I love wolves. Seriously.

[OutHouse]

What you're missing is---> Wolves make it much harder to kill elk from the road...mic drop.

There appears to be a split on this issue. Just talked to a buddy in Alaska over the lunch hour. He's been up there 30 years and hunts every season. He thought the idea that wolves push animals closer to roads was complete nonsense.  He said it's the exact opposite, that they dig in even deeper and further away from other animals including man.

[Special T]

And don't forget that Grizzly introduction is likely going to be forced upon us in this state too.     

I went to the meeting in Mount Vernon. The USFW didn't want to hold a meeting in the county most likely to be affected. They also would not address the illegality of importing them into the state.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

What is illegal about the feds introducing grizzlies into Wa? Not that I support such actions.

I would have to do some looking, but Washington state has a law against the importation of Grizzly. It does acknowledge the natural migration of them into the state and makes the case that a hands off approach should be the case. Pretty sure it's an old law... 70's I think. I'll try and find it later on my computer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[theleo]

Are you in favor of more wilderness? 

Wilderness creation was just one aspect, another one I alluded to is things using ESA to drive out certain land users

I'm in favor of less roads. Call it what you want.

An area that does not allow the use of motorized equipment, mechanized forms of transportation, and where the land can not be used for commercial/private profit unless permits are grandfathered in.

[OutHouse]

RCW 77.12.035

[Special T]

Protection of grizzly bears—Limitation on transplantation or introduction—Negotiations with federal and state agencies.

The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs. The department is directed to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.

[ 2000 c 107 § 211; 1995 c 370 § 1.]



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Special T]

There is a thread in the Outdoor Advocacy  section on Grizz reintroduction.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[OutHouse]

Protection of grizzly bears—Limitation on transplantation or introduction—Negotiations with federal and state agencies.

The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs. The department is directed to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.

[ 2000 c 107 § 211; 1995 c 370 § 1.]



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I suppose the national forests are not owned by the state and therefore that's their loophole for re-introduction.

[kentrek]

So because you hunt roadless areas and wilderness, you think all hunters should adhere to your standards of hunting? 

You'd advocate for less roads and therefore less opportunity for those who cannot hike miles back in a roadless area and/or lack access to family owned property?

That's exactly what i see with the wilderness advocating crowd! 

What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Who cares, they don't matter!

Whose more important ?? I highly doubt jackalope has ever said he doesnt care about disabled or unwhiling hunters....why would you say that ?

[bearpaw]

So because you hunt roadless areas and wilderness, you think all hunters should adhere to your standards of hunting? 

You'd advocate for less roads and therefore less opportunity for those who cannot hike miles back in a roadless area and/or lack access to family owned property?

That's exactly what i see with the wilderness advocating crowd! 

What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Who cares, they don't matter!

Whose more important ?? I highly doubt jackalope has ever said he doesnt care about disabled or unwhiling hunters....why would you say that ?

This is my comment to anyone advocating fewer roads. I have friends who simply cannot hike in to hunt. My dad hunted bear as long as he could drive to his favorite spot and sit in a lawn chair on the edge of the road. He would not have been able to do that if the wilderness crowd had their way!

So, I ask again, you included:
What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Why don't they matter?

[bearpaw]

Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.

FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! 

[Alchase]

Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.

FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! 

I could not agree more!

[kentrek]

So because you hunt roadless areas and wilderness, you think all hunters should adhere to your standards of hunting? 

You'd advocate for less roads and therefore less opportunity for those who cannot hike miles back in a roadless area and/or lack access to family owned property?

That's exactly what i see with the wilderness advocating crowd! 

What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Who cares, they don't matter!

Whose more important ?? I highly doubt jackalope has ever said he doesnt care about disabled or unwhiling hunters....why would you say that ?

This is my comment to anyone advocating fewer roads. I have friends who simply cannot hike in to hunt. My dad hunted bear as long as he could drive to his favorite spot and sit in a lawn chair on the edge of the road. He would not have been able to do that if the wilderness crowd had their way!

So, I ask again, you included:
What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Why don't they matter?

Of course they matter, isn't there plenty of land that has roads to hunt ??

[kentrek]

Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??

[jackelope]

Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.

FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! 

How much packing business do you do?
How much of your hunting in this state is done on public land? I realize you probably don't have an exact ratio, but would you say half or 3/4 or 1/4 of your outfitting is done on public land?
The map that Kentrek provided makes a clear and concise statement on the amount of wilderness areas in this state. There may be 22 wilderness areas in this state but how many of those are of any significance in size? How many of those 22 are just one connected to another? Think the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the Wild Sky Wilderness. They're almost the same area west of the crest.
I'm not pushing for more wilderness. I'm fine with what we have now. What I don't want is what public land we do have that is not designated wilderness to be more and more chopped up with roads. I also don't want 4 wheelers bombing all over wherever they want.
There are places in the central Cascades where it's hard enough to get a mile from a road...nevermind miles and miles. Those places suck to hunt if you ask me, and they're littered with people who pay no attention to gates and run their quads and dirtbikes wherever they feel like.

[JimmyHoffa]

Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??

dark green is wilderness too