Hancock 2019-2020 NEW rules

[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.

Last point under Kapowsin. Email I received today



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you. Looks like i just gave the state 6 points if we drew because we only put in because the limited access option. We arent gonna be paying that price thats for sure. So unfortunately that will be a few tags unused if drawn.

[grundy53]

Well said Alan K

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Crunchy]

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!

Paying for one, and getting one are two different things.  Looks like you got both.  And Idaho of all parts haahha.

[CastleRocker]

Hahaa...I went to the U of I, played some ball, and after I found that I could make more as a timber faller/commercial fisherman than I ever could as a forestry engineer...so I quite school!  (Hindsight being 20/20, I should've stayed in school!) 

As otheres have noted; that was a very well written response.  I have some experience with Weyerhaeuser as I retired from there.  A cousin of mine retired as president of WRECO, and was a past head of the North Cascade Timberlands.  I live just up the road from the retired head of the South Cascade Region, and we've discussed at length the current management policies.  I was able to see firsthand how the beancounters at corporate headquarters can sharpen their pencils, and show some incredibly creative accounting...

[Naches Sportsman]

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.

Bingo. Too many recreationists who don't see the big picture.

The Forestry professors at UI constantly preach that at the end of the day, it all comes down to $$.

I'll gladly pay timber companies like PotlatchDeltic $58 a year to access their lands as I know where it goes.

Those greedy *censored*s.

[grade-creek-rd]

Thank You Alan K!!!...the only thing I'd point out (now that you gave a great clarification) is that the animals are owned by the people of Washington and these timber lands are vast tracts of private land which needs to be kept in mind that being a huge land owner who does profit off of their land just as any farmer does, does not give them the "right" to overcharge, when the laws state they get the tax break by allowing public access of some kind. Not trying to start an argument but I really don't care what their profit margins are, they get a tax break for "public access" and now they are literally over charging the public, limiting access via economics (over charging). They are the farmer and if they want the tax break, any tax break, that is afforded by providing "public access" then they should be restricted to a certain dollar amount, not just charge whatever they want. If they sold the permits out that's $360,000 annually just for Kapowsin. Road maintenance needs to be done anyway and we sign our liability away when we get the permit..technically the permits could be free such as a "register to hunt" land which is used in the many large farms/fields/agricultural areas in Eastern Washington. The ONLY difference between a wheat field in Pullman vs a tree farm in Eatonville is that one raises trees and the other wheat...both are large tracts of private agricultural lands. Those landowners in the east get the tax breaks for enrolling in the "register to hunt, feel free to hunt, and hunt by permission only" programs but yet the tree farms charge hundreds of dollars to access their lands and get the same tax breaks...that is what makes us non-timber industry hunters upset. I get your points on $$ value per acre, but honestly I don't care because that is the business of being a tree farmer. As far as DNR lands being abused, I totally agree, but we don't have to sign in to use DNR lands (maybe we should as this is a way to know who is using the lands...and fyi, they use trail cameras as most access points and dump sites and enforce tort laws to recover some costs of clean-up), this whole "take some ownership" can easily be applied if the tree access permits are free but we still had the same rules to go by with the losing privileges held over our heads (i.e. trespassed if we break the rules just like it is now). I am not against charging to help offset or even pay for the expenses such as gates, locks, website, hotline phone, etc...but saying we tear up the roads and have to pay for security when the roads need to be maintained and security is needed anyway isn't going the distance of $360,000 in my book. Simply put, this new implementation of no family permits, every adult needs a $300 permit is a money grab meant to keep people off of their land and still say they are providing "access"...lastly, regarding wolves...maybe Hancock (and the other land owners) aren't helping establish populations but the Feds see this is a great place to put them (in Mt. Rainier National Park) as there is a huge buffer (and food base) between urban areas and the home range of the wolves which is unique to Western Washington...the only places where wolves could take hold and survive is Mt. Rainier, Mt. St. Helens Nat. Monument and the Olympics...too hard to say a wolf naturally migrated to the Olympics so Mt. Rainier (and it's surrounding area of Hancock managed lands) is the best fit for re-introduction by the Feds.

Grade

[pianoman9701]

People can charge what they want for access to their private property. I'm a strong believer in property rights. However, if you believe that access costs of $300-500 per person is only enough to cover garbage removal, I've got a city park to sell you here in the Couve. Access fees far outweigh the costs of maintenance related to the damage that permit holders create. In addition, permit holders are held to a standard of rules which allows their permit to be pulled if they create damage or leave garbage. This is an income source; it's quite clear to anyone including the bean counters at Hancock and WEYCO.  Do what you want with your own property. However, if you're leasing hunting opportunity, which is what access permits are, you go from being a timber property to an income generating service business. Deferred taxes should no longer apply. If your only concern is garbage and vandalism, I have little doubt that the state and many members of conservation groups within the state would be more than willing to patrol and set up annual clean-ups for the privilege of access. This is a weak excuse for gouging hunters for access.

[justyhntr]

Hancock is using the excuse for these changes to increase deer populations. This will have NO impact on the deer populations. My wife, crowinghen, and I spend a ton of time in Kapowsin , the cougar population is off the hook. We have an adult male and an adult female with 2 year old kittens on camera in one area that have either destroyed the deer in that area or moved them out, we also know of 2 more cats about 2 miles up river of that spot as well as another adult male on the other side of the river. The local bio in 2 of the last 3 years has closed the season before the "harvest guideline" is met based on assumptions. The bear population is also at crazy high levels as well as coyotes. The deer in there have no chance. How will these changes help the deer population, not at all. The effect will be that serious predator hunters like my wife and are not going to pay $600 just to hunt predators in there, just not worth it. We'll focus more of our time on the units we do hunt deer. As for bear, the whole state is crawling with them, plenty of other places to hunt.  Without proper predator control the Kapowsin Tree Farm is going to continue suffer from the predator pit that it has become.   

[Crunchy]

Yes it is stupid they close the Mashel so early again this year stating the quota had been met.  I spent a ton of time in there last two years and do not know of any cougars being killed.  Had one collared cougar on camera a few years ago not far off the mainline on the bridge gate side.  If they can restrict what deer we can kill, then why dont they allow us more  time to kill predators, even night hunting predators would be huge.  All my good bear spots are on the main gate side.  Didnt see any on the bridge gate side this year.

[Thehowler]

There are a ton of bears on the Bridge gate side. They pay contractors to keep them fed.

[Alan K]

Grade-creek-rd, a lot to respond to there!

I guess first off, I have to say private land owners have the right to do what they please with respect to charging a fee for access.  As far as overcharging goes, that’s a highly subjective term.  I personally purchase an annual recreation permit from Weyerhaeuser, and the price IS a lot to me.  There are a lot of people out there though for whom that same price is not a lot. If you look at what is happening to the Rayonier access permit down there in Fossil Creek, the price keeps going up and available permits goes down.  It’s working towards fewer but higher paying people.  Because there is an amount of folks out there that will pay for it!  The reality is what might be overpriced to you and I may not be to others. Look at what some people pay for raffle and auction tags, it’s crazy.  I could easily see a hunting club being put together for the rich, where 40-50 guys buy in for 5-10k and just lease an entire tree farm year after year.  After a few years of a maximum of that many deer/elk harvested on the property the quality would increase substantially and the value would continue to push price upward.  I guess where I’m going with that, is while the cost seems steep, I wouldn’t necessarily call it over charging, particularly when you look what the prices people pay for decent hunting access elsewhere in the country.  If everything were about the money, you would absolutely see lands leased to small groups versus selling hundreds or even thousands of access permits.  Now that virtually all timberlands have moved to access permits there are more options out there and my guess is we will see pricing level off because there is more 'competition'.

On the road maintenance, yes it’s done where there is active log haul.  The difference though, is on the roads that don’t see haul, where the only traffic they see is from recreational users and the occasional administrative use.  Without the traffic they would not need attention at minimum for 5-10 years when they might need a brushing.  Drainage wouldn’t be messed up with rutting, pot holes, washboards, etc.  The only time you’d need to touch it up with a grader is to peel some sod off before the next harvest!  Some jackwagon could be wheeling in the snow and get sucked into a ditch in some corner of the tree farm, plug it up getting out, and next thing you know water runs down the wheel path rather than the ditch.  The fines wash out, the water saturates a saddle in the road and you get a wash-out.  There are tons of examples, and all of these costs can be directly attributed to recreational use as the roads are not otherwise used.  There are hundreds of miles of road on most large tree farms, and I’d bet only 20% or so see haul each year, and the majority of those miles are the mainlines.

You’ll have to fill me in on which tax break exists that says lands designated as forestland are required to allow free and unlimited access.  I’m not aware of one.  If you’re talking about deferring the taxes on the timber until harvest, the taxes are paid in full.  There is no ‘break’, it’s just not paid each and every year for the 1/45th of growth.  Think of it like your IRA which grows pre-tax.  When you withdraw it gets taxed in full.  The timber grows pre-tax, and when it's harvested is taxed in full.  What incentive would there be for a 40 year old guy to buy a clearcut to grow a forest if he has to pay annual taxes on incremental growth each year, when there’s a decent chance he’ll die before ever recovering those tax dollars, let alone make any money.  Good luck to any millennial or whatever they call folks under 40 anymore affording to buy land for growing a forest. The economics wouldn't make sense. The small landowners will all develop.  The fringe properties of even the big guys will be developed.  Heck, in areas like the Snoqualmie Tree Farm, right there next to Seattle’s growth, I could see some huge tracts being developed as that population mass continues to push outward.  I do believe that private landowners on the east side are compensated for enrolling their lands for public access (by WDFW though isn’t it?), but I have never heard of such a thing on the west side.  And I agree timber is just a long rotation crop similar to wheat over there!

I’m sorry but I don’t buy it for a second that garbage dumpers are caught with any regularity even with security cameras or regular patrols.  And even if someone is caught, I can’t imagine they are ever punished meaningfully enough to deter future dumping.  This state rarely goes after the ‘small stuff’.  Just about every timber company out there has cameras at their gates but it continues to happen and there are never any prosecutions.  Security patrols are absolutely an extra cost when the alternative is locked gates and no access. With open access they patrol the interior for theft, vandalism, dumping, etc. With closed gates they can go check locks etc. in a fraction of the time.  Maybe security isn’t even necessary as each forester can drive by and check a gate or two on their way home.  Contractors that are vandalized are never compensated for their losses to vandalism.  Often times insurances are so ridiculous that an operator is better off not making a $5-10k claim for a piece of equipment getting stripped because if it doesn’t happen again in the next 6 months the increased premiums which they’ll have to pay on ALL their equipment will be worse than if they’d just paid out of pocket initially.  These costs that contractors deal with are all passed on to the landowners they work for.  Like everything in business, the costs are just passed on.  We (the DNR, our public lands) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for watchmen to babysit equipment on state lands because of the easy access all of the lowlifes have. Is the DNR writing a check directly? Of course not, but those costs come out of the stumpage bid for the timber sales.  You don’t have to believe me when I explain these costs to you, but I can tell you I am in and around it every day and they are absolutely a reality!
 
Pianoman9701,

Go back and re-read my post.  There is a heck of a lot more costs than just garbage cleanup that permit fees go towards!  You’re exactly right on permit holders being held to a standard.  That was what I was trying to explain by them ‘taking ownership’ when paying for it.  Loss of privileges is a deterrent from breaking rules.  With free and open access there is no deterrent.  Folks paying for access rarely dump garbage because they know that if they are caught they will lose their $XXX permit privileges and likely be blackballed from future access.  The garbage dumping that permit fees help cover is largely at gates, particularly side gates that don’t see a lot of action where people think they can get away with it.  Stripped/burnt out cars are dumped on fringes of properties that end up getting impounded, etc.  If there is a wide spot just far enough from the centerline of a county road with a dumped car, the county won’t touch it, the landowner has to pay for removal.

I did mention that there is a small net income (assuming the quantity and prices are enough to cover costs).  I illustrated quite clearly that the net income from access permits compared to timber is not even remotely close.  To try and classify forestlands tax wise based on about 1% of its income source as opposed to the other 99% would be absurd. And I honestly don’t know, but I’d be shocked if taxes aren’t paid annually on permit income.  I don’t see how that could be deferred out like the taxes on the timber.
 
As far as garbage clean-up groups, I think that could go a long way.  I’d encourage you to organize something.  I think its Green Diamond that offers cash rewards to folks for supplying information/evidence of wrongdoing on their property that leads to conviction.  The benefit from a low life being convicted is obviously worth something to Green Diamond.  I could see folks willing to devote days cleaning up garbage being viewed the same way.  Maybe these timberland owners would let folks earn their access permits by doing clean up rather than paying cash.  I don’t see it being a way to get them to open the flood gates again and deal with the tweakers , vandalism, theft, damage, etc. that is associated with doing so though.  Limited and controlled access to private lands is here to stay.

You’re just flat out mistaken if you think these permits and the fees associated are viewed at all a big money maker in the grand scheme.  They cover the ongoing annual costs, while providing the public the opportunity to recreate. Say a tree farm is 100,000 acres, and has the site class/soils to support a 45 year rotation.  If 80,000 acres are operable, and the age class mix is miraculously perfectly distributed, there would be a sustainable annual harvest of 1,777 acres.  At the run of the mill 27.5 MBF/acre and $300/MBF stumpage, the annual timber income would be ~$14.6 million dollars.  The GROSS income from all of the permits, let alone what is netted after all of the associated expenses is a drop in the bucket in comparison.  These companies spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on these properties to operate and maintain as forest land, which provide habitat and curb development.  I can’t imagine that there is some office bean counter sitting there conspiring about how they can soak Joe recreational user for all he’s got.  There are far bigger issues on their plates!  Again, the prices are set to cover the costs of maintaining the recreational access, and to require the permit holders to have some skin in the game so that they aren’t breaking rules without risking a meaningful loss of privileges. You can disagree, but I'm just giving you the reality of things.

Justyhntr,

There is no doubt that predators are a major problem not only on these tree farms, but throughout the state.  Unfortunately there is nothing that any of us, timberland owners included, can do about that.  If you really don’t believe that limiting harvest on the already dwindling numbers of reproducing does will help the deer populations out, I don’t know what to tell you.  It’s pretty much population management 101.  Continuing down the path of stacking up does during archery seasons only accelerates the downfall.  I’ll say again, that I believe it’s a great step towards helping out our game populations, and I’d like to see more of these private land owners doing the same throughout the state!  WDFW doesn’t have the spine to reduce harvest when they’re trying to increase license and tag fees, even though it would be the right thing to do.  If I were in charge of WDFW and setting seasons and harvest the first thing I’d do is shut down all antlerless harvest until numbers stabilize/recover.  The next thing I’d do is start blaring all over the news what the SCIENCE shows of the impact of predators and start bringing the public opinion back around to effective methods of predator control.  It’s already attempting a coming back in Oregon I hear, why can’t we do the same?

I’ll wrap up again here by saying I am in no way in support of every adult having to pay for access permits individually.  Family permits aren’t a problem anywhere, and I don’t see a real reason to go away from that.   I realize I’ve sort of derailed this thread by speaking about permits in general, whereas the common and obvious issue people have is Hancock’s change to requiring all adults to purchase. Broad sweeping claims were made about forestland owners though and I couldn’t help but respond! I won't defend dumb changes like what Hancock did, but I will defend access permits because I understand the realities of the industry and why forestland owners are doing it.    There has been understandable outrage over the last several years over what was once free access now being closed completely or requiring a fee.  Nobody wants to have to start paying for something they used to get for free, but at the end of the day it’s private property!  Lets turn our public lands into desirable recreating areas so that we won’t have to pay fees for access to decent hunting (at least no more than $35…)! 

[Stein]

If the legislature changes the law such that the timber companies lose PILT if they sell passes, don't expect to ever set foot on any of that property again.

I don't know that PILT has anything to do with public access, my understanding it that it is a tax structure recognizing that a piece of timber land has a bunch of revenue one year and then maybe nothing for many years & this was a way to help manage that from a tax and cash flow perspective.

It's private land, free is better than $300 but there are plenty of places that do not allow any access.

[justyhntr]

Alan K, I said nothing about doe harvest but that is a mute point. My point was, that if there is nothing done about predator control than all they're doing is feeding the predator with what they're trying to protect. I personally have no problem with no doe harvest, the deer number in there right now aren't good,  but that is going to do nothing to improve deer populations in Kapowsin. We're in there no less than 4- 8 times a month all year long hunting predators. We were going to start hunting cougars in September this year so we didn't get shut down by a early closure but by increasing the cost to my wife and I to $600 we will no longer be hunting predators in there, that was my point. No predator hunters equates to more predators, I wish them the best of luck with that kind of management.   

[Alan K]

The only thing in the newsletter that they say is being done to increase deer populations is the reduction of doe harvest so thats what I had thought you were talking about based on your first line! Looking back now I see you're looking at it from the perspective of the all adult permits requirement and the fact that it could reduce the predator hunters.  I think we're on the same page on that front and were pretty much talking past one another there. 

[elkchaser54]

Alan K, thanks for showing up with facts and real information, not just opinions