Bridgestone Firestone WMA

I deer hunt it quite a bit every year as I only live a few minutes away. Haven't turkey hunted it since they purchased the private land bordering it 5 years ago or so.
 
How many people do you know that hunt the area? There is a man from White Co. who spoke to a Senate committee last week and proposed that the WMA be given to state parks. Your thoughts?
 
I probably know 15-20 that deer hunt it on a regular basis and a few more that hunt it a few times a year. And know just
About everyone in the general area. If I was guessing the man that spoke is from the family that moved from Pennsylvania a few years back and opened up the store at the entrance ? Trading post or something along those lines ? from what I gather and what the wma manager has told me the beef the hikers and nature lovers have is the fact that most of the area is closed during deer season for anyone not deer hunting. I believe only Virgin falls natural area is the only trail/area open during deer season. They don't care for the wma manager and his crew being as he tries to enforce the rules. Several problems have arisen over the last few years with certain people posting on Facebook Instagram or whatever about trails and overlooks being open to come out and enjoy the area when they weren't actually open. Then Mr Douglas has
To deal with all of them unfortunately. I've found new hiking trails cut through the woods and posted as hiking trails in areas where they aren't suppose to be. Me personally I have no problem with the other groups even deer season as long as they pay to play like the rest of us. It's open 9.5 months of the year to them and only 2.5 for deer hunters ( only 3 weeks of gun season, and 1 of muzzleloader). Those 2.5 months are the only time they are confined to a smaller area. The group that runs the store and do the tours and such have been extremely nice to me and haven't caused a problem with me personally, we just don't agree on the subject. And I believe they have a bigger following simply because many don't know what's going on.
 
As far as them wanting it to be state park land, they have all that land most of the year to themselves right now and it's being taking care of by the manager. They don't have to do or pay a thing and their trails, parking lots, campsites, and roadways are being maintained for free. Paid for by the hunters.
 
I will get the video link and post it in a little bit. This man's name is Marvin Bullard, and many of the claims he makes in the video are untrue. Watch the whole video if you do. Senator Bailey from that area is the one working with him from what I understand. Deer hunting on the WMA only takes place 69 days of the year, that's it. Our concern is that when someone is the "president" of the White County Chamber of Commerce and is spewing this vitrol the public can't tell what is true and what isn't. Hunters in that area need to let Senator Bailey know how they feel because the only person the Senator is hearing from is this guy.

One example of a complete falsehood...Mr. Bullard claims that TWRA has turned down the Boy Scouts of America for a trail. This is patently false and I have personally spoken to the manager of the Latimer Scout Ranch (which by the way leases part of its ground to a group of deer hunters).

We are concerned because the agency has done a good job of maintaining access and has shown a willingness to work with all users....Mr. Bullard is seeking an all or nothing approach. Would love to hear you opinions.
 
Poser":ujavqwsf said:
Is there any real reason for the established trails to be closed to hikers during deer season? We share the woods with other user groups during hunting season on many other tracts of public land throughout the state.

The next question is why would making it a state park restrict the hunting? Many state parks are open to statewide seasons.

Either way, it would be wise to get the local hunters organized I this.


http://www.GoCarnivore.com
Click to expand...


I have zero problem with the hikers during deer season as I doubt any are going to get to where I hunt anyhow. I'm sure others have problems just not me. I do wish it were a pay to play scenario tho, for a little over 2 months I have to pay to use the resource so why shouldn't they. Whether it be hunting, fishing, kayaking, hiking, or whatever else.

As for your other question I agree that there are many that are open same as statewide. But many are not. A fine example is right across the river in fall creek falls state park.
 
Thanks guys for the thoughts. I want to be very clear.

1. Much of what Mr. Bullard testifies to in the video is inaccurate, misleading or patently false.
2. Mr. Bullard's desire to transfer this land to TDEC State Parks is simply his idea for how he could gain more control to impose his ideas on this property.
3. We do not feel that 69 days of deer hunting is unreasonable given that the hikers can utilize the entire area the rest of the year, even though I do not believe they are paying for any access - unlike us sportsmen.
4. There are safety concerns to consider with having non-hunters walking in the woods during hunting season.
5. There are quality of hunt considerations as well - for example - just me personally, I would not want a hiker disturbing my deer hunt. Nothing against hikers at all, but some of these activities are not compatible for the quality of experience many seek.

We have met with Mr. Bullard and TWRA early last year. His position was at that time that he wants the whole area open at all times to hikers with no consideration for the hunters seeking a quality experience...its an all or nothing position he is holding. We discussed trying to work together to allow access during archery season and his response was all or nothing.

Thoughts?
 
Best way to summarize our thoughts is that we do not believe there is a real problem at the Bridgestone WMA. We are not hearing from anyone other than Mr. Bullard. There are not numbers of hikers or paddlers complaining that we are aware of. We have spoken with BSA and others and they are weary of Mr. Bullard's tactics.

In the end we wanted to bring this to your attention so that you are aware, and if this effort gains any momentum we can be in a position to protect our public hunting lands and opportunities.
 
I'm only 18 minutes through the video but so far I know Marvin is either making stuff up or listened To the wrong people. Firestone only gave Bridgestone 10,000 acres. The rest was bought from private landowners, such as the area known as Welchs point ( marvins first picture). It was the campamors and was 660 acres I believe. and the cunninghams which is the big bottom unit, I'm thinking it was around 5,000 acres. One reason only 73 deer where taken is the area is foot traffic only other than the 1 gravel road that runs through it. Not many are going to go very far off the road as its hard country
To hunt with an elevation change of around 2,000 feet. Antler restrictions have been in place for 8 years I believe and for harvest are limited during muzzleloderr season. When it was first opened in 2000 I believe it was, I would bet the deer harvest would rival anywhere in the state for deer killed per acre, I was 10 and was with dad on the juvenile hunt, he nor I have never seen as many deer as we did those 2 days. They were just crazy over populated and poor looking deer . Also, with normal hunting pressure the area just isn't going to hold many deer at sll, resulting in a low harvest. 95% of it is mature hardwoods. Just not conducive with holding tons of deer. Another problem with his speech, the area he refers to as Clifty is actually private property so the Europeans shouldn't have been there in the first place. The only access points to legally reach to kayak are class 2 at best. And that's from the fork hole downstream to the big bottom unit. BS\FS are not
Blocking anyone from legally kayaking class 4 and 5 Rapids, because there aren't any to reach on the wma property.
 
Good points Poser. I would point out that there is only one person in the opposition.

I think the quality experience cuts both ways...its also a consideration for hikers that don't want to hear gunshots when they are in the woods.

Again, I don't think there is a large issue here - but rather one individual working to stir the pot. If there were a bunch of hikers being impacted I think we would have heard about it long before this.

To the point of fees, do you think there is a problem for other users to pay a fee to use these or other lands?

Thanks.
 
Michael Butler said:
Good points Poser. I would point out that there is only one person in the opposition.

I think the quality experience cuts both ways...its also a consideration for hikers that don't want to hear gunshots when they are in the woods.

Again, I don't think there is a large issue here - but rather one individual working to stir the pot. If there were a bunch of hikers being impacted I think we would have heard about it long before this.

To the point of fees, do you think there is a problem for other users to pay a fee to use these or other lands?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

If mr Bullard gets in cahoots with a certain group of people in the area he will not be the only person in the opposition.
There are far more that would like to see his plan happen than anyone would think. And a very few hunters that are vocal enough, in this area anyway.
 
Mike,

Thank you for the "heads up" regarding this Bridgestone Firestone issue.
Also, "thank you" for your continuous work with the Tennessee Conservation League, oops, I'm aging myself a bit, uh, I mean the TN Wildlife Federation.

Michael Butler said:
Again, I don't think there is a large issue here - but rather one individual working to stir the pot.
Click to expand...
That appears to be the case. Mainly just an issue of one man's greed (and deception).

Unfortunately for us hunters (and fishermen to a lesser degree), this Bridgestone Firestone issue is just the tip of the iceberg to what is coming of a similar nature as various "user" groups demand more exclusive access to just themselves, or in some cases, special "purpose", such as demanding areas be designated "wilderness" and off limits to nearly everything.

As you know, the much larger 170,000-plus acres Land Between the Lakes National RECREATION Area is dealing with various "user" group issues in a variety of ways. Very large portions (thousands of acres in a single block, multiple blocks) are excluded from any gun hunting, and mainly "exclusively" for the primary use of particular named "special" groups. There is an "off-road" vehicle area for some to go play with their dirt bikes, their atvs, or whatever they want to use. There are several hiking areas. There are off-road "mountain" biking areas (non-motorized bikes), and there are horse-riding areas. Then on top of all this, outside all those "special" user blocks (having no gun hunting), gun hunting is limited by special quota hunt days to only 4 days annually (adults) + 2 days annually (juveniles). STILL, some "groups" would like for there to be no hunting at all.

Most of these "special" user areas within LBL are opened to archery-only deer hunting in late winter (not open to hunting in the fall or during the rut), the time of year these areas are least used for their "special" designations. To think that these other user groups are not greatly decreasing the amount of deer hunting that would otherwise be offered at LBL is to be naïve. That said, there doesn't seem to be too much friction at LBL between the deer hunters and other user groups, but this may be in larger part because the area is large enough to have huge tracts within set aside for specific user groups, some of these individual "special use" tracts within LBL approaching the acreage of the entire Bridgestone Firestone WMA.

I don't think the real conflicts are coming from any particular activity, whether we're discussing Bridgestone Firestone, LBL, or some other "publically" owned land. The real problems are usually caused by an individual or relatively small group which is very self-centered with little or no consideration for the opinions or activities of others. Sometimes, some of us hunters can be that way, too, although it's typically among ourselves rather than being of much consequence to any other "user" group.

I see no legitimate reason why Bridgestone Firestone should become a state park, and I believe such a designation would then require more "state" employees, thereby putting the general taxpayer on the tab for yet higher operational expenses?

Michael Butler said:
To the point of fees, do you think there is a problem for other users to pay a fee to use these or other lands?
Click to expand...
In all fairness, they should, but as an avid hunter, I'm willing to pay more (even if they pay nothing) just to slow down the encroachment of so many other recreational outdoor activities that in fact do reduce the quality of the hunting experiences, but worse, eventually decrease the days of hunting if not totally eliminate it.
 
Poser,

This is how I view the recreation issue. There is outdoor recreation that is an end into itself, and then there is outdoor recreation that is a means to engage wildlife.

For recreation as a means to engage wildlife, this falls under the mission of TWRA. For recreation that is a means unto itself, this recreation falls under the recreation mission mandate of TDEC.

This is why you have TWRA managing hunting and fishing and TDEC managing trails and greenways, etc.

For me I think if its good for the goose its good for the gander for most outdoor recreation. I believe TWRA has developed a "high impact" use license at some areas for those people that want to participate in pure recreation pursuits that have a corresponding higher management cost.

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback. I too think there is a way for these user groups to work together.
 
Michael thanks for getting this issue some attn. I hunt that area some years and would hate to see it lost as its one of the few really large chunks of land we hunters have to roam. I plan to try and follow this and will do what I can to help.
 


Write your reply...

Latest posts

Back
Top