Are you deer hunting private ground?

[Wacenturion]

Nothings perfect.......a couple clips from the net regarding other states mentioned here as having better programs.

Portion of an article regarding Montana's Block Management Program...

"The Montana Block Management Program, while a necessary tool to manage some of Montana’s hunting lands, has contributed to the conditioning of Montana landowners to expecting payment for hunting privileges. Some have suggested that they haven’t paid to hunt on private land and that they are not about to start now. These individuals don’t realize that they have been paying to hunt indirectly through the Block Management Program. Each time you sign into Block Management, you are indeed paying that landowner to hunt on their land.

Fee hunting is coming whether we like it or not. Montana is far behind the curve (perhaps only Wyoming is further behind) when it comes to fee hunting operations. Fee hunting has been the norm in many states and fee hunting operations account for the continued viability of countless ag operations, many of which would have long since vanished to become subdivisions."


Regarding South Dakota's Walk in Program........

 "While Walk-In Areas help to influence the overall satisfaction of the hunting experience, the areas also have an economic impact. In 2005, GF&P invested about $1.8 million in payments to landowners. According to the survey results, this produced an estimated 160,000 days of hunting and additional hunting-related expenditures of $11 million."


So lets examine the differences.....Both Montana and South Dakota PAY landowners to allow access  Might note in 2004 South Dakota had 900,000 acres.  Washington in the late 90's had 3.5 million acrers under it's program.  Washington does not pay...or at did not pay during the time I refer to.  Investments were made in habitat development to affect wildlife rather than lease payments.  WDFW might pay for some now as the thought is to have less but higher quality.  What a bunch of crap.......start paying a few and all those landowners who have shared their land over the years for basically the cost of signs and enforcement, which should be done anyway regardless of where hunting takes place, will also want to be payed or they drop out.  Not going to happen ...way to expensive.

Oh..and South Dakota.....approx. 19% of their residents hunt which is about 128,000 folks.  Low population, fair sized state, mostly rural, low numbers hunting available lands.....little easier to provide overall satisfaction to hunters there....although many of the complaints voiced here can be found on just about any state's outdoor forums.  The grass isn't always greener.     

[Todd_ID]

I guess I've been lucky with this program so far.  There's a 5000 acre "Sign in and Hunt" area next to town that hardly ever has anyone out there because it's walk-in only, and it could be 5-10 miles that you walk in a day of hunting.  I almost always see 50+ deer a day with a good population of respectable bucks.  The landowner is a very friendly guy who loves a good story and having us stop and talk to him.  He hauled out our deer for us with his four wheeler when I mentioned I was heading home for my pack boards.  The program isn't completely broken!

[ThePascoKid]

I wasn't offended in the least I have been hunting the same areas for 15 years I have asked dozens of times and got permission from the HBWP program exactly once.  It was a good experience and I saw a lot of animals but if you try getting permission from some of these farmers in the SE part of the state you will hear every excuse in the book as to why you should call or come back later and then when you do miraculously the slips are all gone.  I have a feeling it may be different in other parts of the state judging from some of your comments. Yes I have a terrible attitude towards this program but it isn't like I asked once and got rejected it has been over and over and over.  So I just except the fact that I am stuck hunting FFTH maybe your right maybe I come across as an *censored* or something I don't know. 

P.S. I shouldn't have said stuck like these are bad places to hunt I have taken several bucks off of FFTH lands and I appreciate them greatly

[BLUEBULLS]

PASCOKID, I couldn't agree more, down here in the S.E. all I hear is excuses why I can't hunt it. I've also got permission a whopping one time. There's one landowner that always says "too dry, we need a little rain" then it pours for a week or two straight and he says "we need a little more rain". I'm sure there are a few people who use the system as intended but I've only found one. I'll stick to public land.

[Gutpile]

The system works just fine but there are a few exceptions. Theres one landowner out of Sunset.... Jordan is the name. I bet I've tried to get permission for at least 10 years. Nope too late or nope call back. I never see anyone there either. This leads me to believe that they MUST get something or why put up with all the calls? I'd just post it and be done with it.

On the other hand, I've had up to 12 little blue cards in my wallet at once for deer/pheasant/yotes whatever. You can get permission but it takes time and patience.

Be polite. I've hunted 1 particular ranch for 12 years straight and there is this 20 something kid that started hunting there. Then he drove on there land BIG NO NO and he started pressuring the land owner to let him camp at a different spot. Now they're not sure if they'll let him back. Don't do stupid *censored* and stay persistant. You'll get land to hunt.

[ThePascoKid]

While Walk-In Areas help to influence the overall satisfaction of the hunting experience, the areas also have an economic impact. In 2005, GF&P invested about $1.8 million in payments to landowners. According to the survey results, this produced an estimated 160,000 days of hunting and additional hunting-related expenditures of $11 million."

Wacenturion is this an argument for or against SD's program because $11 million generated from $1.8 million sounds like a pretty good rate of return on the people of the states money.

[Wacenturion]

While Walk-In Areas help to influence the overall satisfaction of the hunting experience, the areas also have an economic impact. In 2005, GF&P invested about $1.8 million in payments to landowners. According to the survey results, this produced an estimated 160,000 days of hunting and additional hunting-related expenditures of $11 million."

Wacenturion is this an argument for or against SD's program because $11 million generated from $1.8 million sounds like a pretty good rate of return on the people of the states money.

Wasn't an argument against...was merely pointing out that South Dakota as well as Montana pay landowners.  However the figures can be mis-leading.  That $11 million in expenditures related to hunting....i.e. gas, motels, meals, ammo, etc., or at least the majority of it still would have been generated as these folks just would have hunted elsewhere in the state.  Man days in the field are man days in the field irregardless of where they occur.   

[Todd_ID]

It may just be me, but if I put out 1.8 million and generate 11 million for the community, then I'd be a bit ticked.  The money put out should be recouped in fees paid to the entity paying it out or the program will be bankrupt in a couple years and fade off into obscurity.  If the state pays the landowners, then there should be some system to account for how many new licenses, tags and fees have been sold as a direct result of that payment to the landowner.  There's simply not enough hunters buying licenses to pay for a reimbursement program.

[ThePascoKid]

These states make hunting nonresident friendly because they know where their bread is buttered, without these large tracts of accesible hunting property nobody from out of state is going to go hunt there.  The tags generate a ton of revenue not to mention fuel, hotel, and food.

[Dman]

These states make hunting nonresident friendly because they know where their bread is buttered, without these large tracts of accesible hunting property nobody from out of state is going to go hunt there.  The tags generate a ton of revenue not to mention fuel, hotel, and food.

 My opinion is Washington, as far as big game shouldn't even really entertain making our State "nonresident" freindly until it is more resident friendly in regards to hunting private lands. I have not participated in the "program", but I ALWAYS get a response from DFW on other issues, this one I did not when I asked for some kind of list of private lands. To me this is so basic, a person shouldn't even have to ask, if you have a computer it should be right on their site, or in the regs. As I said, there is no need for the landowner to ever be contacted personally if the DFW uses a reservation company. I can say for certain, if a private property or two was more accessable in Eastern Washington, I would also spend money in local businesses to go there and hunt as I would not attempt a day hunt from that distance. Any landowner's that are part of the program and receiving assistance should not be allowed excuses. It sounds harsh, but they should also not be allowed to "reserve" space for freinds and relatives, there are ways around that, the 3rd party reservation system for one.

[ThePascoKid]

I didn't mean to imply that WA should become more nonresident friendly we have more than enough in-state hunters obviously MT and SD have plenty of huntable land and a lot less people hunting them.  I agree with your ideas on finding and gaining access to private land in WA.  I have burned an obscene amount of gas finding and marking all of the Feel Free to Hunt properties in my hunting area luckily I found most them back when gas was only a dollar something a gallon.

[Dman]

 

[6 Point]

We used to get a permit on a couple of places between Pomoroy and Asotin, both for deer and elk.  Now we hunt a private ranch  a little NE of Colville with muzzleloaders. Probably could find some phone numbers for the mule deer areas near Pomroy