Fresh Tracks TV Series Supports The Loss Of Big Game Hunting Opportunities

[Sitka_Blacktail]

If the wilderness advocates were simply advocating to maintain our wilderness areas I would support them, but they never know when to quit wanting more land and the biggest problem is that they all want to create more wilderness in my back yard instead of in their back yard.

Looking at Bob's map I'd say most of the wilderness areas in the state are at the backdoor of Seattle and the I-5 corridor. Pretty much down the spine of the Cascades. Very little wilderness in the eastern half of the State. Now I'm not a lock it up and throw away the key kind of guy. I appreciate multiple use areas. I also appreciate blocks of land off limits to motor vehicles. Deciding the right mix will always be contentious. 

It certainly seems that anyone wanting to take more forest land away from the majority of users is definitely being the most self serving.

I fail to see how a wilderness takes anything away from the majority. I want the majority to experience real wilderness. I don't want them to think a park amid the concrete jungle is wilderness. I want them to appreciate real wilderness. In the long run, that's the only way to protect wilderness and ecosystems is if they have value to the masses. If people don't care about or think about wilderness, wild places will disappear a piece at a time and hunting will disappear too, at least as we know it.

One last thought, the ultimate land tie up is PRIVATE property, not public. And the biggest tie up of all in Washington was giving forestland to timber companies. It's finally coming home to roost.

[bobcat]

The problem with the wilderness areas in Washington state, is that they are the areas that aren't worth anything because they're too steep and rugged, so much so that logging these places isn't worth it. It would be nice to have some roadless and/or wilderness areas in lower elevations and more gentle terrain.

Another thought- wilderness areas would be more productive for deer and elk if people hadn't been putting out fires all these years. Now they're finally letting some of them burn, so hopefully deer and elk habitat in the wilderness areas will improve over time.

[snowpack]

I like wilderness areas. The answer to "how much wilderness is enough" is impossible to answer objectively. More land cannot be designated as wilderness without removing it from some other use. There is a benefit to creating one more parcel of wilderness, but it comes at the cost of removing that parcel from other uses.

Personally, i don't see a compelling need for more wilderness areas in Washington. However, I did find it interesting to read posts on here in September from some early high hunters in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness that experienced wall to wall hunters.

I think part of this is due to the fact that only a few of the wilderness areas are open to the high hunt.  If they opened more (like the William O. or the Wenaha/Tucannon  etc) they could spread folks around and drop the hunter densities.

[JLS]

Another thought- wilderness areas would be more productive for deer and elk if people hadn't been putting out fires all these years. Now they're finally letting some of them burn, so hopefully deer and elk habitat in the wilderness areas will improve over time.

It's interesting how I've always been able to find deer and elk in the biological desert known as the Bob Marshall, usually around old burns.  I think some other members on here have had the same experience.

[idahohuntr]

Another thought- wilderness areas would be more productive for deer and elk if people hadn't been putting out fires all these years. Now they're finally letting some of them burn, so hopefully deer and elk habitat in the wilderness areas will improve over time.

It's interesting how I've always been able to find deer and elk in the biological desert known as the Bob Marshall, usually around old burns.  I think some other members on here have had the same experience.

    I've always had great luck in old burns...archery and rifle elk hunts.

[bearpaw]

Burns or logging, same end result, good for the herds.

I'm not opposed to fires burning in the wilderness, that would greatly help the herds, however, there is a risk that if you let fires go unchecked in the wilderness that they could spread to private lands, populated areas, etc, and cause great losses to innocent people. As in anything, there must be moderations.

Speaking of moderation, the same holds true with this wilderness discussion. There must be moderation, the wilderness advocates never have enough. Even if we created all the wilderness they want today they will be back next year wanting more wilderness because they seem to have no understanding of moderation or consideration for opposing views.

Wilderness advocates probably think of me as a hater of wilderness, quite the opposite is true, I love the wilderness but I understand moderation, I understand that if you make more wilderness you take many opportunities away from many people, I understand that economies suffer when jobs are lost, that grazing, logging, mining, and public access are important to local economies.

There needs to me moderation in all aspects of what we do on earth, simply making more wilderness is not the right answer as it forces more use onto remaining open and accessible areas.

[bearpaw]

If the wilderness advocates were simply advocating to maintain our wilderness areas I would support them, but they never know when to quit wanting more land and the biggest problem is that they all want to create more wilderness in my back yard instead of in their back yard.

Looking at Bob's map I'd say most of the wilderness areas in the state are at the backdoor of Seattle and the I-5 corridor. Pretty much down the spine of the Cascades. Very little wilderness in the eastern half of the State. Now I'm not a lock it up and throw away the key kind of guy. I appreciate multiple use areas. I also appreciate blocks of land off limits to motor vehicles. Deciding the right mix will always be contentious. 

It certainly seems that anyone wanting to take more forest land away from the majority of users is definitely being the most self serving.

I fail to see how a wilderness takes anything away from the majority. I want the majority to experience real wilderness. I don't want them to think a park amid the concrete jungle is wilderness. I want them to appreciate real wilderness. In the long run, that's the only way to protect wilderness and ecosystems is if they have value to the masses. If people don't care about or think about wilderness, wild places will disappear a piece at a time and hunting will disappear too, at least as we know it.

One last thought, the ultimate land tie up is PRIVATE property, not public. And the biggest tie up of all in Washington was giving forestland to timber companies. It's finally coming home to roost.

We have huge blocks which are designate roadless areas and the forest service has actively been removing roads for many years now. You seem to insinuate roads are increasing, they are actually being removed every year. You seem to be thinking in the past on the road and wild places issue.

HHHMMMM interesting comment, private property is the backbone of the US, your comment seems very socialist to me, plenty of other countries like that already! 

[Randy Newberg]

Just back from four days of hunting/filming in an unroaded area of SW Montana.  Thought I would update this thread given the original post was about a backcountry Montana mule deer hunt we filmed and aired last year. 

This hunt is similar in that we hunted near a wilderness area, from a small spike camp we hauled in on our backs.  We passed on four branch antlered bulls and I shot this buck on the third day.  So much for the Toby Bridges theory that these areas are wildife wastelands.

My cameraman, Brad Veis was a great help in getting this buck off the mountain, so it is only fitting to post a picture with him in it.

This episode will air next year and I am sure the Loco Watch crowd will find something else to whine about when they see this one, even with all the animals they will see in the footage.

This buck is smaller than the one we were trying to kill last year in the episode referred to in the original post of this thread.  I will be back next year, investing a week of time trying to kill that big one.

Best of luck to all of you in your hunts this season.

[bobcat]

Awesome buck Randy! Thanks for posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vandeman17]

Great buck! Like i said before, I really enjoy your show and it is on my list to be dvr'ed every week. I have shot a few nice whitetails in my day and really want to shoot a nice mulie. That buck is a great representation of what I am looking for. 

[JLS]

Nice job, you incredibly disguised anti-hunting guys you

Glad the biological wasteland treated you well.

 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Thanks for sharing Randy, and thanks for sharing what real wilderness hunts can be. I don't watch hunting shows because most depict hunting in a way I am not interested in or I believe are disrespectful to game animals and are not image I want portrayed to non hunters. I'm going to make an effort to watch your show though. What network is it shown on?

[bowhunterforever]

Awesome buck Randy! Thanks for posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolfbait]

I'm undecided on this one and not sure exactly what to think.

I've heard before that Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is being funded by the greenies. In fact they are siding with Conservation Northwest on many issue in eastern Washington. I don't have any proof yet, but I have been told that Conservation Northwest supports BCHA.

BCHA posted a temporary job position a while back and I looked into this organization and it raised some questions in my mind. I wrote a letter to their organization suggesting my interest in the job and asking about their position on several topics and asking where their funding comes from (because they do not have enough members for the amount of money they are throwing around). I did not get any response.

I would be very cautious about this organization, it may be a front for Conservation Northwest to try and say hunters support their goals. Anyone who does not believe that the greenies are carefully planning all their moves is sadly mistaken.

I don't have any comments about Newberg or the show, because I've never seen the show. But I am wondering where the money comes from for BCHA to sponsor the show?

I've watched some of his shows on DIY hunting and they seemed pretty good. That's too bad because I won't be watching them now. Thanks for the heads up.

Anyone that would consider Toby Bridges as a credible advocate for the average do-it-yourself sportsmen is kidding themselves.  Randy Newberg is a tireless advocate for hunters and anglers.  Toby Bridges is a complete hack.

people need to do homework before jumping to conclusions. Reading that article and then boycotting the Sportsman channel and Randy Newberg is ridiculous. You might as well boycott Kimber, CRKT, Seek Outside, and all the other companies advertising in that publication.

I'm not going to say that Toby Bridges is the most tactful in his writings, but I clearly remember when many members on this forum said people like Toby Bridges were sensationalizing the wolf effects taking place in Idaho and Montana. Now that the true herd numbers is common knowledge, it turns out Toby Bridges and many others were correct about wolf impacts on elk. If you want to say anyone is misleading hunters you may want to start by naming some agency personnel.     

I'll also remind everyone that Jamie Rappaport Clark who used to head the USFWS is now heading a leading animal rights group. Exactly how many more of our agency personnel would happily take jobs with animal rights groups? 

Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. 

Over the years I've read or watched a lot of stuff put out by folks like Toby Bridges, Scott Rockholm, Bob Fanning, etc.

I'll avoid direct criticism in this case since I get the impression you're not a huge fan of that kind of thing. I will say however, that in the anti-wolf advocacy arena, I believe you have a lot more credibility than they do. When someone at least seems honest, that in itself can go a long ways when it comes to bridging gaps. 

This is just a guess on my part, but I doubt CNW has enough money to fund any front organizations. My impression is that donations have been pretty slim for them over the last few years as they have shed multiple employees.

I wonder how many people have actually seen the destruction that wolves have done?  Or even dug into the illegal wolf introduction?

How many people are for more wildernesses and wildlife corridors?  How many people would push and agenda using the wolves, knowing the truth?

Look at the RMEF as an example, they said nothing for 13-14 years, they watched as many did, the wolves slaughtering the elk and other game herds in MT, WY, And Idaho. They said nothing until people started dropping their memberships like a hot rock.

All of a sudden like IDFG the RMEF leaped to their feet and exclaimed the wolves are at fault.

I personally know Scott Rockholm, Bob Fanning and a few others who have spent the last 18 plus years trying to inform the public as to the truth. These are honorable people who cared about what was happening to all wildlife, these people spent their own $$ and countless hours investigating and researching. They put their name and their credibility out for everyone to see. 

"Over the years I've read or watched a lot of stuff put out by folks like Toby Bridges, Scott Rockholm, Bob Fanning, etc."

Where is your name and credibility Northway?

I see the "more wilderness" people jumping on the wagon, I wonder who they work for, Conservation NW or WDFW? It really doesn't matter at this point.

The next push will be for more wildernesses to protected wild creatures like the wolves.

And just think how many people love the same things, but refuse to come together as one and fight for their rights. Instead they bicker about who gets what, when and why. The Indians this or that, the snowmobiles and ATV's, and the list goes on while the pro-wilderness and wildlands more corridors people eat your lunch!

When you can no longer hunt etc. ask yourselves what you might have done to preserve your hunting rights and access to public lands.

In the mean time keep BS'ing your selves, and knocking people who actually really care.

[idahohuntr]