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

[woodywsu]

"How could you say a rifle does not allow you to kill from a distance far greater than archery"

I'm confused. I never stated that.

[Abolt338]

Sadly, I think your letter jumps to try and compromise way too soon.  Why should we compromise on this issue?  Where is the justification for the change?  Certainly they're not going to base this change on ONE incident in twenty-five years of harmless hunter-relations.

Allowing them to base ANY CHANGE on that premise is a slap in the face to wildlife management, and it is our job to point out such flawed logic.

You suggested a day-sharing program, but why do we need to share days?  Where is the list of incidents that show that we need to make changes to the current system?  It was ONE incident; and the WDFW needs to realize that.

Concerning the language pitting rifles against other forms of hunting, I, too, felt a little uneasy.  I understand what you're saying - that rifles carry a greater potential to harm people.  But the bottom line is that the weapon doesn't fire itself.

You're using the same logic that anti-gun advocates use every day, and it's a dangerous game to get caught in.

The statistics would show that ANY weapon in the hands of a Washington hunter is safe enough to justify open seasons.  Washington averages about ten (10) hunting-related shooting incidents a year.  Very few of which are fatal, and the shooting last year was the first time in a quarter century that an incident involved a non-hunter.

Please tell me where the statistics show that Washington hunters are more dangerous with rifles than with other forms of weaponry.  More importantly, show me where this difference justifies any such division that you have proposed.

My stance:  DO NOT COMPROMISE!  Compromise simply tells the WDFW that, "yes, you can legislate on emotion."

...and that's bad for all Washington's recreational users.

RW

PS  My letter...

Dear Commission,

I am writing in opposition to the proposed season change for Washington State fall bear season. Moving the season opener on public lands from August 1 to September 1 significantly impacts hunting opportunity while does little to mitigate conflicts between hunters and other recreational land users.

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. Is the 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.

Bear hunters in Washington are already a significant minority. This change will only reduce our numbers, similar to the elimination of bait and hounds.

The WDFW states that hunting is its most-effective tool for game management; but that tool is only available if there are hunters who choose to partake. Reducing the bear season by delaying the opener significantly impacts the opportunity for a very specific group of hunters and fails to address any real conflict. Because of this, I ask that the commission forgo this rule change and maintain the general bear season, keeping the opener on August 1.

Sincerely,
Rylan Weythman
Cashmere, WA

[FrankDown]

I have taken canids at 100 yards with a bow.  Members of this forum have taken deer and elk at 125 yards wth a muzzleloader. It is true that rifles have greater distance but it makes it sounds like guns are too dangerous to start wtih.

I too understand what you are saying, but our priviledges have always been chiseled away and we are always fighting with each other too, and not sticking together.  We should try to work this out so that we all benefit something from this.  I think we have all learned something from this incident, but I think we need to stick together and work something out.

[Dmanmastertracker]

 I think some are still unaware there were two falalities last year, not one.

 In the name of trying to save people some grief and frustration here who are sending letters, I deal with the folks who are reading your letter's on a nearly daily basis and understand their inner-works pretty well. What you need to understand is there is almost always a pre-determined course before the first letter is sent and no matter how much barking up the tree occurs, that course won't change. Your best bet is to look at a way to modify the existing DFW stance, rather than propose a totally different alternative. I see in this instance, that modification being keeping existing season's open for archery, rather than rifle, so no opportunity is lost, frankly the only ones I see pissing and moaning about that are rifle hunters. I've always hunted bear with a rifle tag and it doesn't bother me to have to hunt them with a bow in just a few areas. I agree it's a good thing to make the State evaluate hiking capacities in all areas as well, as was stated there is some overcrowding in certain areas.

[shanevg]

I think some are still unaware there were two falalities last year, not one.

 In the name of trying to save people some grief and frustration here who are sending letters, I deal with the folks who are reading your letter's on a nearly daily basis and understand their inner-works pretty well. What you need to understand is there is almost always a pre-determined course before the first letter is sent and no matter how much barking up the tree occurs, that course won't change. Your best bet is to look at a way to modify the existing DFW stance, rather than propose a totally different alternative. I see in this instance, that modification being keeping existing season's open for archery, rather than rifle, so no opportunity is lost, frankly the only ones I see pissing and moaning about that are rifle hunters. I've always hunted bear with a rifle tag and it doesn't bother me to have to hunt them with a bow in just a few areas. I agree it's a good thing to make the State evaluate hiking capacities in all areas as well, as was stated there is some overcrowding in certain areas.

That's what I am trying to get at.  WDFW already has their mind made up about this.  It's going to be a lot harder to convince them to completely disregard their ideas than to make some slight modifications that make some more sense.  If you notice in my letter, I suggest in the beginning in more detail a much more beneficial to hunter idea, and by the end I am suggesting a lot of different things that at least have a little bit of give for hunters.  Maybe I can start out by stating that all hunting seasons should be allowed.  I may reword it tonight, we'll see.

[shanevg]

I have again updated the letter taking some of the comments on this thread into consideration (hope you don't mind, I borrowed some of your ideas Abolt338.)  Check it out and see what you think.  I worry that I am maybe getting a little too wordy now.

[Jerbear]

United we stand.  Divided we fall.  Don't send this game dept a damn thing to suggest that modern rifle be taken out of any hunt.  The can take that and run with it, and screw things up worse than they are.   Don't try to divide.  

[Abolt338]

I think some are still unaware there were two falalities last year, not one.

What were the details of the second fatality?  Was it a bear hunter killing a non-hunter during the August season?  If not, it's irrelevant.  If so, I feel stupid not knowing about it.

RW

[Huntbear]

Do not mean to hijack this thread, because it burns me up about changing the season as well.  That said, I do not see anyone saying anything about them doing the same thing to our Cougar season.  You can only use the weapon that is legal for big game at that time.  Rifle hunters, this means you can not hunt cougar until mid October when deer season opens.

[bobcat]

What were the details of the second fatality?  Was it a bear hunter killing a non-hunter during the August season?  If not, it's irrelevant.  If so, I feel stupid not knowing about it.RW

Suspect apparently thought he was shooting at an elk

Bail $750,000 for teacher suspected of manslaughter
By Stephanie Rice
Columbian staff writer
A Shahala Middle School teacher suspected of first-degree manslaughter in the death of a bear-grass picker in Skamania County apparently thought he was shooting at a three-point elk, according to court documents.

Craig A. Sjoberg, 55, of Camas, appeared in court Thursday in Stevenson.

Bail was set at $750,000.

Arraignment is set for Monday, when defense attorney Steve Thayer is expected to argue for lower bail.

If Sjoberg posts bail and is released from the Skamania County Jail pending trial, he will not return to his classroom. He’ll remain on administrative leave pending the outcome of the case, said Carol Fenstermacher, spokeswoman for Evergreen Public Schools.

Sjoberg is suspected of recklessly causing the death of Juan Cortez Rojas. The Tacoma man’s body was found Nov. 1, the first day of elk-hunting season, in the Skookum Meadows area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Rojas had been at work picking bear grass, which is used in floral arrangements. He was shot once in the right shoulder.

Other hunters had given a physical description of Sjoberg to deputies with the Skamania County Sheriff’s Office, and that description was released to the media. According to court documents, Sjoberg called Sgt. Monty Buettner on Nov. 4 and left a message saying he’d read about the case and he might be the person officers described.

A detective obtained a search warrant for Sjoberg’s home and found a Remington 760 rifle and .30-06 cartridges that fire the type of bullet found in Rojas, according to court documents.

One hunter who gave a description of Sjoberg told deputies he had spoken with a hunter who had said he had fired at a three-point elk but missed. Another hunter told deputies he had plans to hunt with a man he knew only as “Craig” on Nov. 2, the day after Rojas was killed, but “Craig” never showed.

Stephanie Rice: 360-735-4549 or stephanie.rice@columbian.com.

[Abolt338]

Sad that I hadn't read about this incident - the one dealing with Mr. Sjoberg - but it demonstrates the fallacies further.

It's an incident equal to that of the first, yet this one received very little media attention.  Why?  Was it because the man shot was Hispanic and not part of the general "hiker" clique?  Was it because the hunter was a teacher and an adult - leaving people with fewer excuses for their blanket justifications?

Remember what they were saying: 

"The kid was too young."

"Kid's shouldn't be hunting alone."

Etc.

Who knows why this "elk" incident hasn't received the hype?  I sure would like to know.

...but in this debate, it's entirely irrelevant since we're talking about a certain sub-sect of hunters in a specific time-frame - bear hunters in August.

The second incident occurred in November, and does not apply to this.

It's sad, for sure.  It's another unexplainable occurrence, absolutely.  But it doesn't hold any water in this debate.

RW

[FrankDown]

I wonder what distance the hispanic guy was shot at?  I had heard about this one but I heard that the hunter shot him and renderd no aid and didnt notify anyone until 3 days later.  I heard this on one of the local news stories.

When Craig realized he had shot the beargrass picker he left, without helping him, or calling authorities.  He left him there to bleed to death or rot.  The other beargrass pickers found him later.

[Dmanmastertracker]

"The second incident occurred in November, and does not apply to this.

It's sad, for sure.  It's another unexplainable occurrence, absolutely.  But it doesn't hold any water in this debate."

 

[Abolt338]

"The second incident occurred in November, and does not apply to this.

It's sad, for sure.  It's another unexplainable occurrence, absolutely.  But it doesn't hold any water in this debate."

 

Okay, so maybe this needs more explanation.

The WDFW says we need to push back a certain season because during that particular season the probability of conflict between two certain groups is too high.  All of this, we assume, is coming about due to one incident that occurred within that season last year.

Someone brought up another incident - the one I'm referring to above - that occurred in November, outside of the parameters defined by the WDFW.  Effectively, the WDFW plan does NOT address anything outside of their pre-set timeline parameters.  Their argument deals solely with the higher probability of conflict during that specific season - the August bear season.

Now, I would argue, in lieu of all of this, that both cases are simple incidents of chance.  They are freak accidents that cannot predicted and therefore cannot be efficiently avoided.

The statistical probability that an incident of this nature will occur is SO LOW that there is NO significant predictability.  The WDFW is effectively arguing that the probability of an incident is higher during one period than the other, but it's basing it's argument on assumption.

The bottom line, however is that the probability of an incident like this occurring in ANY season is so small that the differences between seasons is insignificant.

In layman terms, there was one incident within the August season, and there was one incident outside of the August season.  There were no incidents in either set for the previous 25 years.  Arguing that one season needs to be changed and not the other, or, that one season is less likely than the other to produce an accident is entirely unfounded.

The WDFW is assuming that because there are more hikers in the hills in August that there will be a higher incident rate.  History, however, has shown that this is not true.  The difference in hiker number simply HAS NOT HAD AN EFFECT.

Maybe, if there were a couple million more incidences of hunters and hikers coming into contact in one season or another you may see a change of one or two incidents.  But even then, there's no significance statistically.

The only argument that can be mad is that Washington hunters are, in fact, safe hunters when it comes to other recreational users, and these two incidents are the Columbine and Virginia Tech of the hunting world.

RW

[Ridgerunner]

I do not believe they have made up their mind about this.  What has happened is the public was outraged, called their legislatures who then went to WDFW and said we must do something about this.  WDFW floats this proposal.  If enough of a stink is made about it I feel that the commission would vote this down.  DONT GIVE UP!!!!!