New High Hunt opportunity?

[snowpack]

Interesting responses here (please don't take this as judgemental or critical, it's an observation) that folks are unhappy about MORE opportunity? 

I highly doubt that this was done on a whim, and without any thought as to potential ramifications.

I would think most would be happy that more opportunity is provided.  I guess if some like to hunt it during the regular season, it would be bad...hopes of those deer sliding under the radar.

[shanevg]

Briefly:  Too small an area and too easy of access will attract a lot of hunters to an area with (relatively) scarce deer populations.  Deer herds are going to get slammed and it's really going to hurt other general seasons in the area.

Mt Baker Wilderness just has too easy of access and too few areas to hunt compared to the other wilderness areas open to hunting.  Certain areas in there are known to be good deer spots and are going to be just hammered.  On top of that, way too many hunters in the field with not a ton of deer will lead to a slaying on the black bear population in those areas. 

I love to see more opportunity, I just don't think this is the best way to add it.  Bring back late archery seasons in 418, add more late buck hunts and make the late buck hunt longer than 5 days (as it stands now.)  Add a high buck hunt but make it draw only to limit the number of hunters in a small wilderness area. 

Honestly, I think this is an attempt by WDFW to add more hunting opportunities on the north side of 418 (which is a high alpine, wilderness type hunt) without putting a hurting on the deer on the south side of the unit (near Sedro Woolley) which is a more logging road low country type hunt.  (Generalizations of course but mostly true.)  Most deer in 418 are killed on the south side of the unit and they were looking for a way to expand hunting opportunities in the north side of the unit.  I think the best thing to have done would be split 418 into a north and south unit and offer late hunts or more draw tags on the north side, not the south. 

Just my preference, maybe I'm just a cranky old local who doesn't like to see things changed and possibly see more people in my hunting areas.   

[3nails]

Well then you don't know the area well. Super easy hike into it from anywhere. WAY more day hikers than other high hunts. There's not one single area worthy of needing horses to get into. I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.

3Nail or ShaneVG, do you mind if I ask you a few questions about your opinions?  I have no dog in this fight (never been to Mt. Baker, no intention of hunting there), but I am surprised at the negative response to a new hunting opportunity.  Isn't this an unusual occurrence, where the agency has opened a new area to a hunt?  It seems to me that WDFW simply added another "wilderness" area to the high buck hunt.  How can that be a bad thing?

With all of the land inside the North Cascades NP locked away from hunting, plus the legacy national parks (Rainier, Olympic), and the dense population in the state, you would think adding Mount Baker to a hunt opportunity would be welcomed.  Instruct me where I misunderstand, please.

I just don't believe this small area can support the volume of pressure it is about to receive. It has very low deer numbers already. X-Force thinks that it's easy access creates a great opportunity but I believe it will create a disaster. That time of year it is nothing to see 50+ vehicles at a trailhead from day hikers. Anyone can waddle into this "wilderness". With it being a "wow" "new" hunt there will be an overabundance of hunters that it just can't handle. I don't feel this was thought out well at all.

[3nails]

 Another point to think about. If you have applied for the 418 late hunt in the past you may want to reconsider. That area is going to get hammered for 11 more days than it used to. WAY overhunted now.

[snowpack]

Well then you don't know the area well. Super easy hike into it from anywhere. WAY more day hikers than other high hunts. There's not one single area worthy of needing horses to get into. I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.

3Nail or ShaneVG, do you mind if I ask you a few questions about your opinions?  I have no dog in this fight (never been to Mt. Baker, no intention of hunting there), but I am surprised at the negative response to a new hunting opportunity.  Isn't this an unusual occurrence, where the agency has opened a new area to a hunt?  It seems to me that WDFW simply added another "wilderness" area to the high buck hunt.  How can that be a bad thing?

With all of the land inside the North Cascades NP locked away from hunting, plus the legacy national parks (Rainier, Olympic), and the dense population in the state, you would think adding Mount Baker to a hunt opportunity would be welcomed.  Instruct me where I misunderstand, please.

I just don't believe this small area can support the volume of pressure it is about to receive. It has very low deer numbers already. X-Force thinks that it's easy access creates a great opportunity but I believe it will create a disaster. That time of year it is nothing to see 50+ vehicles at a trailhead from day hikers. Anyone can waddle into this "wilderness". With it being a "wow" "new" hunt there will be an overabundance of hunters that it just can't handle. I don't feel this was thought out well at all.

The crowding is a big problem with the high hunt for the Olympic areas.  Tough to get a parking spot and overloaded with day hikers.  The national park right next to those areas is practically empty in comparison.  One major reason....dogs are allowed on the wilderness trails--and most are off leash once they are 1/2 mile in.

[kodiak 907]

Briefly:  Too small an area and too easy of access will attract a lot of hunters to an area with (relatively) scarce deer populations.  Deer herds are going to get slammed and it's really going to hurt other general seasons in the area.

Mt Baker Wilderness just has too easy of access and too few areas to hunt compared to the other wilderness areas open to hunting.  Certain areas in there are known to be good deer spots and are going to be just hammered.  On top of that, way too many hunters in the field with not a ton of deer will lead to a slaying on the black bear population in those areas. 

I love to see more opportunity, I just don't think this is the best way to add it.  Bring back late archery seasons in 418, add more late buck hunts and make the late buck hunt longer than 5 days (as it stands now.)  Add a high buck hunt but make it draw only to limit the number of hunters in a small wilderness area. 
 
Honestly, I think this is an attempt by WDFW to add more hunting opportunities on the north side of 418 (which is a high alpine, wilderness type hunt) without putting a hurting on the deer on the south side of the unit (near Sedro Woolley) which is a more logging road low country type hunt.  (Generalizations of course but mostly true.)  Most deer in 418 are killed on the south side of the unit and they were looking for a way to expand hunting opportunities in the north side of the unit.  I think the best thing to have done would be split 418 into a north and south unit and offer late hunts or more draw tags on the north side, not the south. 

Just my preference, maybe I'm just a cranky old local who doesn't like to see things changed and possibly see more people in my hunting areas.   

[MountainTracker]

I called WDFW to try and find out where i could find def on the boundaries for the Mt. Baker High Hunt.  I was told any wilderness area is considered hunt able .  I then went to the USDA web page to see what their def of Wilderness was, here is what i found:  "A designated Wilderness area is where nature is untrammeled and humans are the visitors. Through federal and state laws, 834,000 acres, about half of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is designated as Wilderness..."  It later listed all the trails that access Mt. Baker wilderness.  Most of those trails have high traffic on them around that time of the year.  I know of areas that have no access trails and i would consider them wilderness, but i don't know if they would be hunt able since the areas aren't listed as having wilderness access.  I was also told to use the GoHunt map on the WDFW to find boundaries, that was pretty much useless.  I think i will do more research on this, but as it has been stated before the areas used to get into these areas have heavy traffic on them, so i just don't know if it would be worth it. 

[JLS]

Find the legal boundaries/description.

[jackelope]

There's a lot of wilderness boundary that you can drive right to. I know of areas where the road is the boundary. Easy access into a wilderness area is nothing new.
I can't speak for this specific wilderness area because I've never been in there, but I have driven to the wilderness boundary before in 2 different wildernesses.

[Boss .300 winmag]

Interesting/tagging. 

[kodiak 907]

More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.

[shanevg]

There's a lot of wilderness boundary that you can drive right to. I know of areas where the road is the boundary. Easy access into a wilderness area is nothing new.
I can't speak for this specific wilderness area because I've never been in there, but I have driven to the wilderness boundary before in 2 different wildernesses.

There are lots of wildernesses with easy access but most of them are not open for a high buck hunt.  I can't speak to the Olympic wildernesses as I've never been to any of those, but Pasayten, Glacier Peak, Alpine Lakes, etc. all are true wilderness with no easy access to hunting areas.  Mt Baker wilderness is completely different.

More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.

 

[Bob33]

http://www.wilderness.net/map.cfm?xmin=-13580788.4058&ymin=6213418.3176&xmax=-13527942.1995&ymax=6274784.2641

[haugenna]

I don't see why? almost every wilderness area has "bunny huggers" on the main trails during high buck. should be a great hunt some guys.

I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.

Sounds like a standard high hunt.

[James]

Little surprised by the response to this.  My hope of course, is that opening up extra land will help spread us out.  I don’t know much about the deer population health up there, and if it can handle it, and no doubt the bears will be hit, but most high hunt areas seem to have more bears killed than deer.

I am also surprised people are struggling with the wilderness boundary thing.  It’s the USGS clearly defines Mt Baker wilderness.

In terms of hunting close to trailheads, there are plenty of places in Henry M Jack, Glacier Peak, and alpine lakes that are less than one mile from the trailhead.

Alpine lakes and Glacier Peak have some places where the hippy hiker population have to be worse.  I mean, you can be in Alpine lakes wilderness from downtown Seattle in less than 2 hours (including driving and hiking).
I guess I am just not seeing how this can be worse than Alpine lakes wilderness.

One of my main issues with hunting in Washington is avoiding people, so anything to help spread us out I appreciate, hopefully it is not a disaster in other regards.