Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: jackelope on January 26, 2011, 02:55:51 PMWhats 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!
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.
Quote from: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 02:45:25 PMQuote 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
I just wasted my time reading this whole thread....
