Something about not pointing your firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy.
And don't spill your beer.
Hunting Season
-
Uncle Rico
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:48 pm
The no. 1 rule.And don't spill your beer.
I've backpacked the past couple of weeks and I've been amazed at how crowded it's been with hunters too. This time of year it's only backpacking for me because I know hunters are looking to stay near their vehicles. I still break out the orange though.
Personally, I hate hunting unless it's done for survival and in very rare cases where culling is necessary. I see no reason to allow deer hunting in the S.G's given the depleted and diminishing deer population and certainly not bear hunting for any reason.
That said, as much as I hate hunting, and have a pretty low opinion of people who hunt, I've never had a bad experience with a hunter. They'll typically offer a friendly "hey" on the trail or engage in some cool conversation. Just wish they'd approach their time in nature with the mindset of looking to appreciate instead of looking to kill. Different paths up the mountain I guess.
Personally, I hate hunting unless it's done for survival and in very rare cases where culling is necessary. I see no reason to allow deer hunting in the S.G's given the depleted and diminishing deer population and certainly not bear hunting for any reason.
That said, as much as I hate hunting, and have a pretty low opinion of people who hunt, I've never had a bad experience with a hunter. They'll typically offer a friendly "hey" on the trail or engage in some cool conversation. Just wish they'd approach their time in nature with the mindset of looking to appreciate instead of looking to kill. Different paths up the mountain I guess.
Are the deer populations down?
No bear hunting? Any particular reason? I don't think their populations are down.
(Absolutely, positively NOT a hunter myself but was wondering how you came up with these claims)
A ranger told me the deer populations were down Mike. I had a hard time finding yearly numbers though. Just general trends.
And bear hunting? For me, any reason someone could provide for hunting bears in the forest would fall short.
Fair enough. Thanks!Teejate wrote: ↑A ranger told me the deer populations were down Mike. I had a hard time finding yearly numbers though. Just general trends.
And bear hunting? For me, any reason someone could provide for hunting bears in the forest would fall short.
Tracker is absolutely right. Its all about habitat, and in S-Cal habitat is dictated by fire...or lack thereof, period. When we hike in our mountains we naturally assume that the landscape, vegetation, tree's, animals etc. are what existed for hundreds of years. However, we are wrong. The advent of modern fire suppression has virtually changed the mountains. Old trees, scrub, grasses are all unsuitable for the animals that live in this ecosystem. The result is a dramatic decrease in historical animal populations across the board. The old growth also changes the flood cycles(and silting, sluff, etc) dramatically, therefore creating the moonscape we hike in. The burn cycle for our habitat has historically been 3 years (means it burns 50 percent every 3 years). Many of those cycles burned year round-right through the winter, spring, summer, fall. The historical fire was more of a grass fire with spot burning. Historically, the raging forest fires we see today simply did not exist.
It's unfortunate, but the masses aren't likely to believe the truth when they hear it. After all, a brown bear wearing a flat-brimmed hat, overalls, and holding a shovel has been teaching people all they need to know about fire for several decades.
I havent seen any facts in what you say. Its the opposite from what Ive read. The forest has been cleared and animal space reduced to a tiny fraction of what it once was....especially the prime real estate of the foothills. And its stated that native americans in the foothills used fire to clear out brush as a normal practice.
BTW, the only reason why we see raging infernos is the incompotence of the forest service....and yes that brings up the Station Fire.
By "habitat quality" you mean everything except the presence of predators?
I think it's important to keep in mind that such factors are not static, but change for various reasons, thus increasing or decreasing their impact. Maybe predation is negligible for some wildlife populations. But it wasn't negligible for brown bears in the San Gabriel Mountains.
Can you point me to references that support you? I suspect that the San Gabriel range is a much more complicated patchwork of habitat with some areas that burned frequently (foothills) and areas with much less frequent burn cycle (north slopes of Mt. Wilson, for example).Migolito wrote: ↑Tracker is absolutely right. Its all about habitat, and in S-Cal habitat is dictated by fire...or lack thereof, period. When we hike in our mountains we naturally assume that the landscape, vegetation, tree's, animals etc. are what existed for hundreds of years. However, we are wrong. The advent of modern fire suppression has virtually changed the mountains. Old trees, scrub, grasses are all unsuitable for the animals that live in this ecosystem. The result is a dramatic decrease in historical animal populations across the board. The old growth also changes the flood cycles(and silting, sluff, etc) dramatically, therefore creating the moonscape we hike in. The burn cycle for our habitat has historically been 3 years (means it burns 50 percent every 3 years). Many of those cycles burned year round-right through the winter, spring, summer, fall. The historical fire was more of a grass fire with spot burning. Historically, the raging forest fires we see today simply did not exist.
However, your point (and tracker's) is well taken that a century's worth of well-intentioned fire suppression resulted in profound unintended consequences.
I can't imagine being the person who would have to face the public and say, "No - we have to let this fire burn. Trust me, it's for the better. Fires are good for a lot of things". No - Smokey the Bear's message has been out there way too long.
As long as I'm sticking up for the decision makers in the fire business, I should mention how other government entities play into things. The AQMD plays a huge part. The FS tells me they would prefer to do a lot more controlled burns but they can't due to air quality regulations.
Lately, I've see them experimenting with a thing called a "macerator". It's a huge steel drum with heavy steel projections that gets dragged around behind a D-8. A couple passes and everything is uprooted and ground to a pulp. The results look terrible for about 2 or 3 seasons but the worked areas around my house do appear to be recovering.
As long as I'm sticking up for the decision makers in the fire business, I should mention how other government entities play into things. The AQMD plays a huge part. The FS tells me they would prefer to do a lot more controlled burns but they can't due to air quality regulations.
Lately, I've see them experimenting with a thing called a "macerator". It's a huge steel drum with heavy steel projections that gets dragged around behind a D-8. A couple passes and everything is uprooted and ground to a pulp. The results look terrible for about 2 or 3 seasons but the worked areas around my house do appear to be recovering.
I agree. For some unknown reason science trumped fire overtime pay. If I remember at the time, the fire side was stretched pretty thin and the mandatory minimum of boots on the ground simply could not be meet. So they pulled back and went to plan B. Let er rip! Pretty controversial at the time. Lots written about it on the web, as well as some pretty decent studies by the powers that be since. The major public complaint was 'it doesn't look like it use to..'
I was in the inyo a couple years ago in the late spring and found a small contingent of fire fighters camping in one of the local USFS campgrounds. They explained that there was a fire "on top" that had been burning since 'last summer' and they were on watch. Two FF were tasked to babysit the fire 24/7/365 until it burned out ($$$$$). They rotated two on through the winter and now well in to the spring. You'd be surprised how much discretion the local USFS supervisor has on these policies.
I was in the inyo a couple years ago in the late spring and found a small contingent of fire fighters camping in one of the local USFS campgrounds. They explained that there was a fire "on top" that had been burning since 'last summer' and they were on watch. Two FF were tasked to babysit the fire 24/7/365 until it burned out ($$$$$). They rotated two on through the winter and now well in to the spring. You'd be surprised how much discretion the local USFS supervisor has on these policies.
No doubt about it. And that stink will be bigger now. Any/every body who lives within this mysterious undefinable zone has to pay about $150 per year to subsidize CDF, excuse me, Cal-Fire. It kind of leaves a bad taste in our mouths since CF doesn't respond to our area.
I dunno. I believe it would take a very candid, and honest, scientific explanation by the USFS re large scale controlled burns and the benefits of such burns. CB would reduce, dramatically so, the fire and flood danger to structures, not increase them. The real issue is the USFS has created a fire fighting industry, and if you go against that mind set, you become a liability.
I live in that zone too. This is no more than a fire fighter overtime tax...
A neighbor of mine was in the Marines, stationed at Pendleton when that one was going. His unit was sent from SoCal to do some heavy dozer work for them. He said the same thing: Not much fire fighting was going on.
Yeah, and no one wants to be on a terrorist watch list either. DHS is well-funded just like the Fire Fighting Business. They both sell the same product: Fear.Migolito wrote: ↑I dunno. I believe it would take a very candid, and honest, scientific explanation by the USFS re large scale controlled burns and the benefits of such burns. CB would reduce, dramatically so, the fire and flood danger to structures, not increase them. The real issue is the USFS has created a fire fighting industry, and if you go against that mind set, you become a liability.
I respect your call for facts, as there is a lot of off-topic wind currently powering this thread. But I think it's unfair to entirely blame the FS for the Station Fire. There were many factors involved, perhaps most importantly the drought of 2007-2009, creating very favorable conditions for a massive fire. Also, there was arson and extreme temperatures. An abundance of invasive species did not help the situation either.