Post by: turbo on November 11, 2009, 04:33:03 PM
http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199610/huntfish.asp
Quote - Spurred by blatant congressional attacks on America's natural resources, environmentalists are setting aside past differences with hunters and anglers and working together to defend wild lands and habitat from timber and oil companies, mining conglomerates and irresponsible developers.
More than 100,000 Sierra Club members - better than one out of six - are active hunters and anglers dedicated to continuing the sporting tradition through public land conservation. Considering that more than 50 million Americans fish and 15 million hunt, such a coalition makes sense. Most recently, alliances such as Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, run by elk hunters, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, run by a former National Audubon Society lobbyist, have protected or restored 1.8 million acres north of Yellowstone National Park.
Trout Unlimited has been another powerful force in not only conserving public lands from the threats of grazing reform and irresponsible forestry practices, but preserving the Endangered Species and Clean Water acts. "What has made Trout Unlimited so successful is that it is run by people who are not just sportsmen or environmentalists, but both, " wrote Ted Williams in the September/October issue of Sierra magazine.
"Whenever sportsmen combine with environmentalists, you have 60 to 70 percent of the population, an absolutely irresistible coalition," Chris Potholm, professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin College in Maine, told the magazine.
http://www.nature.org/magazine/autumn2006/features/art18601.html
http://www.snowest.com/news/print.cfm?id=1637
http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/07/images/RMEF_Support_for_Beaverhead_Partnership.jpg
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?id=1112
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=177777&page=3
Do you really think they have your best interest in mind? Do you care where you spend your money? I say boycott them!!
Here is a few more companys that give money to shut you out of your land.
Duofold
Turtle fur
Fedex
Leatherman
Nalgene
New balance
Coleman
Woolrich
Cabelas
LL Bean
REI
Start writing your letters now!
Post by: elkaholic123 on November 11, 2009, 04:42:33 PM
Post by: hunterofelk on November 11, 2009, 05:17:04 PM
Acreage for elk and other animals is disappearing fast. The ranch I grew up hunting on is now a gated community for high income brackets and a hunting club. Also, real estate is much more expensive now than ever before, so the RMEF must work with other foundations in order to reach the goal of preserving habitat.
Do you want public land to hunt? Do you remember years ago, maybe the sixties or seventies, when you had so many more opportunities to hunt for free or a low expense. It was much easier to get on private land then, now you have to pay or hunt with the crowds. What do you see in the future for our children? For the elk herds?Summer and winter range reduced to a fenced in hunting club?
Post by: jackelope on November 11, 2009, 08:43:36 PM
Post by: washelkhntr on November 11, 2009, 08:51:45 PM
Post by: jmoyer2 on November 11, 2009, 09:01:56 PM
If you support them then you support wilderness land closures and are supporting the Sierra club with your money! If you want to take away your rights to public land then continue to give them your money.What? So what. No offense to you off road guys, but it has its time and place. I personally feel that all i need is my own two feet and maybe a good pack mule for the hairiest of situations while hunting. Nothing like packing in a few miles and then seeing some quads buzz by you >:(
http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199610/huntfish.asp
Quote - Spurred by blatant congressional attacks on America's natural resources, environmentalists are setting aside past differences with hunters and anglers and working together to defend wild lands and habitat from timber and oil companies, mining conglomerates and irresponsible developers.
More than 100,000 Sierra Club members - better than one out of six - are active hunters and anglers dedicated to continuing the sporting tradition through public land conservation. Considering that more than 50 million Americans fish and 15 million hunt, such a coalition makes sense. Most recently, alliances such as Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, run by elk hunters, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, run by a former National Audubon Society lobbyist, have protected or restored 1.8 million acres north of Yellowstone National Park.
Trout Unlimited has been another powerful force in not only conserving public lands from the threats of grazing reform and irresponsible forestry practices, but preserving the Endangered Species and Clean Water acts. "What has made Trout Unlimited so successful is that it is run by people who are not just sportsmen or environmentalists, but both, " wrote Ted Williams in the September/October issue of Sierra magazine.
"Whenever sportsmen combine with environmentalists, you have 60 to 70 percent of the population, an absolutely irresistible coalition," Chris Potholm, professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin College in Maine, told the magazine.
http://www.nature.org/magazine/autumn2006/features/art18601.html
http://www.snowest.com/news/print.cfm?id=1637
http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/07/images/RMEF_Support_for_Beaverhead_Partnership.jpg
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?id=1112
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=177777&page=3
Do you really think they have your best interest in mind? Do you care where you spend your money? I say boycott them!!
Here is a few more companys that give money to shut you out of your land.
Duofold
Turtle fur
Fedex
Leatherman
Nalgene
New balance
Coleman
Woolrich
Cabelas
LL Bean
REI
Start writing your letters now!
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on November 11, 2009, 09:13:35 PM
Post by: fishm@n on November 11, 2009, 09:38:06 PM
The northern yellowstone land acquisitions are about protecting elk habitat and the ability to continue harvesting for many generations to come.
RMEF is about habitat preservation in the name of keeping elk and other critters alive especially during the winter months. NO WINTER RANGE = NO ELK. If that means keeping ORV's out of winter range then it is a good thing whether you don't realize it. Get a clue dude.
Post by: RUTNBULL1 on November 11, 2009, 09:45:07 PM
Post by: Grizzly95 on November 11, 2009, 09:52:28 PM
When bunny huggers and wildlife groups like RMEF can agree on helping to protect and even restore habitat I think I would have to agree with them. I didn't read all the articles and I am sure each each group has hidden objectives for their own gain.
Post by: dbllunger on November 11, 2009, 09:54:28 PM
Post by: CastleRocker on November 11, 2009, 09:54:43 PM
If we have to sacrifice quads and snowmobiles to provide quality habitat and opportunity for elk and elk hunting. So be it!!
What in the heck are you talking about??? I've heard this argument before, and it is usually brought up by...well I won't go there. I don't know if you have ever been on a snowmobile, but where and when they are ridden (high in the mountains in the deep "snow") is not habitat for elk until the snow is melted. How would something that doesn't even touch the ground harm the "habitat"? Some of you need to go sledding and see first hand before you make judgments based on reports you read in some conservation magazine.
I don't like being passed by quads when I've been walking all morning either. I don't know anyone that does. However, if it's legal to ride them there, then that is the way it is. If it's not legal, deal with it, or turn them in.
When I want to hunt where there aren't any mountain bikes, or quads, or any other means of mechanical conveyance, I go to the millions of acres of wilderness area we have in this state.
I do not agree with the Sierra Club, RMEF (or any other organization) closing down public USFS land under the guise of "oh it's for the habitat". I spent a large portion of my life logging. That means I was out working in the woods every day, all day. So I've seen first hand what happens to the elk population when an area is logged. (In case you don't know; it goes up).
I don't support any "conservation" type groups, just because I really don't think they have hunters best interests in mind.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: turbo on November 12, 2009, 08:10:50 AM
There have been studies after studies on the impact of snowmobiles and wildlife and all conclusions are the same. There is no impact because there are no animals in 4 to 20 ft of snow. As far as the growth of wilderness areas and the continued depletion of your rights on OUR land, I do not support that, we have enough! Only horse people (yah, I said it) and whack job leftist extremists that want to take away all of your land use and hunting rights do. As well as the city folk who sit in their cubicle and think it sounds like a great idea from behind a desk and never use the land.
What do you think is going to be the impact on existing land when they continue to squeeze down open ORV use lands. It will get trashed and then they will have an even better reason to shut it all down due to the destruction of public lands. DUH! All you have to do is look at the Reider's (sp) pit closure as an example on the west side. Gone for good.
For hunters to align themselves with leftist, extremist, elitist groups like the Sierra club, the conservation society and now RMEF is "change you can believe in"!! By giving money to the RMEF you are giving support and money to groups that want to eliminate you, your impact on land, your rights and your guns!! Good luck with that and enjoy the beginning of the end for hunting. I know where my money's not going and I will continue to call out the whackos and fight against your extremist groups. Have a nice day.
Post by: colockumelk on November 12, 2009, 10:14:00 AM
i don't get the point of the thread. call me stupid.
Basically the RMEF is buying up some land. They are not going to allow snowmobiles, ORV's etc on that land. So God forbid people that want to hunt this are will have to walk. :yike: Oh the travesty of it all:) So a road hunter saw this got pissed because he can't drive all over in that area. And thus this thread was born.
I love the RMEF. Hopefully they do the same thing in the Colockum since the WDFW wont. Maybe then the elk herd in the Colockum might have a chance. To all the people that freak out everytime they close a road forcing you to maybe walk I have this to say.
Calm down and take a deep breath. Just because the RMEF buys some land and closes it to ORV's and snowmobilers doesn't mean you can't hunt there. You can still use your two feet just like the rest of us. Also if that is not possible for you there are still tons of other areas that you can drive your ATV all over just like you want to. Just because one are is closed to motor vehicles doesn't mean it's the end of the world. Wildnerness areas are awsome. You don't hear chainsaws, ATV's or anything. Just silence and lots of bull elk screaming all over. It's awsome you should try it sometime. On second thought wilderness areas are horrible. It's cold, it's always snowing and there aren't any animals. Areas with roads are much better. :chuckle:
Post by: turbo on November 12, 2009, 12:33:12 PM
i don't get the point of the thread. call me stupid.
Basically the RMEF is buying up some land. They are not going to allow snowmobiles, ORV's etc on that land. So God forbid people that want to hunt this are will have to walk. :yike: Oh the travesty of it all:) So a road hunter saw this got pissed because he can't drive all over in that area. And thus this thread was born.
I love the RMEF. Hopefully they do the same thing in the Colockum since the WDFW wont. Maybe then the elk herd in the Colockum might have a chance. To all the people that freak out everytime they close a road forcing you to maybe walk I have this to say.
Calm down and take a deep breath. Just because the RMEF buys some land and closes it to ORV's and snowmobilers doesn't mean you can't hunt there. You can still use your two feet just like the rest of us. Also if that is not possible for you there are still tons of other areas that you can drive your ATV all over just like you want to. Just because one are is closed to motor vehicles doesn't mean it's the end of the world. Wildnerness areas are awsome. You don't hear chainsaws, ATV's or anything. Just silence and lots of bull elk screaming all over. It's awsome you should try it sometime. On second thought wilderness areas are horrible. It's cold, it's always snowing and there aren't any animals. Areas with roads are much better. :chuckle:
What the F are you talking about? I guess you didn't read the post. I never once mentioned private land and I don't own ATV's, Jeeps dirt bikes and I certainly wouldn't hunt on one. As I said above if you were to read it, I hunt in the fricken wilderness!!!!!
All I'm saying is we have enough wilderness! We don't need more and selling your souls to the Sierra club through the partnership with RMEF is rediculous for any hunter. They HATE you!! They will take away your rights as a hunter in the end. Go ahead and give your money to these anti hunting, anti rights, left wing whack jobs through RMEF, I'm done.
Post by: Broken Arrow on November 12, 2009, 12:42:17 PM
Post by: Special T on November 12, 2009, 01:03:05 PM
Post by: CastleRocker on November 12, 2009, 01:26:55 PM
For the RMEF to close an area to sleds, by saying it is saving habitat is a bunch of bs. The conservationists are using the divide and conquer tactic, and like I said; it seems to be working.
Waiting for Norsepeak to see this thread.
Post by: stewcamp on November 12, 2009, 01:34:56 PM
Post by: sako223 on November 12, 2009, 02:10:20 PM
Disrespectful & lazy hunters along with ORV's have created growing problems with access to public and private ground. We have less resources to control this.
Natural resource leases and purchases have peaked in recent years, impacting wildlife in many areas in the US.
We are fortunate to have so much diverse public ground in this state for hunting.
With all that I am against having any more closed access hunting ground.
Post by: turbo on November 12, 2009, 03:26:55 PM
WOW...WEIRD THREAD.......RMEF hates hunters?...ok
No, The Sierra club hates hunters and the Nature conservancy hates hunters and now RMEF is in bed with them! Why would they do that??????????? Is it that hard to understand?
Do you really think that by getting in bed with the enemy (the Sierra club and Nature conservancy for those on the short bus) and giving them YOUR money and support by membership numbers, that's going to help the hunting cause?? What good is more habitat if their ultimate goal is to stop you from using it?
If you do, then I know a really fiscally conservative great governor you should re-elect. Yep, I'm fired up!
Post by: 3dvapor on November 12, 2009, 08:06:22 PM
Post by: KillerMiller on November 12, 2009, 08:18:21 PM
Weird, I got written hunting permission to hunt land purchased by this group.:)
Post by: norsepeak on November 12, 2009, 10:25:12 PM
Post by: Bigfoot on November 13, 2009, 01:39:49 AM
Post by: sako223 on November 13, 2009, 10:40:47 AM
Quote
He told me these types of things are happening all over the west and will only continue because hunters as a group cannot get organized and work together which I see everyday on this sight. The bow hunters hate the rifle hunters, the muzzleloaders hate the bow hunters, the rifle hunters hate the other two, the "wilderness" hunters hate quads/jeeps, the road hunters hate the wilderness hunters...etc. etc....as long as we as hunters collectively cannot work together, we will continue to lose hunting land for all of us to use.
I have been saying this here and elsewhere for several years. Get scoffed at every time. Our seasons will be going right along with any other losses.
Quote
I say support RMEF and keep all ORV's off the trails on public land, especially in wilderness areas. If you want to hunt where there are no roads, walk your ass in there. If you want to ride your quad, go do it on timber company land. My
Public land is the important part here. Multiple user group. We already have wilderness & national & state parks. Feel free to use it. The rest of the land should be available for all of us to use.
Post by: 300bullelk on November 13, 2009, 12:57:21 PM
Post by: turbo on November 13, 2009, 02:11:33 PM
Hey Castlerock, appreciated the shout....I had a long conversation with the local game warden a couple of weeks ago about these very same issues....after talking with him and seeing some of the posts and personallities on here, I've given up "voiceing" my opinions and observations that I make in my 200+ days a year in the woods. He told me these types of things are happening all over the west and will only continue because hunters as a group cannot get organized and work together which I see everyday on this sight. The bow hunters hate the rifle hunters, the muzzleloaders hate the bow hunters, the rifle hunters hate the other two, the "wilderness" hunters hate quads/jeeps, the road hunters hate the wilderness hunters...etc. etc....as long as we as hunters collectively cannot work together, we will continue to lose hunting land for all of us to use. I could go on and on about motorized uses in national land, vs. wilderness uses but I feel like it's a waist of my time on the this forum, so I'll just keep spending a lot of time in the woods enjoying my ATV's, dirtbike, snowmobiles, jeep and hunting and not worry about it, what will be, will be.
Good post and all true.
Post by: colockumelk on November 16, 2009, 12:24:40 PM
Post by: high country on November 16, 2009, 06:36:20 PM
I say support RMEF and keep all ORV's off the trails on public land, especially in wilderness areas. If you want to hunt where there are no roads, walk your ass in there. If you want to ride your quad, go do it on timber company land. My :twocents:
well lets say we kill off all the forest service roads to motorized rigs of all kinds....which is the vibe I recieved from your post...my father who served 2 tours in vietnam and is unable to walk, will never again enjoy the view from any of the several mountain tops we can now drive to. firewood will be a thing of the past....timber co.s don't have enough dead and down to keep us all warm and the wood cutting pirates that uesd to buy wood permits on fs land would need to rob from the timber co lands.....more closed gates. the average guy is never going to walk the 10-20 miles to any of my local high mountain lakes.....which will not matter if f&g can't drive there to stock them. it goes on and on....
I am a serious backcountry hunter. I have a diesease that makes me want to go where most folks won't and I do it on foot. I am also a backcountry snowmobilier. I live in an area that has seen closures for a caribou that have never beens seen and never been able to have a shed produced....but it is still closed for the grey ghost. I am most overwhelmed by the trapper burn closre at priest lake......caribou eat lichen from trees, old silver trees do not have lichen.....the burn is composed of those very old silver trees.
any time you close an area to any specific crowd they are going to try to get it reopend.....which almost never works, then they will try to get it closed to other groups.....it sux, but it is fact. roadless area are great for hunters, but it also compounds the use on the open areas increasing reosion and traffic. wilderness areas are a great thing if you are lucky enough to be able to use them......my dad, who put his life on the line for all of us will never know what it is to sit in rainbow falls or see the sun rise from the willam douglas, or......well it does not matter.
we as a country need to realize that it was diversity that founded this country and made it great. partisanship is killing us, be it political or otherwise, there is more to life then bandwagons and fire sales.
I hope everyone gets the chance to pack in to a backcountry trip and come out heavy.....it really gets you in touch with your inner salts, as does parking on top of south baldy with your dad remembering all the fish you caught in the lakes below, as does being totally alone at 7k feet on top of a mountain that you have no idea what the vegitation may be because it lies 30 feet under a snow drift. thoes are what make life for me. I sure get sick of having to defend it.
Post by: Houndhunter on November 16, 2009, 06:42:12 PM
Post by: Bigfoot on November 17, 2009, 02:08:38 AM
I say support RMEF and keep all ORV's off the trails on public land, especially in wilderness areas. If you want to hunt where there are no roads, walk your ass in there. If you want to ride your quad, go do it on timber company land. My :twocents:
well lets say we kill off all the forest service roads to motorized rigs of all kinds....which is the vibe I recieved from your post...my father who served 2 tours in vietnam and is unable to walk, will never again enjoy the view from any of the several mountain tops we can now drive to. firewood will be a thing of the past....timber co.s don't have enough dead and down to keep us all warm and the wood cutting pirates that uesd to buy wood permits on fs land would need to rob from the timber co lands.....more closed gates. the average guy is never going to walk the 10-20 miles to any of my local high mountain lakes.....which will not matter if f&g can't drive there to stock them. it goes on and on....
I am a serious backcountry hunter. I have a diesease that makes me want to go where most folks won't and I do it on foot. I am also a backcountry snowmobilier. I live in an area that has seen closures for a caribou that have never beens seen and never been able to have a shed produced....but it is still closed for the grey ghost. I am most overwhelmed by the trapper burn closre at priest lake......caribou eat lichen from trees, old silver trees do not have lichen.....the burn is composed of those very old silver trees.
any time you close an area to any specific crowd they are going to try to get it reopend.....which almost never works, then they will try to get it closed to other groups.....it sux, but it is fact. roadless area are great for hunters, but it also compounds the use on the open areas increasing reosion and traffic. wilderness areas are a great thing if you are lucky enough to be able to use them......my dad, who put his life on the line for all of us will never know what it is to sit in rainbow falls or see the sun rise from the willam douglas, or......well it does not matter.
we as a country need to realize that it was diversity that founded this country and made it great. partisanship is killing us, be it political or otherwise, there is more to life then bandwagons and fire sales.
I hope everyone gets the chance to pack in to a backcountry trip and come out heavy.....it really gets you in touch with your inner salts, as does parking on top of south baldy with your dad remembering all the fish you caught in the lakes below, as does being totally alone at 7k feet on top of a mountain that you have no idea what the vegitation may be because it lies 30 feet under a snow drift. thoes are what make life for me. I sure get sick of having to defend it.
I wasn't saying to close the Forest service Roads to all motorized access, just the trails. There is not a lot of Wilderness area in the National Forest I hunt, so 90% of the trails are open to motorcycles and ATV's. I'm just saying that I think it would be nice to have more of those trails limited to non-motorized travel. I just get a little irritated when i've walked for 10 miles and here comes 15 motorcycles buzzing down the trail. There are plenty of roads to ride on and I think that's where motorized vehicles should stay.
P.S. I have a friend in your area that saw the "Gray Ghosts" a few years back.
Post by: Clark33 on November 17, 2009, 11:26:18 AM
Post by: bullchaser on November 17, 2009, 11:32:48 AM
Post by: high country on November 17, 2009, 06:06:13 PM
I say support RMEF and keep all ORV's off the trails on public land, especially in wilderness areas. If you want to hunt where there are no roads, walk your ass in there. If you want to ride your quad, go do it on timber company land. My :twocents:
well lets say we kill off all the forest service roads to motorized rigs of all kinds....which is the vibe I recieved from your post...my father who served 2 tours in vietnam and is unable to walk, will never again enjoy the view from any of the several mountain tops we can now drive to. firewood will be a thing of the past....timber co.s don't have enough dead and down to keep us all warm and the wood cutting pirates that uesd to buy wood permits on fs land would need to rob from the timber co lands.....more closed gates. the average guy is never going to walk the 10-20 miles to any of my local high mountain lakes.....which will not matter if f&g can't drive there to stock them. it goes on and on....
I am a serious backcountry hunter. I have a diesease that makes me want to go where most folks won't and I do it on foot. I am also a backcountry snowmobilier. I live in an area that has seen closures for a caribou that have never beens seen and never been able to have a shed produced....but it is still closed for the grey ghost. I am most overwhelmed by the trapper burn closre at priest lake......caribou eat lichen from trees, old silver trees do not have lichen.....the burn is composed of those very old silver trees.
any time you close an area to any specific crowd they are going to try to get it reopend.....which almost never works, then they will try to get it closed to other groups.....it sux, but it is fact. roadless area are great for hunters, but it also compounds the use on the open areas increasing reosion and traffic. wilderness areas are a great thing if you are lucky enough to be able to use them......my dad, who put his life on the line for all of us will never know what it is to sit in rainbow falls or see the sun rise from the willam douglas, or......well it does not matter.
we as a country need to realize that it was diversity that founded this country and made it great. partisanship is killing us, be it political or otherwise, there is more to life then bandwagons and fire sales.
I hope everyone gets the chance to pack in to a backcountry trip and come out heavy.....it really gets you in touch with your inner salts, as does parking on top of south baldy with your dad remembering all the fish you caught in the lakes below, as does being totally alone at 7k feet on top of a mountain that you have no idea what the vegitation may be because it lies 30 feet under a snow drift. thoes are what make life for me. I sure get sick of having to defend it.
I wasn't saying to close the Forest service Roads to all motorized access, just the trails. There is not a lot of Wilderness area in the National Forest I hunt, so 90% of the trails are open to motorcycles and ATV's. I'm just saying that I think it would be nice to have more of those trails limited to non-motorized travel. I just get a little irritated when i've walked for 10 miles and here comes 15 motorcycles buzzing down the trail. There are plenty of roads to ride on and I think that's where motorized vehicles should stay.
P.S. I have a friend in your area that saw the "Gray Ghosts" a few years back.
did he get a pic?
Post by: high country on November 17, 2009, 06:12:26 PM
An area becoming wilderness is in no way "Shutting us out" It just means you have to get off your ass and hike a little... After working 3 summers on the wilderness trail crew out of Naches for the USFS, I would not be upset at all if they decided to designate more land as wilderness, we need it. There are already to many ATV and Jeep trails in this state.
unless they plan on making wilderness wheelchair accesable I can't see shutting down anymore land. I am all for seasonal closures for erosion, wildlife, and any other reasonable excuses for closure.....but there are a lot of folks out there that fought hard for this country and now can never see parts of it except in the pics we take for them.
Post by: Bigfoot on November 17, 2009, 06:24:59 PM
[/quote]
did he get a pic?
[/quote]
No, no pics. He grew up in Newport and has hunted the Selkirks his whole life and said that's the only time he's ever seen them. I want to say he saw 13 head. He talked to a local game agent right after he saw them and was told that they are migratory and only sometimes come that far south.
Post by: colockumelk on November 18, 2009, 01:09:47 PM
When people say we need less Wilderness areas or that we don't need anymore than you are definately a road hunter. There is far more areas that you can ride your ORV all over than we have wilderness areas. In the Colockum the vast amount of road access is a direct result of why that herd is being eliminated. The roads are killing our elk. If you don't believe that road accesss affects our herds you are either ill-informed or truly ignorant and lazy.
Maybe we don't need more wilderness areas but we do need to close down alot of roads that lead to nowhere. Especially in the Colockum.
When most of us talk about road closures we are talking about two things. 1.) Physically closing, using barriers and gates to close the roads that are already closed, instead of relying on signs.
2.) Closing alot of the roads that go absolutely nowhere and are just there so lazy people can go into the bottom over every draw and gully.
For you ORV guys GMU's 328,329,336,340,342,352,360 and 368 are covered with roads that you can damn near drive all over the place. There are few areas you can't drive too. Is this not enough places for you to drive around? And the small amount of places such as in 346 and 336 that does have closed roads we have to put up with people ignoring the laws and driving past gates. As for us high country folks only a small portion of 346,356 and 364 is a wilderness areas where we can escape other people. So who has it better?
So I'm sorry but when I see people on here complain about road closures and how it will affect the elderly and handi-capped I just have to laugh. Because there are more than enough places they can drive. I think people should just come out say what they really think.
Post by: Gobble on November 18, 2009, 01:13:47 PM
My thoughts exactly. I'd love to see more roads blocked off :twocents:
Post by: sako223 on November 18, 2009, 02:16:49 PM
Many GMU's have road restrictions during fall & winter. They also are subject to winter closure which may slow poaching or tribal hunting.
All disabled hunting access areas are open to Non disabled hunters, but not all Non diabled hunter access areas are accessible to disabled hunters.
We are fortunate to have public land for hunting, lets keep it free and open.
Post by: ScottyG on November 18, 2009, 02:21:24 PM
I would not trade my time with my Dad and my kids in this area that we've been hunting since I was a kid just so I could get rid of a few other hunters. How is it that we are going to teach our kids to hunt, if we create more barriers to their entry? I guess we could wait to introduce hunting to them until they are in their late teens and able to handle the rigors that wilderness hunting requires, but I'd bet we'd lose more potential hunters by waiting. I agree that their should be wilderness hunting areas, which there are today. In my opinion, the areas that are wilderness are already adequate to give a quality hunting experience to the folks that want that level of adventure. I'm not in support of closing more roads to create more of these types of areas. I do believe that people should be following the rules that are established and not driving where roads are currently closed.
Post by: high country on November 18, 2009, 05:19:38 PM
I agree whole heartedly wih closing a road because it shows an impact on wildlife, I can't agree with closing it because it goes nowhere. I am sure that nowhere to you is somewhere to somone else.
I just wish we could release wolves and caribou in central park.
Post by: colockumelk on November 18, 2009, 05:32:45 PM
As far as road access in some areas there is far too much. The Colockum is an example. This is why 85% of yearling bulls die every rifle season. They don't have anywhere to escape to. I also don't support making the Colockum a wilderness area. I would rather see alot of the roads closed but keep all of the main roads open.
Post by: washelkhntr on November 18, 2009, 05:35:47 PM
high country I definately was not referring to you in my last post in any way. I also agree that there is not enough disable, senior and junior hunting in this state. A perfect example of this is the use of master hunters to keep the elk out of the hay fields in the Colockum. IMHO I think instead of using able bodied men to do this why not give the disabled and the youth hunters a crack at these cows. Most master hunters have the ability to chase elk all over the mountain. So why allow them to sit on a fence post and smoke cows in a hayfield. I would rather see a kid or a disabled hunter get that chance. Also the only disabled only area that I know of is on Mt. Clemens. I think there should be an area such as in the Quilomene open only to the disabled, youth etc.
As far as road access in some areas there is far too much. The Colockum is an example. This is why 85% of yearling bulls die every rifle season. They don't have anywhere to escape to. I also don't support making the Colockum a wilderness area. I would rather see alot of the roads closed but keep all of the main roads open.
:yeah:
Post by: Clark33 on November 18, 2009, 06:47:37 PM
An area becoming wilderness is in no way "Shutting us out" It just means you have to get off your ass and hike a little... After working 3 summers on the wilderness trail crew out of Naches for the USFS, I would not be upset at all if they decided to designate more land as wilderness, we need it. There are already to many ATV and Jeep trails in this state.
unless they plan on making wilderness wheelchair accesable I can't see shutting down anymore land. I am all for seasonal closures for erosion, wildlife, and any other reasonable excuses for closure.....but there are a lot of folks out there that fought hard for this country and now can never see parts of it except in the pics we take for them.
You got a good point, but if you look at it, the amount of wilderness we have is vastly out weighed by the amount of NF, BLM and state land that is accessible by vehicles. All I was trying to say was a little more designated wilderness area wouldn't hurt at all. My broth in law and best friend are both vets of OIF and OEF so I'm well aware of the sacrifice they and their families make, and I thank all of them.
Post by: npaull on November 18, 2009, 07:43:08 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 18, 2009, 09:01:37 PM
Post by: high country on November 19, 2009, 05:01:45 PM
In my opinion, we can't have ENOUGH wilderness. It is totally beyond me how any hunter could be upset at the preservation of more wildlife habitat. I support almost any organization with the stated goal of habitat conservation. And by the way, the Nature Conservancy is definitely not anti-hunting, even if not every single thing they do is designed to open up more hunting territory. They have had multiple partnerships with REMF and DU, and if you think those groups are anti-hunting, you may have gone a bit too conspiracy-theory to be reasoned with... not trying to bash anyone, I'm just saying it weighs on us as hunters to be cognizant of the fact that preservation of wildlife ultimately relies on habitat conservation, and there are instances where compromises make sense. Reducing human intrusion to an area by making it a wilderness is NOT an inherently anti-hunting move.
just because an area is wilderness does not mean it holds more animals. I guarentee you there are more deer and elk per mile in the area near the pendorille river then 20 miles away in the salmo priest wilderness. often we forget how important logging is to hunting......logging and wilderness don't mix. we do a lot of thinning over here on the east side and it is great for bucks and bulls.....tough to hunt, but great cover.
keep in mind the impact on the economy if an area is designated......all that trickles down.
I did nt want to say it, but if you want to save elk, hunt indians.
Post by: colockumelk on November 20, 2009, 08:59:00 AM
Post by: Clark33 on November 20, 2009, 02:22:33 PM
In my opinion, we can't have ENOUGH wilderness. It is totally beyond me how any hunter could be upset at the preservation of more wildlife habitat. I support almost any organization with the stated goal of habitat conservation. And by the way, the Nature Conservancy is definitely not anti-hunting, even if not every single thing they do is designed to open up more hunting territory. They have had multiple partnerships with REMF and DU, and if you think those groups are anti-hunting, you may have gone a bit too conspiracy-theory to be reasoned with... not trying to bash anyone, I'm just saying it weighs on us as hunters to be cognizant of the fact that preservation of wildlife ultimately relies on habitat conservation, and there are instances where compromises make sense. Reducing human intrusion to an area by making it a wilderness is NOT an inherently anti-hunting move.
just because an area is wilderness does not mean it holds more animals. I guarentee you there are more deer and elk per mile in the area near the pendorille river then 20 miles away in the salmo priest wilderness. often we forget how important logging is to hunting......logging and wilderness don't mix. we do a lot of thinning over here on the east side and it is great for bucks and bulls.....tough to hunt, but great cover.
keep in mind the impact on the economy if an area is designated......all that trickles down.
I did nt want to say it, but if you want to save elk, hunt indians.
I believe the naturally occurring wildfires in wilderness areas (that usually are not suppressed) do a better job at opening up the canopy and providing new undergrowth for deer and elk than logging does. Fire is the best way to basically push the reset button on a forest, i dont really follow your logic behind logging and hunting going hand in hand.
The only reason logging is important to hunting is the miles of roads it provides people to drive, which isn't a good thing in my opinion.
Post by: colockumelk on November 20, 2009, 03:00:26 PM
Disclaimer. I am not against logging at all. It is vital to our local economy. The land that the FS logs is their property. They can do whatever they want with it. I'm just saying commercial logging isn't helping our elk and deer out.
Post by: Clark33 on November 20, 2009, 03:11:04 PM