How Many want "master Hunters" Out of North Bend, Snoq

[bullfisher]

Dang...lots of cry babies on here besides the OP.
I see 60% of the poll voting for some kind of change. 

[Little Dave]

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, Piano.  Indeed the name can be a subject of debate for the politicians, if I write such a letter, I'll include enough reason to change the name or terminate the program entirely.

I've worked with a number of permit holders on a number of volunteer projects, even working with the state and private groups to create projects which qualify for volunteer hours.  Knowing how important this program is to the participants, it can be abused so easily.  This is the concern that I am leaving at the feet of my peers.

In a nutshell, I would rather see the damage mitigation in North Bend managed collaboratively with local hunters... and at no time operated like a poaching ring where the permit holder is moving from property to property looking for an opportunity.

[billythekidrock]

Dang...lots of cry babies on here besides the OP.
I see 60% of the poll voting for some kind of change. 

The poll verbiage has been changed several times.

[Bob33]

In a nutshell, I would rather see the damage mitigation in North Bend managed collaboratively with local hunters.

i believe a state managed program that differentiates and treats hunters differently based on geographical location would not be accepted as legal.

[Little Dave]

Bob, I agree that the state cannot treat hunters differently based on geographical location.  That point has been discussed several times in setting up terms for the hunts in the 4601 area.

What might be possible is to create a process for hunters to register hunter/landowner agreements with the state prior to the draw, then form a special draw for that pool of hunters.  The master hunter damage control hunt dates could be established before and after the general seasons using that model.  As it is, the master hunter season runs concurrent with the general seasons and it causes needless friction and these sportsmanship issues that are of no concern to the landowners, the biologists, tribes, or the state.

When I was coordinator for this program a few years ago, a common concern from landowners was that they wanted to know who was going to be on their property.  A description of the master hunter qualifications was helpful, but not enough.  Some outright refused to place anyone on their property that they did not know, particularly someone from outside of the valley.  Often, they'd like to meet the hunter in person prior to the hunt, they wanted all their neighbors to be informed and I did the work to make that happen.  I did the best I could to honor the wishes of the general season hunters and segregate the master hunter assignments so that there was a bye week prior to the general hunting seasons and no assignments during the general hunting seasons.

A few of the permit holders that were on my list that year had been drawn for the permit in a prior season and worked with some other coordinator.  They said that the way it was done before is that they were allowed to move between all of the properties in the portfolio and take an elk if there was an opportunity.  Although this may have been an effective method of filling tags and meeting quota, I did not see it as the right image for the program as this activity of "unknown vehicle driving around" is suspicious for local residents already wary of burglary, drug exchanges, and poaching.  Instead, I placed hunters on specific properties to be more inconspicuous and not in contention with other hunting that I was aware of.  There was an additional problem with one of the golf course properties.  The golf course did not want any hunters placed there at all.  They had issues with the program from the prior year and dodged my calls for weeks.  I worked with them, met their terms and restored access to the program for that season.

I don't know who is coordinating the hunt this year, but it can give some insight to the work that happens behind the scenes, the potential risk to the image of the program, and what could be done to make this work for everyone.

[bigtex]

Woodswalker, if you read my post I stated that one of the issues up for change in 2015 is the MH not being allowed to hunt public land because the landowners are getting angry because the MH are pushing the elk onto there land that once stayed on wdfw lands and DNR land. Causing damage to crops. The homeowners are also getting fed up with MH asking to hunt elk they just pushed onto there land. I know exactly what is going on and it sucks for everyone

What "WDFW land" were these elk on? The only "WDFW land" in 460 are boat launch sites and the pheasant release sites near Duvall, not exactly near North Bend.

As far as DNR land goes most of the DNR land in the area is on Mt. Si (not exactly great elk habitat except for the few lowland parcels, mountain goat OK). Other then that there is DNR land south of I-90 and up the Middle Fork.

In reality the only "public" land the elk could be on in this area are King County lands which are closed to hunting. There are also a good amount of elk on the Hancock lands.

Land management map for this area: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_rec_snoqualmie_rec_plan_vicinity_map.pdf