "high volume" hiking trail which probably contributed greatly to the incident that occurred last August.  It may also be feasible to close down National Forests for bear hunting in August leaving DNR, WDFW land, and Wilderness land open to hunters.   

As you can see, your new proposal a needless closure of a huge hunting opportunity for needless reasons.  The closure is not in place to protect bear populations but as a "knee jerk" reaction to the Sauk Mountain incident and to protect hikers and other recreational users.  There are many ways to protect hikers that are better than closing down all public land hunting in the month of August.  I have included a short list of possible solutions and I am sure there are many more.  Please take these ideas into consideration before permanently closing down all bear hunting in the month of August on public lands.

Concerned hunter,

[yelp]

I like it.

[woodywsu]

I like the letter and more need to be sent, but attempting to relate the Sauk incident with modern firearms is absolutely ridiculous. How can you justify that? The blame should be strictly on the parents. No minor should be hunting with any weapon without supervision.

Several people on this board have stated that as hunters we need to stand together. Your letter attempts to segregate hunters. That is a bad idea from what we as hunters have coming.

[Bofire]

Legal definition of "private lands and public lands" please.

[WDFW-SUX]

This August Bear issue sets an awful precedent...........what if a Mt biker is shot in the Methow in say..........October then what

[Ridgerunner]

Well written I don't like the idea of giving them more ideas on closing certain areas becuase of hiker use. 

I think we need to fight for the entire state to be open the entire month.  If there is enough of a stink the WDFW can go back to the Queen or whatever legistlatures told them to float this proposal becuase it did not come from sound game management.  If it did it would be in teh 2009-2015 game management plan.  Show it to me in there.

[shanevg]

I like the letter and more need to be sent, but attempting to relate the Sauk incident with modern firearms is absolutely ridiculous. How can you justify that? The blame should be strictly on the parents. No minor should be hunting with any weapon without supervision.

Several people on this board have stated that as hunters we need to stand together. Your letter attempts to segregate hunters. That is a bad idea from what we as hunters have coming.

I am definitely not trying to segregate the different forms of hunters, I am stating the facts.  A modern firearm poses much more danger to hikers than either a muzzleloader or bow.  It is possible for a modern firearm hunter to shoot 400+ yards, a range at which it is much more difficult to properly identify a target.  With archery equipment, you have to be within 50 yards, w/ muzzleloader I stated 100 yards even though I know w/ some guns you can accurately shoot farther.  These comments in my letter are not to segregate different forms of hunting, but to encourage the WDFW to consider more of a compromise on this issue.  As far as danger to hikers go, archery poses none, muzzleloaders only slightly more, and firearms only slightly more, but if they have to close something, then don't close everything!

[shanevg]

Well written I don't like the idea of giving them more ideas on closing certain areas becuase of hiker use. 

I think we need to fight for the entire state to be open the entire month.  If there is enough of a stink the WDFW can go back to the Queen or whatever legistlatures told them to float this proposal becuase it did not come from sound game management.  If it did it would be in teh 2009-2015 game management plan.  Show it to me in there.

I understand what you are saying, but in my opinion, there is a problem in some areas with increased number of hikers.  For example, up by Mount Baker, if you were hunting by Chain Lakes where there definitely are bears, you will run into literally 100's of hikers on any given day.  I am not against something reasonable being done about that.  Unluckily, it looks like something will be done, so lets propose some reasonable ideas instead of stupid "knee-jerk" reactions.

This where I mentioned in my original post: "Please send in something regarding this issue, feel free to use my letter as a template.  But if you don't agree with it, also feel free to make any changes you deem necessary."  I do appreciate your input, keep them coming.

[WDFW-SUX]

People this is a cop out.........Colorado has the same issues with mt goat Hiker / Hunter conflicts in some of the popular areas and they have hunting in all of them.

They open the goat season during weekdays and close them on the weekends when the hikers are most likely to be using the trails...........If WDFW wanted to help hunters they could have done that but they didnt...........just another cop out.

[shanevg]

People this is a cop out.........Colorado has the same issues with mt goat Hiker / Hunter conflicts in some of the popular areas and they have hunting in all of them.

They open the goat season during weekdays and close them on the weekends when the hikers are most likely to be using the trails...........If WDFW wanted to help hunters they could have done this but they didnt...........just another cop out.

Which is why I proposed that very idea in my letter (although I was not aware that they did this in Colorado so I will have to add that.)

[woodywsu]

Trying to associate which weapon kills hikers easier is retarded. This should not be your "facts" for supporting archery/ML seasons. WDFW can come up with a better system for allowing hunting on public lands. Public lands are managed for several hobbies and recreational activities. You should be pushing more for a weekday hunt compared to a banning of modern firearms. Also, that hiker could have been easily shot with a muzzle loader. 120 yards is nothing these days for ML.

[Machias]

I realize this is happening due to the Sauk Mt incident.  And everyone here is up in arms and should be, but folks they did this 6 years ago in NE WA and NO ONE was the least bit concerned then.  I was at one of the three year meetings 6 years ago when the proposed closing the NE until after Labor Day so as to avoid conflicts with other user groups, ie hikers and campers.  When folks at that meeting got a little upset they changed their tune and said oh well actually we have too many sows being killed and that is why we want a later season so some of the vegitation is knocked down by the frost and sows will have a better chance to make it.  Three years after that meeting I went to the next meeting and asked them how the later season had done protecting sows.....they looked at me like a three headed monster, they had no clue what I was talking about.  They have done this before, just covertly and got away with it without nary a word from the sportsmen of this state.

[shanevg]

Trying to associate which weapon kills hikers easier is retarded. This should not be your "facts" for supporting archery/ML seasons. WDFW can come up with a better system for allowing hunting on public lands. Public lands are managed for several hobbies and recreational activities. You should be pushing more for a weekday hunt compared to a banning of modern firearms. Also, that hiker could have been easily shot with a muzzle loader. 120 yards is nothing these days for ML.

I said modern firearms poses a greater danger, not that they kill hikers.

Also, I have changed the letter to word this point better more in agreement with what you are saying.  I hope this wording is more agreeable.

I realize this is happening due to the Sauk Mt incident.  And everyone here is up in arms and should be, but folks they did this 6 years ago in NE WA and NO ONE was the least bit concerned then.  I was at one of the three year meetings 6 years ago when the proposed closing the NE until after Labor Day so as to avoid conflicts with other user groups, ie hikers and campers.  When folks at that meeting got a little upset they changed their tune and said oh well actually we have too many sows being killed and that is why we want a later season so some of the vegitation is knocked down by the frost and sows will have a better chance to make it.  Three years after that meeting I went to the next meeting and asked them how the later season had done protecting sows.....they looked at me like a three headed monster, they had no clue what I was talking about.  They have done this before, just covertly and got away with it without nary a word from the sportsmen of this state.

Well hopefully, the more widespread and public nature if this proposal will stop something like that from happening again.

[woodywsu]

It's your letter, you can write it any way you want it. However, I feel that it is a bad idea to state that modern firemarms poses a greater danger to hikers. I would just hate to see WDFW and other agencies to run with this banning of modern firearms because they are more dangerous. We need to protect our gun rights and I feel that this is opening the door to bad news.

[Dmanmastertracker]

Trying to associate which weapon kills hikers easier is retarded. This should not be your "facts" for supporting archery/ML seasons. WDFW can come up with a better system for allowing hunting on public lands. Public lands are managed for several hobbies and recreational activities. You should be pushing more for a weekday hunt compared to a banning of modern firearms. Also, that hiker could have been easily shot with a muzzle loader. 120 yards is nothing these days for ML.

 Do you even bowhunt? How could you say a rifle does not allow you to kill from a distance far greater than archery. Ignoring the realities doesn't "create" any greater comfort zone between hunter's and the State. The alternating days of use is potentially a great idea, nonetheless, a tool to prevent further takeaway's would be adding archery opportunitie's to area's currently closed to gun hunting in "no shooting" zones. I don't get why people view that as a potential takeaway, not logical.