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

[JLS]

On a related note, I support Backcountry Hunters & Anglers because, well, I am a backcountry hunter. That organization is not perfect, of course, but I share Mr. Newberg's appreciation that BHA advocates for habitat conservation, sound wildlife management, and fair chase hunting.

I want to emphasize that I would gladly sign well-crafted petitions for re-introducing hound hunting and for allowing ATVs on National Forest roads in Washington where cars and trucks are currently permitted. I would be even enthusiastic about doing so IF there was reciprocity, if others who don't share all of my values about hunting would publicly acknowledge that we are all in this together by joining people like me in advocating on behalf of remote country (and, in some cases, voice their support for restricting certain kinds of access to that country).

Well said John.  I have very vocally supported efforts to allow ATVs on county and Forest Service Roads.  I think it is ridiculous how little legal use is avaiable in Washington.  I vocally opposed the hound initiative, even though I've never owned or used hounds.  I would vocally support the re-introduction of hound hunting.

I don't just carte blanche support any new wilderness area.  I fully understand there is give and take, and for everything new, something must be given up.  How sad it is though, that when folks want to protect a place like the Rocky Mountain Front from road development, gas exploration, etc, they are deemed anti-access and anti-hunting.

BCHA President Holly Endersby was writing hunting articles in Western Horseman many years ago.  Whether you agree with all of her stances or not, I feel she has been an excellent spokeswoman and representative of hunters in a periodical that is really not a marketed to hunters.  In fact, I am guessing her writings exposed many hobby farm horse owners to hunting for the first time.

[JLS]

Toby Bridges' rant about the Bob Marshall being devoid of game must not have reached MOGA president Brett Todd.  Seems they are still running lots of hunts and harvesting nice animals.  I've hunted this same area myself, and we managed to kill elk.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=post;topic=135347.50;last_msg=1808359

http://klazy3.com/about-us/rates-deposit-schedule/

[NumaJohn]

Good point, JLS.

The Bob is hardly devoid of game. What a ludicrous idea. Also, I agree with Bearpaw and others who have noted that logging, in many instances, has vastly improved wildlife habitat in northeast Washington. No debating that, I was just being honest about my preference to reclaim some of those vast logged tracts of land for the sake of having more remote country. No, it won't ever be "wilderness" again, but it can be allowed to become more wild. Personally, having hunted a fair bit in the northeast corner these past few seasons, I have never found it difficult to find roads where I could drive my car or truck. A quick look at a map will show there are open roads in all sorts of places. I'll use those roads, like others, but I also won't decry closures--in certain instances but definitely not all--where professional (rather than armchair) wildlife biologists and managers determine that such closures would benefit wildlife.

With respect,

John

[bearpaw]

Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. 

Thank you for allowing me to post.

I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you.

Do you have any citation of where I have been outspoken against outfitters/outfitting?  If so, please post it here for any and all to read.

As a Montana outfitter, you know well the ballot initiative of 2010, called I-161, the initiative that removed the Outfitter Sponsored Licenses where non-residents were guaranteed a license if they used the services of an outfitter.

You may have been falsely told by Mac Minard, the Executive Director of MOGA, that I supported I-161.  He told many outfitters that, in an effort to get them to oppose my nomination to the RMEF board of directors.  Here is the irony of that.

I opposed I-161, not just in the ballot box, but with my platforms - my large DIY hunting website and my editorials and my speaking.  I took a ton of heat from the self-guided hunters who are my audience for my position of opposing that legislation.  A ton of heat and it was not a pleasant time to oppose some of your close friends on a topic they were very passionate about.

MOGA loved me at that time.  Think about it.  The guy with the biggest platform in the self-guided hunting sphere, living in the state where the initiative is being debated, comes out on the same side as the outfitters and tries to kill that initiative.  He does so in a very public way, taking a ton of criticism along the way.

Now, for whatever reason, Mr. Minard decides he doesn't like me.  He enlists the WYOGA (succesfully) and the IDOGA (unsuccessfully) in an effort to accomplish his personal agenda.  He tells those outfitters in other states, and may have told you the same, that I was one of the ring leaders of I-161, when he knows damn well that is a lie.  So, if Mr. Minard, or any of your fellow MT outfitters told you I was in favor of I-161, the biggest outfitter change in MT politics, you might want to inform of their bad information.

Today, with three years of hindsight, those of us opposing I-161 have been proven correct in our assertion that it was a bad idea.

In my TV show, I refer more people to outfitters than many booking agencies.  Most people watch our hunts and email me with something to the affect, "Randy, that was a great elk hunt, but I live in Maryland and I know nothing about elk hunting.  I would really like to do that.  Can you recommend a good outfitter to show me the ropes?"

I always send them to guys I know.  I don't ask for or want a referral fee, as booking agents ask for.  I want these people to know they are going to a good operation and that I referred them because I know and trust that outfitter, not because I got some commission.

This happens almost weekly.  I have a handful of guys I know in each western states and when someone asks about that state, they get sent to those I know and trust.

Sorry to sound confrontational in just the second post, but for you to assert that I am anti-outfitter or outspoken against outfitters, is ridiculous and follows the same line of axe grinding that Mac Minard embarks in.

If you doubt what I have stated here, ask Eric Albus.  Ask Rod Pascke.  Ask Brett Todd.  I can give you a list of others, if you want.  They are all on the board and in leadership positions of MOGA.  They know me.  If you are a member of MOGA, you have all of their contact information.

I don't expect to always agree with outfitters and they don't expect to always agree with me.  We can work together when it is useful and understand that there will be times that we will disagree.

If you are a member of MOGA, it might be helpful for you understand that your executive director, Mac Minard, has lost any working relationship with the hunting and fishing groups in Montana.  I have stated this publicly and will state it here.  I refuse to work with a person of his character and integrity.  Since many of us are very involved in hunting politics in Montana, having an ED that is completely written off by hunters in this state makes MOGA's work much harder in the legislature.

Assertions such as you just made, without any proof or evidence, seem a rather strange way to start a discussion.  For what it is worth, I have been on outfitted hunts, before starting the TV show.  I had a great time.  I have sent a lot of people to those people I hunted with.

My info came from MOGA, I've never seen your show. If what you say about Mac is true I will probably hear more about this, however I am cautious about your statements. You have certainly ruffled some feathers, it would seem unlikely that everyone else is at fault and there is no fault on your part as you seem to claim. Unfortunately this is my busy time so further verification will need to wait.

Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task.

You might view that as frantic.  It is factual.  In person with Toby Bridges, there is a good chance the response probably would be frantic.

It is a response to a continued pattern of a fringe operator standing in the cheap seats, lobbing volleys at the folks in the trenches.  I have no use for those who do nothing, other than sit behind a keyboard and criticize groups such as Federal Ammo, Sportsman Channel, and many other organizations Mr. Bridges had put in his crosshairs over the years.

Some may agree with him.  Fine.  A free country and their right to form what opinions they want, from whatever information they get.  I don't agree with him, or any of his cadre of like-minded operators.

I have been involved in wolf politics in Montana since beginning.  I have seen a lot of good people work very hard to gain state management control of wolves.  They took a lot of heat against some very tough odds, yet they prevailed in getting state control.  None of that was made any easier by the fringe operators who accomplished nothing, only to criticize those doing the heavy lifting.

If you have actually been opposed to unregulated wolf numbers thank you. 

I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting.

We probably would get along pretty good if we were to meet.  I get along with most hunters and most outfitters.  I suspect if you took the time to talk to a few outfitters who know me, you would retract your comment about "your position opposing outfitters."

If I end up on the opposite side of outfitters on an issue, it is not for the sake of opposing them.  It would be because we disagree on an issue or a solution.  I don't view them being on an opposite side at times as a default position to oppose me.  It is because they are operating a business and they will have a different perspective on the topic than I will.

As to me "making a business out of your hunting," yes, it is a business.  But, not one that pays any bills.  As my wife says, "It is the best job he ever bought."  If not for my real life as a CPA, my ability to provide the platform of my TV show and website would not exist.

I see no hypocrisy in my positions that I take.  I do them because they are what I think is in the best interest of hunting and conservation.

Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating.

We can disagree on the opinion of whether wilderness is good or bad for the average sportsman.  I am not an advocate of wilderness in every place.  There are a lot of places where wilderness would be a bad idea.  There are parts about wilderness designations that are bad for invasive weed management, and some other problems impacting the summer ranges found in wilderness areas.

The irony of Toby criticizing the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is that the Act establishes a new classification of land status.  It is called "Conservation Management Areas."  It takes existing uses, locks them in, and makes wildlife conservation the priority for those areas.  That is a common sense compromise that hopefully negates the problems that can come with designated wilderness and benefit wildlife and hunting.  It is a new approach; a new land classification.  Never been used before.

Some wanted it to all be wilderness, but that would not be good.  There are local people using those lands and their existing uses need to be protected.  If it did not protect those uses, I would not be for this Act.  You might want to ask your MT outfitter buddies in that area why they support the Act.  Many of them were on the local planning groups who came up with the idea.

And in classic style, rather than get involved in this effort and be part of the solution, the fringe sits on their butts, then when people try to craft workable solutions and try something different, those fringe elements go off half-cocked, uninformed about the proposed solution, and take shots in a manner that fills their agenda.  That is not my way of operating and I am tired of that style of behavior.

I come from a logging family.  I fully understand the resource industry and the benefits logging can provide for wildlife habitat, when done correctly.

Not sure where you gather the idea that I like wilderness because it limits other hunters from participating.  Never said that and never will.  Wildernesses are not beneficial because of any impediments they might impose.

Your sponsor BCHA advocates for expanding wilderness.

In Montana, our wilderness areas provide the longest rifle elk seasons in the country.  Rifle hunting starts September 15th and runs until the Sunday after Thanksgiving.

They serve as areas that can provide some security for animals, allowing for longer seasons and better age classes.  The animals that summer in wilderness areas usually migrate out of those areas in hunting season, making them available to hunters not able to get into the wilderness.  That increases opportunity for all, allows MT to have the longest general seasons in the Lower 48, prevents us from having only limited entry draws for elk and deer, and gets us away from choose your weapon situations.  That is all good for hunter opportunity, whether you hunt backcountry areas or on the fringe of those areas when the animals migrate out. 

The situation regarding hunting seasons duration is a quite different in other states and this expansion of wilderness that BCHA seeks is very damaging to access by the average person. I would also suggest that in many areas more logging would result in better habitat and more hunting opportunity than more wilderness ever can provide.

The episode Mr. Bridges is whining about took place east of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, along a migration corridor where the deer are headed to winter grounds.  There were guys a lot older than me, in different health than me, who shot big bucks last year, when those deer migrated out to the foothills and became more accessible.  That happens because those deer have some security cover in the early season and the archery season, allowing them to get some age.  Tough country provides that, whether official wilderness area, or not.

My entire platform is about encouraging and helping people participate.  It is also about providing the greatest opportunity for long seasons, general tags, and diverse age classes of animals.

The problem is that a select group of people benefit, the average person probably loses opportunity with the continued expansion of wilderness.

I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds.

We can disagree on that.

If he's not concerned about saving the herds why would he go to so much trouble?

You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual.....

Not strong at all.  The best will be forthcoming in the next week.  I can provide you citation for every item I mentioned.

...... but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost....

Rehberg was not running against Baucus.  He was running against Tester.  Rehberg was the incumbent Congressman who had served in the House of Representatives longer than Tester has served in the Senate.  Both had incumbent advantage.

My mistake, it was late, but the same reasons I mentioned apply.

I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.

I did not insinuate that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost.  Not sure where you got that.  It is my opinion, not insinuation, that Rehberg lost because his voting record on hunting, fishing, and public access was a huge negative in a state where the majority or registered voters hunt and/or fish.

I am curious, what positions Rehberg has taken that has hurt hunting, fishing, and public access. Are you referring to public access on private land or public land, there's quite a difference?

I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.

PM your address and I will mail you that episode when it comes out on DVD.  I will also send you the DVD with our two-eipsode wolf hunt, the first wolf hunt in the Lower 48 to be aired.  You will see why my unapologetic approach to wolf huntng offended those at the NY Times, the Chicago Sun, and most of mainstream media.  It was reason for me and my family to receive hundreds of death wishes from the lunatic fringe on the other side.

I suspect it was give you reason to wonder why Toby Bridges would imply that I, Federal Ammo, and Sportsman Channel are so pro-wolf.  I doubt you will find any anti-outfitter sentiment in any of the episodes I send you.

I'll send it to you by pm and I'll watch it as soon as I get a chance.

Best of luck to you and your clients this season.  May your hunts be pleasurable, safe, and abundant.

Thanks, good luck to you too!

Personally, I would far rather be associated with a group of serious backpack hunters who advocate for conservation of the best remaining wild habitat we have, than to cast my lot with a small circle of frustrated middle-aged whining wanna be keyboard cowboys who for whatever reason complain about the backcountry areas that give Montana the longest seasons in the country, allows us those long season on general tags, without requiring us to choose our weapon, without making us wait for years in limited entry draws, and results in some of the biggest bulls taken each season.

We'll simply have to disagree on this, I think it's unfair and self serving to continue increasing wilderness areas as your sponsor BCHA advocates when we have so many restricted areas already, to increase wilderness areas limits physically challenged hunters and the average hunter or recreationist from many hunting, fishing, and recreation areas. I would suggest that Montana can support the longer seasons because there is more land. I would also suggest that the greatest numbers of animals and best hunting is in eastern Montana where there are plenty of roads and human activity but where predators have not impacted herds as badly. Wilderness actually creates a haven for predators where it's tough to manage there numbers, I would suggest this has been illustrated widely in ID/MT. I would also say that your comments regarding the older generation could use a little work, that's just a suggestion, take it for what it's worth.

Wished I had more time, it seems like quite a few members like your show. I'm too busy at the moment to figure out who is actually benefiting and who is taking away from hunters. I am also left wondering how Toby Bridges and Mac Minard would respond to your remarks. 

Thanks again for the civil discussion. 

[bearpaw]

Good point, JLS.

The Bob is hardly devoid of game. What a ludicrous idea. Also, I agree with Bearpaw and others who have noted that logging, in many instances, has vastly improved wildlife habitat in northeast Washington. No debating that, I was just being honest about my preference to reclaim some of those vast logged tracts of land for the sake of having more remote country. No, it won't ever be "wilderness" again, but it can be allowed to become more wild. Personally, having hunted a fair bit in the northeast corner these past few seasons, I have never found it difficult to find roads where I could drive my car or truck. A quick look at a map will show there are open roads in all sorts of places. I'll use those roads, like others, but I also won't decry closures--in certain instances but definitely not all--where professional (rather than armchair) wildlife biologists and managers determine that such closures would benefit wildlife.

With respect,

John

Thanks for your comments about the logging in NE WA. I would like to add that as logging has decreased in NE WA due to the efforts of Conservation Northwest and with help from groups including BCHA, the deer herds have decreased. I see no problem with removing new logging roads, but there is no reason to remove long established roads. NE WA has by far the best deer and moose numbers in the state and that is attributable to the habitat created by logging and the many ranching and farming operations. The roads that exist to access the area did not prevent herd growth, the decrease in logging, increase in predators, and other factors are inhibiting greater herd growth.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Sorry for the delay in a response.  I was out on an elk hunt in MT and was getting tons of emails about Toby Bridges' most recent rant.


about ten posts to the thread.
 

Randy Newberg's push for even more roadless wilderness is also a part of that idiocy, which I will be sharing later this week in a LOBO WATCH Release.

Obviously, Toby never took the time to read the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, the legislation I mentioned as being beneficial to those of us who hunt the area near where this episode was shot.

Fact - Contrary to what Toby says about "even more roadless.......," the RMFHA adds not one single acre to "roadless" acres in question.  All of it is already inventoried roadless area under the Roadless designation of the Clinton Administration.

It does take some of the areas of rock and ice, areas that will never be roaded or developed due to extreme topography and terrain, and changes that from inventoried roadless to designated wilderness.  None of that is an increase in roadless area.  "Inventoried Roadless" to "designated Wilderness" is still roadless.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever ridden a mountain sled MR Newberg?? this act = more wilderness
Baby steps Randy, just as inventoried roadless (DE FACTO wilderness) which the USFS has no legal right to declare.
 NOR did President Clinton. Careful who we sleep with, since the extreme green crowd have proven to be liars and users. When  you are not needed anymore you WILL be abandend to thier other allies the PETA, HSUS bunch!




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remaining acreage covered under that Act, it carves out a new designation - Conservation Management Areas.  CMA would be a designation that continues all existing uses, such as grazing, etc. It would make wildlife management and conservation the management priorities for those lands given the CMA designation.

Agree to disagree here too

[WAcoyotehunter]

Personally, I would far rather be associated with a group of serious backpack hunters who advocate for conservation of the best remaining wild habitat we have, than to cast my lot with a small circle of frustrated middle-aged whining wanna be keyboard cowboys who for whatever reason complain about the backcountry areas that give Montana the longest seasons in the country, allows us those long season on general tags, without requiring us to choose our weapon, without making us wait for years in limited entry draws, and results in some of the biggest bulls taken each season.

The best paragraph on this whole thread.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I'm not familiar with Toby Bridges- from the looks of this article I don't care to read his stuff. 

I am familiar with BHA and their goals and mission.  They (we) are a good group and care about wildlife.  I'm not sure how anyone would think that being a backcountry hunter would make us pro wolf or anti wildlife?  What is this guys deal?

CNW and BHA are not connected.  BHA is a group of hunters and outdoorsman.  If anyone here has doubts about that, PLEASE FEEL FREE to come to a meeting and see what we're about.

Bart

[Sitka_Blacktail]

We'll simply have to disagree on this, I think it's unfair and self serving to continue increasing wilderness areas as your sponsor BCHA advocates when we have so many restricted areas already, to increase wilderness areas limits

The biggest restriction to all hunters in Washington recently has been the logging companies restricting access to their land and going to lease hunting and limiting access permits. You seem to have no problem with that.

All wilderness areas have boundaries. Most hunters have no problem hunting the edges or fringes. Large tracts of habitat benefit the game populations and thus all hunters in the long run. I do agree that main roads should be open to motor vehicles, but they don't belong in every far corner of the woods. Do you want every hunt to turn into a massive road hunt?

[bearpaw]

We'll simply have to disagree on this, I think it's unfair and self serving to continue increasing wilderness areas as your sponsor BCHA advocates when we have so many restricted areas already, to increase wilderness areas limits

The biggest restriction to all hunters in Washington recently has been the logging companies restricting access to their land and going to lease hunting and limiting access permits. You seem to have no problem with that.

Not sure where you got the idea I have no problem with the logging corporations closing land, I am very concerned about that. I don't want to trample on private property rights but I tried to get a topic going to look for potential answers and there was so much difference of opinion that I gave up. But that is definitely an issue of concern for all hunters.

All wilderness areas have boundaries. Most hunters have no problem hunting the edges or fringes. Large tracts of habitat benefit the game populations and thus all hunters in the long run. I do agree that main roads should be open to motor vehicles, but they don't belong in every far corner of the woods. Do you want every hunt to turn into a massive road hunt?

Actually there would be more of most game animals if there was more logging and less wilderness.

I have no problem with road hunters if that is how they want to hunt then let them. Of course we don't want roads everywhere but again you are putting words in my mouth, that's not at all what I said and you know that. 

There's a pretty good balance of land access right now with plenty of wilderness, I am opposed to adding more wilderness, I think there are 31 wilderness areas in Washington. Exactly how many wilderness areas do we need to satisfy the wilderness crowd?

Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Boulder River Wilderness
The Brothers Wilderness
Buckhorn Wilderness
Clearwater Wilderness
Colonel Bob Wilderness
Glacier Peak Wilderness
Glacier View Wilderness
Goat Rocks Wilderness
Henry M. Jackson Wilderness
Indian Heaven Wilderness
Juniper Dunes Wilderness
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness
Mount Adams Wilderness
Mount Baker Wilderness
Mount Rainier Wilderness
Mount Skokomish Wilderness
Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
Norse Peak Wilderness
Olympic Wilderness
Pasayten Wilderness
Salmo-Priest Wilderness
San Juan Wilderness
Stephen Mather Wilderness
Tatoosh Wilderness
Trapper Creek Wilderness
Washington Islands Wilderness
Wenaha–Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Sky Wilderness
William O. Douglas Wilderness
Wonder Mountain Wilderness

Seriously, this is not enough wilderness? 

[NumaJohn]

Dear Dale,

To me the issue is not just about wilderness areas but also roadless areas that are not designated wilderness. Big country. My interests, I confess, are not limited to deer numbers and harvest potential. I love hunting remote country, even if there are fewer animals. As I mentioned, last weekend my friends and I saw a big herd bull and several cows a few miles behind a locked gate. It wasn't wilderness, there weren't many animals working the area, but man, that was one of the best experiences of my outdoor life! Clearcuts were nearby, but we had to burn some calories to get to them. On a related note, I want to emphasize that the quality of the hunt matters a great deal to me, and so I would rather shoot a raghorn bull on public land several miles back in than a herd bull out of someone's wheat field along a river bottom or out near Turnbull.

Your list of wilderness areas and your question at the end of the list are presented, if I understand you correctly, to emphasize the vast existing collection of roadless areas in our state. But what if you were to post a comparative list of areas (maybe in acres within GMUs) of the real estate that is not roadless? I am honestly not sure how someone would come up with such a list, but I can tell you that when I look at maps and especially Google Earth, northeast Washington seems to have a lot more "roaded" areas than "roadless."

So I guess after looking at all of the developed areas on the map and in the actual woods, a person could ask the opposite of your question: "Seriously, this is not enough area with roads?" You say there's "a pretty good balance right now," but what criteria are you using to make that assessment? If we had a pie chart that showed the percentage of wilderness and other types of backcountry and the percentage of roaded land in the mountains and the front country, what would the numbers be? How is "balance" determined so that hunters with different preferences can come to some sort of compromise? I do not think the wheelchair hunters are lacking roads, or the road hunters like my 81-year-old dad, or the guys like me who often have only a half day to slip out and try to find a deer.

I mean no disrespect in posing my questions, and I actually think it's not productive to portray the land management issues in dualities that provoke pro or con responses. We all benefit from logging, we all benefit from accessible road systems. Of course. But I think we are all being a bit self-serving here, not just the wilderness crowd or those of us who advocate for more remote country. You pointed that out to Randy Newberg, regarding his TV show, and I know it's true for me as a result of my wanting more remote country for wildlife. Outfitters, probably including you, have their own agendas. None of us operates out of pure altruism, I suspect, but what do we do, given that stark reality? Even after a great deal of thinking about all of this, I am at a loss as to how we hunters are supposed to NOT work at odds with one another if people like Randy Newberg and BCA members are being BBQd for expressing a passion and preference for wild country. We all love the hunt. We all want wolves managed carefully. We all worry about access.

But what do hunters do next? I like the idea, in theory, that we should work together, but are we no better at that than Congress?

John

[Northway]

We'll simply have to disagree on this, I think it's unfair and self serving to continue increasing wilderness areas as your sponsor BCHA advocates when we have so many restricted areas already, to increase wilderness areas limits

The biggest restriction to all hunters in Washington recently has been the logging companies restricting access to their land and going to lease hunting and limiting access permits. You seem to have no problem with that.

Not sure where you got the idea I have no problem with the logging corporations closing land, I am very concerned about that. I don't want to trample on private property rights but I tried to get a topic going to look for potential answers and there was so much difference of opinion that I gave up. But that is definitely an issue of concern for all hunters.

All wilderness areas have boundaries. Most hunters have no problem hunting the edges or fringes. Large tracts of habitat benefit the game populations and thus all hunters in the long run. I do agree that main roads should be open to motor vehicles, but they don't belong in every far corner of the woods. Do you want every hunt to turn into a massive road hunt?

Actually there would be more of most game animals if there was more logging and less wilderness.

I have no problem with road hunters if that is how they want to hunt then let them. Of course we don't want roads everywhere but again you are putting words in my mouth, that's not at all what I said and you know that. 

There's a pretty good balance of land access right now with plenty of wilderness, I am opposed to adding more wilderness, I think there are 31 wilderness areas in Washington. Exactly how many wilderness areas do we need to satisfy the wilderness crowd?

Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Boulder River Wilderness
The Brothers Wilderness
Buckhorn Wilderness
Clearwater Wilderness
Colonel Bob Wilderness
Glacier Peak Wilderness
Glacier View Wilderness
Goat Rocks Wilderness
Henry M. Jackson Wilderness
Indian Heaven Wilderness
Juniper Dunes Wilderness
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness
Mount Adams Wilderness
Mount Baker Wilderness
Mount Rainier Wilderness
Mount Skokomish Wilderness
Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
Norse Peak Wilderness
Olympic Wilderness
Pasayten Wilderness
Salmo-Priest Wilderness
San Juan Wilderness
Stephen Mather Wilderness
Tatoosh Wilderness
Trapper Creek Wilderness
Washington Islands Wilderness
Wenaha–Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Sky Wilderness
William O. Douglas Wilderness
Wonder Mountain Wilderness

Seriously, this is not enough wilderness? 

I don't know if a list is the best way to represent wilderness areas in Washington. I get your point, but the "San Juan Wilderness" for instance, is 300 acres. Olympic & Mt Rainier Wilderness areas are essentially just additional designations on top of Mt Rainier and Olympic National Park, so no real net gain there. There are a number of other wilderness areas that less than 10,000 acres, or marine island designations as opposed to contiguous blocks of land.

An interesting comparison would be percentage of wilderness designated land + national park land compared to total public lands in WA.

You bring up a question that I have asked myself many times: How much is enough? I don't know the answer to that question yet nor have I heard a comprehensive answer from anyone else.

[bearpaw]

I don't think there is a definitive answer to how much wilderness/roadless area is enough. The result will simply be decided by the effectiveness of groups and individuals lobbying for their interest, and the question will always remain, How Much Is Enough!

Let me put something in perspective for some of you wilderness advocates. Firstly, I don't have a problem with the current wilderness, it's my opinion that 31 areas, some including more than 1 county in their vast size, provide enough opportunity for people to find wilderness escapes in Washington. I wouldn't want to see all those areas disappear, yet on the other hand the majority of people never get more than 1 or 2 miles from a road, so I think it's unfair to continue taking away more and more land from the majority of users and making wilderness out of it. You are making the remaining multiple use forest more crowded all the time when you keep reducing the size of it.

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.

Let's remove some roads and housing from King County and return it to wilderness. In NE WA we already have a vast roadless area in the Kettle Crest, another in the Abercrombie area, and the Salmo Priest Wilderness, that is enough for the number of people that use it. The rest of the forest is multiple use forest, residents graze cattle, we need it for logging, and the bulk of people enjoy that portion of the forest with all types of recreational activity. It certainly seems that anyone wanting to take more forest land away from the majority of users is definitely being the most self serving. 

[Bob33]

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.

[stuckalot]

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.

Part of the problem with many of the wilderness areas particularly in this state is that they are so thick that you literally can't travel off of designated trails. So everyone parks at the trailhead and head into a often relatively small accessible area.