Lawsuit against the WDFW

[JimmyHoffa]

The voters of the state, particularly King/Snohomish/etc; voted to allow this.  Didn't they read the actual initiative?

[Old Man Yager]

I don't like the news report. It makes it sound like the bear hunters can just kill any bear they see. I talked to bear Hunter in Hancock a coule of months ago. From what he said, they are pretty tightly regulated. Now I'm sure there are some that abuse it, but the guy I talked to said when he goes out after a bear, he is given a specific area he can go to where tree damage was reported. His dogs have GPS collars, and WDFW can pull that data and see exactly where the dogs have been. If he gets outside the area, he's going to get hammered for it. He said it's pretty frustrating to get damage calls, load up his dogs, and then not even be able to do what is asked of him because of the reasons I stated above. The article doesn't give all the facts. Regardless of people's feelings on whether or not these hints should be allowed or not, the greenies in Seattle of course didn't tell the whole story. And if you were a business owner, and were taking a financial loss, wouldn't you want to be able to protect your assets( in this case trees)? If there are millions in losses, somebody has to pay for those, and in the end, it's consumers who pay a higher cost for the products.

[trophyhunt]

If we had lawmakers who gave a crap about our hunting future, now would be a good time to pass the sportsman’s law, make it so if hunting/fishing laws are changed they need 60%.  Then Wdfw should help push for another vote on baiting/hound hunting of cats and bears! 

[pianoman9701]

Lets remember who owns the land.  I would not want people trespassing on my land especially the way people leave it and what they do on it.  It's called private by correct definition.

Do you pay real estate taxes at a rate of 1/50th that everyone else pays?

[WSU]

I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access.  That includes farmers and tree farmers.  While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt.  I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.

[Stein]

I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access.  That includes farmers and tree farmers.  While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt.  I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.

If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land.  I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax.  I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do.  The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs.  Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.

[WSU]

I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access.  That includes farmers and tree farmers.  While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt.  I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.

If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land.  I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax.  I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do.  The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs.  Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.

Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

[ctwiggs1]

I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access.  That includes farmers and tree farmers.  While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt.  I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.

If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land.  I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax.  I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do.  The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs.  Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.

If what you were saying were true, I could potentially side with you.  After watching Hancock intentionally shut down areas during archery and muzzle loader, then open it back up only for modern firearm opener...Then shut it down again after opening weekend.....

[bearpaw]

The voters of the state, particularly King/Snohomish/etc; voted to allow this.  Didn't they read the actual initiative?

  Part of the language of the bill was to allow hound hunting and baiting as needed by agents of the state to stop timber damage. People voted for it! 

This isn't an open hunting season for hound hunters, it is tightly regulated by the state using specific hound hunters to remove problem bear from damage areas only. Another misleading story by anti-hunters and the liberal news media!

I do have to laugh, WDFW thinks they can work with these people, how is that going! 

[Stein]

Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land?  Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?

The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals.  If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general.  That is how it works in places like England.

In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.

[KFhunter]

The voters of the state, particularly King/Snohomish/etc; voted to allow this.  Didn't they read the actual initiative?

  Part of the language of the bill was to allow hound hunting and baiting as needed by agents of the state to stop timber damage. People voted for it! 

This isn't an open hunting season for hound hunters, it is tightly regulated by the state using specific hound hunters to remove problem bear from damage areas only. Another misleading story by anti-hunters and the liberal news media!

I do have to laugh, WDFW thinks they can work with these people, how is that going! 

I shouldn't want to get in bed with anti's when they go after a management tool used by big timber, but I've been irritated at big timber practices for quite a while be it public or private.  DNR, USFS and other NGO big timber property owners are all in bed in gating off roads and herding people into small areas still left open; but that is a different issue and shouldn't be conflated with bear management.

[ctwiggs1]

Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land?  Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?

The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals.  If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general.  That is how it works in places like England.

In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.

I believe the property tax rate was negotiated with access in mind.

[Stein]

Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land?  Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?

The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals.  If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general.  That is how it works in places like England.

In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.

I believe the property tax rate was negotiated with access in mind.

I haven't seen that, from WA Department of Revenue:

Forest tax – sometimes called timber tax – is an excise tax that began in 1971, when the Legislature excluded timber from property taxation. In place of a property tax on trees, timber owners pay a 5 percent excise tax on the stumpage value of their timber when it is harvested. In 1982, the Forest Tax was extended to timber harvested from state and federal land, in addition to private land.

From WDFW:

In general, landowners get no special tax breaks for allowing public access to their property.  In addition, landowners in special tax categories (e.g., timberland) are not required to allow public access.  One exception exists in Asotin County where someone can be allowed to enter into the “Open Space” tax category if they meet requirements for and are enrolled in our Feel Free to Hunt public access program.

If access was part of the deal, it should have been included in the bill in 1971.  Everything I read says it was simply replacing one tax with another and the timber companies asked for it to match their tax expenses to the revenue streams - they pay a bunch when they are logging and a little when they aren't.  It seems like more of a cashflow thing.

It is often portrayed as a simple tax break, which is not correct.  Whether they would pay more one way or another is difficult to say, it depends obviously on how much they cut and the price of timber when it is cut.

That's what I have been able to find anyway, there could be more facts to the story.

[WSU]

Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land?  Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?

The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals.  If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general.  That is how it works in places like England.

In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.

I'm not talking about a bear in a neighborhood.  I'm talking about crop damage from elk from a landowner that won't allow access.  Or tree damage to a tree farm that won't allow access. 

I agree that my thoughts do raise issues about who should and who shouldn't be required to allow access.  It just strikes me as wrong that people get granted special privileges (kill permits, reimbursement for damage) when their decision to not allow hunting creates their damage.  I agree there isn't an easy answer.

[KFhunter]

I think once there's a board of trustee's involved, they have a CEO, or the company is publicly traded, then access should be a much bigger deal. 


I don't believe in cooperate person-hood and I don't think rights granted to the individual by the bill of rights or constitution should apply to a cooperation.