Fall bear season to be minimized

[Longfield1]

You guys do realize this is purely just a suggestion and the bear season start date isn’t moving dates as stupid as it is.

I hope thats the case. However, sending an email and voicing concerns i don't think is ever a bad idea no matter how farfetched it could be. You could send an email right now with something that concerns you weather its bear season or season lengths. Maybe you want to see the 3 point of better rule changed for mule deer either less points or more. Perhaps eastern elk change from spike only to something different or maybe just offer more big bull tags. Weather they like it or not there a public servant, and we are the public.

[ghosthunter]

You guys do realize this is purely just a suggestion and the bear season start date isn’t moving dates as stupid as it is.

Well I do.

But if you have been paying attention over the past five years it is a good bet that the suggestion is the first step. I believe that current commissioners hate hearing Spring Bear brought up. I also believe that the entire commission is stinging from that decision.
I don’t believe most of them want to get into another hornets nest.

So any heat we can put on this suggestion is better than waiting and see. I believe they are testing the water. Let’s let them know the water is too hot to enter.

[MADMAX]

We need an organized Sportsmans lobby in this state

A louder organized local voice

You see how fast and loud the blue hairs get

I’ve tried most of the major ones
Hasn’t worked

 

[highcountry_hunter]

We need an organized Sportsmans lobby in this state

A louder organized local voice

You see how fast and loud the blue hairs get

I’ve tried most of the major ones
Hasn’t worked

 

Didn’t there used to be one in the late 80’s/early 90’s? I remember reading about it when the whole spring bear disaster went down but I can’t remember the name of it. I believe they were based out of Spokane, maybe Dale will remember

[harveymarv]

my shot at an email in case it helps anyone get theirs off:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in opposition to language in the most recent game management plan: 

“Consider later hunting start dates (e.g., after Labor Day) in areas where black bear viewing is popular and conflict between user groups is likely to occur to balance competing uses.” 

This sentence is enormously problematic. It invents and foments the concept of conflict between hunters and nonhunters. I've hunted for decades and have never once had a conflict with a nonhunter - in fact all interactions have been cordial and friendly. Any rare conflict that may occur can be handled through existing legislation IE it is already illegal to harass a citizen engaged in the lawful act of hunting, and no ethical hunter is going to do anything to infringe on any other citizens nonhunting outdoor recreation. 

The idea of conflict here is a false narrative being used to further the agenda of antihunting commissioners to restrict/reduce/ban bear hunting.

The real problem here, though, is the language that suggests limiting the recreational opportunities of one group so as to preferentially optimize the recreational opportunities of another group. This is blatant discrimination and will certainly lead to litigation if acted upon.

The public outdoors should remain open to all recreational groups - I exhort you to remove this language and reject any further language in kind.

Thank you for considering,

[hunter399]

We need an organized Sportsmans lobby in this state

A louder organized local voice

You see how fast and loud the blue hairs get

I’ve tried most of the major ones
Hasn’t worked

 

Didn’t there used to be one in the late 80’s/early 90’s? I remember reading about it when the whole spring bear disaster went down but I can’t remember the name of it. I believe they were based out of Spokane, maybe Dale will remember

Inland northwest wildlife council ..... Maybe 🤔
That's where I did my hunter education in early 90's.
They have petitioned the commission before on a few things,just like every petition that hunters support....SHOT DOWN .

[fireweed]

I'm and avid hunter AND and avid hiker/backpacker.  I think it is a good thing for hikers to see hunters to see each other out in the field.  Usually they just pass each other on trails and there is no conflict.  Seeing each other lets hikers know, yes, other people use this wilderness too.  I've come across hunters while hiking, and hikers while hunting, and there seems to be more curiosity than conflict.  While hunting I'm always ready to talk about hunting if hikers are curious.  I've seen hikers  see hunters on a ridge half a mile away and start banging and singing because they think they might get shot.  There needs to be more education= hikers are starting to wear orange, but there is no reason to be scared of hunters.  Hikers do not get far from the trail, and (good) hunters do, so there is really no conflict.  I once ran into a hiker who claimed there was no game because they hike all over and never see anything.  I explained that to see critters they need to be up at daylight or out at dusk.  This was an "ah ha" moment for the person.  They learned something from a hunter.  Most hikers are nice, and some appreciate the "organically and free-range sourced" nature of hunting, but a jerk is still a jerk on both sides.

[ganghis]

If a person really wanted to pick a place for black bear viewing, I have trouble seeing why they wouldn't go to one of our national parks where bears are habituated to people, at high densities, and and hunters are already absent.  Does anyone know of locations where people regularly go to view/photograph bears that are also open to hunting? I don't. I'm just having trouble seeing this as anything other than a pretext for getting hunters out of the woods because some small subset of hikers feels uncomfortable with us being there. 

[Pathfinder101]

Email sent (to deaf ears)...

[highcountry_hunter]

my shot at an email in case it helps anyone get theirs off:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in opposition to language in the most recent game management plan:

“Consider later hunting start dates (e.g., after Labor Day) in areas where black bear viewing is popular and conflict between user groups is likely to occur to balance competing uses.”

This sentence is enormously problematic. It invents and foments the concept of conflict between hunters and nonhunters. I've hunted for decades and have never once had a conflict with a nonhunter - in fact all interactions have been cordial and friendly. Any rare conflict that may occur can be handled through existing legislation IE it is already illegal to harass a citizen engaged in the lawful act of hunting, and no ethical hunter is going to do anything to infringe on any other citizens nonhunting outdoor recreation.

The idea of conflict here is a false narrative being used to further the agenda of antihunting commissioners to restrict/reduce/ban bear hunting.

The real problem here, though, is the language that suggests limiting the recreational opportunities of one group so as to preferentially optimize the recreational opportunities of another group. This is blatant discrimination and will certainly lead to litigation if acted upon.

The public outdoors should remain open to all recreational groups - I exhort you to remove this language and reject any further language in kind.

Thank you for considering,

Very well written. Good work fine sir

[craigapphunt]

I feel like we have to do everything we can. Email sent.

[Jlittlebear31]

Email sent and forwarded to friends and family

[RobinHoodlum]

While I understand this is only a suggestion at this point, I'd suggest not taking anything about opportunity loss for granted. So, my thoughts...

Some great comments and recommendations for action here! I 100% agree that this so called "conflict" has been manufactured by anti-hunters. The REAL conflict (of interest) is the fact that a subset of slimy commissioners are meeting with and making backroom deals with 3rd party organizations who oppose hunting.

Secondly, non-hunting trail users (who vastly outnumber hunters) are destroying wildlife viewing opportunities by the sheer fact that the they are so far over capacity in terms of users/day in most recreation areas.

Lastly, let's GET REAL! Where are these so called black bear viewing areas? Who are the people who go to view the bears in these special places every Labor Day weekend???

C'mon people, this is potentially another effort to further reduce hunting opportunity plain and simple. Maybe the department will 'mitigate' this by adding hunter days in the middle of winter when the bears are scarce and you can hardly get in to the backcountry. That's what they did with our grouse season after all!

I'll be writing a letter that addresses these points. Hope you do too!

[Wanttohuntmore]

Email sent.

[hunter399]

Basically trying to change hunting seasons,to stop us from hunting federal land.
When this state can't even keep state land access open.
What a joke .
If you can't keep the lights on in your own house,then stop worrying about federal land .


DNR Recreation Sites May Close Due to State Budget Cuts | Department of Natural Resources https://share.google/jeqF9PVo9n2Cy4m7F