Post by: shanevg on January 26, 2009, 01:38:07 PM
I have composed a letter to WDFW regarding the new proposals we have probably all read by now. I have decided to split up my letters by species. I will be writing them concerning Bear, Mountain Goat, Deer, and Elk. So far, I have only completed my bear letter, but I will definitely post my other letters when they are completed. I am posting the letter so that you guys can read through it and comment if you think any changes are necessary. I won't necessarily make all changes suggested... but you get the idea. I have also posted it so anyone who feels the same I do can email or send the same letter (or a slightly modified version of it) to WDFW to make our voices heard. Hopefully the flood of emails and letters will convince them to change some of these ridiculous proposals. Again, feel free to send this as your own letter and make any changes to it you feel are necessary. I will probably send it in tonight (both by email and snail mail!)
After reading through the new hunting proposals for the 2009-2011 seasons, I am very concerned about a number of issues. One issue that concerns me is the proposed change in bear hunting rules stating:
"For BBMUs that open Aug 1, the Aug 1-31 period is limited to hunting on private lands only. The justification for this change is to reduce conflict with other recreational users on public lands during the summer while still allowing bears to be harvested for damage reasons (e.g., orchard damage)."
This rule is a giant change from the past rules and very frustrating for an avid bear hunter such as myself. It seems that this proposed rule change is a knee jerk reaction to the Sauk Mountain incident of August 2008. This new rule change says very little for compromise between the two recreational groups at conflict (hikers and hunters) as a result of the incident, and more of a way to appease the hikers.
The August 1 bear opener provides an opportunity to hunt when no other big-game seasons are available. As a positive consequence, bear hunters have an entire month to spend in the woods before the majority of big-game hunters - deer hunters, elk hunters, etc. - fill popular public hunting grounds. Because of this, August is the ideal month for serious bear hunters to fill their tag – long before bears become spooked by a massive influx of other hunters.
The proposal states that moving opening day to September 1 aims to “reduce conflict with other recreational users on public lands.” In theory, this makes sense. It begs the question, however, “what is the actual justification for the decision?”
In my experience, as the season currently stands, there is very little conflict between these two groups. Most bear hunters make it a point to access areas away from people. When they do encounter other people, most hunters – who are well aware that they are under a microscope – make certain to act with respect and avoid any negative interaction.
Is it a coincidence that just this last season, a young bear hunter accidently shot and killed a hiker during the August season? I would wager not. But let us not forget that this accident was the first of its kind in the last twenty-five years. That’s a quarter century of harmless interaction between hunters and other recreational users. I fully understand how terrible of an accident the Sauk Mountain incident was. And worst yet, the accident was not wholely a result of too many hikers mixing with hunters, it was the result an unsupervised and careless minor who disregarded some of the most basic fundamentals of hunting when he took his shot. There are talks of increasing the minimum hunting age, particularly the age at which hunters are allowed to hunt alone, this seems to be a reasonable response to this accident, not the complete elimination of a large portion of the bear hunting season. Is the proposed season change justified based on one accident and the emotional public discourse that followed?
Some hunters, like myself, are limited in their hunting opportunities. For some, the August bear season is the only opportunity to pursue big-game. College students who have to return to campus before September, high-school students who have extra-curricular commitments once the school year begins, these are just a couple examples of people who this change affects. But closing down hunting seasons on all public lands for the entire month of August not only seems to be a bit of overkill, it also completely disregards any form of compromise between the hikers and the hunters.
If in fact a compromise is necessary between hikers and hunters beyond just increasing the minimum hunting age and requiring minors to be accompanied by an adult, there are many, more satisfactory possibilities that would appease both sides of the issue. A great way to deal with an issue such as this is to look at the way that other states deal with similar issues. In Colorado for example, the Mountain Goat hunts take place on very popular hiking/climbing trails. In order to deal with hunter/hiker conflict, the state permits allow for hunters to hunt Monday through Friday only. Saturday and Sunday (the days which are more popular for hikers) are hunter free for the safety of the hikers. It would be very easy to implement this kind of rule in Washington during the month of August for bear hunting. It may be wise to make this rule take effect only on hiking trails in National Forest where hikers are most prominent. There are many wilderness areas not accessible by trail where hunters frequent but seeing a hiker is particularly unusual. This option would also allow all forms of hunting to be open and still allow hiker's there sense of comfort during hunting season. If they want to avoid the hunters, just hike on the weekends.
Furthermore, the danger of hunters to hikers comes in the form of modern firearms. When hunting with a modern firearm, it is much easier for an accidental discharge, or a rushed shot to have catastrophic, unwanted results. Muzzleloaders on the other hand are much less dangerous as the hunter must be within 100 yards of their target before they can even take a shot. And archery is even less dangerous as it is hard for a hunter to shoot a target over 50 yards and therefore essentially impossible to mistake a person or any other unwanted target for a bear. If public land hunting needs to be closed down in the month of August to protect the increased number of hikers on the field, then WDFW should only cloes down the weapons that pose a threat to hikers, modern firearms.
This raises another issue, many hikers support the new proposal to close down hunting on public lands altogether in the month of August. This is because they don't want to see any hunters out on "their trails." But an effort must be made on the part of WDFW and the Forest Service and any other interested party to compromise between the different recreational users. The forest service and wilderness land is available for all forms of recreation, including hiking, climbing, skiing, and hunting. It is not the purpose of the WDFW to close down a form of recreation in order to "protect" hikers from what they do not want to see (namely a hunter shooting, or packing out a bear.) I understand that it is vital for WDFW to think of the safety of all citizens including hunters, hikers, and climbers which is why I have already pointed out that there is no need to close down muzzleloader or archery hunting for bear in the month of August on public lands.
There are further ideas that would be a better compromise than the current proposal which would also allow modern firearm hunters to take part in hunting. One of the best ideas is to allow Forest Service to close down certain "high volume" hiking trails for hunting access in the month of August. This is probably another great compromise because a lot of areas people bear hunt (such as logged out forests in Capital Forest) do not even see many hikers on a regular basis and are more of a place for hunters to spend time. Sauk Mountain is a particularly "high volume" hiking trail which probably contributed greatly to the incident that occurred last August. It may also be feasible to close down National Forests for bear hunting in August leaving DNR, WDFW land, and Wilderness land open to hunters.
As you can see, your new proposal a needless closure of a huge hunting opportunity for needless reasons. The closure is not in place to protect bear populations but as a "knee jerk" reaction to the Sauk Mountain incident and to protect hikers and other recreational users. There are many ways to protect hikers that are better than closing down all public land hunting in the month of August. I have included a short list of possible solutions and I am sure there are many more. Please take these ideas into consideration before permanently closing down all bear hunting in the month of August on public lands.
Concerned hunter,
Post by: yelp on January 26, 2009, 01:41:34 PM
Post by: woodywsu on January 26, 2009, 02:02:24 PM
Several people on this board have stated that as hunters we need to stand together. Your letter attempts to segregate hunters. That is a bad idea from what we as hunters have coming.
Post by: Bofire on January 26, 2009, 02:08:03 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 26, 2009, 02:11:07 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on January 26, 2009, 02:30:19 PM
I think we need to fight for the entire state to be open the entire month. If there is enough of a stink the WDFW can go back to the Queen or whatever legistlatures told them to float this proposal becuase it did not come from sound game management. If it did it would be in teh 2009-2015 game management plan. Show it to me in there.
Post by: shanevg on January 26, 2009, 02:33:17 PM
I like the letter and more need to be sent, but attempting to relate the Sauk incident with modern firearms is absolutely ridiculous. How can you justify that? The blame should be strictly on the parents. No minor should be hunting with any weapon without supervision.
Several people on this board have stated that as hunters we need to stand together. Your letter attempts to segregate hunters. That is a bad idea from what we as hunters have coming.
I am definitely not trying to segregate the different forms of hunters, I am stating the facts. A modern firearm poses much more danger to hikers than either a muzzleloader or bow. It is possible for a modern firearm hunter to shoot 400+ yards, a range at which it is much more difficult to properly identify a target. With archery equipment, you have to be within 50 yards, w/ muzzleloader I stated 100 yards even though I know w/ some guns you can accurately shoot farther. These comments in my letter are not to segregate different forms of hunting, but to encourage the WDFW to consider more of a compromise on this issue. As far as danger to hikers go, archery poses none, muzzleloaders only slightly more, and firearms only slightly more, but if they have to close something, then don't close everything!
Post by: shanevg on January 26, 2009, 02:35:17 PM
Well written I don't like the idea of giving them more ideas on closing certain areas becuase of hiker use. :bdid:
I think we need to fight for the entire state to be open the entire month. If there is enough of a stink the WDFW can go back to the Queen or whatever legistlatures told them to float this proposal becuase it did not come from sound game management. If it did it would be in teh 2009-2015 game management plan. Show it to me in there.
I understand what you are saying, but in my opinion, there is a problem in some areas with increased number of hikers. For example, up by Mount Baker, if you were hunting by Chain Lakes where there definitely are bears, you will run into literally 100's of hikers on any given day. I am not against something reasonable being done about that. Unluckily, it looks like something will be done, so lets propose some reasonable ideas instead of stupid "knee-jerk" reactions.
This where I mentioned in my original post: "Please send in something regarding this issue, feel free to use my letter as a template. But if you don't agree with it, also feel free to make any changes you deem necessary." I do appreciate your input, keep them coming.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 26, 2009, 02:41:58 PM
They open the goat season during weekdays and close them on the weekends when the hikers are most likely to be using the trails...........If WDFW wanted to help hunters they could have done that but they didnt...........just another cop out.
Post by: shanevg on January 26, 2009, 02:45:44 PM
People this is a cop out.........Colorado has the same issues with mt goat Hiker / Hunter conflicts in some of the popular areas and they have hunting in all of them.
They open the goat season during weekdays and close them on the weekends when the hikers are most likely to be using the trails...........If WDFW wanted to help hunters they could have done this but they didnt...........just another cop out.
Which is why I proposed that very idea in my letter (although I was not aware that they did this in Colorado so I will have to add that.)
Post by: woodywsu on January 26, 2009, 02:50:00 PM
Post by: Machias on January 26, 2009, 02:53:32 PM
Post by: shanevg on January 26, 2009, 02:55:12 PM
Trying to associate which weapon kills hikers easier is retarded. This should not be your "facts" for supporting archery/ML seasons. WDFW can come up with a better system for allowing hunting on public lands. Public lands are managed for several hobbies and recreational activities. You should be pushing more for a weekday hunt compared to a banning of modern firearms. Also, that hiker could have been easily shot with a muzzle loader. 120 yards is nothing these days for ML.
I said modern firearms poses a greater danger, not that they kill hikers.
Also, I have changed the letter to word this point better more in agreement with what you are saying. I hope this wording is more agreeable.
I realize this is happening due to the Sauk Mt incident. And everyone here is up in arms and should be, but folks they did this 6 years ago in NE WA and NO ONE was the least bit concerned then. I was at one of the three year meetings 6 years ago when the proposed closing the NE until after Labor Day so as to avoid conflicts with other user groups, ie hikers and campers. When folks at that meeting got a little upset they changed their tune and said oh well actually we have too many sows being killed and that is why we want a later season so some of the vegitation is knocked down by the frost and sows will have a better chance to make it. Three years after that meeting I went to the next meeting and asked them how the later season had done protecting sows.....they looked at me like a three headed monster, they had no clue what I was talking about. They have done this before, just covertly and got away with it without nary a word from the sportsmen of this state.
Well hopefully, the more widespread and public nature if this proposal will stop something like that from happening again.
Post by: woodywsu on January 26, 2009, 03:00:47 PM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 26, 2009, 03:05:08 PM
Trying to associate which weapon kills hikers easier is retarded. This should not be your "facts" for supporting archery/ML seasons. WDFW can come up with a better system for allowing hunting on public lands. Public lands are managed for several hobbies and recreational activities. You should be pushing more for a weekday hunt compared to a banning of modern firearms. Also, that hiker could have been easily shot with a muzzle loader. 120 yards is nothing these days for ML.
Do you even bowhunt? How could you say a rifle does not allow you to kill from a distance far greater than archery. Ignoring the realities doesn't "create" any greater comfort zone between hunter's and the State. The alternating days of use is potentially a great idea, nonetheless, a tool to prevent further takeaway's would be adding archery opportunitie's to area's currently closed to gun hunting in "no shooting" zones. I don't get why people view that as a potential takeaway, not logical.
Post by: woodywsu on January 26, 2009, 03:08:09 PM
I'm confused. I never stated that.
Post by: Abolt338 on January 26, 2009, 05:01:16 PM
Allowing them to base ANY CHANGE on that premise is a slap in the face to wildlife management, and it is our job to point out such flawed logic.
You suggested a day-sharing program, but why do we need to share days? Where is the list of incidents that show that we need to make changes to the current system? It was ONE incident; and the WDFW needs to realize that.
Concerning the language pitting rifles against other forms of hunting, I, too, felt a little uneasy. I understand what you're saying - that rifles carry a greater potential to harm people. But the bottom line is that the weapon doesn't fire itself.
You're using the same logic that anti-gun advocates use every day, and it's a dangerous game to get caught in.
The statistics would show that ANY weapon in the hands of a Washington hunter is safe enough to justify open seasons. Washington averages about ten (10) hunting-related shooting incidents a year. Very few of which are fatal, and the shooting last year was the first time in a quarter century that an incident involved a non-hunter.
Please tell me where the statistics show that Washington hunters are more dangerous with rifles than with other forms of weaponry. More importantly, show me where this difference justifies any such division that you have proposed.
My stance: DO NOT COMPROMISE! Compromise simply tells the WDFW that, "yes, you can legislate on emotion."
...and that's bad for all Washington's recreational users.
RW
PS My letter...
Dear Commission,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed season change for Washington State fall bear season. Moving the season opener on public lands from August 1 to September 1 significantly impacts hunting opportunity while does little to mitigate conflicts between hunters and other recreational land users.
The August 1 bear opener provides an opportunity to hunt when no other big-game seasons are available. As a positive consequence, bear hunters have an entire month to spend in the woods before the majority of big-game hunters - deer hunters, elk hunters, etc. - fill popular public hunting grounds. Because of this, August is the ideal month for serious bear hunters to fill their tag – long before bears become spooked by a massive influx of other hunters.
The proposal states that moving opening day to September 1 aims to “reduce conflict with other recreational users on public lands.” In theory, this makes sense. It begs the question, however, “what is the actual justification for the decision?”
In my experience, as the season currently stands, there is very little conflict between these two groups. Most bear hunters make it a point to access areas away from people. When they do encounter other people, most hunters – who are well aware that they are under a microscope – make certain to act with respect and avoid any negative interaction.
Is it a coincidence that just this last season, a young bear hunter accidently shot and killed a hiker during the August season? I would wager not. But let us not forget that this accident was the first of its kind in the last twenty-five years. That’s a quarter century of harmless interaction between hunters and other recreational users. Is the season change justified based on one accident and the emotional public discourse that followed?
Some hunters, like myself, are limited in their hunting opportunities. For some, the August bear season is the only opportunity to pursue big-game. College students who have to return to campus before September, high-school students who have extra-curricular commitments once the school year begins, these are just a couple examples of people who this change affects.
Bear hunters in Washington are already a significant minority. This change will only reduce our numbers, similar to the elimination of bait and hounds.
The WDFW states that hunting is its most-effective tool for game management; but that tool is only available if there are hunters who choose to partake. Reducing the bear season by delaying the opener significantly impacts the opportunity for a very specific group of hunters and fails to address any real conflict. Because of this, I ask that the commission forgo this rule change and maintain the general bear season, keeping the opener on August 1.
Sincerely,
Rylan Weythman
Cashmere, WA
Post by: FrankDown on January 26, 2009, 05:24:14 PM
I too understand what you are saying, but our priviledges have always been chiseled away and we are always fighting with each other too, and not sticking together. We should try to work this out so that we all benefit something from this. I think we have all learned something from this incident, but I think we need to stick together and work something out.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 26, 2009, 05:52:29 PM
In the name of trying to save people some grief and frustration here who are sending letters, I deal with the folks who are reading your letter's on a nearly daily basis and understand their inner-works pretty well. What you need to understand is there is almost always a pre-determined course before the first letter is sent and no matter how much barking up the tree occurs, that course won't change. Your best bet is to look at a way to modify the existing DFW stance, rather than propose a totally different alternative. I see in this instance, that modification being keeping existing season's open for archery, rather than rifle, so no opportunity is lost, frankly the only ones I see pissing and moaning about that are rifle hunters. I've always hunted bear with a rifle tag and it doesn't bother me to have to hunt them with a bow in just a few areas. I agree it's a good thing to make the State evaluate hiking capacities in all areas as well, as was stated there is some overcrowding in certain areas.
Post by: shanevg on January 26, 2009, 05:57:16 PM
I think some are still unaware there were two falalities last year, not one.
In the name of trying to save people some grief and frustration here who are sending letters, I deal with the folks who are reading your letter's on a nearly daily basis and understand their inner-works pretty well. What you need to understand is there is almost always a pre-determined course before the first letter is sent and no matter how much barking up the tree occurs, that course won't change. Your best bet is to look at a way to modify the existing DFW stance, rather than propose a totally different alternative. I see in this instance, that modification being keeping existing season's open for archery, rather than rifle, so no opportunity is lost, frankly the only ones I see pissing and moaning about that are rifle hunters. I've always hunted bear with a rifle tag and it doesn't bother me to have to hunt them with a bow in just a few areas. I agree it's a good thing to make the State evaluate hiking capacities in all areas as well, as was stated there is some overcrowding in certain areas.
That's what I am trying to get at. WDFW already has their mind made up about this. It's going to be a lot harder to convince them to completely disregard their ideas than to make some slight modifications that make some more sense. If you notice in my letter, I suggest in the beginning in more detail a much more beneficial to hunter idea, and by the end I am suggesting a lot of different things that at least have a little bit of give for hunters. Maybe I can start out by stating that all hunting seasons should be allowed. I may reword it tonight, we'll see.
Post by: shanevg on January 26, 2009, 08:05:38 PM
Post by: Jerbear on January 26, 2009, 08:08:12 PM
Post by: Abolt338 on January 26, 2009, 09:00:12 PM
I think some are still unaware there were two falalities last year, not one.
What were the details of the second fatality? Was it a bear hunter killing a non-hunter during the August season? If not, it's irrelevant. If so, I feel stupid not knowing about it.
RW
Post by: Huntbear on January 26, 2009, 09:31:16 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 26, 2009, 09:59:08 PM
What were the details of the second fatality? Was it a bear hunter killing a non-hunter during the August season? If not, it's irrelevant. If so, I feel stupid not knowing about it.RW
Suspect apparently thought he was shooting at an elk
Bail $750,000 for teacher suspected of manslaughter
By Stephanie Rice
Columbian staff writer
A Shahala Middle School teacher suspected of first-degree manslaughter in the death of a bear-grass picker in Skamania County apparently thought he was shooting at a three-point elk, according to court documents.
Craig A. Sjoberg, 55, of Camas, appeared in court Thursday in Stevenson.
Bail was set at $750,000.
Arraignment is set for Monday, when defense attorney Steve Thayer is expected to argue for lower bail.
If Sjoberg posts bail and is released from the Skamania County Jail pending trial, he will not return to his classroom. He’ll remain on administrative leave pending the outcome of the case, said Carol Fenstermacher, spokeswoman for Evergreen Public Schools.
Sjoberg is suspected of recklessly causing the death of Juan Cortez Rojas. The Tacoma man’s body was found Nov. 1, the first day of elk-hunting season, in the Skookum Meadows area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
Rojas had been at work picking bear grass, which is used in floral arrangements. He was shot once in the right shoulder.
Other hunters had given a physical description of Sjoberg to deputies with the Skamania County Sheriff’s Office, and that description was released to the media. According to court documents, Sjoberg called Sgt. Monty Buettner on Nov. 4 and left a message saying he’d read about the case and he might be the person officers described.
A detective obtained a search warrant for Sjoberg’s home and found a Remington 760 rifle and .30-06 cartridges that fire the type of bullet found in Rojas, according to court documents.
One hunter who gave a description of Sjoberg told deputies he had spoken with a hunter who had said he had fired at a three-point elk but missed. Another hunter told deputies he had plans to hunt with a man he knew only as “Craig” on Nov. 2, the day after Rojas was killed, but “Craig” never showed.
Stephanie Rice: 360-735-4549 or stephanie.rice@columbian.com.
Post by: Abolt338 on January 27, 2009, 07:15:16 AM
It's an incident equal to that of the first, yet this one received very little media attention. Why? Was it because the man shot was Hispanic and not part of the general "hiker" clique? Was it because the hunter was a teacher and an adult - leaving people with fewer excuses for their blanket justifications?
Remember what they were saying:
"The kid was too young."
"Kid's shouldn't be hunting alone."
Etc.
Who knows why this "elk" incident hasn't received the hype? I sure would like to know.
...but in this debate, it's entirely irrelevant since we're talking about a certain sub-sect of hunters in a specific time-frame - bear hunters in August.
The second incident occurred in November, and does not apply to this.
It's sad, for sure. It's another unexplainable occurrence, absolutely. But it doesn't hold any water in this debate.
RW
Post by: FrankDown on January 27, 2009, 08:24:59 AM
When Craig realized he had shot the beargrass picker he left, without helping him, or calling authorities. He left him there to bleed to death or rot. The other beargrass pickers found him later.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 27, 2009, 08:33:18 AM
It's sad, for sure. It's another unexplainable occurrence, absolutely. But it doesn't hold any water in this debate."
:o
Post by: Abolt338 on January 27, 2009, 08:49:35 AM
"The second incident occurred in November, and does not apply to this.
It's sad, for sure. It's another unexplainable occurrence, absolutely. But it doesn't hold any water in this debate."
:o
Okay, so maybe this needs more explanation.
The WDFW says we need to push back a certain season because during that particular season the probability of conflict between two certain groups is too high. All of this, we assume, is coming about due to one incident that occurred within that season last year.
Someone brought up another incident - the one I'm referring to above - that occurred in November, outside of the parameters defined by the WDFW. Effectively, the WDFW plan does NOT address anything outside of their pre-set timeline parameters. Their argument deals solely with the higher probability of conflict during that specific season - the August bear season.
Now, I would argue, in lieu of all of this, that both cases are simple incidents of chance. They are freak accidents that cannot predicted and therefore cannot be efficiently avoided.
The statistical probability that an incident of this nature will occur is SO LOW that there is NO significant predictability. The WDFW is effectively arguing that the probability of an incident is higher during one period than the other, but it's basing it's argument on assumption.
The bottom line, however is that the probability of an incident like this occurring in ANY season is so small that the differences between seasons is insignificant.
In layman terms, there was one incident within the August season, and there was one incident outside of the August season. There were no incidents in either set for the previous 25 years. Arguing that one season needs to be changed and not the other, or, that one season is less likely than the other to produce an accident is entirely unfounded.
The WDFW is assuming that because there are more hikers in the hills in August that there will be a higher incident rate. History, however, has shown that this is not true. The difference in hiker number simply HAS NOT HAD AN EFFECT.
Maybe, if there were a couple million more incidences of hunters and hikers coming into contact in one season or another you may see a change of one or two incidents. But even then, there's no significance statistically.
The only argument that can be mad is that Washington hunters are, in fact, safe hunters when it comes to other recreational users, and these two incidents are the Columbine and Virginia Tech of the hunting world.
RW
Post by: Ridgerunner on January 27, 2009, 08:49:53 AM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 27, 2009, 08:52:19 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 27, 2009, 09:01:21 AM
There are numerous ways to address the situations without eliminating the entire hunt all the WDFW has to do is a little reserch and there are examples of sucessfull workarounds in effect all over the country.
Post by: Curly on January 27, 2009, 09:03:47 AM
120 yards is nothing these days for ML.
A little off topic but...........120yds is nothing????????? WTF - that is a long damn ML shot.
Anyway, I haven't prepared my letter yet but I won't be getting into modern vs. archery or ML.
I'm just going to point out that it is not warranted to change the bear season and it is just a knee jerk reaction to the incident at Sauk Mt.
I plan to point out that there are many public areas available for bear hunting that are not near hikers and thus there would not be user group conflicts in the majority of public land areas. To punish all bear hunters because of a stupid mistake by one person is ridiculous. (My letter definatley will not mention anything about the shooting down south.)
I'm also going to mention that hunting opportunity for bears with hounds and baiting was taken away years ago and eliminating a whole month of bear season will most likely cause an increase in bear population.
I'm really getting tired of hunting opportunity getting taken away in this state. The other issue I'm going to complain about is their proposal for eliminating the use of dogs for hunting coyotes.
Post by: Curly on January 27, 2009, 09:06:04 AM
I do not believe they have made up their mind about this. What has happened is the public was outraged, called their legislatures who then went to WDFW and said we must do something about this. WDFW floats this proposal. If enough of a stink is made about it I feel that the commission would vote this down. DONT GIVE UP!!!!!
:yeah:
Post by: shanevg on January 27, 2009, 01:52:50 PM
Post by: yelp on January 27, 2009, 06:03:50 PM
Post by: Slamadoo on January 27, 2009, 09:05:03 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 27, 2009, 09:11:48 PM
Post by: Slamadoo on January 27, 2009, 10:39:33 PM
And my point was more about making people aware that there ARE hunters out there in the fall. If I was a hiker I sure as hell would like to know that there are hunters out in the woods during the fall. I think that the vast majority of the population is not even aware that there are hunters out there until they stumble apon them in the woods.
I guess I just dont see the problem in making people more aware. Giving people the information and informing them.
Post by: Slamadoo on January 27, 2009, 10:46:05 PM
Post by: logger on January 27, 2009, 10:49:02 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on January 28, 2009, 05:56:10 AM
I plan to point out that there are many public areas available for bear hunting that are not near hikers and thus there would not be user group conflicts in the majority of public land areas. To punish all bear hunters because of a stupid mistake by one person is ridiculous. (My letter definatley will not mention anything about the shooting down south.)
I'm also going to mention that hunting opportunity for bears with hounds and baiting was taken away years ago and eliminating a whole month of bear season will most likely cause an increase in bear population.
I'm really getting tired of hunting opportunity getting taken away in this state. The other issue I'm going to complain about is their proposal for eliminating the use of dogs for hunting coyotes.
+1
Post by: winston2789 on January 28, 2009, 08:09:49 AM
Post by: loper on January 28, 2009, 10:47:49 AM
I do not believe they have made up their mind about this. What has happened is the public was outraged, called their legislatures who then went to WDFW and said we must do something about this. WDFW floats this proposal. If enough of a stink is made about it I feel that the commission would vote this down. DONT GIVE UP!!!!!
:yeah:
Just because it is a staff-supported proposal does not mean the commission has to go along with it; if you have been watching the ODFW commission lately you'll see they have thrown their own staff under a bus a couple of times lately.
It is a major overreaction to relinquish a month of hunting opportunity over a single avoidable accident.
Post by: yelp on January 28, 2009, 11:02:42 AM
Post by: alecvg on January 28, 2009, 10:32:03 PM
Post by: Bofire on January 29, 2009, 01:31:05 PM
I cannot seem to find these proposals, can someone put up a link please.
Carl
Post by: shanevg on January 29, 2009, 01:46:02 PM
A ML or Archery gear cannot 'ethically' kill at the range a rifle will, no doubt, but an bow or ML can launch a projectile a hell of a lot further than 50 yards or 120 yards. It makes no difference if the kill is clean or just a 1 inch deep wound hunters still get blamed. I think my old compund would launch an arrow a good 250 yards, a ML prolly close to a mile.
I cannot seem to find these proposals, can someone put up a link please.
Carl
That really has nothing to do with this case. I'm sure at the proper angles you could launch a bullet from a modern firearm for multiple miles. Luckily, WDFW isn't dealing with very many people idiotic enough to try and do things like that (whether it be with a bow, ML, or MF. I'm not referring to anything about how far any of these weapons can potentially shoot in the letter. I am talking about the ranges that hunters generally stick to while hunting.
Post by: Abolt338 on January 29, 2009, 01:46:51 PM
A ML or Archery gear cannot 'ethically' kill at the range a rifle will, no doubt, but an bow or ML can launch a projectile a hell of a lot further than 50 yards or 120 yards. It makes no difference if the kill is clean or just a 1 inch deep wound hunters still get blamed. I think my old compund would launch an arrow a good 250 yards, a ML prolly close to a mile.
I cannot seem to find these proposals, can someone put up a link please.
Carl
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=jan2309a
Post by: woodywsu on January 29, 2009, 01:48:50 PM
Post by: shanevg on January 29, 2009, 02:00:32 PM
I believe the Sauk mountain incident happened with a 120 yard shot. Are you saying that ML hunters will not take that shot. I'm pretty sure there would more guys pass on the shot when compared to taking it, but some will definately still take the shot.
All I am saying in the letter is that 120 yards is about the maximum effective distance as opposed to 500+ yards for a rifle so as far as safety goes (as far as WDFW is concerned) a ML is a lot less dangerous than a MF. I know the shot in the Sauk Mt. incident was only 120 yards which just makes it all the more frustrating, but I am trying to argue any point I can w/ WDFW to convince them to keep the hills open in August.
Post by: Bofire on January 29, 2009, 02:59:31 PM
The wound/kill does not have to be a intended shot with out identifying the target. A shot that occurred because your gun fell over, or a shot that glanced off a rock will get the same result.
Post by: Slamadoo on January 29, 2009, 04:16:17 PM
Maybe you dont hunt bear with a modern firearm, but I do. A muzzle loader or bow will kill you just as well as a modern firearm. An Idiot with a bow or muzzle loader is just as dangerous as an idiot with a modern firearm.
It seems to me that you are trying to give concessions when there is no need to. All we hunters should say is that, " What happened at sauk mountain was a terrible accident and tragedy. But that it was only that, an accident. An accident so rare, that it hasn't happened in the last several decades. We feel that requiring young hunters to hunt with supervision, along with increased awareness by both hunters and non-hunters alike will keep horrible accidents like this from happening in the future."
I understand what you are trying to do, but I dont see why any bear hunters should lose their August bear season. It doesn't matter what you hunt with.
Post by: bowhuntin on January 29, 2009, 04:27:10 PM
Post by: Abolt338 on January 29, 2009, 04:28:57 PM
Why would you even bring up modern firearms as opposed to muzzle loaders and archers? This proposal is ludicrous, and should be stated as such. I don't understand why we hunters should give up any of our bear season for any hunting method.
Maybe you dont hunt bear with a modern firearm, but I do. A muzzle loader or bow will kill you just as well as a modern firearm. An Idiot with a bow or muzzle loader is just as dangerous as an idiot with a modern firearm.
It seems to me that you are trying to give concessions when there is no need to. All we hunters should say is that, " What happened at sauk mountain was a terrible accident and tragedy. But that it was only that, an accident. An accident so rare, that it hasn't happened in the last several decades. We feel that requiring young hunters to hunt with supervision, along with increased awareness by both hunters and non-hunters alike will keep horrible accidents like this from happening in the future."
I understand what you are trying to do, but I dont see why any bear hunters should lose their August bear season. It doesn't matter what you hunt with.
Exactly! Well said...
RW
Post by: boneaddict on January 29, 2009, 04:36:58 PM
Quote
120 yard shot
Haven't read your letter yet shane...trying new tactic reading back to front LOL HELL, there are guys on here that would take 120 yard shots with their bows. :bdid: 8) now on my way up the thread
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 29, 2009, 04:37:16 PM
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.
Post by: Slamadoo on January 29, 2009, 04:45:13 PM
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.
If this is the truth, and it very well may be, then I wish they would have given this reason for doing it to begin with. If I remember correctly, they used "reducing hunter/non-hunter conflict" for their main reason for removing the August hunt. Maybe I misread the proposal, but this was the general idea that I got.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 29, 2009, 04:48:21 PM
bears and the percentage of females in the total harvest as indicators of the status of bear
populations (see 2009-2015 Game Management Plan). Those data suggest bear populations are
stable to slightly declining (in a few BBMUs). The Department is recommending status quo bear
seasons, with two exceptions: (1) For BBMUs that open Aug 1, the Aug 1-31 period is limited to
hunting on private lands only. The justification for this change is to reduce conflict with other
recreational users on public lands during the summer while still allowing bears to be harvested for
damage reasons (e.g., orchard damage). (2) For BBMUs that open in early September, change the
opener from the day after Labor day to September 1. The justification for this change is
consistency with opening day of deer archery seasons.General Cougar
Here is the excerpt from the web page- The info i posted earlier is straight from the author of the "green sheet"
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 29, 2009, 04:52:32 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on January 29, 2009, 04:54:48 PM
Post by: Abolt338 on January 29, 2009, 04:57:55 PM
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.
When I spoke with the WDFW biologists (two of them) they both said that bear populations were actually a little on the high side over the last 3-4 years, which makes me think the comment regarding "stable or slightly declining" is actually a good thing and has little to do with the proposals.
They specifically state their justifications under the two proposed changes. Neither addresses population issues.
RW
Post by: need2huntmor on January 29, 2009, 05:01:00 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 29, 2009, 05:07:55 PM
If we were alloud to bait shooting immature/Sow Bears would not be an issue.or use dogs...
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2009, 06:21:51 PM
and possibly all outdoor users being required to wear blaze orange during hunting seasons
No! That is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.
Post by: Slamadoo on January 29, 2009, 08:48:46 PM
Post by: Slamadoo on January 29, 2009, 08:54:18 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2009, 08:58:06 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2009, 08:59:36 PM
If I am "Joe-Hiker" and am going to go hiking during hunting season. You bet your ass I am going to wear blaze orange.
If you choose to do so, fine. Would you want the government requiring it, and if you forgot your orange vest one day, how would you feel if you got a $120 citation? (don't know it would be $120, just assuming since that's what it costs for no seat belt)
Post by: Slamadoo on January 29, 2009, 09:09:54 PM
According to your logic though, why should anyone wear blaze orange? Lets just let any hunter wear whatever they want. It seems as though your ok with modern fire arms hunters being mandated to wear orange, but no one else. If it is that dangerous to hunt without orange on, then why don't muzzleloaders or bow hunters wear orange.
If other hunters in the field have to wear orange, then we should be encouraging other users like hikers, mushroom pickers, and others to wear orange. I just don't see the harm in the government reminding people of what is going on. They don't seem to have a problem reminding people to wear seatbelts.
Why is that such a bad idea? It is just a safety precaution. Im don't neccessarily think it should be required, but I think it should be recomended. It is just a way to ensure that people are as safe as possible. Why do you think hunters have to wear it?
Like I said in this previous post of mine. I DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY!!! I just think it would be a nice reminder. I feel that most people are not even aware that hunting goes on in these areas that they use.
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2009, 09:16:00 PM
Post by: Slamadoo on January 29, 2009, 09:17:11 PM
Post by: need2huntmor on January 29, 2009, 10:07:01 PM
Post by: Abolt338 on January 30, 2009, 07:07:00 AM
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
Post by: boneaddict on January 30, 2009, 07:25:56 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 30, 2009, 07:57:05 AM
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?
Post by: Abolt338 on January 30, 2009, 08:16:59 AM
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
Post by: ICEMAN on January 30, 2009, 08:24:14 AM
Post by: Abolt338 on January 30, 2009, 08:34:01 AM
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
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2009, 09:58:06 AM
Post by: Abolt338 on January 30, 2009, 10:01:45 AM
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
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2009, 10:04:25 AM
Post by: Abolt338 on January 30, 2009, 10:14:35 AM
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. :rolleyes:
Haha...don't get too excited.
RW
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2009, 10:23:16 AM
Post by: Abolt338 on January 30, 2009, 10:30:14 AM
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
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 30, 2009, 10:35:44 AM
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
Post by: Curly on January 30, 2009, 10:57:50 AM
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. :P
Post by: billythekidrock on February 06, 2009, 06:00:05 AM
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.
Post by: winston2789 on February 06, 2009, 08:09:28 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 06, 2009, 06:09:52 PM
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.
Post by: Snapshot on February 21, 2009, 04:57:58 PM
I think they have heard you....
Post by: Ray on February 21, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
Post by: Abolt338 on February 21, 2009, 05:26:03 PM
RW
Post by: billythekidrock on February 21, 2009, 08:51:56 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/2009-2011_recommendations/232-28-272_ots-2133.2draft_revised_2-19-09.pdf
I think they have heard you....
I hope they heard us, but I have a feeling this is but a small fall back for them to regroup.