Rayonier Fossil Creek / Salmon Creek Access Permits

[bobcat]

The elk are public resources

they are not selling elk.

Basically, that is what they are doing, is selling elk, or the right to hunt elk.

If a person wanted to just go for a hike in that area would they need to pay for an access permit?

[grundy53]

No they aren't. They are selling access. The permit is to enter THEIR land. You buy the elk from the state when you buy your tag.Those elk are free ranging and can go to Weyerhaeuser land or Hancock land or state land any time they want. You can buy the permit and not even hunt elk.

[bobcat]

No they aren't. They are selling access. The permit is to enter THEIR land. You buy the elk from the state when you buy your tag.Those elk are free ranging and can go to Weyerhaeuser land or Hancock land or state land any time they want. You can buy the permit and not even hunt elk.

I understand all that. But how many people are purchasing the permit for something other than elk hunting? I'd bet not very many, and most likely, none.

[grundy53]

No they aren't. They are selling access. The permit is to enter THEIR land. You buy the elk from the state when you buy your tag.Those elk are free ranging and can go to Weyerhaeuser land or Hancock land or state land any time they want. You can buy the permit and not even hunt elk.

I understand all that. But how many people are purchasing the permit for something other than elk hunting? I'd bet not very many, and most likely, none.

I also understand that. But that doesn't mean they are selling the elk. They are selling the right to access their land. Saying they are selling the Elk is like saying Cabelas is selling the elk because you bought the rifle/bow that you used to kill the elk there. They are not selling the elk, they are selling a very useful tool to help harvest the elk (access to their land).  The same as Cabelas sells you a very useful tool, but not the Elk. As much as I would love to have it all accessible to the public like it used to be I also am not going to berate someone for trying to make money off their land. That's why they bought the land to begin with, to make money. They figured out how to make more money then just logging it. Can't really blame them for that. Besides it will drastically reduce illegal dumping and equipment theft/tampering. So you can berate them all you want but imagine you had a huge chunk of land. Would you let the public hunt on it with unlimited access for free? What about after they stole some stuff and dumped some trash?

[bobcat]

I agree with all that you're saying. It is their land, and they can do what they want.

But I do wish there was some way private timber companies could be required to allow public access, just for hunting.

[grundy53]

I agree with all that you're saying. It is their land, and they can do what they want.

But I do wish there was some way private timber companies could be required to allow public access, just for hunting.

I understand where you're coming from but I whole heartedly disagree. While I would love more hunting access, requiring a private land owner to allow access for hunting would be terrible. How would you feel if the government told you that you were required to allow bird watchers into your back yard? Even though you know they would leave garbage and steal your stuff. Sound fair? I don't think so. You would be throwing land owner rights right out the window. Like I said, I'm all for more access but I don't think the government should destroy private land owners rights to do it.

[grundy53]

Also before anyone thinks I don't know what it's like to lose land, I used to hunt Forks creek, Trap creek, Fossil creek, Salmon creek, Alder creek, and William creek areas before they were locked up. I too am very frustrated. I just don't want to give up my rights as a citizen.

[AKBowman]

The elk are public resources

they are not selling elk.

No just access to the public resources

[grundy53]

The elk are public resources

they are not selling elk.

No just access to the public resources

actually they are selling access to their land.

[AKBowman]

The elk are public resources

they are not selling elk.

No just access to the public resources

actually they are selling access to their land.

I don't really want to get in an argument about it and generally agree with the statements you have made earlier. It's just that they own such large tracts of land and selling access to that land to those that can afford it is going to do nothing but bad things for hunting in this state and hunting in general.
Out of the areas you mentioned above only fossil and salmon creek are locked up, the other areas are gated but still allow access, correct?

[grundy53]

I agree with you there. As far as the other areas. I imagine Hancock will start selling permits soon. Just like the rest of their properties. Weyerhaeuser won't be far behind.

[bobcat]

Well, one thing is if some of these tree farms are alse going to be used as "elk farms" maybe the zoning designation should be something other than just "forest land" and the property be taxed at a higher rate. I know I'm not the first person to ever think of this.

[grundy53]

Then you would have to do that with all the farmers and ranchers in eastern Washington.

[AKBowman]

Well, one thing is if some of these tree farms are alse going to be used as "elk farms" maybe the zoning designation should be something other than just "forest land" and the property be taxed at a higher rate. I know I'm not the first person to think of this

Something needs to be done that's for sure.

The thing is I wouldn't mind paying for access if the access permit DID NOT allow you to take a motorized vehicle onto the land. If it allowed campIng and access but no
Motorized vehicles i would be all over it. I would still not be for it, I just can't see how allowing walk or bike in access is causing them any issues

[blackveltbowhunter]

  Sorry guys, I didnt mean to derail the thread. Grundy.... I agree 100 percent with you on property rights and their right to deny and/or limit access  . My issue isnt about their access pass, its about their access pass to HUNT. I know, I know any non-hunter could buy one, its only granting acess. And as much as I would like it I dont beleive the state or any entity should force granting access. My point is only NON HUNTERS should be able to access. How many permits would they sell if hunting wasnt allowed?

   Im sure this is probably a topic best put in SYM, But I just beleive its a sneaky way to charge to hunt. And the loophole should be closed up is all. In your cabelas analogy the problem is that cabelas is selling you something you didnt already have ownership in. The people already "own" the elk. My license and tag, are payment to you and the rest of the public for the opportunty to harvest one.
   Heres an example, I have elk on my property, your driving by and see them standing in my field. I dont own the elk but I own the property they are on. You stop and ask me if you can hunt them, I say no. Thats my right as a property owner. You offer to pay me to hunt them, if I say yes I am immediatley profiting off of a public resource regardless of whether you kill one or not. Now, could I charge folks to access my property and take pics of the elk, pick my flowers, camp on my property? Sure I can since I own the flowers, the campground, and the rights to the pictures. But not the right hunt I dont own that and I dont own the elk no matter how much land control.

   If they want to charge for access thats fine but not for hunting, if you are caught hunting on an access pass it should be the same as poaching.