Pay to hunt and management

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Here's a question that I'm surprised hasn't been asked. If timber companies are charging a fee and limiting the number of hunters in certain units and in some cases leasing areas, then doesn't WDF&G need to revisit the seasons for these units? For instance, what is the point of making permit holders pick a weapon and hunt only that season in a pay to hunt unit? That regulation was made to limit the number of hunters and success rates. But if Unit X is already limited to 300 hunters when in the past a thousand or more hunted there, why not let them hunt with whatever weapon they like? At least give them an early and late season with their weapon of choice.  Say unit x currently has an early muzzle loader season of 7 days and no late muzzle loader season. But with modern firearms the current early season is 17 days with a late season of 4 days. It makes no management sense to give modern hunters who have a much higher success rate 21 days of season and only give someone who wants to hunt black powder 7. Why not encourage more of the permit holders to hunt black powder which has a lower success rate by giving them at least an equal amount of days to hunt. It's not like the unit is going to be flooded by more hunters when the number of permits is limited.  By keeping the current management plan, they are pretty much encouraging people to just hunt modern. Fewer days of hunting also limits your choice of when to hunt.  Some people prefer to hunt early and some like late hunting. Why not give hunters a choice if it's not going to increase the number of hunters in a unit?

[Boss .300 winmag]

This has some merits.

[bobcat]

I agree with that. Also they may need to consider limiting the number of hunters in the areas that are still open to the public, since these areas are now receiving much more hunting pressure than they were previously. 

[1bugman]

tagging along for the ride.

[Wanttohuntmore]

I would hope that the local biologists assessment on the health of the heard comes into play on the decisions.

[Branden]

They used to have PLWMA's (private land wildlife management areas) I think it was called. Then the game and fish did away with them. Champion had them. They did a drawing and 50 tag holders could hunt late buck on their land for 2 weeks. There was no other late buck on their property. I was pretty young when the PLWMA's got canned. I'm not sure what reason was givin for doing away with them.

[pianoman9701]

It sounds to me like your question would apply only to units where all of the land is privately-owned. Unless you apportion so many tags to the private land, there's no way to tell how many of each animal will be taken on the private or the public land.

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.

[baldopepper]

Kind of sounds to me like you're moving closer to the CWMU system that I'm familiar with in Utah.  I'm just waiting for the day when the timber companies here catch on to just selling 20 or 30 CWMU permits for $30,000 or more and only having to offer 2-3 drawing only permits to the public.  Might want to familiarize yourself with that system and see if you like or dislike it. All I know for sure is that thousands of acres of ground there that used to be huntable with a small access fee are now CWMU units that offer 2-3 permits to the general public and get a set amount of private permits to do pretty much what they want with them.  I could be wrong, so check out the system and see what you think.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The system is already in place and seemingly accepted by the State.  This idea wouldn't be giving anything more to hunters who pay the access fees than they already have except for choice of when they hunt. It certainly wouldn't hurt the game populations in these areas to encourage more of the permit holders to hunt with primitive weapons, ie muzzle loaders or archery, that have a lower success rate.

SWWashington has many units that are mostly timberland and have limited entry now by permit only. Copalis, Minot Peak, Fall River, Lincoln, Willapa Hills, Williams Creek, Bear River etc......Of course there are small holdings of private land, but they are negligible as far as the total area goes.

If the State is going to allow this practice, it's time to look at the management scheme and make changes where it will do no harm to the stocks.

[pianoman9701]

The system is already in place and seemingly accepted by the State.  This idea wouldn't be giving anything more to hunters who pay the access fees than they already have except for choice of when they hunt. It certainly wouldn't hurt the game populations in these areas to encourage more of the permit holders to hunt with primitive weapons, ie muzzle loaders or archery, that have a lower success rate.

SWWashington has many units that are mostly timberland and have limited entry now by permit only. Copalis, Minot Peak, Fall River, Lincoln, Willapa Hills, Williams Creek, Bear River etc......Of course there are small holdings of private land, but they are negligible as far as the total area goes.

If the State is going to allow this practice, it's time to look at the management scheme and make changes where it will do no harm to the stocks.

Not true. You suggested they be allowed to use any method they want and using your example of ML, increase the number of days they get to hunt over those who hunt public land. That's special treatment. I don't support special rules for people who pay more money to hunt. I'd personally like to see it go the other way and for our government to discourage large private landowners moving away from allowing unfettered public access by removing lowered land values and attaching conditions of access to damage tags.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The system is already in place and seemingly accepted by the State.  This idea wouldn't be giving anything more to hunters who pay the access fees than they already have except for choice of when they hunt. It certainly wouldn't hurt the game populations in these areas to encourage more of the permit holders to hunt with primitive weapons, ie muzzle loaders or archery, that have a lower success rate.

SWWashington has many units that are mostly timberland and have limited entry now by permit only. Copalis, Minot Peak, Fall River, Lincoln, Willapa Hills, Williams Creek, Bear River etc......Of course there are small holdings of private land, but they are negligible as far as the total area goes.

If the State is going to allow this practice, it's time to look at the management scheme and make changes where it will do no harm to the stocks.

Not true. You suggested they be allowed to use any method they want and using your example of ML, increase the number of days they get to hunt over those who hunt public land. That's special treatment. I don't support special rules for people who pay more money to hunt. I'd personally like to see it go the other way and for our government to discourage large private landowners moving away from allowing unfettered public access by removing lowered land values and attaching conditions of access to damage tags.

If the State was interested in discouraging this practice, all they would need to do is pass a law that said either all of the public is allowed to hunt or no one is.  No damage control hunts allowed either.

As for increasing the amount of days you can hunt, I said make it equal to modern firearms. In my example I said, if a permit holder hunts modern, they get 21 days and muzzle loading only 7. So if the chose muzzle loading over modern, what is the big deal if they still get to hunt 21 days?  And these rules would apply to anyone who bought a permit to hunt so no one is getting preferential treatment. Get the permit, get the choice.

But the state already gives people different time frames to hunt based on weapon and where they hunt and if they have a master hunter permit. How are any of these things not preferential treatment in your scenario?

Modern elk season west side 12 days.    Eastern modern elk 9 days or 17 days depending on where you hunt. 
There is also a modern eastern hunt from Aug 1 to Jan 20 if you have a master hunter permit.

 The seasons are based on management harvest goals not on being "fair". If the new hunt by access permit and lease scenario affects those goals being met, then seasons can and should be adjusted to meet those goals. Managers should also manage for more opportunity when it doesn't affect management goals.

[pianoman9701]

The system is already in place and seemingly accepted by the State.  This idea wouldn't be giving anything more to hunters who pay the access fees than they already have except for choice of when they hunt. It certainly wouldn't hurt the game populations in these areas to encourage more of the permit holders to hunt with primitive weapons, ie muzzle loaders or archery, that have a lower success rate.

SWWashington has many units that are mostly timberland and have limited entry now by permit only. Copalis, Minot Peak, Fall River, Lincoln, Willapa Hills, Williams Creek, Bear River etc......Of course there are small holdings of private land, but they are negligible as far as the total area goes.

If the State is going to allow this practice, it's time to look at the management scheme and make changes where it will do no harm to the stocks.

Not true. You suggested they be allowed to use any method they want and using your example of ML, increase the number of days they get to hunt over those who hunt public land. That's special treatment. I don't support special rules for people who pay more money to hunt. I'd personally like to see it go the other way and for our government to discourage large private landowners moving away from allowing unfettered public access by removing lowered land values and attaching conditions of access to damage tags.

If the State was interested in discouraging this practice, all they would need to do is pass a law that said either all of the public is allowed to hunt or no one is.  No damage control hunts allowed either.

As for increasing the amount of days you can hunt, I said make it equal to modern firearms. In my example I said, if a permit holder hunts modern, they get 21 days and muzzle loading only 7. So if the chose muzzle loading over modern, what is the big deal if they still get to hunt 21 days?  And these rules would apply to anyone who bought a permit to hunt so no one is getting preferential treatment. Get the permit, get the choice.

But the state already gives people different time frames to hunt based on weapon and where they hunt and if they have a master hunter permit. How are any of these things not preferential treatment in your scenario?

Modern elk season west side 12 days.    Eastern modern elk 9 days or 17 days depending on where you hunt. 
There is also a modern eastern hunt from Aug 1 to Jan 20 if you have a master hunter permit.

 The seasons are based on management harvest goals not on being "fair". If the new hunt by access permit and lease scenario affects those goals being met, then seasons can and should be adjusted to meet those goals. Managers should also manage for more opportunity when it doesn't affect management goals.

1st Bolded area. Wed need to tax them at the same rate I pay real estate taxes when they don't allow public access.
2nd Bolded area. The people who buy a permit, under your outline, get preferential treatment. Not everyone who hunts can afford an extra $300-500 per year to do so.
3rd Bolded area. Yes, the state does give different people with Master Hunter permits, and any other draw permit, individual opportunities. The difference is that we don't have to pay $300-500 dollars for the privilege and these opportunities are open to everyone who hunts. The key here is the money that you have to pay for these accesses. Again, not everyone can afford them.

[fireweed]

The WDFW shouldn't be encouraging companies to keep or expand the pay-to-play by carving out "special" regulations just for them.  Unfortunately this has already happened in the Margaret--it was permit only for elk, then when the timber companies began to charge, it shifted to general season, thus encouraging folks to buy the private access permits at $300 per pop.  The WDFW also kept the public land in the unit permit only. 
Carving out special rules for pay-to-play is WRONG and totally opposite of what they should be doing:

For example, it is completely preposterous and baffling that the WDFW gives damage tags and sets special damage seasons, like spring bear,  for companies that won't let damage hunters on for free.  Timber companies complain about damage,  then turn around and force the hunters that are HELPING THEM kill problem animals pay a fee for access. 

Its like complaining to the government about mice in your house, the government offering you a free cat, then you turn around and CHARGE the cat for the privilege of killing your mice.

[cumminsbassguy]

to help out someone in need of something. you have to pay to be able to help them. that's just dumb

[NoBark]

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.

[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.