Hancock Kapowsin New Rules 2017

[grade-creek-rd]

Duck...my kid hunts with archery, muzzle loader and rifle...heck, he would use an Atz if he could! (plus he would rather hunt mule deer in the high country) This isn't about my son, this is simply a comment about how one group is allowed to harvest does and another user group isn't even though it is perfectly legal (it's just a Hancock internal rule, not a law as other lands inside this GMU will have any buck and doe hunts unless WDFW changes it)...and as far as youth taking more does than others, maybe that's because they have a special draw just for does! Hancock is managing for money, not wildlife (IMO) as they know hunters buy the pass, and a lot of archery hunters buy it for the 9 week (sept and late hunt combined) any deer season (now 2pt+ or does). If the deer numbers are that low then they should cut the amount of permits they sell and cut the doe hunts...but they instead increased the permits and price of them years ago to the point that they don't sell out...

Again, yes, this is their land, they can manage it any way they want...just like if I owned 200 acres and I didn't want does killed, that's my choice...but to say one group of hunters (mostly adults due to weapon abilities/draw poundage, etc) can shoot does but not provide an opportunity to another user group (youth, who happen to be the one user group that needs this type of hunt the most to increase our hunter population for the future) is setting a really bad example...Hancock has a great opportunity to do good for the hunting community in which they make a lot of money off of...

Long story short: Archery hunters are primarily adults (buy passes) and have a 9 week doe or 2pt+ bucks season...youth can't buy passes and their doe hunts aren't honored. Makes no sense unless you follow the $$$

Grade

[dvolmer]

I know nothing about this west side hunting access permits by Hancock but it does bring up an interesting topic.  Private land owners by law are not allowed to make up there own hunting laws.  They can charge for access if they want.  They can work with the game dept to come up with special permit opportunities for themselves and others.  But they aren't supposed to make up their own laws.

for example, in the Bitterroot valley of Montana, a very rich man bought up a lot of land that the public had hunted for many years.  he kept it all to himself and got a reputation as a jerk my the locals.  to try and alleviate some of this he decided to let first time youth hunters access his land and shoot a cow elk if they scored so high on their firearm safety test.  This worked out fine until one kid came in to hunt.  When he got there and was put in front of the herd his dad told him to shoot the biggest bull in the herd.  He did and the landowner went ballistic.  He called the game warden and when he showed up he asked the land owner if he had given permission to the kid to access his land to hunt.  the land owner told him he did but that he could only shoot a cow and not a bull.  The game warden showed the land owner that the unit that his land was in was opened for both bull and cow for youth hunters.  he could give or deny access to people but the animals are owned by the people that are on his land and not by him.  So the kid did absolutely nothing that was illegal and shot a bull on land that he had been given permission to access and bull season was open in that unit. 

I am not totally sure of this, but I heard it was true about the ranches that side up to the Hanford site here in Washington.  These ranches were charging people access to hunt their land at $1000 per antler point.  This came back as illegal.  They could charge what ever access fee they wanted to but it couldn't be based on the animal they killed because they don't own the animals.  So they can charge a $10,000 access fee if they want but whether you shoot a 3x3 rag horn or a 8x8 trophy it doesn't matter.

This land you are all talking about should be ruled by the Washington State Game dept.  Not a land owner.  If the land owner and state get together and make the rules then that is different.  I'm not sure, maybe that is what is done here.  Just a little bit to think on.

[Branden]

So your saying the one youth that got greedy and shot the bull on the ranch in Montana probably ruined it for all other youths? If I allowed people to hunt my land and hunters didn't follow the rules I set on that land then I would deny all users access and tell them to thank whoever broke my rules.

Hancock will probably just pull your permit if you shoot a spike.

[cavemann]

I heard all the deer are in Vail and there are even a few "non classified exotics" to take..  I'd buy a pass for Vail or Weyco or even put my efforts on a mulies in E Wa.. Hancock is all shot up, deer numbers are dwindling and the new rules are going to make it worse..........

[Clearcut]

I don't hunt this area in question. I think 2pt or better is a good rule. But i don't think it's this "timber management" companies decision to make. It's what WDFW is for. Even though how well they manage anything could be in question it's what there here to do. Allowing these types of things to start could be the start of the end for hunting for 99% of people here. What if Weyco (nazi Germany) decided that they were gonna no longer honor cow permits on there tree farms and bull had to be 5pt or better and in 5 years there charging thousands of dollars for access per person. ? Should they be able to have rules on there property? Absolutely.. but not when it comes to game management.

[dvolmer]

Amen!!!  Clearcut.

[dvolmer]

Branden, I am from eastern Washington so I have no Idea even what Hancock is.  But its a very slippery slope to go down when the landowners think they own the taxpayers animals.  I'm not saying what that kid in Montana did is right or wrong.  I would be more apt to agree with you.  But when each entity makes its own rules it can start to go south really quickly.

[grade-creek-rd]

Thank You Clearcut!!! this is exactly my point! You articulated it very well, I appreciate your feedback!

Grade

[dvolmer]

Look at the disaster that has been put in place by just the Natives having their own set of rules.  What if this Hancock company decided to let you shoot 3 deer a year for the cost of your permit and the limit for the state is one deer a year.  Not some place I want to see this go.  If Hancock has special wishes and desires they should get a hold of WDFW and make some agreements that are in the general regs. 

[cavemann]

thread jacked, maybe??  There is a little irony in the fact neither of you have purchased a permit, hunted or know where Hancock is but have an opinion on how they run it.  I think the idea of privately owned land and access has been discussed before.  This is not new, and it's not even new to Hancock.

[Clearcut]

There's no irony. If you live an hunt western Washington then your surrounded by timberland that has become paid access. I'll admit. I played the game for the first few years, but haven't since then. Once one company gets away with something an others see a benefit in it they'll follow the leader. So having this happen even though apparently I have no idea where his tree farm is according to you cavemen it's close enough to home for me that it will be like a ripple effect and before long be knocking on my door.. like I said. I don't disagree with 2pt minimum. I've been saying for years it's should be 2pt or better. But that's wdfw call not Hancock

[JeffRaines]

I don't hunt this area in question. I think 2pt or better is a good rule. But i don't think it's this "timber management" companies decision to make. It's what WDFW is for. Even though how well they manage anything could be in question it's what there here to do. Allowing these types of things to start could be the start of the end for hunting for 99% of people here. What if Weyco (nazi Germany) decided that they were gonna no longer honor cow permits on there tree farms and bull had to be 5pt or better and in 5 years there charging thousands of dollars for access per person. ? Should they be able to have rules on there property? Absolutely.. but not when it comes to game management.

I assume the way Hancock 'gets away with it' is they issue special permits for the elk permit guys and close the lands during the elk seasons to prevent someone who doesn't have a permit from shooting one. Its a loophole of sorts.

[Clearcut]

Correct me if I'm wrong but unit 654 in which where kapowsin is located. Is open for general seasons for all 3 weapons. So if them issuing elk permits to access permit holders is doing you a favor 🤔

[bigtex]

Private land owners by law are not allowed to make up there own hunting laws.  They can charge for access if they want.  They can work with the game dept to come up with special permit opportunities for themselves and others.  But they aren't supposed to make up their own laws.

Not true.

A landowner can enact their own stipulations (or regs if you want to call them that) for hunting on their lands. These stipulations can be more restricted then the state regs, but can't be looser then the state regs. What Hancock did was restrict the state regs even further.

For example, a landowner with land in an "any deer" unit can say I'll let you on my land but you can only shoot bucks with a 3pt minimum. Now if he shoots a 2pt is it poaching, no not under state laws. But he can be charged for trespass since he broke the landowner's regulations.

[trophyhunt]

Correct me if I'm wrong but unit 654 in which where kapowsin is located. Is open for general seasons for all 3 weapons. So if them issuing elk permits to access permit holders is doing you a favor 🤔

Hancock is in 654, that unit does have otc elk hunts.  But, Hancock closes access to their property during all elk seasons, except to those who draw the permits. Basically it's an access permit more than an elk permit.  They will prosecute to full extent of the law for trespassing if your caught in there during elk season without permission.