Hancock 2019-2020 NEW rules

[pianoman9701]

With the end of public access came unlimited power for the timber companies to tie up their land for those who'll pay the price, an ever-increasing price, it seems. And for those who've hunted those woods for years and can no longer afford it, tough luck. Timber companies control a large % of the private land in our state. It's time to dial back the tax benefits they receive of lowered tax rates on their land, deferred until timber weighing. I have little doubt that in some cases with the new rules, the income generated per acre from access fees will outpace the value of the timber on that land over the same period of time that it takes to grow. That makes it a different business and the land should be taxed accordingly. We must give the timber companies an incentive to work with the people of the state to open up their lands or assess a fair real estate tax from those who charge exorbitant fees for that access.

Grays Harbor County tried to pass a resolution increasing taxes.  Weyco sued them and the county backed down.

Especially with the new rules, I think a solid case could be made to tax them as a commercial property, not timberland. That would make them have to chit or get off the pot with regards to what business they're actually in and public access to their land. As well, the WDFW should be putting pressure on them with regards to damage permits to allow hunters unfettered access to fill those tags. They want the best of everything and in the process, WA hunters and taxpayers get screwed.

[duckmen1]

Nice of them to send this out AFTER the spring bear deadline. No spring bear limited access pass... Hancock is a mismanaged corrupt joke, they need to go so we can actually have a decent opportunity to hunt IMO

Where is the new rules listed saying this?  I can't seem to find it on the website. I only see the rules about individuals needing there's own permit and such.

[N7XW]

With the end of public access came unlimited power for the timber companies to tie up their land for those who'll pay the price, an ever-increasing price, it seems. And for those who've hunted those woods for years and can no longer afford it, tough luck. Timber companies control a large % of the private land in our state. It's time to dial back the tax benefits they receive of lowered tax rates on their land, deferred until timber weighing. I have little doubt that in some cases with the new rules, the income generated per acre from access fees will outpace the value of the timber on that land over the same period of time that it takes to grow. That makes it a different business and the land should be taxed accordingly. We must give the timber companies an incentive to work with the people of the state to open up their lands or assess a fair real estate tax from those who charge exorbitant fees for that access.

Grays Harbor County tried to pass a resolution increasing taxes.  Weyco sued them and the county backed down.

Especially with the new rules, I think a solid case could be made to tax them as a commercial property, not timberland. That would make them have to chit or get off the pot with regards to what business they're actually in and public access to their land. As well, the WDFW should be putting pressure on them with regards to damage permits to allow hunters unfettered access to fill those tags. They want the best of everything and in the process, WA hunters and taxpayers get screwed.

I couldn't agree more Pman 

[AnimalControl]

Very disappointed by the new rules. I’ve had the pass for two years now and had just got done talking myself into a third...until I saw the rule change. Now it’s a big NOPE! Your gonna make me pay double (600$) to ride with my wife in Kapowsin? Not gonna happen. Like I’ve said in previous post, deer hunting in there is a joke, spring bear hunting is a waste of points (8.2% percent success in 2017) and shed hunting is a circus. If you buy this pass you should go into thinking that it’s a 300$ elk special draw where your odds are 1/1200.

[ASienkiewich]

Very disappointed by the new rules. I’ve had the pass for two years now and had just got done talking myself into a third...until I saw the rule change. Now it’s a big NOPE! Your gonna make me pay double (600$) to ride with my wife in Kapowsin? Not gonna happen. Like I’ve said in previous post, deer hunting in there is a joke, spring bear hunting is a waste of points (8.2% percent success in 2017) and shed hunting is a circus. If you buy this pass you should go into thinking that it’s a 300$ elk special draw where your odds are 1/1200.

The elk odds are way worse than that when you realize it’s not legit, they don’t even have the decency to post the names of the people who draw anymore! Lol but all you said is true. I hope this makes even more people stop hunting in there so maybe one day a change for the better will come



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roosevelt]

I believe the objective of the change of policies is an effort to boost deer populations and the quality of bucks.  I think they could have made different changes to accomplish this.  The old rules allowed a family to go up (with one permit) and kill an animal for each tag holding family member.  When you put 1200 permits up for sale that quickly diminishes the deer population in an area.  I think last year they changed the rules to a two point minimum, which was a good first step.  Now, they are going away from the general antlerless deer harvest on the properties they manage, and I think that was a great move as well.  However, instead of making families buy two permits for husband and wife (and potentially more for children over 18), my opinion is that they should put a limit on harvest of animals per permit instead.  Whether it is one animal of each species per permit or two?  However, I think making families buy two permits isn't the way I would have done it.  Pretty much across the board there has been an effort to get more participation from women and children into hunting and the outdoors in general.  If you put a limit of one deer tag per permit, then it allows families to go up and do all of the other outdoor recreational activities that tree farms provide while still working toward the goal of improving the deer population and quality.  Just a thought that crossed my mind. 

By the way, I am surprised that these permits are even managed via Hancock.  They own very little in the Kapowsin tree farm anymore, and I didn't even know they owned any in the White River.  I am not as familiar with that farm, but know the Muckleshoots bought around 90,000 acres from them in that tree farm a few years back (I believe Hancock still manages it for them).  I know a large chunk (if not all) of the Eatonville tree farm was sold recently as well.  Hancock is fazing out of the timberland management/investment business so when this permit came out as a Hancock permit this year I was surprised.  The management and decisions within these farms is voted on by the stakeholders (land managers) within the farms.  Even though you are buying a "Hancock Permit", the land you are hunting is mostly owned and/or managed by other companies.  I am assuming they have stayed with the Hancock label out of convenience.  I am pleased to see that the new landowners are all working together to keep the permit and area managed as one block though.  With the checkerboarded ownerships in those areas I have been interested to see how they would manage recreational access.         

[AnimalControl]

I believe the objective of the change of policies is an effort to boost deer populations and the quality of bucks.  I think they could have made different changes to accomplish this.  The old rules allowed a family to go up (with one permit) and kill an animal for each tag holding family member.  When you put 1200 permits up for sale that quickly diminishes the deer population in an area.  I think last year they changed the rules to a two point minimum, which was a good first step.  Now, they are going away from the general antlerless deer harvest on the properties they manage, and I think that was a great move as well.  However, instead of making families buy two permits for husband and wife (and potentially more for children over 18), my opinion is that they should put a limit on harvest of animals per permit instead.  Whether it is one animal of each species per permit or two?  However, I think making families buy two permits isn't the way I would have done it.  Pretty much across the board there has been an effort to get more participation from women and children into hunting and the outdoors in general.  If you put a limit of one deer tag per permit, then it allows families to go up and do all of the other outdoor recreational activities that tree farms provide while still working toward the goal of improving the deer population and quality.  Just a thought that crossed my mind. 

By the way, I am surprised that these permits are even managed via Hancock.  They own very little in the Kapowsin tree farm anymore, and I didn't even know they owned any in the White River.  I am not as familiar with that farm, but know the Muckleshoots bought around 90,000 acres from them in that tree farm a few years back (I believe Hancock still manages it for them).  I know a large chunk (if not all) of the Eatonville tree farm was sold recently as well.  Hancock is fazing out of the timberland management/investment business so when this permit came out as a Hancock permit this year I was surprised.  The management and decisions within these farms is voted on by the stakeholders (land managers) within the farms.  Even though you are buying a "Hancock Permit", the land you are hunting is mostly owned and/or managed by other companies.  I am assuming they have stayed with the Hancock label out of convenience.  I am pleased to see that the new landowners are all working together to keep the permit and area managed as one block though.  With the checkerboarded ownerships in those areas I have been interested to see how they would manage recreational access.       

Well said. The deer population in there definitely needs an overhaul. In my two years and countless miles walking, I have never laid eyes on a buck in there. With the two point minimum and antlerless being banned, I think it would be a miracle for a family to fill even 1 deer tag. I 100% agree with you that the new rule on each adult needing there own pass is a big thorn in the continuation of the hunting community.

[trophyhunt]

I like the change, just saved me $75! 

[ASienkiewich]

Nice of them to send this out AFTER the spring bear deadline. No spring bear limited access pass... Hancock is a mismanaged corrupt joke, they need to go so we can actually have a decent opportunity to hunt IMO

Where is the new rules listed saying this?  I can't seem to find it on the website. I only see the rules about individuals needing there's own permit and such.

Last point under Kapowsin. Email I received today



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pope]

No doe harvest for archery in Kapowsin and Eatonville is a new Hancock rule. Was this rule already in place for the White River tree farm? I am aware that the 653 GMU rules preclude antlerless harvest, but some of the White River tree farm exists outside the 653. What I'm asking is, is there a Hancock rule about hunting archery antlerless deer in the White River tree farm? If there is, please provide a link.

[Alan K]

I am involved in the timber industry, and have seen all of the different management strategies of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.  State lands, federal, private, all of it.  I am also an avid hunter both locally and out of state.  I have a number of personal views on this that might be unique, seeing as I’m sort of on both sides.   I’ll also say that you’d be hard pressed to find ANY industry that has a higher percentage of its workforce being avid outdoorsmen and hunters. 

First off, access permits have become a necessary evil.  And it’s not about netting income; it’s about covering the costs of allowing the public on the property and requiring the users to take some ownership of their actions on the property.  With open gates there is massive garbage dumping, poaching, vandalism, theft, squatting etc.  Just go look at DNR or USFS lands and you can see the difference.  When people pay for use, they will abide by the rules so that they don’t lose their privileges.  Joe tweaker from the public with open access won’t abide by any landowner rules. They’ll gladly strip a logging shovel of whatever they can peel off it to go sell for their next fix, meanwhile a contractor is stuck with a 10k bill to fix everything.  Then the next contract the landowner negotiates with a contractor in that area ends up having to pay more for their services because the contractor includes the cost of a watchman to babysit their equipment.  Public traffic on roads, particularly when people drive around in cars or 2wd pickups washboards the heck out of them, further deepens potholes, etc.  If a company now has to grade at minimum the mainlines on the property 4-5 times a year to keep them drivable, you’re looking at tens of thousands of dollars. Side roads that don’t have any merchantable timber to haul out of will not see any attention until the next rotation.  Those roads quickly deteriorate and look like the disaster that USFS roads are.  Then you have the liability risk of folks recreating on the property when you’ve got active haul.  99% of the public doesn’t have and use CB’s when on a working forest, and honestly I’m surprised there aren’t more accidents than there are.  From everything that I’ve heard from folks around the industry, companies don’t net more than a dollar or two per acre after all of the expenses related to security patrols, staffing to handle the permit programs, the costs of locks, keys, maps, websites, etc. etc.  A merchantable stand at age 45 or so will likely have around 25-30 MBF/acre.  Call it 27.5 MBF/acre.  At a stumpage (net income) of $300/MBF you’re looking at $8,250 per acre.  Net income from recreation permits, even on the high side of $2/acre annually * 45 years is $90/acre.  Nothing compared to the timber value.  Claims that permit programs will outdo timber income are just ludicrous and show how little folks know about the actual numbers involved.  And I don’t in any way mean that as an insult, obviously folks are concerned about access and rightfully so. But if you’re going to speak on taxes, values, etc. you need to understand the numbers involved first.

On the taxes timberland owners pay and how it’s structured. . . If there was no forestland designation, you would see fringe property being converted like crazy.  The purpose of taxing as forestland is to place a long term moratorium on development and preserve forest lands, and the habitat, water quality, etc. that it maintains.  It’s a way of preventing further urban sprawl.  The taxes you see on a parcel in a map sifter are basically based on bare, undevelopable land.  The timber value is taxed separately at harvest.  When there is no timber income, there is no tax charged.  When you do harvest, there is a huge tax charged.  It’s kind of like a sales tax, if you don’t purchase, you don’t pay tax.  If you don’t harvest you don’t pay tax.  When folks hear about a tree farm selling for $3000/acre and their eyes pop out of their head, they’ve got to understand that that is an average per acre value based on both the bare land and the timber value combined.  Merchantable stands are valued at closer to that $8,250 per acre number mentioned before.  A brand new clearcut has that same value discounted at some interest rate over 45 years and might have an NPV of $750/acre.  The difference with our home property taxes is that the land is being continually utilized for a value.  Housing our families, serving as a business front, etc.  That value is continually being provided year after year, throughout the year. The property is not locked up in development moratoriums.  We’re free to use it virtually however we please.  Designated forest lands do not have any regular continual income (apart from now access permits, which I’ve got to believe are taxed as real time income, say 10%$ of $1-2/year per acre).  You can’t develop it, all it does is sit there and serve us all by maintaining habitat and water quality in a much better state than developed land does.

Now back to this thread, specific to Hancock and their recreation permit program. . . 

Folks are correct that Hancock is only one of the different owners in there now.  Over the last few years many of the different ownerships that Hancock has managed for have been selling their property.  I think it’s approximately equal ownership between three companies now.  I suspect Hancock continues management of the recreation program because they had the infrastructure in place to continue doing so.  Anyone familiar with how checker boarded that tree farm is can see that if any of the new owners opted out it would wreak havoc on the access program and likely cause it to fall apart.  It’s a good thing that the new owners have kept their new property included.

On every adult requiring a permit. . . It makes no sense.  Virtually every other recreation permit program out there has offered the ‘family’ permit and I have never heard of any issues because of it.  I can’t see any good reason why they would make this move.  The gripe is well deserved!  Hopefully they’ll produce an explanation or would be willing to revert to the old prices and family permits.

On the wildlife management. . . I see limiting the antlerless harvest, and building towards older bucks as a great thing.  I wish more of these permit programs would institute similar restrictions.  Our wildlife populations are hurting and WDFW doesn’t seem to care to do anything about it.  When numbers are in the toilet like they are there is no reason to continue with doe harvest.  It’s good they at least continue to provide the opportunity for the youth, disabled, and senior folks who draw permits.  On the 2 pt minimum, I’d love to see Weyerhaeuser go to something like that.  There will be an initial outrage, but it’s sort of like when west side elk went to 3 pt minimum.  At first everyone thought the world was going to end because nobody ever saw branched bulls, 95% of bulls were all killed as spikes.  There was a lean year or two there in the beginning, but now everyone still kills the same amount of bulls.  The only difference is now they are bigger bodied and have better head gear!  Hancock’s elk management has created the biggest bulls in western Washington bar none.  A couple years ago an archery hunter shot a bull over 400”! Pictures got posted on here at the time.  It’s amazing what this state can produce with proper management.  I think it’d be awesome if timber companies started working towards even a 3 pt minimum for deer.  Harvest would be lean while they worked up to that, but eventually you’d have 3 points running around in the same quantity of spikes.  I remember talking to loggers about Weyerhaeuser Pe Ell after the big storm up there that washed out access to huge expanses of the tree farm.  It took years to regain access and hunting was completely shut down. Those first couple years when hunting was allowed again guys were tipping over 3 & 4 points left and right. After that it was back to picking the bucks off as spikes every year.  That would have been the perfect time to come out with a 3 pt minimum there!  As far as the tin foil conspiracy about wolves. . . Hancock wouldn’t be putting any sort of extra restrictions on ungulate harvest if they wanted to eliminate deer and elk because of their minimal impact on trees. . . On the math of the elk draw. . . They have been increasing the amount of bull elk permits, and typically by the time the drawing happens only a fraction of the permits have sold.  They haven’t even been selling out for years now.  I think last year there were 11 permits available for Kapowsin, and if by the time the drawing happens there are say, 400 permits sold, you’re looking at about a 2.75% chance at drawing.  From what I’ve seen in there a 300+” bull is very possible, with an outside chance at a record book bull.  You have better odds than drawing any of WDFW’s quality elk permits with any amount of points (let alone one of the few TRULY quality permits they offer), and a have a better chance for a bigger bull than available anywhere else.

On the spring bear hunt… West side spring bear hunts are a joke as is.  Someone already pointed out the success rate.  It’s horrible.  I see these spring bear hunts as a favor to hunters really.  Bear feeding is common on a lot of tree farms, and it mitigates damage a heck of a lot more than boot hunters.  The reality is the only bears getting harvested on these hunts are those in the road or those caught in a clearcut.  There might be the occasional guy that is able to call one out of the thick stuff, but those guys are few and far between.  The problem bears that timber companies would like removed are the ones that spend their time in the dense 15-20 year old reprod eating on their trees.  Their trees would be much better protected by feeding in these areas rather than not feeding and incurring massive damage so that boot hunters with terrible success rates can hunt.  Trying to get spring bear hunts eliminated to hurt the timberland owners would honestly probably be seen as a relief to the landowner.  The only guys missing out would be the hunters.  A separate gripe I have with the spring bear hunts on the west side is that they all describe the hunt area as “areas designated by so and so”.  Do any of us know what those areas are when we apply?  Nevermind that Hancock didn’t publish that there wouldn’t be a reduced price bear access permit before the deadline.  Still a bad move on their part, but what if the “designated area” was a 10 acre patch of blackberry infested reprod for all 150 permit holders?  What I’m saying is that these hunts are a gamble to put in for any way you look at it.  We don’t know squat about these permit areas that we put in for, other than the fact that they have horrendous success rates.  What this state needs is a statewide, year around bear season.  Deer and elk bonus points should be given as a bonus for harvesting a bear or cougar as thanks for saving future deer and elk.  The populations have skyrocketed since the banning of baiting and hound hunting.  WDFW has no idea how many bears there are out there, and frankly I don’t know that there is a way to get an accurate number.  They don’t spend their time in clear cuts where they can be counted during a spotlight survey like deer and elk.  The same goes for cougars.  They have no idea how many there really are out there.

Whew… Apologize for the short novel there.  There is a lot of misunderstanding about the timber industry though, and a lot of mudslinging ever since these access permit programs became a thing.  I see a lot of these threads and feel obligated to explain the reality of things.  At the end of the day, private lands are private lands.  If the price and rules are overly burdensome, there is public land out there that we can hunt if we’d rather.  They are largely void of game, particularly USFS land, but we can all be pushing for more timber harvest which will bring back feed and allow game populations to come back.  With more game on public lands we won’t feel the need to pay just for the often decent at best hunting these access permits provide.

Side note: Anyone know who the first major landowner was to institute wide spread access permit requirements?  We are!  On our public (DNR) lands! Our beloved Discover Pass broke the ice…

[cougforester]

I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.

[Crunchy]

I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.

I agree well put.  We all know from his writing ability that he doesn't fell trees for a living.

[logger]

  :chuckle:thats funny as hell!!

I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.

I agree well put.  We all know from his writing ability that he doesn't fell trees for a living.

[Alan K]

Hey now!  I didn't pay for a college education to cut timber... 

I will say those guys are some of the toughest men in the woods though!