2009 Road Hunting Buck

[grundy53]

My family owns a tree farm. Our tax rate are at timber classification and we aren't required to allow public access.

[deerslyr]

I think all of the people that are against allowing timber companies employees are jealous, cus I know I am 

[Dmanmastertracker]

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?

 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.

 

[xxlx7]

I skipped forward, so sorry if I am repeating myself. I don't blame timberlands for not allowing joe shmoe to drive in on their property. Lets look at property that allows that to happen. In less than 3 months, you can figure a couple tons of trash has been dropped off, how many random vehicles will be dumped, how many tree's will be cut down, vandalism on companies property, how many roads will get damaged by people driving to fast around corners, rutting the roads, that all costs the timberland property. If people were respectful of others property, more timberlands would be open to people driving in. To those with the perk of the job of being able to hunt behind locked gates, as far as I look at it, that's one heck of a raise!!! Remember it only takes one bad egg to ruin the ommlette(sp). So who cares about tax breaks, or how much they pay, think of it as your house. Would you want someone dumpin dryers or garbage or old cars on your front lawn??? Didn't think so....

Kyle

[grundy53]

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?

 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.

 

Which is why they allow public access. Do you think the freaking government should run everyones business? Im sorry if I can't except this socialist train of thought. I think the more the government sticks its nose in our private businesses the worse off they are. Name one thing that the government runs better then its private industry counter part? You can go ahead and give up your freedoms one step at a time. I think I will fight to keep mine.

[Devinshoe]

So who won the bet of this going over 10 pages?

[Dmanmastertracker]

 Grundy, no one forces the tree farms to participate in the program, you sign a contract when you join the program and when you do, you agree to certain conditions, one of which is Government management of how the those tax funds are spent, why do you think anyone should get that money for free? It isn't the State lottery for pete's sake.

[grundy53]

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.

[Dmanmastertracker]

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.

 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.

[grundy53]

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.

 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.

[Michelle_Nelson]

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.  

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.

[grundy53]

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.  

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself Michelle.

[Dmanmastertracker]

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.

 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.

 First you say you disdain Government programs supporting tree farmer's with tax-moneys being regulated by the Government, then you say each tree farm should do as they choose, which is it . Is it not "earned" when you pay for it, as opposed to just being "given" a privilege?   I've not met one hunter who can't afford a permit, my nephew could purchase one with his allowance if it was for a full-year, that's not valid to me, I began hunting when I had an extra $500 a year outside of bills to my name and still hunted permit lands, hunting cost's money today and that's reality. The more public land there is to hunt and be managed, the higher license and State access fee's go up too, that isn't a cure-all. Hancock in fact does allow walk-in hunting without a permit for the lands I mentioned with the one exception of Kapowsin the difference is it's big enough to support both vehicle and foot traffic. I'm done on this topic. It's like talking to a wall.

[Alan K]

They get their money from the government to allow access to the property.  That's it.  They allow walk in access.

Beyond that, of course they should be able to do as they choose with their property. . . It doesn't allow the government complete control lol

[DOUBLELUNG]

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.

You didn't put it in your title.

Besides, you are obviously incredibly selfish, to be hunting a unit closed to every other state-licensed hunter.  How can you sleep at night having hunted on a limited entry hunt not open to everyone? 

A true sportsman only pursues an opportunity that is equally available to everyone.  Oh wait, my bad, that's what a true Communist does!