Archive for EisPiraten.com San Gabriel Mountains Forum
 


       EisPiraten.com Forum Index -> General Discussion
VermillionPearlGirl

Hunting Season

Thought it would be kind of deserted up in Angeles this weekend with people maybe confused about the closure, but boy was I wrong. Completely forgot it's October. There was Pickup after Pickup after Suburban of guys in camo and neon orange.

Now, I'm not judging or anything. I've never had anything but pleasant encounters with hunters (well actually, there was one really weird encounter once with these two crossbow guys...), but my question is -- where is the good hunting? So I can avoid it Smile I know most hunters are very responsible sportsmen, but if I can stay out of their stray bullet way, I'm more than happy to do so.

I was surprised to see so many people in the high country because personally I've never seen a deer in the high country (sample size of one!), but I guess with middle-high being burnt it changes the equation?

I remember driving down Glendora Mountain Road before and it looking like it had been invaded by the military, with sentinels every couple hundred feet lining the road way. But where else do people go? What are the best/most popular spots? And what's likely to be less popular with this crowd?
cougarmagic

All I can recommend is to get a cheap blaze orange vest or shirt (and/or hat).  I got a zip-front fleece at Turner's Outdoorsman for $15.  I hope others chime in, because I'd like to know the answer to your question too.  I was near Mt Disappointment yesterday and heard a half dozen rifle shots.  Spooky when the hills reflect the noise and you can't tell where they're coming from.

One would *think* hunters would stay away from popular hiking trails.  But this is LA.
Hikin_Jim

Yeah, it's fall, and the hunters are out.  There are deer out there although not a lot.  I'm not so sure hunting near a heavily populated area like Los Angeles is a good idea, but it's legal.

I wish there were a way for hikers to know about it -- like signs posted during deer season at the trail head.  I guess you could go to the California Dept. of Fish &  Wildlife website, but good luck on figuring out all the zones, seasons, and types of hunts* if you're a non hunter.

I guess the best idea is to wear bright colors in the fall -- not a bad idea year round I suppose.

HJ

*This past weekend all I saw were bow hunters, for example.
VermillionPearlGirl

Bill Riley/Dissapointment/San Gabriel Peak is a regular hike of mine (I often do it weekly), and during previous hunting seasons I've always heard a lot of shots around there.
Hikin_Jim

cougarmagic wrote:
One would *think* hunters would stay away from popular hiking trails.  
 Um, good luck with that.  I'm not sure that the hunters would know the popular hiking trails any more than a hiker would know where the popular hunting areas are.

But, hey, no big deal, right?  I mean, what's the worst that could happen?   Shocked

HJ
Hikin_Jim

VermillionPearlGirl wrote:
Bill Riley.
What's Bill Riley?  Do you mean Bailey Canyon?

HJ
VermillionPearlGirl

Bill Riley is that trail to Mount Disappointment...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.25165/-118.10281
I learned that on this board a couple months ago from Matt Maxon Smile

And to be fair, I can't even think of one story of a hiker being shot by a hunter in Angeles. Most "people being shot by hunter" stories I've heard are people who are hunting with that person. I believe most people are very careful and obviously they're usually shooting at something specific not like wildly into the forest.

That being said, I'm still perfectly willing to get out of their way in order to help Smile
longcut

bright clothes

A lot of outdoor apparel is very brightly colored. this time of year always makes me consider buying into this stuff more. Sounds like a good excuse to go shopping!! I mean, who could argue with it when it could save your life right?
Hikin_Jim

Oh, OK.  I just never knew it was the Bill Riley trail.  I wonder who Bill Riley was?

HJ
Sean

Popular hunting spots are where deer hang out. Water and food sources. Bedding grounds, if you can find them. Avoid taking animal trails to such locations if you're scared of being shot. Look for deer droppings to see if they frequent the paths. The risk of being shot by a hunter is historically practically nonexistent. Wearing non-camo colors might alert them to your presence, if you're close enough to their hunting ground. Some people prefer to gossip super loudly so that everyone on the mountain can hear them.
Hikin_Jim

I recommend that people talk loudly about how hunting should be made illegal and all firearms should be confiscated.  It may not keep you from getting shot, but I can rest assured nothing will be aimed my way.  Laughing

HJ
yobtaf

shoot back...
tracker

I guess the Game Warden should chime in here:
The popular hunting seasons that cause those noticeable crowds are fairly consistent from year to year. Some are set calendar dates, some are referenced to weekend days.
>Dove: 9/1 to 9/15, then 11/9 to 12/23- Nationwide. Dove is a migratory bird so the Feds set the season. It hasn't changed since the '40's.
>general (rifle) deer: second Saturday in October to the second Sunday in November. (5 weekends) This is the season for LA, Orange, San Berdoo, and the eastern part of Ventura county. SB closes a week earlier.
>Bear:Opens on the same day as general deer. It closes toward the end of December or when 1700 bears have been taken Statewide. Some counties have no season. Dogs can't be used now.
>Quail: Third Saturday in October to the last Sunday in January - Statewide
>Wild Pig:Year-round, statewide. There is no season on pigs. They aren't as established in the SGM as the rest of the state but they are starting to show here and there.

Those are the bigger seasons with noticeable participation. There are a lot of smaller, less popular hunts involving archery, falconry, jr. hunters, etc. There is one more worth mentioning because we are in LA:
Poaching: 24/7/365.  All species, genders, and ages. No limits or restrictions. No licenses, tags, or citizenship required. Certain fees, forfeiture of equipment, and/or loss of personal freedoms may be imposed without warning.Very Happy

I'd be happy to answer specific questions if anyone has them. Question
RichardK

Dead hikers

Sean wrote:
The risk of being shot by a hunter is historically practically nonexistent.


It's like winning the lottery. It happens only to a select few.


"On National Forest lands in 2002 and 2003, two Appalachian Trail hikers were shot by hunters who thought they were shooting at deer. Both hikers suffered serious injuries; both hunters were prosecuted."

- Appalachian Trail Conservancy


"SUBLIMITY, Ore. -- A 20-year-old hiker was killed after being accidentally shot by a hunter near Silver Creek Falls Friday night, police said."

- KING5.com, October 22, 2011


"A hunter mistook a Virginia college student for a deer and fired, killing her and injuring a companion "

- BackPacker.com, October, 2011


"A 54-year-old hiker was accidentally shot and killed by 14-year-old hunter on the Sauk Mountain Trail on Saturday."

- Washington Trails Association, August 4, 2008


"Flatwoods, La. - A turkey hunter from Rapides Parish faces a charge of negligent injury, after investigators say he accidentally shot a hiker in Natchitoches Parish."

- Fox8Live.com, April 27, 2012


"A deer hunter was found not guilty of manslaughter after a hiker was killed by a stray bullet in 2006, rekindling the debate over land use."

- TheStar.com, Ontario, Canada, November 6, 2006



And finally this from the High Country News (Colorado), May 29, 2006

Shooting at hikers is perfectly legal

My family and I almost became collateral damage at the end of a pleasant hike through Colorado's Roosevelt National Forest. We were walking on a trail north of the small town of Lyons, when bullets suddenly peppered the trees behind our backs. My 8-year-old son, in tears, flattened himself into the dirt, and though my wife screamed "hikers! hikers!" at the shooters, the bullets kept coming. But here's the real shock: While the shooters were undoubtedly careless and stupid, it was legal for them to fire their guns in our direction.
tracker

A long time ago I learned a phrase in history class; "Yellow Journalism". It seems the concept is still alive and well; and quite enhanced by the power of the internet and search engines.
Mike P

There were bow hunters walking around Marshall Canyon early in the morning yesterday (Sunday, Oct. 13) The park boundary is fairly high up the ridge. Hopefully, they weren't hunting in the county park.
tracker

Mike P wrote:
There were bow hunters walking around Marshall Canyon early in the morning yesterday (Sunday, Oct. 13) The park boundary is fairly high up the ridge. Hopefully, they weren't hunting in the county park.

Thanx. I'll pass that on to my guy in Duarte.
Sean

Re: Dead hikers

RichardK wrote:
It's like winning the lottery. It happens only to a select few.


More like getting struck by lightning, I'd say. Lots of people win the lottery in comparison.

Another tip: If you're afraid of being shot by a hunter, don't leave California. According to my research (five minutes on Google), the last Californian shot by a hunter was moseying through some brush in Oregon.
tracker

I should probably chime in here again:
In the past 21 years that I can account for, only one incident in the SGM's has been discovered where a person was mistakenly shot by a hunter.
I'm not counting incidents involving bird hunters. They tend to pepper themselves on a pretty regular basis.
It was tragic and very preventable. Long story short: The victim was a hunter, wearing full cammo, (including a hood and face mask), crawling on his hands and knees in thick shaded brush, and 75 yards from a well-driven dirt road (7N22) on a Saturday morning during rifle deer and bear season. I was about 300 yards away and heard the shots.
You decide......
There have been several reports of hunters injuring or nearly injuring people but after a good investigation, none has panned out as having happened as initially reported.
Again, you decide....... I might add - If you don't believe in hunting, refrain from a threatening expression of  your opinion to a hunter; or threatening him or his vehicle.
I wouldn't be an objective investigator if I don't admit there may have been hunter-related casualties that were never discovered, reported, or solved. Still, the danger of being a victim from a hunter's weapon just isn't what many think it is.
Hikin_Jim

tracker wrote:

The popular hunting seasons that cause those noticeable crowds are fairly consistent from year to year. Some are set calendar dates, some are referenced to weekend days.
>Dove: 9/1 to 9/15, then 11/9 to 12/23- Nationwide. Dove is a migratory bird so the Feds set the season. It hasn't changed since the '40's.
>general (rifle) deer: second Saturday in October to the second Sunday in November. (5 weekends) This is the season for LA, Orange, San Berdoo, and the eastern part of Ventura county. SB closes a week earlier.
>Bear:Opens on the same day as general deer. It closes toward the end of December or when 1700 bears have been taken Statewide. Some counties have no season. Dogs can't be used now.
>Quail: Third Saturday in October to the last Sunday in January - Statewide
>Wild Pig:Year-round, statewide. There is no season on pigs. They aren't as established in the SGM as the rest of the state but they are starting to show here and there.
Thank you!  That's the most concise information I've seen to date.  Trying to read through X zones and whatnot on the DFW site is not for the feint of heart (although it probably is ultimately navigable; I just got a little intimidated -- but it certainly isn't something accessible quickly)

HJ
VermillionPearlGirl

I didn't know they could hunt bears. That makes more sense for some of the confusing places I saw hunters last weekend.

Sigh, I'm thinking of moving to Oregon and I know my likelihood of being shot there goes up exponentially.... But I used to spend summers in South Carolina and people would just shoot their guns off there because it was Tuesday so hopefully that's prepared me Smile

Thanks for the info!
HikeUp

Just hope they know their gun safety rules...

Rule 1: keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you're ready to fire
tracker

VermillionPearlGirl wrote:
I didn't know they could hunt bears. That makes more sense for some of the confusing places I saw hunters last weekend.

Last weekend was not a typical opening day. A lot of the campgrounds and day-use areas were closed so hunters had to change their routines.
Very few bears are taken in the ANF. The reported (legal) sport take is about 3 to 12 a year. Cars and property owners kill more bears than hunters do. Commuters take their share of deer too.
BrownMtnBob

They're not "hunters"....use the correct terminology.  They are "small di$*ed chumps".
Taco

Hunters have small dishes? I don't have any dishes... then again I don't hunt anymore.
Hikin_Jim

Serving size:  One Vienna sausage?

HJ
Mike P

tracker wrote:
Mike P wrote:
There were bow hunters walking around Marshall Canyon early in the morning yesterday (Sunday, Oct. 13) The park boundary is fairly high up the ridge. Hopefully, they weren't hunting in the county park.

Thanx. I'll pass that on to my guy in Duarte.

Thx, tracker, for looking into that...
Hikin_Jim

HikeUp wrote:
Rule 1: keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you're ready to fire
The really critical rule:  Make a positive ID on what you're shooting at.  If you can't see it clearly, don't pull the trigger.

HJ
simonov

HikeUp wrote:
Just hope they know their gun safety rules...

Rule 1: keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you're ready to fire


Ackshully, that's Rule #3.
Hikin_Jim

And what pray tell are the other two?

HJ
Taco

Something about not pointing your firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy.

And don't spill your beer.
HikeUp

And stop picking your nose.
cougarmagic

Hikin_Jim

No wonder I don't see more ducks.

HJ
HikeUp

what were we talking about?
Uncle Rico

Quote:
And don't spill your beer.


The no. 1 rule.
Teejate

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.
Mike P

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

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.
Mike P

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.


Fair enough. Thanks!
tracker

Habitat quality is the number one factor in determining wildlife populations. Predation, human or otherwise, is negligible. If we really want to start a rousing debate, let's talk about fire suppression and how that affects things.
Migolito

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

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.
HikeUp

And picnic baskets!
AW

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.


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.
Hikin_Jim

Ah, the ever diplomatic AW.   Laughing

HJ
tracker

Hikin_Jim wrote:
Ah, the ever diplomatic AW.   Laughing

HJ

And I'm not taking the bait. Razz
Sean

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


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.
Mike P

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.

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).
However, your point (and tracker's) is well taken that a century's worth of well-intentioned fire suppression resulted in profound unintended consequences.
tracker

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.
Migolito

[quote="tracker:46210"]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.
tracker

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

I'd like to shake his/her hand. Doing the right thing can be hard on a person's career though.
Migolito

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.
Hikin_Jim

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

HJ
tracker

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

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.
Migolito

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.


I live in that zone too. This is no more than a fire fighter overtime tax...
tracker

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!  

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.
tracker

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.

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.
Sean

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.


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.
AW

Sean wrote:
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.


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.


The Station Fire was so bungled, the public meeting was just one sad but overpowering fact after another. The FS didnt contest the questions, and just shrugged shoulders. The media was hoping for some news footage of drama, but everyone remained calm. Remeber, the discussion about fire supression is one thing, but people got killed....and there were many more that just about bit it. Not only did they just 'let it burn' in day2, they didnt even tell people in harms way. There were many tears as residents testified of FAKE, muchless false, information that was life threatining. Being told that the fire wasnt a threat, and then when the fire was coming down Lukens towards them were told that help would arrive, after first being told it was not burning there!. Help did arrive, but only from support units that took matters into their own hands....the Monrovia FD of all places, playing a key role....with LA County eventually figuring it out.

It was like everyday in the early going, days 1-3, was so mismanaged it was scary. In day 1, the truth was that the old growth burns slower than new growth. Granted they follow that truth now and jump on everything because they know the Station Fire area will burn quickly again.

The other part doesnt have to do with the fire supression...as once the fire concludes those who said "let it burn" disappear. Then comes in the 2-faced opportunists and start talking about the conquences of letting it burn...the real threat - erosion. Not  to mention the forest is closed Laughing .

As it happened, I feel we really lucked out by not having a wet year after the Station Fire. All one has to do is recall the flash flood of 1938, a heavy rain year after a fire on Lukens. Think old growth doesnt help out, and that the steep slopes arent indicative of old growth/LACK of fires? Think again. If I put one of those 'Let it Burn' people next to some burned slope when its raining hard,watch  em run away LOL.
AW

I could have just linked to this website too...
http://www.californiachaparral.org/fire/firescience.html
Teejate

Sean wrote:
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.


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.


Well said.

At the end of the day it was an arsonist that was never caught who struck when the natural conditions were optimum for a massive fire. Beyond the loss of life there are large swatches that may not return to what they were in our lifetimes.

My understanding is that around a million pine and fir trees were planted with only about 25% taking hold due to the lack of rain and the overtaking of chaparral. They were looking for a 75% survival rate.

Personally, I place no blame on forest management. But man, the idea of some piece of dirt starting that fire just flips me out. And I'm reminded of it every time I'm on the 2. Doesn't feel "normal" until I hit Chilao.
tracker

If I could be so bold and to get back on topic:
>General rifle deer season closed 11/10.
>An either-sex archery deer season goes until 12/31.
>Bear season is open until the end of December or when 1,700 bears (statewide) are taken.
>Quail is open until the end of next January.
>Trapping doesn't have a specific season but it tends to start around Thanksgiving when bobcat opens. It takes a bit of cold weather for the fur to thicken and be worth selling.
>Poaching season is open year-round.
Teejate

tracker wrote:
If I could be so bold and to get back on topic:
>General rifle deer season closed 11/10.
>An either-sex archery deer season goes until 12/31.
>Bear season is open until the end of December or when 1,700 bears (statewide) are taken.
>Quail is open until the end of next January.
>Trapping doesn't have a specific season but it tends to start around Thanksgiving when bobcat opens. It takes a bit of cold weather for the fur to thicken and be worth selling.
>Poaching season is open year-round.


Liked the last one.

I didn't know bear season was also contingent on how many bears were taken...or 'harvested' as they say.

I checked it out. As of Nov. 14 the number stands at 795 statewide.
tracker

Quote:
I checked it out. As of Nov. 14 the number stands at 795 statewide.

795 is low for mid November. It wouldn't surprise me if the season closed by calendar instead of quota this year. This is the first season since the use of trailing hounds on bear and bobcat was banned.
Hikin_Jim

Sounds like they might only get 1/2 the bears they got last year.  I guess taking hounds out of the equation gives the bears more of a chance.

I suppose they must allow bear hunting near areas where bears have become a problem (Mammoth, for example).  Interesting.  Habituated bears have no fear of man, but if a man comes with a gun.  Bears are pretty smart though; they may figure it out.

HJ
tracker

Hikin_Jim wrote:
Sounds like they might only get 1/2 the bears they got last year.  I guess taking hounds out of the equation gives the bears more of a chance.

I suppose they must allow bear hunting near areas where bears have become a problem (Mammoth, for example).  Interesting.  Habituated bears have no fear of man, but if a man comes with a gun.  Bears are pretty smart though; they may figure it out.

HJ

Yeah, most bears taken (statewide)by hunters were with the aid of dogs, until this year. LA County/ANF has never been a place houndsmen hunted very much. I'm told our canyons are too steep and deep, and we don't have enough roads. The roads we have are too much like the Autobahn. The hunting take for this area is low. Y2K was the highest year I know of at 11 taken. It isn't unusual for none to be taken by hunters during a season. Or at least none were taken legally, tagged, and reported.
Truth be told - Cars and property owners account for the majority of the bears killed locally.
Hikin_Jim

tracker wrote:
...property owners account for the majority of the bears killed locally.
Is that people killing "problem" bears?

HJ
tracker

Hikin_Jim wrote:
tracker wrote:
...property owners account for the majority of the bears killed locally.
Is that people killing "problem" bears?HJ

With local hunting numbers hovering at a dozen or less per year, it's easy for both accidental and intentional human-caused bear mortality stats to be higher. The old Shoot, Shovel, and Shut-up is giving way to new, quieter methods. Without going into details, I can say that your kitchen, garden, and garage have more than enough materials to make an assortment of concoctions to cause kidney failure in a bear. Also, there is accidental poisoning that happens too. There's an algaecide for ornamental water features called "Physan" that will kill things if the label instructions aren't followed.
People are just bad news for bears.
Hikin_Jim

Poisoning?  Yipes.  Although if a bear were constantly breaking into my cabin, I might be tempted too.

HJ
tracker

Cabin owners have always battled bear problems. They learn that the best solutions tend to be prevention-related, instead of cures. The places most dangerous for bears are far from the woods; but it's not like we can sit them down and explain things to them.  You may have seen us catching that bear in Baldwin Park a couple weeks ago. We did what we could. He got an eartag and a ride up to Deer Flats, past Crystal Lake. Three days later it was dead on someone's front porch in Littlerock.
Shocked  Question
The one from Granada Hills - Knollwood Country Club spent the night in my driveway, then got a ride to New Cuyama the next day. This was the third time we caught him in the same general area. We'll see if he returns. I sense a YouTube take-off on a Frank Zappa song:
Valley bear, he's a Valley bear. OK fine, fer sure fer sure; he's a Valley bear and there is no cure.... Like, OMG
Hikin_Jim

tracker wrote:
You may have seen us catching that bear in Baldwin Park a couple weeks ago. We did what we could. He got an eartag and a ride up to Deer Flats, past Crystal Lake. Three days later it was dead on someone's front porch in Littlerock.


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/...-baldwin-park-littlerock-20131015


tracker wrote:
The one from Granada Hills - Knollwood Country Club spent the night in my driveway, then got a ride to New Cuyama the next day. This was the third time we caught him in the same general area. We'll see if he returns.
Confiscate his GPS.  Wink

HJ
ur2slo

HikeUp wrote:
what were we talking about?


From hunting to fire suppression in 60 seconds.......back to original thread.  

Btw I was in Yellowstone in 88..for what it's worth Smile and having lived in the Northwest, growed up back East & got my first deer bow hunting at 10 with my uncle, I'm not getting into the hunting vs not hunting argument and I, while not an avid hunter, agree with subsistence hunting, and game management, also do shoot long range 7.62x51 for my own personal challenges, 3/8" 5 shot groups makes me u kno what hard!
 
I just spent a bit in the prairie fork area and while making my Sunday hike into wrightwood for a cell signal to call my kid for safety report and pint of ice cream, I came upon a group, headed down the Mine gulch trail about 8am on my way up. Guy and his grandsons, heard em coming down the trail way before they saw me. Made enough noise to send anything up high. Obviously typical flatlanders. I was unaware of the opening season, but had seen reference on here to it before headed in so was wary.

Seems from Utah, Idaho, Mt and Ca, funniest trait was that while my time up in the area since this spring saw many deer, does w/fawn to hearing the bucks but not actually seeing em, this time not a one and the common trait in all is it seems they get a notice that hunting season is opening, cause they all seem to disappear about that time!

 Anywho, we talked the precursorary typical talk, seen any? No, blah blah blah. Fast forward to about 4pm, I'm on my way back down, and here 3 shots over the course of hikin down.
 
I'm thinking who the heck is gonna take a shot this late in day, just about dusk, they are way down by what my ear says, but heck ain't first time I've helped pack out meat, so maybe this is to MY advantage, har har. Lil venison wouldn't hurt my bean an rice diet!

I meet the first of the group, the young kids. They were all jazzed and lil shakin up, cause they just saw a bobcat. Thought it was gonna eat em! I explained to em, he ain't gonna bother ya, just headed out hunting himself!

10 minutes later grandpa and oldest are coming up and we talk about thier luck and stuff. I tell em I seen some lion tracks up around this area and any self respecting deer ain't gonna hang in lion domain, so not many in this area.
 
Then the stupid part, start talking shots. Well sonny boy did take a few shots, he saw one across the canyon, I guesstimate prolly a good 7-800 yard shot? Hence the three shots. He missed or did he? Duh... He wound em? Or nail some poor unsuspecting looked like a deer to me person? I as always, questioned his judgment, but since he had the .270 and me well, this is calif. I left it at that.

 While living in Utah, which BTW on opening day the schools shut down to allow the family to go hunting, you would not believe how many Elk, and dairy cows were shot on opening day of DEER season, by out of state hunters. It was hilarious, guy would pull into tagging station with a elk strapped to his hood and wonder why he was getting cited by F&G, thought he had a new Boone & Crockett record deer! Stupid is as stupid does.

Well, long winded enough, my story FWIW.

Be safe.....

And always.....Question Stupidity!
VermillionPearlGirl

The thought of 800 dead bears perplexes me. What do you do with a dead bear exactly? I mean it's fur must be pretty good to be used. But you don't eat them right? How do you transport something that heavy?
Hikin_Jim

I believe that people do eat bear.

HJ
tracker

VermillionPearlGirl wrote:
The thought of 800 dead bears perplexes me. What do you do with a dead bear exactly? I mean it's fur must be pretty good to be used. But you don't eat them right? How do you transport something that heavy?

It's a rich red meat. The taste is highly variable. Like any wild game, what the animal has been eating will affect the taste. The fat is sun-rendered down into an oil that can't be beat for preserving and waterproofing leather.
The hunters are required by law to retrieve all edible portions from the field as well as presenting the head to a CDFW employee for tag validation and extracting a tooth for age analysis. Even if it becomes dog food, the meat has to be hauled out and taken home.
I've heard a lot of stories about guys taking several days to get big bears out.
tracker

Before the thread goes dead:
I mentioned that this is getting into the season where the fur trappers are out. Since the entire CDFW Enforcement squad for the area is 5 wardens and one patrol lieutenant (me), we really appreciate when the public acts as our eyes and ears. If you should stumble across a trap, shoot me a PM. We mainly just want to know who is where, and when. GPS coords, license plate numbers, times, and anything else you may have seen are the best way to help us. We'll take it from there. I know it's tough to not intervene, but trapping can be a legal activity. Interfering with legal trapping is a misdemeanor. Spoiling a case may be the difference between us being able to seize a violator's entire catch and having him get away with it, if he is operating illegally.
Local bobcat prices will open at $300 - $500 per pelt this year. With that kind of money at stake there is real incentive to cheat. No offense to legal trappers, but, well, you know what some guys do....
HJ: I'm good friends with the OC officers. I can relay info you might come across down there.
CM: Make sure your pics and vids don't have any GPS info embedded. I don't know exactly how all of that stuff works but informants tell me sometimes guys get prospective trap locations from pics on the internet.
All: Thanx in advance if you can help.
Worth keeping in mind: Most trapping is done within 1/8 mile of pavement. Also, it isn't necessarily happening in the tall pines and wilderness. Parks, nature centers, flood control channels and basins, powerline easements, railroad corridors, literally any open space, ... all good.  Shocked
cougarmagic

tracker wrote:

CM: Make sure your pics and vids don't have any GPS info embedded.


None of my cameras have that capability, so that's an easy one.  Also if I ever tell someone where my video was taken, I'm probably lying.   Wink

Interesting that I've never come across a trap or snare though.

Thanks for the information!
tracker

cougarmagic wrote:
tracker wrote:

CM: Make sure your pics and vids don't have any GPS info embedded.


None of my cameras have that capability, so that's an easy one.  Also if I ever tell someone where my video was taken, I'm probably lying.   Wink

Interesting that I've never come across a trap or snare though.

Thanks for the information!

I posted a release vid, taken on my phone, of the lion I caught in the desert last spring. I got a message from a stranger that day, scolding me for releasing a lion in a campground.   Shocked  I hadn't even finished the report yet. He told me that he plugged the GPS data from my pic into Google Earth and it came up as Artesian Springs Campground.
I told him the campground has been empty since the '70's when it was closed and leveled.
Quote:
.. if I ever tell someone where my video was taken, I'm probably lying.

I guess it's true then. Someone told me you were a lyin' expert. Very Happy
Hikin_Jim

tracker wrote:
Someone told me you were a lyin' expert. Very Happy
Laughing

HJ
Hikin_Jim

tracker wrote:
HJ: I'm good friends with the OC officers. I can relay info you might come across down there.
Well, our move has been cast into doubt by a landlord who wants to stay in the spare room for two weeks this summer, a last minute addition to the rental agreement that my wife and I are none too happy about.

Wherever I land, I'll keep my eyes open.

HJ
ur2slo

tracker wrote:

It's a rich red meat. The taste is highly variable. Like any wild game, what the animal has been eating will affect the taste. The fat is sun-rendered down into an oil that can't be beat for preserving and waterproofing leather.


Highest fat content too, if not mistaken. As above, lots of variables.

Interesting thread........

Need the PETA group, no not that one....mine. "People Eating Tasty Animals"  Laughing  

Not serious but funny......all the points above work to bettering the animals, I've watched cougars come back, and the California Condor is forefront in public view.

Pitch in, this "politically correct" goverment needs all the help it can get. Good points on the public helping.

Obama don't care. Har har....

IMHO...FWIW.......

And as always...Question Stupidity.
       EisPiraten.com Forum Index -> General Discussion
Page 1 of 1