Post by: JackOfAllTrades on April 27, 2014, 05:25:43 PM
Post by: 3nails on April 27, 2014, 05:42:11 PM
Post by: X-Force on April 27, 2014, 05:55:08 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 27, 2014, 06:16:16 PM
What page are the boundaries described??
That avatar was taken Damn close to it!
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on April 27, 2014, 06:41:54 PM
"The Mt. Baker Wilderness is 117,900 acres, created as part of the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984."
-Steve
Post by: X-Force on April 27, 2014, 07:00:04 PM
Post by: 3nails on April 27, 2014, 07:45:01 PM
I don't see why? almost every wilderness area has "bunny huggers" on the main trails during high buck. should be a great hunt some guys.Well then you don't know the area well. Super easy hike into it from anywhere. WAY more day hikers than other high hunts. There's not one single area worthy of needing horses to get into. I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.
Post by: bobcat on April 27, 2014, 07:59:27 PM
I guess we are just supposed to assume that they mean the Mount Baker Wilderness Area. ???
I think I'll go hunt somewhere in the Mt Baker National Forest for the high hunt. :dunno:
Post by: shanevg on April 27, 2014, 08:39:36 PM
I'd love to see this hunt be a "buck" draw hunt with 50 or 100 tags. OTC and there will just be too many hunters in there!
Post by: X-Force on April 27, 2014, 08:43:43 PM
What's odd to me is that all it says is "Mount Baker." It does not say anywhere that I can see that it is only the wilderness area that is open for the high hunt.
I guess we are just supposed to assume that they mean the Mount Baker Wilderness Area. ???
I think I'll go hunt somewhere in the Mt Baker National Forest for the high hunt. :dunno:
alpine lakes, glacier peak are the same way. to find maps see page 100
Post by: X-Force on April 27, 2014, 08:50:43 PM
Not excited about this hunt. Not saying I won't hunt it, just don't think it's a good area to open up for that many hunters at that time of year. Not only is the wilderness too small and too easily accessible (many areas have wilderness access within a half mile of the car). There are very few remote areas to hunt that are away from trails and hikers (as in other wilderness areas.) Also, that time of years is still peak hiking season around here. There are already enough conflicts between hikers and bear hunters I can't imagine what it will be like when there are 5x more hunters all wearing hunters orange!
I'd love to see this hunt be a "buck" draw hunt with 50 or 100 tags. OTC and there will just be too many hunters in there!
I figured if anyone would be up for this hunt it would be you. I can see the potential for conflict but we as hunters always complain about opertunities and this is a great one. relatively easy access, multiple access points and beautiful country. I don't know if I'll hunt it because I have a multi season tag.
:twocents:
Post by: pd on April 27, 2014, 08:52:46 PM
Well then you don't know the area well. Super easy hike into it from anywhere. WAY more day hikers than other high hunts. There's not one single area worthy of needing horses to get into. I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.
3Nail or ShaneVG, do you mind if I ask you a few questions about your opinions? I have no dog in this fight (never been to Mt. Baker, no intention of hunting there), but I am surprised at the negative response to a new hunting opportunity. Isn't this an unusual occurrence, where the agency has opened a new area to a hunt? It seems to me that WDFW simply added another "wilderness" area to the high buck hunt. How can that be a bad thing?
With all of the land inside the North Cascades NP locked away from hunting, plus the legacy national parks (Rainier, Olympic), and the dense population in the state, you would think adding Mount Baker to a hunt opportunity would be welcomed. Instruct me where I misunderstand, please.
Post by: bobcat on April 27, 2014, 08:54:40 PM
What's odd to me is that all it says is "Mount Baker." It does not say anywhere that I can see that it is only the wilderness area that is open for the high hunt.
I guess we are just supposed to assume that they mean the Mount Baker Wilderness Area. ???
I think I'll go hunt somewhere in the Mt Baker National Forest for the high hunt. :dunno:
alpine lakes, glacier peak are the same way. to find maps see page 100
That page tells me where to buy maps. Maps of what? The Mount Baker National Forest? That's the point I'm trying to make, nowhere does it say the high hunt is only within the wilderness area. We all know that it is, but only because that's what the high hunt has always been.
For a new hunter reading these regulations for the first time, how would they know it's only in wilderness areas? At least with Alpine Lakes, it is an actual GMU that is the same as the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Same with Pasayten, it's a GMU.
I just think they should have some sort of description in there that tells people the hunt is only in the wilderness area.
Post by: JLS on April 27, 2014, 08:56:36 PM
I highly doubt that this was done on a whim, and without any thought as to potential ramifications.
Post by: X-Force on April 27, 2014, 09:04:30 PM
What's odd to me is that all it says is "Mount Baker." It does not say anywhere that I can see that it is only the wilderness area that is open for the high hunt.
I guess we are just supposed to assume that they mean the Mount Baker Wilderness Area. ???
I think I'll go hunt somewhere in the Mt Baker National Forest for the high hunt. :dunno:
alpine lakes, glacier peak are the same way. to find maps see page 100
That page tells me where to buy maps. Maps of what? The Mount Baker National Forest? That's the point I'm trying to make, nowhere does it say the high hunt is only within the wilderness area. We all know that it is, but only because that's what the high hunt has always been.
For a new hunter reading these regulations for the first time, how would they know it's only in wilderness areas? At least with Alpine Lakes, it is an actual GMU that is the same as the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Same with Pasayten, it's a GMU.
I just think they should have some sort of description in there that tells people the hunt is only in the wilderness area.
I was wrong and stand corrected. it does appear poorly described.
Post by: snowpack on April 27, 2014, 09:04:46 PM
Interesting responses here (please don't take this as judgemental or critical, it's an observation) that folks are unhappy about MORE opportunity?:yeah:
I highly doubt that this was done on a whim, and without any thought as to potential ramifications.
I would think most would be happy that more opportunity is provided. I guess if some like to hunt it during the regular season, it would be bad...hopes of those deer sliding under the radar.
Post by: shanevg on April 27, 2014, 09:31:13 PM
Mt Baker Wilderness just has too easy of access and too few areas to hunt compared to the other wilderness areas open to hunting. Certain areas in there are known to be good deer spots and are going to be just hammered. On top of that, way too many hunters in the field with not a ton of deer will lead to a slaying on the black bear population in those areas.
I love to see more opportunity, I just don't think this is the best way to add it. Bring back late archery seasons in 418, add more late buck hunts and make the late buck hunt longer than 5 days (as it stands now.) Add a high buck hunt but make it draw only to limit the number of hunters in a small wilderness area.
Honestly, I think this is an attempt by WDFW to add more hunting opportunities on the north side of 418 (which is a high alpine, wilderness type hunt) without putting a hurting on the deer on the south side of the unit (near Sedro Woolley) which is a more logging road low country type hunt. (Generalizations of course but mostly true.) Most deer in 418 are killed on the south side of the unit and they were looking for a way to expand hunting opportunities in the north side of the unit. I think the best thing to have done would be split 418 into a north and south unit and offer late hunts or more draw tags on the north side, not the south.
Just my preference, maybe I'm just a cranky old local who doesn't like to see things changed and possibly see more people in my hunting areas. :chuckle:
Post by: 3nails on April 27, 2014, 09:38:49 PM
I just don't believe this small area can support the volume of pressure it is about to receive. It has very low deer numbers already. X-Force thinks that it's easy access creates a great opportunity but I believe it will create a disaster. That time of year it is nothing to see 50+ vehicles at a trailhead from day hikers. Anyone can waddle into this "wilderness". With it being a "wow" "new" hunt there will be an overabundance of hunters that it just can't handle. I don't feel this was thought out well at all.Well then you don't know the area well. Super easy hike into it from anywhere. WAY more day hikers than other high hunts. There's not one single area worthy of needing horses to get into. I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.
3Nail or ShaneVG, do you mind if I ask you a few questions about your opinions? I have no dog in this fight (never been to Mt. Baker, no intention of hunting there), but I am surprised at the negative response to a new hunting opportunity. Isn't this an unusual occurrence, where the agency has opened a new area to a hunt? It seems to me that WDFW simply added another "wilderness" area to the high buck hunt. How can that be a bad thing?
With all of the land inside the North Cascades NP locked away from hunting, plus the legacy national parks (Rainier, Olympic), and the dense population in the state, you would think adding Mount Baker to a hunt opportunity would be welcomed. Instruct me where I misunderstand, please.
Post by: 3nails on April 27, 2014, 09:44:30 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 27, 2014, 09:54:59 PM
The crowding is a big problem with the high hunt for the Olympic areas. Tough to get a parking spot and overloaded with day hikers. The national park right next to those areas is practically empty in comparison. One major reason....dogs are allowed on the wilderness trails--and most are off leash once they are 1/2 mile in.I just don't believe this small area can support the volume of pressure it is about to receive. It has very low deer numbers already. X-Force thinks that it's easy access creates a great opportunity but I believe it will create a disaster. That time of year it is nothing to see 50+ vehicles at a trailhead from day hikers. Anyone can waddle into this "wilderness". With it being a "wow" "new" hunt there will be an overabundance of hunters that it just can't handle. I don't feel this was thought out well at all.Well then you don't know the area well. Super easy hike into it from anywhere. WAY more day hikers than other high hunts. There's not one single area worthy of needing horses to get into. I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.
3Nail or ShaneVG, do you mind if I ask you a few questions about your opinions? I have no dog in this fight (never been to Mt. Baker, no intention of hunting there), but I am surprised at the negative response to a new hunting opportunity. Isn't this an unusual occurrence, where the agency has opened a new area to a hunt? It seems to me that WDFW simply added another "wilderness" area to the high buck hunt. How can that be a bad thing?
With all of the land inside the North Cascades NP locked away from hunting, plus the legacy national parks (Rainier, Olympic), and the dense population in the state, you would think adding Mount Baker to a hunt opportunity would be welcomed. Instruct me where I misunderstand, please.
Post by: kodiak 907 on April 28, 2014, 06:58:13 AM
Briefly: Too small an area and too easy of access will attract a lot of hunters to an area with (relatively) scarce deer populations. Deer herds are going to get slammed and it's really going to hurt other general seasons in the area.
Mt Baker Wilderness just has too easy of access and too few areas to hunt compared to the other wilderness areas open to hunting. Certain areas in there are known to be good deer spots and are going to be just hammered. On top of that, way too many hunters in the field with not a ton of deer will lead to a slaying on the black bear population in those areas.
I love to see more opportunity, I just don't think this is the best way to add it. Bring back late archery seasons in 418, add more late buck hunts and make the late buck hunt longer than 5 days (as it stands now.) Add a high buck hunt but make it draw only to limit the number of hunters in a small wilderness area.
:yeah:
Honestly, I think this is an attempt by WDFW to add more hunting opportunities on the north side of 418 (which is a high alpine, wilderness type hunt) without putting a hurting on the deer on the south side of the unit (near Sedro Woolley) which is a more logging road low country type hunt. (Generalizations of course but mostly true.) Most deer in 418 are killed on the south side of the unit and they were looking for a way to expand hunting opportunities in the north side of the unit. I think the best thing to have done would be split 418 into a north and south unit and offer late hunts or more draw tags on the north side, not the south.
Just my preference, maybe I'm just a cranky old local who doesn't like to see things changed and possibly see more people in my hunting areas. :chuckle:
Post by: MountainTracker on April 28, 2014, 01:16:36 PM
Post by: JLS on April 28, 2014, 01:24:55 PM
Post by: jackelope on April 28, 2014, 01:34:17 PM
I can't speak for this specific wilderness area because I've never been in there, but I have driven to the wilderness boundary before in 2 different wildernesses.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on April 28, 2014, 01:44:28 PM
Post by: kodiak 907 on April 28, 2014, 01:49:43 PM
Post by: shanevg on April 28, 2014, 02:00:18 PM
There's a lot of wilderness boundary that you can drive right to. I know of areas where the road is the boundary. Easy access into a wilderness area is nothing new.
I can't speak for this specific wilderness area because I've never been in there, but I have driven to the wilderness boundary before in 2 different wildernesses.
There are lots of wildernesses with easy access but most of them are not open for a high buck hunt. I can't speak to the Olympic wildernesses as I've never been to any of those, but Pasayten, Glacier Peak, Alpine Lakes, etc. all are true wilderness with no easy access to hunting areas. Mt Baker wilderness is completely different.
More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.
:yeah:
Post by: Bob33 on April 28, 2014, 02:12:14 PM
Post by: haugenna on April 28, 2014, 02:23:50 PM
I don't see why? almost every wilderness area has "bunny huggers" on the main trails during high buck. should be a great hunt some guys.I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.
Sounds like a standard high hunt.
Post by: James on April 28, 2014, 03:27:51 PM
I am also surprised people are struggling with the wilderness boundary thing. It’s the USGS clearly defines Mt Baker wilderness.
In terms of hunting close to trailheads, there are plenty of places in Henry M Jack, Glacier Peak, and alpine lakes that are less than one mile from the trailhead.
Alpine lakes and Glacier Peak have some places where the hippy hiker population have to be worse. I mean, you can be in Alpine lakes wilderness from downtown Seattle in less than 2 hours (including driving and hiking).
I guess I am just not seeing how this can be worse than Alpine lakes wilderness.
One of my main issues with hunting in Washington is avoiding people, so anything to help spread us out I appreciate, hopefully it is not a disaster in other regards.
Post by: bobcat on April 28, 2014, 03:35:48 PM
So this may be a much bigger hunt area than you all are thinking. :tup:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on April 28, 2014, 03:50:49 PM
I think it's an oversight that it is not explicitly mentioned as the Mt Baker Wilderness.
Post by: NWWA Hunter on April 28, 2014, 03:55:46 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 28, 2014, 03:56:07 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: fillthefreezer on April 28, 2014, 04:01:12 PM
im not too familiar with this area but i am the others your referenced, i can think of multiple places where youre parked at wilderness boundary.There's a lot of wilderness boundary that you can drive right to. I know of areas where the road is the boundary. Easy access into a wilderness area is nothing new.
I can't speak for this specific wilderness area because I've never been in there, but I have driven to the wilderness boundary before in 2 different wildernesses.
There are lots of wildernesses with easy access but most of them are not open for a high buck hunt. I can't speak to the Olympic wildernesses as I've never been to any of those, but Pasayten, Glacier Peak, Alpine Lakes, etc. all are true wilderness with no easy access to hunting areas. Mt Baker wilderness is completely different.More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.
:yeah:
most of these (not all) are low elevation with significant climb to the alpine, maybe thats the difference here?
Post by: jackelope on April 28, 2014, 04:08:31 PM
There's a lot of wilderness boundary that you can drive right to. I know of areas where the road is the boundary. Easy access into a wilderness area is nothing new.
I can't speak for this specific wilderness area because I've never been in there, but I have driven to the wilderness boundary before in 2 different wildernesses.
There are lots of wildernesses with easy access but most of them are not open for a high buck hunt. I can't speak to the Olympic wildernesses as I've never been to any of those, but Pasayten, Glacier Peak, Alpine Lakes, etc. all are true wilderness with no easy access to hunting areas. Mt Baker wilderness is completely different.
I've done the high hunt in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and have driven to within a half mile of the wilderness boundary.
I've done the high hunt in the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the road I drove in on was the wilderness boundary.
Shhh....don't tell anyone.
Mu daughter is 6. She has hiked into 5 different wilderness areas. 3 of the 5 of them are high-hunt-able. She's not exactly a model of strength and physical fitness. I guess what I'm saying is, there's lots of wilderness areas you can get to and hunt the high hunt that are not hard to get to. If they were that hard to access, my 6 year old wouldn't have been there.
Post by: shanevg on April 28, 2014, 04:10:20 PM
im not too familiar with this area but i am the others your referenced, i can think of multiple places where youre parked at wilderness boundary.
most of these (not all) are low elevation with significant climb to the alpine, maybe thats the difference here?
I can think of 3 trailheads where you are parked in alpine and less than a quarter mile from wilderness. I can think of 2 others that are less than 2 miles and 1000 feet elevation gain to get into alpine.
Again, I'm all for increasing hunting opportunities. It's just that for this particular area, I would have much preferred to see two birds killed with one stone. Help draw odds by adding more hunts (and therefore spreading out hunter applications) by adding maybe 25-100 high buck hunt tags, increasing late season tags (and lengthening season) and if you want to add an OTC hunt than bring back late archery in the unit which is what most locals grew up hunting anyways.
Increasing hunting opportunities this way is coming at a significant expense to pretty much all the other seasons in the area and is going to result in some major hunting pressure for deer and bear very early in the year.
Post by: pd on April 28, 2014, 04:36:20 PM
Shane and 3nails are exactly right on this one. The area is WAY to small and easily accessible to add the kind of pressure this will bring. And these area's are absolutely covered with the tree huggers this time of year. I agree with Shane that it would be a good season to have permits to draw for. I think 25ish would be the right number. I don't think this will take a big toll on the deer numbers though. There are not many deer up there anymore to begin with, and with the kind of pressure it will get hit with there will be VERY few deer taken.
Thanks, 3Nails, ShaveVG, and CBoom. Your knowledge of the area is instructive. Good luck to you all this year, and let's all hope for a minimum of hunter/hiker friction.
Post by: shanevg on April 28, 2014, 04:52:51 PM
Shane and 3nails are exactly right on this one. The area is WAY to small and easily accessible to add the kind of pressure this will bring. And these area's are absolutely covered with the tree huggers this time of year. I agree with Shane that it would be a good season to have permits to draw for. I think 25ish would be the right number. I don't think this will take a big toll on the deer numbers though. There are not many deer up there anymore to begin with, and with the kind of pressure it will get hit with there will be VERY few deer taken.
Thanks, 3Nails, ShaveVG, and CBoom. Your knowledge of the area is instructive. Good luck to you all this year, and let's all hope for a minimum of hunter/hiker friction.
That's exactly right! I know the local "roving" forest ranger for the district and mentioned to her that they were opening up this hunt. First of all she was really glad someone told her (she said WDFW never communicates these sort of things to them.) She also said she's hopeful for a minimum of hiker/hunter conflict. She is not a hunter herself but comes from a hunting family and told me she's been working really hard to help defuse a tense situation over recent years. They get a lot of complaints about hunters and she tries to explain to everyone that this is public land and hunters have as much right to access the area as hikers do.
Post by: 3nails on April 28, 2014, 06:23:30 PM
Little surprised by the response to this. My hope of course, is that opening up extra land will help spread us out. I don’t know much about the deer population health up there, and if it can handle it, and no doubt the bears will be hit, but most high hunt areas seem to have more bears killed than deer.Two things to consider. One, Whatcom Co. may be the center of the greenie universe. Two, probably 3/4 of the hikers are Canadian. :bdid:
I am also surprised people are struggling with the wilderness boundary thing. It’s the USGS clearly defines Mt Baker wilderness.
In terms of hunting close to trailheads, there are plenty of places in Henry M Jack, Glacier Peak, and alpine lakes that are less than one mile from the trailhead.
Alpine lakes and Glacier Peak have some places where the hippy hiker population have to be worse. I mean, you can be in Alpine lakes wilderness from downtown Seattle in less than 2 hours (including driving and hiking).
I guess I am just not seeing how this can be worse than Alpine lakes wilderness.
One of my main issues with hunting in Washington is avoiding people, so anything to help spread us out I appreciate, hopefully it is not a disaster in other regards.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on April 28, 2014, 08:45:03 PM
I don't see why? almost every wilderness area has "bunny huggers" on the main trails during high buck. should be a great hunt some guys.Well then you don't know the area well. Super easy hike into it from anywhere. WAY more day hikers than other high hunts. There's not one single area worthy of needing horses to get into. I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.
I'm local on my side of the mountain and it will open a deer area to a month before the muley season, SO IM HAPPY. :chuckle:
Now when I go to one of my favorite bear areas me or my kids can score a nice blackie if we see one, defiantly will be a massive 3 point or a nice 4 point before we would pack it out of our hell hole. :chuckle:
As for the hikers well their just gonna have to get used to hunter orange and rifle noise. It's just as much our recreation area as theirs. :lol4: :stirthepot: :peep:
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on April 29, 2014, 08:07:21 AM
Now when I go to one of my favorite bear areas me or my kids can score a nice blackie if we see one, defiantly will be a massive 3 point or a nice 4 point before we would pack it out of our hell hole. :chuckle:
As for the hikers well their just gonna have to get used to hunter orange and rifle noise. It's just as much our recreation area as theirs.
I was talking to a buddy that frequents much of the area as his Bear hunt. He looks at it the same way. While not going to 'hunt' bucks, he likes the opportunity to take a buck while Bear hunting. Nothing more. He won't plan on making this a week long high hunt. Still, like others have said, I bet the place will be packed with west side hunters on the opening/weekend, that don't normally go on high hunts on the east side. This will take a toll on the Bear population and likely increase opportunity for conflict with greenies.
As for Hunter Orange... We're the ones with guns. We have to wear the orange. But the greenies don't. How bloody stupid is that?
-Steve
Post by: James on April 29, 2014, 08:40:33 AM
Quote
Two things to consider. One, Whatcom Co. may be the center of the greenie universe. Two, probably 3/4 of the hikers are Canadian. :bdid:
I have spent some time in bellingham, so I know what you mean. But there are tons of trails into Alpine Lakes that you can see over 50 people in an hour, areas that they limit the number of people hiking via permit, etc . You can almost see more people than walking the sunday Ballard market on a nice day. It just can't be worse than that, there just are not even close to the same number of people in Whatcom country as there is in King and Snohomish.
Post by: X-Force on April 29, 2014, 08:56:16 AM
I don't see why? almost every wilderness area has "bunny huggers" on the main trails during high buck. should be a great hunt some guys.Well then you don't know the area well. Super easy hike into it from anywhere. WAY more day hikers than other high hunts. There's not one single area worthy of needing horses to get into. I guarantee at 3 miles in from any trailhead there will be ten camps set up to hunt the same bowl. I've yet to talk to a single local hunter who is happy about this.
I know the area fairly well. I don't hunt or hike the big trails; Skyline, Ptarmigan, heliotrope, etc. people that go into those areas will find out very fast that they are going to have lots and lots of company.
More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.
:yeah:
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 11:15:34 AM
More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.
I keep hearing this over and over, are you folks suggesting this is a bad thing, or just stating opinion?
Post by: X-Force on April 29, 2014, 11:25:42 AM
More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.
I keep hearing this over and over, are you folks suggesting this is a bad thing, or just stating opinion?
For me its just an opinion
Post by: JLS on April 29, 2014, 11:40:12 AM
More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.
I keep hearing this over and over, are you folks suggesting this is a bad thing, or just stating opinion?
For me its just an opinion
Good, bad, or indifferent?
Post by: savagehunter on April 29, 2014, 01:43:15 PM
Post by: X-Force on April 29, 2014, 02:22:50 PM
More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.
I keep hearing this over and over, are you folks suggesting this is a bad thing, or just stating opinion?
For me its just an opinion
Good, bad, or indifferent?
A couple years ago a VG posted up a banner weekend of bear hunting up there something like 4 or 5 taken in 2 days so there are bears to be had... all elevations, all drainages. I have not had the opportunity to take a bear there yet but I have seen them everywhere I have hiked. Deer in Mt. Baker seem to be more spotty (admittedly haven't put that much effort into finding them) and I have only seen 1 I would want to pack out.
Post by: haus on April 30, 2014, 12:02:36 AM
Post by: darren on May 06, 2014, 02:00:02 PM
More bears than deer will get killed during this hunt.
I assume you're referring to hunters that have a deer+elk+bear+cougar license. Is that right?
I would have thought those hunters would be in the minority compared to those with a straight deer license because of cost and because of the logistics of packing out a huge animal like an elk. Any idea what fraction of hunters who participate in the high hunt have the multiple species license type?
Post by: bobcat on May 06, 2014, 02:06:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 06, 2014, 06:29:44 PM
:yike: I thought everyone ALWAYS buys the deer, elk, bear, and cougar license.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope I haven't hunted elk in years, made me mad when they got rid of bear, cougar, deer combo. :bash:
Post by: Special T on May 06, 2014, 06:43:45 PM
They did i on purpose to make you choose to spend more $ to kill predators or buy the elk tag and get juiced a little more.
Post by: 7mag. on May 06, 2014, 08:28:38 PM
:yike: I thought everyone ALWAYS buys the deer, elk, bear, and cougar license.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Me too. I can't imagine not having a bear or cougar tag.
Post by: 7.62Warbird on May 18, 2014, 03:36:57 PM
Post by: Bob33 on May 18, 2014, 03:45:38 PM
I think the hikers need to wear hi vis clothing during the entire season. Last year while while creeping through the dark timber I came upon a nice round black bear (or so i thought) 40 yards. Fortunately for the completely moronic fat guy dressed in all black during bear season bent over picking mushrooms, I wanted to see the bears head before putting a couple of 12 gage threw it. It's a real *censored*ty feeling knowing that you were 5 seconds from shooting someone inadvertently. I hope the forest service has the decency to warn the greenies but I doubt it.It's not the public's responsibility to be sure of one's target.
There is no such thing as "inadvertently" shooting someone. That's on you, entirely.
Post by: JLS on May 18, 2014, 04:28:00 PM
I think the hikers need to wear hi vis clothing during the entire season. Last year while while creeping through the dark timber I came upon a nice round black bear (or so i thought) 40 yards. Fortunately for the completely moronic fat guy dressed in all black during bear season bent over picking mushrooms, I wanted to see the bears head before putting a couple of 12 gage threw it. It's a real *censored*ty feeling knowing that you were 5 seconds from shooting someone inadvertently. I hope the forest service has the decency to warn the greenies but I doubt it.It's not the public's responsibility to be sure of one's target.
There is no such thing as "inadvertently" shooting someone. That's on you, entirely.
Agree 100% Bob. Is it smart not to? Heck no. But, binoculars aren't that expensive that someone can't carry at least a cheap pair to positively ID their target with. :rolleyes:
Post by: Bob33 on May 18, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
A prudent person would be wise to be visible during hunting seasons.
Requiring everyone to wear orange during hunting seasons would imply that hunters aren't capable of determining the difference between a bear and a human. One might thus conclude that hunters are the moronic fat slobs.
Post by: 3nails on May 18, 2014, 05:02:04 PM
This topic rears its head from time to time.I agree entirely. That is why I am against hunters being required to wear orange. Apparently we agree on this.
A prudent person would be wise to be visible during hunting seasons.
Requiring everyone to wear orange during hunting seasons would imply that hunters aren't capable of determining the difference between a bear and a human. One might thus conclude that hunters are the moronic fat slobs.
Post by: arrowflinger on May 18, 2014, 05:16:32 PM
I think the hikers need to wear hi vis clothing during the entire season. Last year while while creeping through the dark timber I came upon a nice round black bear (or so i thought) 40 yards. Fortunately for the completely moronic fat guy dressed in all black during bear season bent over picking mushrooms, I wanted to see the bears head before putting a couple of 12 gage threw it. It's a real *censored*ty feeling knowing that you were 5 seconds from shooting someone inadvertently. I hope the forest service has the decency to warn the greenies but I doubt it.It's not the public's responsibility to be sure of one's target.
There is no such thing as "inadvertently" shooting someone. That's on you, entirely.
Knowing your target is your responsibility, hikers have the right to enjoy the outdoors as much as hunters.
As for orange, I will wear it for the hunter that needs help identifying his target.
Post by: Special T on May 19, 2014, 06:47:05 AM
This topic rears its head from time to time.I agree entirely. That is why I am against hunters being required to wear orange. Apparently we agree on this.
A prudent person would be wise to be visible during hunting seasons.
Requiring everyone to wear orange during hunting seasons would imply that hunters aren't capable of determining the difference between a bear and a human. One might thus conclude that hunters are the moronic fat slobs.
There is the RUB huh... if "Safety" is the reason for orange then it would be wise for all people in the woods during hunting season to wear it, or at least promote it to the general public to wear some bright colors. I know i try and wear bright colors when walking the Silver Arrow Bowmen archery range and it is laid out with safety as its main concern...
Post by: skagitsteel on May 24, 2014, 09:36:48 AM
Post by: Stein on June 05, 2014, 02:12:09 PM
I don't know much, but the official wilderness areas is pretty huge and spread out. WDFW told me the entire wilderness area is fair game. Whether the more remote sections hold animals or not I have yet to find out. Even if they don't today, they likely will two hours after first lite on the opener.
From my perspective, it is a new possibility pretty close to my house. I can see how people who have honey holes for bear aren't too excited and don't blame them one bit.
Post by: wooltie on June 16, 2014, 06:54:37 AM
Problem is, anywhere a ROAD exists there is bound to be some popular, frequented, hiking trail / destination. Like I'm checking out potential areas along I-90 for elk, but there may just be wayy too many people for my taste.
I don't mind conversing with hikers, nor do I mind being around them; I just hate glassing an area and having hikers walk into the firing zone...
Seems impossible to get away from the hiking crew unless you find a forest road that leads to nowhere...
Maybe one needs to access a wilderness from the other side of the pass in order to see fewer hikers.
Post by: 3nails on June 16, 2014, 06:30:16 PM
Post by: skagitsteel on June 17, 2014, 07:25:25 AM
I think there's going to be a lot of people who are going to be confused by the wilderness, national park, and national forrest boundaries. They intersect several times.
I think there's going to be a lot of people who are going to be confused by the wilderness, national park, and national forrest boundaries. They intersect several times.
I think there's going to be a lot of people who are going to be confused by the wilderness, national park, and national forrest boundaries. They intersect several times.
Yeah and they don't make sense, really choppy wilderness area, a lot of High country that's not actually part of the wilderness.
Post by: bullfisher on June 18, 2014, 07:18:35 AM
Post by: haugenna on June 19, 2014, 09:44:37 PM
The more hunting opertunities the better. Seems like a lot of scare tactics on this thread to keep people out of an area. 117, 000 acres? I don't think anyone should have a problem avoiding each other, niether will the deer.
If you were familiar with the area you would understand it is not "scare tactics". While there is a lot of acreage in the area there is a limited amount of the high alpine areas that everybody will be hunting for the most part. And all those areas are fairly easily accessible. Not to mention thousands of tree hugging hikers are all over those trails that time of year. The better areas up the are too crowded during the general season when many of the locals head to the east side. Being that there are limited areas open in the early hunt I'm sure that area will see more pressure than it ever has. I think It would have been a great idea to open it for a draw area with a limited number of tags.
You just desribed a bunch of drainages in Glacier Peak and Alpine lakes. The deer will feel the pressure and move into the timber and be just fine. I counted 27 hunters within one drainage one year in GPW. Not counting the hikers. The high hunt has a lot of pressure and people continue to notch their tag or go on a camping with a gun trip. The first year will be a zoo with the newness of the hunt, the next year will be a lull because everyone will stay away because of the crowds the previous year. Then the opener will be mid week and the crowds will be small due to the lack of vacation. Then opener will hit a weekend and it will be a zoo again. Then some idiot will post a nice buck on the internet and tell everyone where he or she shot it and it will be a zoo again. Welcome to the high hunt.
Post by: kodiak 907 on June 20, 2014, 07:38:39 AM
Post by: actionshooter on June 20, 2014, 07:57:41 AM
The more hunting opertunities the better. Seems like a lot of scare tactics on this thread to keep people out of an area. 117, 000 acres? I don't think anyone should have a problem avoiding each other, niether will the deer.
If you were familiar with the area you would understand it is not "scare tactics". While there is a lot of acreage in the area there is a limited amount of the high alpine areas that everybody will be hunting for the most part. And all those areas are fairly easily accessible. Not to mention thousands of tree hugging hikers are all over those trails that time of year. The better areas up the are too crowded during the general season when many of the locals head to the east side. Being that there are limited areas open in the early hunt I'm sure that area will see more pressure than it ever has. I think It would have been a great idea to open it for a draw area with a limited number of tags.
You just desribed a bunch of drainages in Glacier Peak and Alpine lakes. The deer will feel the pressure and move into the timber and be just fine. I counted 27 hunters within one drainage one year in GPW. Not counting the hikers. The high hunt has a lot of pressure and people continue to notch their tag or go on a camping with a gun trip. The first year will be a zoo with the newness of the hunt, the next year will be a lull because everyone will stay away because of the crowds the previous year. Then the opener will be mid week and the crowds will be small due to the lack of vacation. Then opener will hit a weekend and it will be a zoo again. Then some idiot will post a nice buck on the internet and tell everyone where he or she shot it and it will be a zoo again. Welcome to the high hunt.
Exactly, This is why my high hunt involves another state....