The Kings Forest

[OlJarhead]

I've been thinking a lot over the last few years about hunting laws and wanted to share my thoughts and get yours on them.

The story of Robin Hood is popular because he takes from the Rich and gives to the poor.  I don't want to get into the Socialist connotations there though -- let's keep that to a different thread -- but in all Robin Hood stories one theme tends to play out:  The King taxes too much and won't let the poor hunt in his forest.

Actually, that was true to some extent and it was very unpopular.  Hunting was a rich man's sport (or woman's) and the poor could starve for all the King cared.

Not very nice.

Well are we really that different today?  After all some 50 million people are on government aid of some kind or another and yet it is very expensive to hunt and treated as a sport by the Government (whoever though you could take one week out of a year and actually hunt and kill a deer successfully??).

Why not grant anyone on food stamps or unemployment etc a free hunting license?  Here in WA it's about $100 if you get Elk and Deer tags as well as small game license etc.  That's $100 most people on Food Stamps can't afford (or shouldn't be able to anyway).

Now, you can argue that it's still expensive to hunt but if you also grant them a longer period to do so (sorry Bow hunters etc but those in need of food should come first) and don't charge them for the license they might be able to pool resources and go hunting with friends to cut costs.

100lbs of meat is possible if one gets a couple deer (or a really big one) and 300+ lbs of meet is possible if one gets an Elk.

Then if you find there are too many hunters charge MORE for those who don't need to.

Just a though, but it seems the King doesn't want you hunting his forests anymore.

[peternap]

I can't go along with that one.
In Virginia, hunting and fishing is a right, not a privilege. We thought so much of the right we put it in our Constitution.
Poor people here do hunt. Landowners and their immediate family don't need a license and our licenses aren't prohibitively expensive.

The very last thing I want is a bunch of city people stomping around the woods looking for Deer with their nine's.

[Don_P]

http://www.h4hungry.org/
I wouldn't mind a longer season, we are "blessed" with an oversupply and it seems like fewer people are hunting... even in a tough economy.
Julia Child's beef bourgoneon recipe with venison .

[OlJarhead]

I can't go along with that one.
In Virginia, hunting and fishing is a right, not a privilege. We thought so much of the right we put it in our Constitution.
Poor people here do hunt. Landowners and their immediate family don't need a license and our licenses aren't prohibitively expensive.

The very last thing I want is a bunch of city people stomping around the woods looking for Deer with their nine's.

Must be nice!  I think in Oregon you don't have to have a tag on your own land but in WA State you can't hunt your own land without tags and license -- apparently the State own the deer and not the people or the land owner.  But then this is the State that outlawed rainwater harvesting over 50 gallons for a while (I think they rescinded that).

As for city dwellers I'm willing to believe that they'd be smarter then trying to hunt with a crappy 9mm pistol -- and of course they'd go hungry.  Not to mention that even in the Northwest it would take a couple hours or more to get to hunting grounds from the city.  But folks who own land should be allowed to take game on their land and chances are they'd manage it better.

[OlJarhead]

http://www.h4hungry.org/
I wouldn't mind a longer season, we are "blessed" with an oversupply and it seems like fewer people are hunting... even in a tough economy.
Julia Child's beef bourgoneon recipe with venison .

We have one week for modern firearm -- actually it's 9 days -- and anyone who hunts in the NW knows that one week is not enough to be sure you're going to get your deer.  Specially in 3pt or above areas (3 points here is 5 or 6 on the east coast for those unfamiliar with the area.  We count one side only).

[glenn kangiser]

Oregon was a police state when I left there.  I can't imagine them allowing any hunting without a tag or license no matter where it is... their gov is a bunch of commies as far as I know...

They even ticketed my 75 year old dad (about 10 years ago) for cutting up a dead snag for firewood at the back edge of his own property, and they had to ask permission to go on his land to inspect it and ticket him. 

[peternap]

 
 

As for city dwellers I'm willing to believe that they'd be smarter then trying to hunt with a crappy 9mm pistol -- and of course they'd go hungry.  Not to mention that even in the Northwest it would take a couple hours or more to get to hunting grounds from the city.  But folks who own land should be allowed to take game on their land and chances are they'd manage it better.

Well, the nine was extreme. I have trouble with dog hunters. I HATE dog hunters and I use the word hunter very loosely in that name.

A few years ago I was sitting in my stand waiting for a nice buck that had been staying just on the edge. All of a sudden dog hunter came stumbling past. I thought about shooting him in the foot for a few seconds then climbed down. He was lost. He was carrying a shotgun and had a 30-06 slung over his back. I made him drop both and checked his license. He was from Richmond. Inner city, project Richmond.

Anyway, I explained he was in the last place in the world he should be lost in and he left so fast he forgot his guns. I had to chase him down and give them back. He was grateful..or relieved... and asked if I knew how to sight the rifle in...He had bought (or stolen) the rifle and just screwed a scope on and gone hunting with his cousin (Dog Hunter).

Nothing would surprise me about them.

[muldoon]

I have seen poachers and tresspassers as well perternap, as have others I know.  It is a despicable act in my opinion.

The original thought is a good one, but I am not sure how feasible it is.  50 to 60 million people in this country are on food assistance.  Our country's population being 300 million - were talking about 1 out of every 5 people.  1 out of every 5 is a huge percentage of people.  

I dont think there is anyway that many people can find public hunting grounds and successfully take food that would last them more than a week at best.  Just as an example, the Greater Houston area has 3million people or so.  If 20% of 3 million - roughly 600,000 people all tried to shovel into Hunstville State park to get their deer - it would be a disaster.  Aside from the hunting not being very affective, and the possibility of additional social problems by having tons of people with guns in the woods, I think it would also potentially lead to increased poaching, increased trespassing as people felt entitled.  They already have the priveldedge of hunting if they follow the generally accepted rules.  

While hunting can be somewhat expensive to setup to do, you can fish dirt cheap.  some $1 line, a cork bobber (wine bottle corks work), a stick or cane pole, pack of .59 cents eagle claws, and some grasshoppers or worms and you can eat for free everyday.   I dont see many people doing that even tho it's an option.  

Seems to me many people just feel entitled to the free money and have no intention of standing on their own feet.  I dont think people on any government assistance should have iphones, or nike air jordan shoes, or premium cable tv, etc etc.  I dont think people who make choices that lead them to being at or near the poverty level should be rewarded for those choices by being given extra priveldges than those who made better choices.  (ie giving them extra season hunting time).  I think we both agree that a safety net should exist in some fashion in this country, but we don't agree on whee the line should be drawn.  Thats certainly ok, I respect your opinion on it.  

One last point, I also think game seasons and bag limits should be set by biologists and the state game wardens and not by politicians.  Their is a reason deer season starts and stops when it does.  It has to do with their mating times, and the length of it has to do with how prevalent the species is in the area and how much protection they should have to have a sustainable population.  Some counties here in Texas are 5buck counties, some are 1buck, must be taken before Thanksgiving.  The reasons for those rules are to to maintenance and population control policies.  I don't think politicking should interfere with that.  

As for what to do with the problem - I don't think were there yet, but if we get to the point where people are actually going hungry on a social scale that needs immediate action, soup lines worked in the last depression.  

[OlJarhead]

I don't believe that there would be a different portion of people wanting to hunt.

Yes, I mentioned the 50 million on assistance but it was to emphasize a point, not suggest all 50 million would do so.

Theoretically they could all buy licenses now and don't.  I doubt that would change.

But consider that the idea here is to lead them out of poverty or make them difficult in it (Franklin said that I believe) and someone who goes out and hunts is likely to go out and find a job just as much if not more.  Allowing them to hunt, because they are poor -- in the sense that they are not working and are collecting assistance -- means that they might feel a sense of 'doing something' to feed their family.  This is a good thing.

I'd even be willing to limit all purchase licenses if necessary.

It's easy to attack poachers if we class them all into despicable bad guys like many of them are but someone who's out of work, has been for a while, has a family to feed and goes out into the woods to bring home some food might not be.  He's probably doing what many of you advocate (helping himself rather then asking for handouts) and if states would issue a license for free he wouldn't be poaching.

The problem as I see it is that many who have no need to hunt at all covet 'their' hunting grounds and don't want some poor hungry unemployed a-hole stomping around in their woods, taking their deer unless he can pay the King's hunting tax.

Something is wrong with this picture.  Either hunting is a sport to you (not to me) or a means of feeding your family (yes it certainly can be).  If it is a means of feeding your family then it makes sense to offer it to those who need it most -- if they don't take the offer (most won't) then no harm no foul.

Personally I'm opposed to Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Social Security and all other GOVERNMENT handouts.  I believe that charity belongs to the people and their institutions (Churches and/or charitable organizations) and government should stay the hell out of it -- and not tax for it.

I also beleive that to get people OFF those programs you have to change the social mindset to 'lead them out of it'.  This might mean concentrating on encouraging savings, learning self sufficiency, hunting etc etc

Anyway, I don't believe the proportions of hunters would change much if at all, I just think that it doesn't make sense to charge the unemployed or poor for a hunting license if they are on assistance -- of course I also don't beleive their should be assistance and that if there is it should end permanently after a certain (short) length of time.  In that way they'd damn sure what to get off and get working.

[diyfrank]

Why not grant anyone on food stamps or unemployment etc a free hunting license?  Here in WA it's about $100 if you get Elk and Deer tags as well as small game license etc.  That's $100 most people on Food Stamps can't afford (or shouldn't be able to anyway).

Now, you can argue that it's still expensive to hunt but if you also grant them a longer period to do so (sorry Bow hunters etc but those in need of food should come first) and don't charge them for the license they might be able to pool resources and go hunting with friends to cut costs.

100lbs of meat is possible if one gets a couple deer (or a really big one) and 300+ lbs of meet is possible if one gets an Elk.

Then if you find there are too many hunters charge MORE for those who don't need to.

Just a though, but it seems the King doesn't want you hunting his forests anymore.

Hunting & fishing in WA. is expensive but for a good reason. 20 years ago a tag and a license was cheap and land was reasonable easy to access. You could hunt and fish for well under $100. There was a lot more deer, elk & fish for the taking.

Now access is almost all gone except for land purchase FOR hunting by the F&W through tag and license sales & land purchase by yourself for land to hunt on. You can still Walk in on most State owned and DNR and hunt but no camping is allowed.
People on welfare are unlikely to hunt as there are other costs besides tags. (Fuel, gun, ammo)

I for one would be real upset if the state began giving away tags and extended seasons for people who couldn't afford to.

[OlJarhead]

Perhaps an explanation of my own experience which resulting in my thinking is in order.

In 1991 I was living in a very depressed area.  The unemployment figure was around 30% and there was no end in sight to it.  I'd applied for a job, one job, that opened at a local mill and 2000 men applied for it.  I made the top ten but did not get the job.  I was broke, out of work and trying very hard to feed a family.

I'd worked as a framer for a few months already and took my tools on the road.  At first I used to drive, starting at 6am to get to the first job site (about an hour away in another town) before the foreman showed up.  I would then drive from construction site to construction site looking for work...I did this until I just couldn't pull together the gas money to do so daily.

Then I began to walk, door to door.  I'd pick a block that looked like it needed some fence work etc and I'd offer my services.  This worked ok and I managed to earn enough to pay the rent etc this way.  I mended a lot of fences.

But sometimes the pickings were very thin.

I had a 30-30 I'd been given by my parents that they'd bought new in 1967.  It is (I still have it) a beautiful rifle made on the Canadian Centennial and I had shot it quite a bit.  Back in those days I could hit a 2" by 2" steel square at 100 yards with open sites over and over again   I love that rifle!  Long barrel...never mind, I digress.  SO I had this rifle and one day talking to a friend I said "You know, if I just knew how to hunt maybe I could get 100 pounds of meat and stick it in the freezer".  His reply "I'll teach you".

The next weekend he came by to pick me up to go hiking and to teach me a few things.  As a Marine shooting wasn't something I needed to be taught but I'd never hunted and didn't know anyone personally that hunted (except when I was very very young and my dad did to feed us -- but that's another story) and had lived in many many places so had no idea what the rules were etc.

Off we went to one of my favorite hiking spots.  It is a 45-60 minute hike from a desolate forest road up a dry creek bed and old logging trail (as in 100 years old or so) that leads to a lake called 'lost lake'.  I had hiked that trail many times.

When we got their my buddy pulled out a lever action .22 (I didn't bring my rifle though i used to hike with it a lot since it was bear country) and off we went.  He explained that grouse would come down onto the trail and peck at the small rocks to help digest their food and that all you had to do was know what they looked like and then shoot them in the head with a .22 and you'd save all the meat.

My response?  "Is it really that east?"
Reply "Yup, that easy".

We began our hike and about 30 minutes in he pointed out a grouse to me.  We watched it for a bit then he brought up his .22 and shot it.  He then showed me how to clean it and we went on.

At the end of the day we'd only seen the one bird but I'd learned quite a bit and then he told me "Oh, by the way, we were just poaching".  WHAT???

I'd been raised to think of poachers like drug dealers.  Despicable humans that deserve no quarter!

He then told me that technically HE was the poacher since he shot the grouse and that he didn't hunt anymore so didn't have a license but knew that I wanted to learn and could use the meal.  I refused the grouse on principle but thanked him for the lesson.

I didn't hunt again that year because I'd learned after a little checking on my own that I had to take a course to get 'certified' to hunt and then had to pay for a license and tags and I just couldn't afford that. I could afford a bullet or two and some gas to get me out and back but adding in the extra costs of license and tags and class etc and well, it just wasn't to be.

Later that year I found a job in a town 4 hours away after taking a trip to all towns that far away and applying everywhere.  A buddy of mine and I drove all over one long day and it paid off.  I was back to work and this time in a mill where the money was good.

After moving my family to that town etc, I took the hunters course and got my license, then met a new friend who took me out and taught me to hunt legally.  I got my first deer (2pt muley) and many many grouse that year.  I was in my late 20's and because I was making good money could afford to go hunting.

After a couple years I got very sick and went broke.  Nerve agent poisoning did a real number on me and once again I found myself not working, only this time on disability.  I couldn't hunt physically but the desire was there since my disability from work didn't pay much...then it stopped.  I was told that my condition was caused by nerve gas exposure in the Gulf and I'd have to get divisibility from the VA in the USA.

Broke, out of work, unable to return to work, I moved 1700 miles to my parents place and found work as a purchasing agent (I could do non physical work) for $10/hr -- this was 1995.

I began to heal and was able to take up hunting again.  It felt good to at least try to augment our budget with game but I never managed to get any.  I sucked as a hunter.

I healed enough that I was able to return to military service in 1996 and left again in 1999.  I hunted briefly in '99 but that was it.

Finally in 2006 I began thinking about returning to hunting (guess it was only 7 years of not doing so and 12 since shooting my last deer) because of the economy.  Sure it was great in 2006 but some folks knew it was going to turn bad and I listened to them.

It was then that I began to ponder the whole concept of 'poaching' and realized that it's dishonest at best.  In today's world only the poor 'need' to hunt (if anyone does) and yet we make it impossible for them to do nearly.  The rich don't need to but their the ones doing it -- and this lead to my thinking 'The kings forest'.

Add to that the State of WA and it's draconian hunting laws and you've got pretty much an area where only those who can afford to hunt -- and they do so for short periods of time, pretty much a sport if you ask me.

Now don't get me wrong, I buy my license each year now and all the tags and while I hunt my own land and other private land around me I also hunt in the forests and some wind farms.  I enjoy doing it but don't have to.  Despite being out of work now I've put away for a rainy day and I can continue life pretty much normally for a long time without work, so I don't NEED to hunt either.  I'm not rich though, unless you're the guy on food stamps, then to you I am.

But ask yourself:  Are you the Sheriff of Nottingham?  Or are you Robin Hood?  Frankly I'm neither but I do think that hunting should NOT be a sport.  That it should be about food and that the poor need the food more then the rich.

[OlJarhead]

As for what to do with the problem - I don't think were there yet, but if we get to the point where people are actually going hungry on a social scale that needs immediate action, soup lines worked in the last depression.  

What do you think food stamps are?

We have soup lines today my friend, you just can't see them. 

But I don't believe that is the answer.  The answer is to allow people to help themselves.

Mind you, if this economy turns south the way Mark Faber and others think it will then hunting licenses will be completely irrelevant becuase no one will give a crap.

[OlJarhead]

Now access is almost all gone except for land purchase FOR hunting by the F&W through tag and license sales & land purchase by yourself for land to hunt on. You can still Walk in on most State owned and DNR and hunt but no camping is allowed.
People on welfare are unlikely to hunt as there are other costs besides tags. (Fuel, gun, ammo)

I for one would be real upset if the state began giving away tags and extended seasons for people who couldn't afford to.

This is one thing that bothers me -- the Fish and Wildlife department shouldn't be buying land.

But that's my Libertarian self getting involved.  I don't support the notion of 'public land' in the socialist sense (which is what State governments DO support for the most part).  And access to the wild areas is limited, for better or worse, due to environmentalist lobbying (removal of forest service roads etc).  However, I doubt that changes the deer and elk populations (probably makes them better) and doesn't change that you can still access the areas if you are willing to work for it (hike in).

Let's face it, most people don't hunt these days anyway and of those who buy licenses and tags how many 'road hunt'?  I swear I see 90% of so called 'hunters' driving up and down logging roads looking for their deers to pop out.  That's not hunting -- heck I'm not so sure the guy poaching for food is more despicable then the guy driving up and down a logging road looking for his buck.  At least the guy that's hungry has a decent reason for his kill.  The guy in the big truck burned up enough gas to feed the poachers family for a week!

Sorry for the rant....

Anyway, private lands are huntable (I hunt some actually) and often it is only a matter of checking around/asking to find out where you can hunt -- and they are often better to hunt since less people are on them.  Public land is also huntable albeit some you might have to hike into to make it worthwhile.

In one area I hunted a few times I met a ranger and we talked about the area and he told me "I get my deer every year and my elk, you know how?  I watch where all the road hunters are driving, then I hike down into the gullies and ravines below the road and wait for the deer they are scaring up to come by (or Elk).  Works every time".

I hiked into the Blues two years ago for about 2 1/2 miles down an old trail.  We climbed up as high as 5000 feet and as low as 3000 feet at different times and were usually from 1 to 3 miles from the nearest road.  It can be done

Of course that deer I got my 3x2 Muley on the way to one of the valleys we like to hike into but that happens

[muldoon]

I think I understand your perspective. 

In Texas, a hunting license is 25 dollars.  Given the cost of gasoline to go out, the cost of bullets, the cost of a gun/etc, ..  25 dollars does not seem cost prohibitive to me.   

I am not sure I agree with your statement that rich vs. poor with regard to hunting.  To some I am rich, to others I am poor, truth is I am somewhere in between... much like most people.  I take meat when I hunt, I process it myself and we consume it all year (well, as long as it holds out).    I think there is already a good line drawn between the "rich" hunters and the "poor" hunters.  In Texas, rich hunters pay 2000-5000 a year to get on an all exclusive lease, they shoot overfed high delivery protein deer behind high fenced ranches. 

Us "poor" hunters hunt our own places or friends property (usually in return for work done or services performed), or the public hunting grounds put up by the state.   I wont hunt the public forests, they scare the crap out of me.  Who knows where anyone is, what level of responsibility they have, not to mention other habits they have.  You dont even know how many people are sober in the woods with you.  yikes.   I guess what I am getting at is that their are options out there. 

Poaching refers to taking animals out of season or without a license.  given a license is $25, and the seasons are defined with a biological purpose, I still have qualms with it.  In my area, there is no season for rabbit, squirrel, pig, possum, etc.  I dont even think you need a license for those - pretty much impossible to poach?

The bigger problem is trespassing.  Your logging road from 100 years is one thing, but I have seen people on my place and on a friends place.  They crossed fences that say no trespassing to enter small acreage - 20-50 acres, armed and ready to shoot.  Both times I have encounter these types of folks I have had my children with me.  I have no stomach for someone who arms themselves and trespasses on someone else property.   It makes people a bit nervous and can end badly for either side if not handled tactfully. 

also, I agree with you that "deer drives" is not hunting either.  Also agree that fish and wildlife should not be buying land.
I do think our existing state parks are nice to haves but am torn on the idea of any expansion. 

[peternap]

I expect everyone here has been through hard times. Without going into detail, I certainly have and much worse than you describe.

I pulled out of it. I worked hard all my life to buy my farm. It's paid for without one bit of help from the government and without ever accepting a helping hand from the Government.

Now, I'm going to enjoy it and pass it on to my children and grandchildren when I'm gone.

The problem as I see it is that many who have no need to hunt at all covet 'their' hunting grounds and don't want some poor hungry unemployed a-hole stomping around in their woods, taking their deer unless he can pay the King's hunting tax.

Something is wrong with this picture.  Either hunting is a sport to you (not to me) or a means of feeding your family (yes it certainly can be).  If it is a means of feeding your family then it makes sense to offer it to those who need it most -- if they don't take the offer (most won't) then no harm no foul.

Well...yes that's the way it is and from my point of view, there's nothing at all wrong with it!
As far as the hunting license goes....When I was a kid growing up in the mountains, there weren't many Deer. Poor managment and over hunting had cleaned them out. There were no turkey at all.

DGIF, funded by hunting license money alone, was able to re introduce Turkey and Deer. Now we have a surplus.
That wouldn't have happened if it were not for hunters money. Granted, funding has changed some now but the same principle applies. In order to keep the game numbers healthy, you have to pay your dues.

I do not have to buy a license to hunt my own land but if I did, I would.

[OlJarhead]

Both posts excellent and with good points.  I'll try to answer here in bullet form...

- $25 license is easy enough -- here with tags etc it's $98 (last year anyway) and that's not all tags either, just one Turkey, one Elk, one Deer and includes small game license (can hunt grouse etc without tags).

Even $98 isn't really THAT prohibitive but I know that someone on Foodstamps SHOULD NOT have $98 to waste.  On the other hand if they did get a deer they might not need $98 worth of Foodstamps either.

- Each state is different and some are far different from the 'State controls all' attitude in WA.

- It's my land, if you trespass on it and I catch you you will be lucky to leave alive.  I will not and do not tolerate hunting on my land without my permission and I am NEVER unarmed on my land.

I agree that this can be a problem and I think the answer is simple:  anyone caught hunting land they are not authorized to hunt should lose their license and charged with trespassing - first offense.  2nd offense should be charged with serial trespassing and lose their license for multiple years, pay a large fine to the land owner -- as in their car, house, truck, rifle whatever.

- It is true that there are those who can afford the big bucks (no pun intended) for hunting private reserves etc (who are these people anyway?) but I feel that if we as tax payers are going to pay someone $700 a month for foodstamps why not pay them $690/mo and allow them a free license and tag.

- Hunting seasons are loosely determined by biology - but then in some states (like WA) they are divided into some arcane pattern that dramatically limits hunting.  Example being that you have a two weeks of bow hunting, then a week of black powder, then a weekend and a half of modern firearm, then Elk for a couple weeks, then maybe a week of late Deer in some areas and then more bow seasons.

So here we have 3 months of deer hunting, but if you use a rifle you get 9 days.

Why could you not change that to something more friendly to those who need the meat?

- as for hunting public grounds, I live in the NW so don't have the pop problems a lot of folks do but I still don't like it as much.  However, I also don't like massive relations either. 

When I hunted in Canada the season was two months (or more) long and was for all forms at the same time (though archery did get a jump on rifles in September I beleive).  The season was split from spikes to two points mid season but otherwise was a long season and generally allowed two tags for deer too.  It was less expensive, less regulated and far more about food then trophies (from what I've seen anyway) then what I've seen in the US.

Lastly, management by the State has not always resulted in success, the Tucannon region is losing it's Elk heard because of the miss management by F&W.  Their spike only seasons have reduced the heard from over 2000 animals to under 500 in a decade or less.

- and lastly, Ducks Unlimited was created by hunters.  It did not need the State to do it and didn't need public funds.  Ducks Unlimited has ensured duck hunters years of hunting by improving environments and introducing more birds etc etc etc....you don't need the state to solve the problem.

[dug]

I agree with the intent of your argument but fear it would be unfeasible due to our exponentially expanding population, a problem that I feel is the root of many other hazards facing the US, and the world these days.

There were an estimated 30 million deer in the US during pre-Columbian times. By around 1890 that number was down to around a half a million, due to unregulated sustenance hunting and fur trade demand. In many states they were considered virtually extinct.

The (human) population at that time was about 63 million, less than 1/4 of our present number. Granted, there was a much higher percentage of folks who really knew how to hunt in those days and it was totally unregulated, but my point is that the current population of apx. 20 million deer would not last very long in supplying the 40 million people in the US who officially live in poverty with any significant amount of meat.

Also agree with Peternap that in many cases the "rich" hunters can be credited with the lions share of preserving and managing wildlife habitat.

I would always root for Robin Hood but believe it is inevitable that more and more people will always result in less for all, and more regulations. 

[OlJarhead]

I agree with the intent of your argument but fear it would be unfeasible due to our exponentially expanding population, a problem that I feel is the root of many other hazards facing the US, and the world these days.

There were an estimated 30 million deer in the US during pre-Columbian times. By around 1890 that number was down to around a half a million, due to unregulated sustenance hunting and fur trade demand. In many states they were considered virtually extinct.

The (human) population at that time was about 63 million, less than 1/4 of our present number. Granted, there was a much higher percentage of folks who really knew how to hunt in those days and it was totally unregulated, but my point is that the current population of apx. 20 million deer would not last very long in supplying the 40 million people in the US who officially live in poverty with any significant amount of meat.

Also agree with Peternap that in many cases the "rich" hunters can be credited with the lions share of preserving and managing wildlife habitat.

I would always root for Robin Hood but believe it is inevitable that more and more people will always result in less for all, and more regulations. 

Ah yes -- I agree.  6.5 billion people is too many -- in my humble opinion anyway.

Of course unregulated hunting might also result in less people

But with modern technology it probably wouldn't.

I'm a firm believer in sustainable economics rather then economics by expansion but I'm unsure any nation in the world would seriously try that.  Not to mention that it would take a change in society rather then governments.

[MountainDon]

Some thoughts, in no particular order....

I believe there has to be a quota or a system to impose bag limits on game, or species will be hunted down to non viable levels. In NM deer, elk, pronghorn, Barbary sheep, Javelina, bear and turkey are usually subject to quotas for hunts on public lands.

If there is a quota I think it follows that there are people that need to be paid.

If there are people that need to be paid and if the government is not to be involved, or to be involved to a little as possible, where does the money come from.

Draw fees, permits and licenses come to my mind as one source.

[Yonderosa]

I've got mixed feelings about hunting in Washington.

Elk - I dislike that modern firearm season is not during the rut which has way too many hunters packed into too few areas - but I like that it usually happens during Archery  and there are much fewer hunters.  Hard to beat the excitement of calling in a Bull and then try to put a sharp stick in the boiler room.  I wish they would visit my place in season... 

Their populations are up to the point of being public nuisances - Sequim,  Sedro Wooley, North Bend... 

Deer - If you hunt the WDFW land or the more popular hunting areas during modern firearm season it sucks.  But if you have access to private lands the success rate is quite high.  My Sister and Brother-in-law fill their tags on their property (Bonaparte area) every year, usually within rock throwing distance of their place.  Plus the success rate for family members and friends is over 50% too.  They get a Bear at least every other year too.

In the area of my residence (Island County) the deer season is quite long.  Even with the tremendous human population growth we've had in the 20 some years I've lived hear there are still hunting opportunities on private lands.  Last year during the rut we had several bucks orbiting a hot doe on the 10 acres next to me.  I didn't have permission to hunt that property but one of my neighbors did and put this dude in the freezer about 15 minutes after I took this picture...


Being all rutted up he wasn't all that tasty.  Made good jerky and pepperoni though... 

I haven't seen the statistics in several years but the last time I did there were about 40 deer per year killed by cars within a 10 mile radius of my home and less than 2 per year killed by hunters.  Seems to me the State would save a bunch of money in emergency response by encouraging hunters to thin the herd a bit.  Last year was a banner year for Deer locally and this year looks to be at least equally as good.

Bears: Every year there seem to be more and more Bears, heck there were even a couple in Seattle this year (and last, plus a cougar), another was hit by a car on I-5 in Everett...  I've got a bunch of them using my property on the eastside now.  In July they tore apart nearly every stump and rotten log I had on my property eating grubs.






This was last year's Bear.  Man was he ever good eating too!


Backstraps baby!!!    mmm, mmm, mmm!

Grouse - hunting's version of bluegill fishing, not to difficult, way fun and good eats too!

[OlJarhead]

I've got mixed feelings about hunting in Washington.

Elk - I dislike that modern firearm season is not during the rut which has way too many hunters packed into too few areas - but I like that it usually happens during Archery  and there are much fewer hunters.  Hard to beat the excitement of calling in a Bull and then try to put a sharp stick in the boiler room.  I wish they would visit my place in season... 

Their populations are up to the point of being public nuisances - Sequim,  Sedro Wooley, North Bend... 

Deer - If you hunt the WDFW land or the more popular hunting areas during modern firearm season it sucks.  But if you have access to private lands the success rate is quite high.  My Sister and Brother-in-law fill their tags on their property (Bonaparte area) every year, usually within rock throwing distance of their place.  Plus the success rate for family members and friends is over 50% too.  They get a Bear at least every other year too.

In the area of my residence (Island County) the deer season is quite long.  Even with the tremendous human population growth we've had in the 20 some years I've lived hear there are still hunting opportunities on private lands.  Last year during the rut we had several bucks orbiting a hot doe on the 10 acres next to me.  I didn't have permission to hunt that property but one of my neighbors did and put this dude in the freezer about 15 minutes after I took this picture...


Being all rutted up he wasn't all that tasty.  Made good jerky and pepperoni though... 

I haven't seen the statistics in several years but the last time I did there were about 40 deer per year killed by cars within a 10 mile radius of my home and less than 2 per year killed by hunters.  Seems to me the State would save a bunch of money in emergency response by encouraging hunters to thin the herd a bit.  Last year was a banner year for Deer locally and this year looks to be at least equally as good.

Bears: Every year there seem to be more and more Bears, heck there were even a couple in Seattle this year (and last, plus a cougar), another was hit by a car on I-5 in Everett...  I've got a bunch of them using my property on the eastside now.  In July they tore apart nearly every stump and rotten log I had on my property eating grubs.






This was last year's Bear.  Man was he ever good eating too!


Backstraps baby!!!    mmm, mmm, mmm!

Grouse - hunting's version of bluegill fishing, not to difficult, way fun and good eats too!

Stop making me hungry!

My son wants a bear and had the Bear and Cougar tags last year.  He was disappointed that we never saw one -- me?  I wasn't looking forward to cleaning one and then getting it butchered and packed in ice!  Why?  Because while I've eaten bear I've never shot one and had to clean and butcher it.  In fact, I've only hunted bear once and the one bear I saw got away.

So, my son wants a bear tag again this year and our neighbors have 3 running around their 20 acres...so I'm sure it wouldn't be tough to find one of them...but I'm no pro (I can clean and butcher a dear easily enough) and haven't ever tackled bear.

Wanna come teach us? hehe

[Yonderosa]

The toughest part about bears is they ain't got no handles on em.    

Aim for the exit hole with a caliber and bullet that will make two holes - I REALLY like the 45-70 for Bears, devastating.  Put it where it goes and you'll have no tracking.  Can't say that about the fast skinny bullets, I've found them to be less reliable on tough critters like Bears & Elk.

Field dressing is basically the same except you'll know right away you're not processing an ungulate.  Get him apart and cooling fast, that fat and fur really insulates well.

I don't usually target Bears but they seem to be more plentiful in recent years and too many is not good.  It is a thrill just to see them, hunting them is a spiritual experience.  The real King of the Forest.

You have Griz up by you  Make sure the boys know how to tell the difference.

[peternap]

The toughest part about bears is they ain't got no handles on em.    

Aim for the exit hole with a caliber and bullet that will make two holes - I REALLY like the 45-70 for Bears, devastating.  Put it where it goes and you'll have no tracking.  Can't say that about the fast skinny bullets, I've found them to be less reliable on tough critters like Bears & Elk.

+2 on the 45/70 405 grain cast driven moderately fast is devastating.
I use a 25/06 for some deer stannds but my Guide Gun in 45/70 will really do it all.

[OlJarhead]

The toughest part about bears is they ain't got no handles on em.    

Aim for the exit hole with a caliber and bullet that will make two holes - I REALLY like the 45-70 for Bears, devastating.  Put it where it goes and you'll have no tracking.  Can't say that about the fast skinny bullets, I've found them to be less reliable on tough critters like Bears & Elk.

+2 on the 45/70 405 grain cast driven moderately fast is devastating.
I use a 25/06 for some deer stannds but my Guide Gun in 45/70 will really do it all.

We hunt deer and Elk with a 30-06 (Josh) and 7mm (me) but Kurt prefers the .454 Casull Model 92.  I'm thinking that the .454 with 300 grains going around 1500fps out of the small rifle ought to do it but I've known folks to use the 06 with 200 grain soft nose bullets.

Not having hunted bear (but once) I'm not experienced in that area -- what do you think of the .454 for that purpose?  My understanding is that it's not too different then the 45-70.

Thougths?

[Yonderosa]

The 454 is an excellent choice.  I have an 1894 in 45 Colt that I load with a 315 grain cast bullet driven about 1400 fps.  I haven't shot a bear with it yet but two of my friends took big critters last year with that same ammo - One Bear and one Elk.  The performance was excellent. 

The only real "bad" experience with a big bore caliber was with a hollow point.  Hit a Blacktail hard but didn't exit and he managed to go about a 100 yards without any lungs or leaving any blood to follow.  With the lack of blood I even questioned the hit.  Searched anyways and upon finding him he was indeed hit exactly where I expected.  The bullet was found under the skin on the off side, perfectly mushroomed so technically it was text book.  Been hunting with cast bullets ever since.

30-06 is a great caliber.  With a quality bullet that I had confidence in I'd use it on bears.  165 grains or better that retains weight and penetrates deeply. 

Arrows kill them very well too.  It really boils down to making an accurate shot with a quality projectile that penetrates deeply.