EISPIRATEN

And don't spill your beer.

Teejate wrote: ↑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.

Mike P wrote: ↑

Teejate wrote: ↑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.

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)

Teejate wrote: ↑

Mike P wrote: ↑

Teejate wrote: ↑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.

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.

tracker wrote: ↑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.

Hikin_Jim wrote: ↑Ah, the ever diplomatic AW.

HJ

tracker wrote: ↑Habitat quality is the number one factor in determining wildlife populations. Predation, human or otherwise, is negligible.

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.

tracker wrote: ↑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".

Actually, that very thing happened (happens) in Yellowstone.

Actually, that very thing happened (happens) in Yellowstone.

Hikin_Jim wrote: ↑In remote areas they can get away with it. Try it when houses are nearby, and the public stink would be huge.

HJ

tracker wrote: ↑

Hikin_Jim wrote: ↑In remote areas they can get away with it. Try it when houses are nearby, and the public stink would be huge.

HJ

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.

Migolito wrote: ↑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!

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.

AW wrote: ↑I havent seen any facts in what you say ... BTW, the only reason why we see raging infernos is the incompotence of the forest service....and yes that brings up the Station Fire.