Different hunting/harvest rules for public vs private land?

[bobcat]

Actually the area in Wyoming that I'm thinking of is about 95% private, 5% public.

[lokidog]

Actually the area in Wyoming that I'm thinking of is about 95% private, 5% public.

But how big is the public.

My problem with this is that it seems to privatize wildlife which, IMO, is not a good thing.  Well, I guess it is if you are a land owner.   

[huntnphool]

Sounds similar to Wyoming. Where we hunt in NE Wyoming, doe mule deer tags are only valid on private land. They also have similar rules for doe antelope and cow elk in many units.

IMHO this works very well in Wyoming, but there are profound differences too.  There are no restrictions on filling buck tags with regard to having to kill a doe first, that would not sit well in Wyoming either.  Also, the major public land in NE Wyoming, the Black Hills NF, has primarily migratory deer that winter on private land. 

However, I have no problem with limiting harvest opportunity on public land relative to private.  For one thing, it concentrates allowable antlerless harvest on the properties that claim damage, and for another it protects deer that produce future deer that are more likely to be available for harvest on public land.  This relates a great deal to the vulnerability of deer on the public land to harvest; an any deer, general season in the Desert unit, for example, would have much more dire population consequences than a general any deer season in the Clark or Pasayten units.

+1

[flcracker]

This is a pretty common occurrence all over the east where there is not nearly the amount t of public land that there is in the west and much higher hunter populations. I grew up hunting tracts of public land that had different regulations than private and much shorter seasons due to the fact that there were a lot of people hunting them. I don't really disagree with it but it was always extremely harder to be successful as a public land hunter than private but that's just the way it is. I think that every one should be able to hunt public land regardless of having private land or not. There's not really a solution except more public hunting opportunities

[bobcat]

It's actually getting to the point in western Washington, with most timber company land being closed to the public, that we're going to need different hunting seasons on public land versus private land.

[JimmyHoffa]

It's actually getting to the point in western Washington, with most timber company land being closed to the public, that we're going to need different hunting seasons on public land versus private land.

Even if the access was equal, I would think the difference in land stewardship would necessitate different seasons.  Forest Circus land being unthinned even age monoculture for the most part.  About the only area that has enough light to grow forage reliably is the roadside.  Quite a contrast from the tree farms.  The access issue is only speeding up possible future season differences.

[bobcat]

It's actually getting to the point in western Washington, with most timber company land being closed to the public, that we're going to need different hunting seasons on public land versus private land.

Even if the access was equal, I would think the difference in land stewardship would necessitate different seasons.  Forest Circus land being unthinned even age monoculture for the most part.  About the only area that has enough light to grow forage reliably is the roadside.  Quite a contrast from the tree farms.  The access issue is only speeding up possible future season differences.

I was thinking of DNR land mainly, which is now certainly receiving much more hunting pressure now that the majority of timber company land is closed to the public.

[lokidog]

IMO the solution is not restricting the public land person but increasing private land access.  If the deer numbers are too high on the private land (causing damage) and they refuse to allow outside access, then screw them on getting any financial compensation for damage claims. If you are a private land owner and you choose to have high population numbers that may cause crop/property damage, that's then your choice, but don't go asking for public money as a result.   

[northwesthunter84]

I'm from Illinois originally and land owner tags there 'were' to be issued for the farmers property only, this was two gun tags per immediate family member . Those tags were were in addition to any lottery tags/ OTC archery tags. But we were limited to 2 bucks a year. Unlimited does. I hunted some public land for archery. The hunting pressure was about the same, just didn't know the other hunters as well.

[northwesthunter84]

Totally agree with Loki