E-mail from WDFW

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The writing is on the wall. Hunting in Washington will soon be a rich man's pursuit. It's been going that way for years. Really no surprise.

I am surprised the State is laying down on this one though. In the long run, it will cost the State a lot in lost fees. Especially if the timber companies limit the # of permits they sell. Hunters that won't or can't buy a permit to hunt in their favorite local spot will either give up hunting eventually and quit introducing future hunters to the joys of hunting, or they'll start hunting out of State as it's almost cost effective.

If something isn't done about this situation, this will be my last year of hunting here.

Got this e-mail today..........

Dear Permit Applicant,

Some timber companies in western Washington have recently announced plans to begin requiring permits and charging fees to hunt on private forestlands where these access restrictions were not previously in place. We are notifying you to make sure you are aware of these changes, which may be a consideration in applying for special hunting permits this year.

The five game management units currently affected by new access requirements are GMUs 501, 506, 530, 672 and 667. Your special permit application history shows that you have previously applied for a special hunting permit in one or more of these areas.

If you plan to submit hunt choices for deer or elk in any of these areas this year, we advise that you check timber company websites or hotlines for more information on the new requirements before you submit your special permit application. The deadline for submitting a special permit application this year is May 22.

In recent years, WDFW has made a concerted effort to work with private timber companies throughout the state to expand hunter access to commercial timberlands. However, while we've been successful in a number of areas, WDFW does not have the legal authority to regulate private landowners' decisions about restricting access or charging fees to hunt on their land.

Sincerely,


WDFW
Wildlife Program

[Skyvalhunter]

Well its good they are giving you a warning. It's not the states fault private property owners choose to go down this road.

[rtspring]

Their land, their right. Like it or not it is their ballpark, we as hunters pay to see the GAME...   

[headshot5]

I really can't blame timber companies for a lot of it.  Look at all the garbage dumped in the woods on private land.  If someone was dumping garbage on my property I am pretty sure I would be locking it up tight too.

[mpetersen]

I guess weyco is tired of getting the tax break for allowing recreational access for the citizens.  Good deal for weyco employees and their buddies as they get first crack at permits and at half price !!

[snowpack]

There's still a lot of public land across the state.  It might be a longer drive and have a little more company than one would prefer, but this state DOES still provide a lot of access.  The tree farm permits, I agree, will inconvenience many--like the discover pass did; but having the tree farms restrict access doesn't mean that there isn't anyplace left to hunt.  Washington is 42% public land (although I think non-huntable national/state parks are included).  I think nearly every region has substantial USFS land, some have BLM, and then disco passes can access some large tracts of DNR.  I think it is a far stretch from some of the other states that are less than 5% public land--where people really did get locked out of hunting.  I do kind of see this as leading to permit only, though; and that will end a lot of hunting.  But due to the permits not the land access.

[Hermannr]

Back (70's) before this stuff started, I was under the impression that to get the "forestry" property tax classification, there was a requirement that your property be open access for recreation to the public.  If you did not want to allow public recreation on your forestry property you could not get the tax break.

This did not mean that you had top allow the public to use your roads, but you must allow access for recreation.  The only time you could restrict access was when you were actively operation, and then only in the area you were operating in.

When did this change?

Same goes for "open spaces" classification.  If you put your property into open spaces you got a tax break, but you could not restrict access to the public (that is post "no trespassing")

[blackdog]

Herman, When did it start? I've heard these impressions for years but know one can point to law when asked.

[headshot5]

http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf

Look this over.  To be able to be classified as open space you meet a set of requirments.  Public access is not one of them.

Here is a list of the requirments.

Any land area in which the preservation in its present use would: 
a. Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources.

b. Protect streams or water supply.

c. Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes. (As a condition of granting open space classification, the legislative body may not require public access on land classified for the purpose of promoting conservation of wetlands.)

d. Enhance the value to the public of neighbouring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space.

e. Enhance recreation opportunities.

f. Preserve historic sites.

g. Preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas.

h. Retain in its natural state tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as may be reasonably required by the legislative authority granting the open space classification.

Nothing says you have to allow hunters on you property, or that access needs to be free.

[Curly]

Washington is 42% public land (although I think non-huntable national/state parks are included).  I think nearly every region has substantial USFS land, some have BLM, and then disco passes can access some large tracts of DNR.

Isn't the majority of USFS land (at least on the west side) pretty much void of deer and elk?  Forest Circus hasn't cut timber for years, so there is little browse left for deer and elk since there are very little clear cuts anymore.     Tree farm lands have had the better deer and elk populations.

[EyeTooth]

Thanks Sitka,
Good info, and I agree with you.
We can all see it coming.
All we can do is have as much fun hunting in Washington as we can while it lasts while being able to adapt.
For many of us these are the good old days! Make the most of them.
I also appreciate the WDFW sending the notice.

[snowpack]

Washington is 42% public land (although I think non-huntable national/state parks are included).  I think nearly every region has substantial USFS land, some have BLM, and then disco passes can access some large tracts of DNR.

Isn't the majority of USFS land (at least on the west side) pretty much void of deer and elk?  Forest Circus hasn't cut timber for years, so there is little browse left for deer and elk since there are very little clear cuts anymore.     Tree farm lands have had the better deer and elk populations.

I agree Curly that tree farms have better game populations.  But what I was saying is that, regardless of how great hunting is....you still have places to go.  Even if you're just taking a rifle for a walk.  Now compare that to some people I know of in a state like Texas.  That state is over 95% private, and when all the private areas are maxed out on number of hunters allowed, then you really don't get to hunt. In Washington, there might not be game rich areas but at least there are places to go.

[Curly]

True, but the point is that without game to kill, it is just a walk in the woods.  And how many hunters will be left in a few years when they are just going for a walk in the woods.  You could just go for a hike without packing a rifle and buying a tag.  The number of hunters in this state will plummet, license and tag fees will increase to make up for the loss in hunter #'s.

[bearpaw]

What about private property rights? Have you all opened your acreage or back yards up to public use? 

[bobcat]

What about private property rights? Have you all opened your acreage or back yards up to public use? 

That's different. This is land owned by a large corporation, not a person or persons.