Pay to hunt and management

[pianoman9701]

Good discussion.  As for this....

"In addition, why would we give special dispensation to one group of hunters based on the fact that they pay more money to hunt? This would seem to be in direct contrast to the North American Wildlife Management Model. Could this further encourage trends which rewards those who can afford to pay to play and leave behind those who can't? Just thoughts."

It already happens with the multi-season tag.  More play for more money.  Bummer in my opinion as I've seen the crowding we now as in Late Archery deer due to multi-season tags.

It's not the same thing but it's closer.  A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford the MS tag.

[baldopepper]

Hate to be cynical-but here's what I see coming. Large private landowners in the state form a group, probably call it some sort of conservation group, go to the state and and basically say that they are going to close hunting/fishing totally on their lands unless they are allowed more say in the game management on their properties.  Basically they'll ask for control of how many and what type of animals are to be harvested and they will come to an agreement with the state to allow "some" general access to their properties in exchange for a limited amount of private access to their property.  Probably agree to allow 10% of the total permits for their property to go to the general public.  They will also ask and get longer seasons (lets say Sept 1 to Nov. 10 for deer and Sept 1 to Oct 31 for elk) so they can better manage those hunters who do come onto their property.  So, lets say they decide they want to harvest a total of 30 elk on their land, that means the general public thru a permit draw will get 3 permits and they can sell/give away or whatever they want with the other 27.  Lets also say they have a very good animal population on their lands and in high demand and decide to charge $10,000 dollars to get one of their private 27 permits.  Hmmmm, just made $270,000 with half the hassle of having to sell the equivalent amount of 900 permits @ $300.00 each.  Hire a hunting management group to book and sell these permits, post and patrol the property for a nominal fee and it's like found money to a land owner.  Just smart business on their part, what landowner isn't going to jump on that deal?  That's the Utah CWMU deal-took thousands of acres out of play except to the few who draw a public permit (and that permit only allows that hunter, no friends or family to accompany without paying more in most cases).  Think these landowners really care what the public thinks with this kind of money involved?  Think it might not come to Washington?  Hope not.

[csaaphill]

bunch of crap altogether I think. Hunting's getting so complicated any more.

[Bullkllr]

Unless it results in substantially more money than what they're pulling in now, I can't see the timber companies lobbying for anything. I don't think they ultimately care about harvest, unless it's a way to increase the bottom line.

[baldopepper]

Keep in mind the figures I quoted above were only for 30 elk rifle permits. They are also allowed the same deal for archery hunts on both deer and elk and of course rifle deer permits. This is now big business for many landowners in the state and is a major bottomline contributor. I think many of us don't understand how many upper end hunters there are out there paying big money for these types of private land hunts. While not all CWMU units charge 10,000 (some charge a lot more) virtually all of the units sell out their alloted private permits. Even the largest of landowners are tempted by this type of easy money.

[bowbuild]

Unless it results in substantially more money than what they're pulling in now, I can't see the timber companies lobbying for anything. I don't think they ultimately care about harvest, unless it's a way to increase the bottom line.

Of course they care about harvest, less rats eating their profit margins.....

[pianoman9701]

I'm not sure I agree, MacsB. Tags are not unrestricted and a great many areas have limited access or increased hunting restrictions. In addition, the decline of hunting over the last 40 years has resulted in lower harvests and fewer hunters, possibly reducing the need to further restrict hunter numbers/harvests in given areas.