Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 10:40:10 AMQuote from: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 10:24:42 AMYou have to be joking dman. Now you want the government telling people how to use their land? Why don't we just have the government seize everybodies land? In this case, understanding the dynamics of the landowner access program, yes. Government being the WDFW as an extension of public input on how they run the access program. It really doesn't have anything to do with what I, or anyone else want's, it is the duty of the WDFW and federal agencies to administer these programs under their respective charter's. If they aren't, then they haven't done their job.Not really. If Weyerhouser wanted to put a gate on every single road and only give keys out to guys named Fred they could. They are still allowing public access(walking) so they meet the access requirements. Any level of access after that is none of the governments Damn business. As long as you are not breaking any codes or laws the government should have no say what you do on your property.
Quote from: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 10:24:42 AMYou have to be joking dman. Now you want the government telling people how to use their land? Why don't we just have the government seize everybodies land? In this case, understanding the dynamics of the landowner access program, yes. Government being the WDFW as an extension of public input on how they run the access program. It really doesn't have anything to do with what I, or anyone else want's, it is the duty of the WDFW and federal agencies to administer these programs under their respective charter's. If they aren't, then they haven't done their job.
You have to be joking dman. Now you want the government telling people how to use their land? Why don't we just have the government seize everybodies land?
Quote from: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 12:08:14 PMQuote from: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 10:40:10 AMQuote from: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 10:24:42 AMYou have to be joking dman. Now you want the government telling people how to use their land? Why don't we just have the government seize everybodies land? In this case, understanding the dynamics of the landowner access program, yes. Government being the WDFW as an extension of public input on how they run the access program. It really doesn't have anything to do with what I, or anyone else want's, it is the duty of the WDFW and federal agencies to administer these programs under their respective charter's. If they aren't, then they haven't done their job.Not really. If Weyerhouser wanted to put a gate on every single road and only give keys out to guys named Fred they could. They are still allowing public access(walking) so they meet the access requirements. Any level of access after that is none of the governments Damn business. As long as you are not breaking any codes or laws the government should have no say what you do on your property. You take tax money and it becomes every one's business.
They pay for public access. They got it. Simple as that. You want more access then the government should pay them more and pay to remove all the garbage that will show up and all the equipment that will be vandalized, and all the wood that will be stolen. These companies are in the timber business not the hunting land management business.
Quote from: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 01:33:30 PMThey pay for public access. They got it. Simple as that. You want more access then the government should pay them more and pay to remove all the garbage that will show up and all the equipment that will be vandalized, and all the wood that will be stolen. These companies are in the timber business not the hunting land management business. Hancock or Weyerheauser? Green Diamond or Merrill and Ryng? They all have totally different management strategies, Merrill and Ryng is strictly fee access and those fee's are high enough to cover cleanup and maintenance of the limited few who enter. Green Diamond is feel free to hunt for the most part, Weyco is feel free to hunt on most blocks. Hancock totally depends on which farm you are on. The revenue generated by Hancock from hunting activities is reported as "income", which does make it a "business", same with MR. You just described what most here wouldn't mind, paying more to level out access, still restrict numbers, yet provide equal opportunity, Hancock probably is closest to this model in Kapowsin/ WR and Snoqualmie. This is the format most Western States are going to for private access and it work's well and most of these larger farms still participate in the landowner access program. When you have issue's is when a small to medium-sized landowner want's to participate in the program, but doesn't provide realistic access for the average hunter, enough to justify the compensation they are receiving. The reality is, only so many can hunt smaller blocks, thus vehicles really are not ideally suited to those smaller parcels for the sake of providing equal opportunity under the program.
Quote from: Michelle_Nelson on January 27, 2011, 08:20:26 PMFrom now on I would suggest that those hunters using mountain bikes behind locked gates not post that fact in there story. It may offend those poor hunters that have to hike in on foot. A mtn bike compared to a truck? Really? Anyone with permission could throw his mtn bike over the gate and ride in. They couldn't throw their truck over the gate. In my country, I've been passed several times while hiking early in the morning by guys with mtn bikes behind closed gates. More power to them. However, it's funny that when the road gets steep, I always seem to pass them.............
From now on I would suggest that those hunters using mountain bikes behind locked gates not post that fact in there story. It may offend those poor hunters that have to hike in on foot.
Quote from: MtnMuley on January 28, 2011, 08:01:29 AMQuote from: Michelle_Nelson on January 27, 2011, 08:20:26 PMFrom now on I would suggest that those hunters using mountain bikes behind locked gates not post that fact in there story. It may offend those poor hunters that have to hike in on foot. A mtn bike compared to a truck? Really? Anyone with permission could throw his mtn bike over the gate and ride in. They couldn't throw their truck over the gate. In my country, I've been passed several times while hiking early in the morning by guys with mtn bikes behind closed gates. More power to them. However, it's funny that when the road gets steep, I always seem to pass them.............Apparently I have to explain the quote about mountain bikes. It was "sarcastic". I do not see why anyone cares that timber companies allow employees to drive behind locked gate. Chances are they are going to drive right by and go 10+ miles in. Most on foot hunters are not going to hike in 10 miles on a day hunt. Seperates the crowd.If you think about it, it is smart. The timber companies are getting FREE patrols. Plus it is "private" property. The "owners" should be allowed to let in who they want and how they want. I do not get that perk and it doesn't bother me more than being a tiny bit envious. Why is it some feel they deserve what everyone else has and everything has to be equal.You want something you earn it. Everything isn't free.If I were the timber company I would be resticting access to walk in only due to all the scum that dump trash, vandalize equipment, cut down trees, grow pot, etc, etc. Sometimes I wonder why they allow any access in some areas. Maybe if hunters took a bigger interest in helping control the garbage left in the woods on private timber company land, reported vandalism they would open a few gates. Why should timber companies be 100% responsible for the clean up when it was there generosity that allowd hunters the access?Until then the owner is protecting "his" property. I do not blame them for shutting down the roads. I blame those that are causing the owners of the timber companies to have to make the decision.
Quote from: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 02:13:27 PMQuote from: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 01:33:30 PMThey pay for public access. They got it. Simple as that. You want more access then the government should pay them more and pay to remove all the garbage that will show up and all the equipment that will be vandalized, and all the wood that will be stolen. These companies are in the timber business not the hunting land management business. Hancock or Weyerheauser? Green Diamond or Merrill and Ryng? They all have totally different management strategies, Merrill and Ryng is strictly fee access and those fee's are high enough to cover cleanup and maintenance of the limited few who enter. Green Diamond is feel free to hunt for the most part, Weyco is feel free to hunt on most blocks. Hancock totally depends on which farm you are on. The revenue generated by Hancock from hunting activities is reported as "income", which does make it a "business", same with MR. You just described what most here wouldn't mind, paying more to level out access, still restrict numbers, yet provide equal opportunity, Hancock probably is closest to this model in Kapowsin/ WR and Snoqualmie. This is the format most Western States are going to for private access and it work's well and most of these larger farms still participate in the landowner access program. When you have issue's is when a small to medium-sized landowner want's to participate in the program, but doesn't provide realistic access for the average hunter, enough to justify the compensation they are receiving. The reality is, only so many can hunt smaller blocks, thus vehicles really are not ideally suited to those smaller parcels for the sake of providing equal opportunity under the program. You just made might point for me. They all chose their own strategy the government didn't force them to do it. As far as Hancocks kapowsin tree farm being closest to the perfect model of what would equal the playing Field. I don't know what you could be thinking? For one it does NOT provide an equal chance for everyone. If you don't have a permit you can't be on that property. What about the people that can't afford the permit? what about when they sell out? what about everyone else? If all the big timber companies did this what would happen is 85% of the people would say screw this and hunt state or federal lands. so now you have over crowding there. The huge tracts of private land will now only be available to a certain few that could afford/lucky enough to obtain special access permits. How is This "Equal opportunity" as you have put it? Another scenario would be that there wouldn't be enough demand (due to price) for these access permits and the companies wouldn't make enough money to justify the hassle. which would end the little experiment. This second scenario is what I think would most likely happen. Because if they thought they could make a proffit they probably would be doing it right now. Honestly I think each company should do what works for them.
Whats odd is that I didn't get trashed for killing my buck off the road this year. I posted it in my story plain as day too.