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

[ICEMAN]

I think someone made a post earlier suggesting that signs be posted in "high-traffic areas" letting users (hikers/hunters) know that hunting seasons are going on and that the are is used by hunters.

This would serve the purpose of informing the ignorant and allowing people to make their own choices regarding the clothes they wear and the time of year they venture out into the woods.

It would also let hunters know that certain areas are used heavily by other outdoor users.

RW

Good grief Abolt!  Define "high traffic" area please.....  Arent low traffic areas also dangerous? Wouldnt we want to just post signs every quarter mile down every gravel road? Or are hikers just in danger being in the woods if the hunter starts his hunt from a parking lot/trailhead?

Hikers generally (not always) park their cars at trailheads and usually stick to the trails. Do these "high traffic areas" pose more or less of a risk to a hiker than other areas?  Hunters know if they are entering an area from a trailhead that other people may be around. Hunters know this. We do not need a sign indicating that other people may be around. Shouldnt matter anyway....the hunter should treat all areas the same. Hikers may not even consider that a hunter may be nearby, but hunters should always consider this. This is what and how we are trained. The hikers have no responsibility in this accident. They should carry no blame. They should not have to alter what they were doing one bit. To suggest that they "should worry or change their behavior" is to accept that hunters pose a risk to all. I do not accept this.

Suggestions about hunter orange are rediculous, please stop. Is anyone going to honestly ask that hikers, tourists, birdwatchers and mushroom pickers trade all of their clothing in for blaze orange packs and raincoats and hats and shirts and jackets so us hunters dont accidently shoot them?  Please stop this idiotic suggestion. This suggestion makes us hunters all look like a bunch of ass clowns.

The facts are simple. Hunters are responsible for knowing what they hell they are doing. Guns are deadly. Bows are deadly. When a hunter mistakes a human for game, someone has failed.  Not all of us, but someone. That someone should pay for their mistake.


As far as reducing the areas and time that bear hunters can pursue game...this is an ugly road we do not want to go down. Hikers like to hike everywhere...in any season.... 

Should all hunting be banned at this nice warm time of year? How about in the fall too when the colors are out and the mushrooms up? Yes? No?   Or should a single hunter be held accountable for making a mistake?

[Abolt338]

I think someone made a post earlier suggesting that signs be posted in "high-traffic areas" letting users (hikers/hunters) know that hunting seasons are going on and that the are is used by hunters.

This would serve the purpose of informing the ignorant and allowing people to make their own choices regarding the clothes they wear and the time of year they venture out into the woods.

It would also let hunters know that certain areas are used heavily by other outdoor users.

RW

Good grief Abolt!  Define "high traffic" area please.....  Arent low traffic areas also dangerous? Wouldnt we want to just post signs every quarter mile down every gravel road? Or are hikers just in danger being in the woods if the hunter starts his hunt from a parking lot/trailhead?

Hikers generally (not always) park their cars at trailheads and usually stick to the trails. Do these "high traffic areas" pose more or less of a risk to a hiker than other areas?  Hunters know if they are entering an area from a trailhead that other people may be around. Hunters know this. We do not need a sign indicating that other people may be around. Shouldnt matter anyway....the hunter should treat all areas the same. Hikers may not even consider that a hunter may be nearby, but hunters should always consider this. This is what and how we are trained. The hikers have no responsibility in this accident. They should carry no blame. They should not have to alter what they were doing one bit. To suggest that they "should worry or change their behavior" is to accept that hunters pose a risk to all. I do not accept this.

This is a very good point, Iceman, but it assumes that hikers actually put in the time and effort to "know" about the areas they enter, i.e. hunting areas.

My point about the signs was aimed 99% at hikers; it's not the hunters I'm worried about.  All your points about hunter responsibility are right on.

I am not advocating that we should try and change behavior, but informing outdoor users (non-hunters) that certain popular hiking areas are open to hunting during certain periods of times is a small concession that might actually make both groups - hunters and hikers - better off.

I think we can both agree that there are a significant number of hikers who have NO CLUE as to when hunting seasons take place, much less that their special hiking trails are indeed open during those seasons.  Having a small little information post stating these things would keep people from freaking out when they encounter a hunter.  They would know that it's legal, and it could possibly prevent situations where the ignorant hikers are questioning the legality / safety of the hunter.

At the same time, those signs might actually deter some hikers from venturing into certain areas at certain times - the kind of hikers who would probably cause the most fuss over us doing what we do legally.  The might instead opt for a place where they will not encounter hunters.  Keep in mind this is purely information; the government is NOT requiring ANYTHING.

Defining "high-traffic area" would be something requiring discussion.  Though I would stay conservative and lean towards posting the signs at popular trail heads such as Sauk Mtn.  In comparison to all the hunting area we have in this state, this would be less than a handful of areas.

Though it doesn't really matter how many they post.  It doesn't do anything to hurt hunters or hikers.

Let me know what you think.  I'm not set on this.

RW

[ICEMAN]

Yeah I hear ya. Looking back, I sort of sound a bit grumpy in my post, but my point was to highlight the issue from my point of view.

[Abolt338]

Yeah I hear ya. Looking back, I sort of sound a bit grumpy in my post, but my point was to highlight the issue from my point of view.

...and I completely agree with your point.  Hunters inherently shoulder the responsibility for the safety of EVERYONE in the field, regardless of the situation.  We accept it when we load our weapon.  Anyone who doesn't see that is a fool.

With that said, providing information to hikers who might not otherwise know when/where hunting is going on can only be seen as a good thing for both groups for reasons I've stated previously.

Not only does it provide potential for reducing conflicts, it also takes away the excuse, "Well, I didn't know hunting was legal out here.  I would have never gone if I had."

If nothing else, it makes hikers and other users conscious that there are hunters out there...

...that in itself would be a benefit to us as hunters.

RW

[bobcat]

My question would be who is going to pay for it?

[Abolt338]

My question would be who is going to pay for it?

If it convinces them to leave our August season alone, I'll personally sponsor the one for Sauk Mtn.

RW

[bobcat]

I guess this could be added to Obama's job creating programs. They could put lots of people to work printing up all these flyers and then traveling around the state posting them everywhere a hiker might go.   

[Abolt338]

I guess this could be added to Obama's job creating programs. They could put lots of people to work printing up all these flyers and then traveling around the state posting them everywhere a hiker might go.   

Haha...don't get too excited.

RW

[bobcat]

Not excited, just if this was to happen it would be one more reason to move to another state. I don't want to live in a state where hunters aren't trusted enough so that everyone feels they need to wear orange or they'll be shot. In my opinion a hiker should be completely safe when on a major hiking trail no matter what they wear, with the possible exception of a bear suit.

[Abolt338]

Not excited, just if this was to happen it would be one more reason to move to another state. I don't want to live in a state where hunters aren't trusted enough so that everyone feels they need to wear orange or they'll be shot. In my opinion a hiker should be completely safe when on a major hiking trail no matter what they wear, with the possible exception of a bear suit.

I don't think you got the gist of my post.  It not about making hikers feel unsafe; it's simply about give them information that they don't have / haven't pursued on their own.

RW

[Dmanmastertracker]

Not excited, just if this was to happen it would be one more reason to move to another state. I don't want to live in a state where hunters aren't trusted enough so that everyone feels they need to wear orange or they'll be shot. In my opinion a hiker should be completely safe when on a major hiking trail no matter what they wear, with the possible exception of a bear suit.

Until a law is passed requiring hunter's to have some reasonable vision capability, unfortunately that's the reality. One guy might see a fuzzy bear walking along, while another seeing 20/20 see's a person wearing a dark coat.

 A good article on the subject - http://www.kyeyes.org/sportsvision46.cfm

[Curly]

I have a scary  :ostory about a hunter with bad vision.

I was deer hunting up in Capital Forest and just finished loading the buck I had shot into the truck when an older gentleman drove up and motioned for me to talk to him.  He gets out of his truck and asks if I could show him where the correct month and day is on his deer tag so that if he killed a buck he could notch his tag properly.  He says he forgot his glasses.

Anyway, after talking to him for several minutes at the back of my truck, I start heading for the front of the truck to go and he says "By the way, have you seen any deer?"  I say "just one"  and point to the truck bed.  He had a shocked look on his face and says "I didn't even notice that".  Hell, the tailgate was down and I had blood on my hands and forearms.  I thought he noticed I had killed a buck.

Originally I thought the glasses he forgot to wear were just reading glasses, but after he couldn't even see blood on me or see the deer in the bed, I suspect his glasses were for more than reading.

[billythekidrock]

The main reason for this regulation is to make a small cut on the harvest of bears.  The harvest is starting to show more immature bears and the WDFW wants to make a small amendment to save a few animals.  What they didn't realize is that most of the 'diehard' bear hunters are chasing them in August...they are thinking about that now and might consider making some amendments if the harvest data lines up with some of the areas most hunted in August.  

The user groups statement was used to 'kill two birds with one stone' they figured they were further ahead cutting time off the front of the season then they were off the rear- but either way, they wanted to cut harvest slightly and a shorter season was their way of doing it.

I don't know where you got that information, but I have a hard time buying it. It is just double talk by F&W as far as I am concerned.

Fact. We used to kill about 800 bears a year when we could bait and run hounds. Within a couple years we were killing 1500 a year BUT we have sustained that harvest number for over ten years now. The harvest of more imature bears WITH a high harvest rate would indicate a growing population.
Below is a portion of my letter regarding the closure of public lands.


--------

Yes, upon rebuttal, you may state that the bear population is not growing at the rate it once was, but we are also losing bear habitat faster then ever. Where will the excess go?
By not hunting bears in August we are bound to have more bear/human conflicts especially in times of food shortages. Who will be responsible for removal of these excess bears? F&W? At what expense? I do not want to see F&W or their contractors killing or relocating bear (and coincidentally spending more money) when they could have been legally harvested. It does not make sense to have the department do it when hunters will pay to hunt them.

Year   Total
2007   1585
2006   1642
2005   1333
2004   1654
2003   1566
2002   1725
2001   1439
2000   1165
1999   1113
1998   1802
1997   844

We are currently harvesting about 1500 bears a year. That is up about 500 from the pre-ban days of baiting and hound hunting. We have sustained those pre-ban levels or exceeded them for more then 10 years and we are still seeing more bears than ever. This is obviously not about the bear population.

But if there is any concern about the bear population then start by removing the second bear tag. I have not found any data available to the public about how many hunters are successful in filling both tags though my own informal surveys online show it to be about 1 percent of the successful hunters. I have successfully filled both bear tags in at least 4 seasons and though this will cut into my hunting time, it would be a decision I could live with if it was based on sound management.

[winston2789]

billy, its not on management and we know that.

[billythekidrock]

billy, its not on management and we know that.

Correct, but I am sending my letter to the commission members as well and they know nothing other then what they are told by the dept.