Post by: Rhinoron247 on September 27, 2008, 09:55:03 PM
Post by: rainshadow1 on September 27, 2008, 09:57:24 PM
All the Quiliautes/Quinaults I've ever met have been really nice folks. His guide seemed representative.
Post by: PWN Kurt on September 27, 2008, 10:08:43 PM
How did he do? Did he take a 6 footer with his Glock?
Kurt
Post by: huntnfmly on September 28, 2008, 09:07:46 AM
Post by: JBar on September 28, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Post by: MHWASH on September 28, 2008, 03:22:18 PM
Then again it is the indians, so I don't know.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on September 28, 2008, 03:52:53 PM
Post by: Timberlineduke on September 28, 2008, 09:14:54 PM
Post by: Rhinoron247 on September 29, 2008, 04:52:27 PM
If you haven't purchased a hunting license each year for the last 2 years you should not be able to vote on wildlife issues. I just wish he would have really went off (A real rant) about the dumb ass bait / hound ban in this state. :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike: :yike:
Post by: rjm5 on September 30, 2008, 08:41:56 AM
Post by: JoshT on September 30, 2008, 12:44:00 PM
Second... if you want to shoot a bear... then hunt a bear. Screw dogs, and screw a bait pile... all I know is the lack of baiting and hound hunting has created a great opportunity for the general hunting public to hunt and harvest bears. You no longer need a pack of hounds, a guide, or a pile of week old donuts. Shooting bears over bait is a'kin to snagging salmon at the hatchery... you can call it whatever you want... but I don't call it hunting.
The timber companies can cry me a freakin' river about the 'timber damage'... they're damaging my right to hunt on state land... so phuck'em. If it was that big a problem... they wouldn't try to charge me $200-$500 just to access 'their land'.
And, let's not get started on the whole indian thing... those guys are a bunch of rapists. 'Native American' my ass! There is no such thing... two words for those guys... LAND BRIDGE. They can do whatever they want with the game on their Res... that includes bears. But, any self-respecting Washington sportsman should go out of their way to not only avoid those operations... but campaign against them every chance they get. Those guys flat-out STEAL game from the tax paying sportsmen of this state... STEAL IT. The Nuge hunting with an Indian operation... then yammering on about the way the State manages their game... is like bitching about Japanese taking over financial America... then driving away in a Honda.
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2008, 01:09:51 PM
What an absolute moron.
Post by: JoshT on September 30, 2008, 01:31:48 PM
What an absolute moron.
An educated response... please...
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2008, 02:13:39 PM
Bear numbers were already high even with hounds and baiting and no one forced you to hunt in the past with hounds or bait. You could still be a "real" hunter and hunt bears on foot before the ban. Bear numbers were not low before.
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2008, 02:24:19 PM
Post by: bucklucky on September 30, 2008, 02:39:18 PM
Post by: JoshT on September 30, 2008, 02:54:02 PM
Whatever... to each their own... I just know I wouldn't be too proud of a bear I shot while it was treed by dogs (or over a bunch of syrup soaked dog food)... no matter how big it was.
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2008, 03:00:52 PM
P.S. It is currently legal to hunt deer over salt licks. Running deer with hounds is nothing like running game that trees. Running deer with dogs is legal in some states but does not lend it's self to being able to look your animal over and decide whether is the right size or age or if it has young ones. In actuality we'd wound more deer if we tried hunting them with dogs, they don't tree.
Post by: bucklucky on September 30, 2008, 03:07:02 PM
Hell... then maybe we should hunt deer over salt licks and use hounds to chase them down too. We'd 'wound' less deer... and everyone would shoot monster bucks... wow, sounds like a plan... NOT.
Whatever... to each their own... I just know I wouldn't be too proud of a bear I shot while it was treed by dogs (or over a bunch of syrup soaked dog food)... no matter how big it was.
OH MY ! :bash: Must be a bunny hugger, grannola munchin, tree huggin ........ah never mind ;)
Post by: Bobm on September 30, 2008, 04:29:41 PM
The two go hand in hand and should be legal.
Post by: Curly on September 30, 2008, 04:38:59 PM
Whatever... to each their own...
Josh, I'll agree with you on the "to each their own" part. People like you is the reason why the stupid initiative passed. If you don't want to hunt a certain way then don't. But hunting with hounds and baiting bears were two great ways for harvesting bears and many people liked doing it.
I couldn't understand all those people voting for the ban.................just because they didn't want to hunt that way why should they restrict others from it? :bash:
Post by: bow4elk on September 30, 2008, 05:03:22 PM
It was not opinion; it was a list of wildlife population FACTS as a direct result of hunting/conservation dollars and proactive action by the hunting community nationwide. I also spewed financial data on the positive impact that hunting has on local economies in our state, among the basic benefit hound hunting and baiting provide the resource - better male/female identification, close range clean kills, etc.
If you were there you heard testimony from the WDFW personnel who's job it is to oversee predator managment. Their expert (it's their day job!) testimony wasn't enough. Public emotion won over WDFW facts and figures. I was dumbfounded. Why do we employ a whole state agency to manage wildlife resources, then put up critical issue in the hands of ignorant, emotional general public?!
Some woman actually stood up and said (paraphrase) "I've been a cat owner all my life and I just can't understand why anyone would want to shoot them!" I couldn't believe my ears! A panel of senators listening to this horsecrap on my tax dollar?!
This is precisely what happens when you put emotions before wildlife science and basic ecosystem management.
And for anyone out there who doesn't like a particular method of hunting, I have two suggestions:
1. Try it before you criticize. Early in my hunting career I too was personally against baiting until I spent a month trying it and found that it's not easy, bears are always unpredictable and will go cold on a bait in an instant. I have not run cats with hounds (yet), but know far too many who have to know that it is tireless, exhausting endeavor that often ends without a shot. Bottom line, if YOU don't like it, then choose not to do it.
2. Think about the big picture with how you vote. I choose to hunt with a bow because that's my preference and fits my view and satisfaction of hunting, but I'll fight to my grave for the rights of gun hunters because in the end, it's not about ME; it's about HUNTING as a whole.
Post by: bucklucky on September 30, 2008, 05:29:42 PM
Post by: JBar on September 30, 2008, 07:21:18 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on September 30, 2008, 07:33:16 PM
Quote
Some woman actually stood up and said (paraphrase) "I've been a cat owner all my life and I just can't understand why anyone would want to shoot them!" I couldn't believe my ears! A panel of senators listening to this horsecrap on my tax dollar?!
Im glad that there are people like that deciding how and if we are going to be able to hunt. Thanks for allowing the BAN WDFW way to look out for the hunters of this state,...........thanks again :tup:
Post by: JBar on September 30, 2008, 07:41:21 PM
JBar
Post by: huntnfmly on September 30, 2008, 07:48:37 PM
Post by: JBar on September 30, 2008, 08:07:50 PM
Post by: littletoes on September 30, 2008, 08:30:10 PM
Doesn't that speak for itself? More cubs and females are being killed now, than ever before.
JoshT, I don't know you, and you don't know me, I've seen a couple of your posts, both being abusive and attacking. You must be a kid, or just the type of person who believes his views are always best, either way your not off to a good start.
Post by: Rhinoron247 on September 30, 2008, 09:11:11 PM
It would be just as retarded for me to dis someone for not bait hunting. How frick'n stupid.
It sounds like JoshT might need to sell his Subaru and add more meat to his diet. Just a thought?
Post by: heavy hauler on September 30, 2008, 10:10:23 PM
Post by: heavy hauler on September 30, 2008, 10:38:52 PM
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2008, 10:44:24 PM
Post by: heavy hauler on September 30, 2008, 10:54:27 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on October 01, 2008, 06:21:47 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on October 01, 2008, 06:41:37 AM
For example, consider a simple hydrogen atom, basically composed of a single proton. This subatomic particle has a mass of
0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 672 kg
This is a tiny mass indeed. But in everyday quantities of matter there are a lot of atoms! For instance, in one kilogram of pure water, the mass of hydrogen atoms amounts to just slightly more than 111 grams, or 0.111 kg.
Einstein's formula tells us the amount of energy this mass would be equivalent to, if it were all suddenly turned into energy. It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large number):
= 0.111 x 300,000,000 x 300,000,000
= 10,000,000,000,000,000 Joules
This is an incredible amount of energy! A Joule is not a large unit of energy ... one Joule is about the energy released when you drop a textbook to the floor. But the amount of energy in 30 grams of hydrogen atoms is equivalent to burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline!
If you consider all the energy in the full kilogram of water, which also contains oxygen atoms, the total energy equivalent is close to 10 million gallons of gasoline!
Can all this energy really be released? Has it ever been?
The only way for ALL this energy to be released is for the kilogram of water to be totally annhilated. This process involves the complete destruction of matter, and occurs only when that matter meets an equal amount of antimatter ... a substance composed of mass with a negative charge. Antimatter does exist; it is observable as single subatomic particles in radioactive decay, and has been created in the laboratory. But it is rather short-lived (!), since it annihilates itself and an equal quantity of ordinary matter as soon as it encounters anything. For this reason, it has not yet been made in measurable quantities, so our kilogram of water can't be turned into energy by mixing it with 'antiwater'. At least, not yet.
Another phenomenon peculiar to small elementary particles like protons is that they combine. A single proton forms the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Two protons are found in the nucleus of a helium atom. This is how the elements are formed ... all the way up to the heaviest naturally occuring substance, uranium, which has 92 protons in its nucleus.
It is possible to make two free protons (Hydrogen nuclei) come together to make the beginnings of a helium nucleus. This requires that the protons be hurled at each other at a very high speed. This process occurs in the sun, but can also be replicated on earth with lasers, magnets, or in the center of an atomic bomb. The process is called nuclear fusion.
What makes it interesting is that when the two protons are forced to combine, they don't need as much of their energy (or mass). Two protons stuck together have less mass than two single separate protons!
When the protons are forced together, this extra mass is released ... as energy! Typically this amounts to about 7% of the total mass, converted to an amount of energy predictable using the formula .
Elements heavier than iron are unstable. Some of them are very unstable! This means that their nuclei, composed of many positively charged protons, which want to repel from each other, are liable to fall apart at any moment! We call atoms like this radioactive.
Uranium, for example, is radioactive. Every second, many of the atoms in a chunk of uranium are falling apart. When this happens, the pieces, which are now new elements (with fewer protons) are LESS massive in total than the original uranium atoms. The extra mass disappears as energy ... again according to the formula ! This process is called nuclear fission.
Both these nuclear reactions release a small portion of the mass involved as energy. Large amounts of energy! You are probably more familiar with their uses. Nuclear fusion is what powers a modern nuclear warhead. Nuclear fission (less powerful) is what happens in an atomic bomb (like the ones used against Japan in WWII), or in a nuclear power plant.
Albert Einstein was able to see where an understanding of this formula would lead. Although peaceful by nature and politics, he helped write a letter to the President of the United States, urging him to fund research into the development of an atomic bomb ... before the Nazis or Japan developed their own first. The result was the Manhatten Project, which did in fact produce the first tangible evidence of ... the atomic bomb!
Post by: JoshT on October 01, 2008, 07:01:03 AM
Why did it happen? Because hunters don't have the clout that soccer moms do... that's why. Put it on the ballot... and I'll vote for it again... that's just me. I like hunting bears, and I feel the initiative has created an excellent opportunity for a much greater portion of the hunting public to hunt and harvest bears. I'd be all for opening particular areas to hound hunting, or issuing limited permits on a draw basis... same goes for bait.
Post by: JBar on October 01, 2008, 07:06:39 AM
Post by: Machias on October 01, 2008, 07:33:04 AM
Can you explain how this changed after the ban? How was this opportunity expanded by the ban? You could already hunt by spot and stalk, calling, happen chance, berry field watching before the ban. Nothing expanded we lost methods. The current methods were already an option. If your saying because without baiting and hounds we have lots more bears, that is true, however now we only have an even larger excess, but we already had huge numbers of bears before. It wasn't like you had to hunt with hounds or bait to harvest a bear before the ban.
Post by: Geno on October 01, 2008, 08:18:29 AM
Just because we are all hunters does not mean we have to agree on everything. Last time I checked I don't ever remember signing a paper after hunters ed that said I will never voice my opinion against another hunters. Give it a rest people.
It seems to me that anytime someone expresses an opinion that may differ from our own there are a few members here that go right into the name calling or the differing opinion came from an "uneducated idiot". Our opinions make us all individuals, and we won't all agree on every topic. You all made good points on this topic, this one touched on many issues that hit a nerve with the sportsman in this state. We can agree to disagree for the sake of keeping our forums clean. I read posts every day that irritate me or differ from my opinion, I now choose to not express my opinons to avoid the dogpile from all of the members that let their emotions run rampant. I have minced words here before and now don't see how the forums benefit from us attacking each other. Let others express their opinion and try to be diplomatic with your response, it makes for a better read. Keep it clean folks. :P
Post by: Curly on October 01, 2008, 08:30:33 AM
Why do we even have the WDFW and the biologists that set seasons, dates, methods of hunting and fishing, etc. and then citizens of the State don't even listen to the people that are placed into those positions? If WDFW thought that certain methods of hunting or fishing need to be banned - and they have scientific data to back it up - then by all means those things should be banned.
But to put wildlife management issues up for a vote is STUPID. I guess we need an initiative to ban wildlife regulation initiatives. :P
I suppose I should not still be bitter over those initiatives after all these years but........ :stup:
Post by: JoshT on October 01, 2008, 08:46:30 AM
Like I said... I'd support an initiative to allow hounds/bait in certain areas, or by limited draw. I'd much rather see our efforts put forth to get the indians in check... a guy that works for me has already shot 3 elk from the Stampede/Green Water area... and he's out right now looking for another one.
Post by: Ray on October 01, 2008, 10:20:28 PM
By the way.. dual rights is crap. I am not against bear baiting but if there is one law of the land then it should apply to all..
Post by: logger on October 01, 2008, 10:22:22 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on October 02, 2008, 07:31:46 AM
On the other hand, as stated often here, we need to circle the wagons together on hunting issues. You help me, I help you. Our enemy on this one, and other issues like it, is the non-hunting public. Somehow, we need to convince them to support our causes....
Post by: Geno on October 02, 2008, 08:10:31 AM
One point about not having hounds chase bear, is that as a hunter without dogs, I feel like I may have a better chance on foot. I am not studied with numbers regarding success rates or saturation of bear, but I just feel like I have a better chance without the hound hunters in the woods. This is just an opinion.
On the other hand, as stated often here, we need to circle the wagons together on hunting issues. You help me, I help you. Our enemy on this one, and other issues like it, is the non-hunting public. Somehow, we need to convince them to support our causes....
+1
Most of the hunters I know feel this way :tup:
Post by: littletoes on October 15, 2008, 09:03:43 PM
I see it as another nail in the coffin....and eventually they will be done nailin' if you can get what I mean.....
Tell me this.....are you "ok" with folks using dogs for bird hunting....then tell me what the differance is?!? It just doesn't fit into "Your" little world to hunt bear with dogs? Is that it? There just wasn't THAT many bear/dog hunters out there, but they got "US" to split up, and vote against each other, didn't they????? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Sure hope some of you are smart enough to get that last statement.....
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 15, 2008, 10:14:16 PM
Post by: bankwalker on October 17, 2008, 05:15:57 PM
Whatever... to each their own...
Josh, I'll agree with you on the "to each their own" part. People like you is the reason why the stupid initiative passed. If you don't want to hunt a certain way then don't. But hunting with hounds and baiting bears were two great ways for harvesting bears and many people liked doing it.
I couldn't understand all those people voting for the ban.................just because they didn't want to hunt that way why should they restrict others from it? :bash:
it would be the same as modern firearm hunters trying to get archery, and muzzlers banned because they feel it leads to more wounded animals.