Rayonier Fossil Creek / Salmon Creek Access Permits

[grundy53]

  Sorry guys, I didn't 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 isn't 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.

In my analogy I was comparing the rifle from Cabelas to the access, not to the elk. They are both tools. As far as it being wrong to sell the right to hunt.... we own the elk not the right to hunt. I couldn't disagree with you more on your stance. if you made it poaching for paying to hunt on private land then you would have to shut down almost all guides and outfitters. Then you look at the guides and outfitters that hunt on public land... oh wait they are profitting off of our public resources too. Better outlaw them too.

[AKBowman]

  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.

As usual well said BVBH. In a nutshell it is a sneaky way to charge for hunting. Bottom line is as it sits today the timber co's have the rights to do what they are doing and I support those rights. I just think there needs to be some intervention from somewhere that will change things to keep allowing access to these vast areas.

BVBH makes a great point in the idea that although the timber co's are not necessarily selling these access permits as "hunting" permits, essentially hunters are the only group purchasing them. If the costs of hunting keep increasing and access decreasing their soon won't be any hunters left to make $ off of. No ones going to spend $250 to drive around and look at a bunch of trees. If the state starting giving tax breaks to timber co's that allowed free access that might be a good start

[sirmissalot]

  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.

As usual well said BVBH. In a nutshell it is a sneaky way to charge for hunting. Bottom line is as it sits today the timber co's have the rights to do what they are doing and I support those rights. I just think there needs to be some intervention from somewhere that will change things to keep allowing access to these vast areas.

BVBH makes a great point in the idea that although the timber co's are not necessarily selling these access permits as "hunting" permits, essentially hunters are the only group purchasing them. If the costs of hunting keep increasing and access decreasing their soon won't be any hunters left to make $ off of. No ones going to spend $250 to drive around and look at a bunch of trees. If the state starting giving tax breaks to timber co's that allowed free access that might be a good start

Its to my understanding that the state already does provide tax breaks to allow access. Not sure how it works especially when it comes to charging access fees, and allowing vehicles or walk in only but there are laws in place for all of this. Maybe someone can step in and clarify the laws.

I'm not saying its right to charge access fees but it is private land, and in my opinion we can all benefit from a change in land management. If not every Tom Dick and Harry can drive up in the woods, day or night, I can see improved hunting for those of us willing to fork out the cash and privilege to hunt there. Hancock does a pretty good job managing the land and therfore the wildlife.

[AKBowman]

This question has come up in previous posts and I believe the consensus is NO the state does not provide tax breaks to Timber Co's for allowing public access.

[grundy53]

This question has come up in previous posts and I believe the consensus is NO the state does not provide tax breaks to Timber Co's for allowing public access.

[zackmioli]

I agree with Grundy on this one. Landowners have the right to allow or not allow access to their land, if they want to sell access permits to allow people onto their land and in turn to hunt on their land, that is their right and they shouldn't be judged for doing so. Owning the land is a business to them, and they will do what they have to in order to make more money for that business. No landowner, whether Timber Co, Rancher, Farmer, or private citizen should be forced to allow access for hunting on their property or told they can't sell access permits. If people want to pay for it, thats their prerogative. My hunting group pays the landowner a small fee each year to hunt/camp on their property (and by small i mean its less than what we would pay to camp at a campground for 9 days) and we don't see anything wrong with paying it or anything wrong with the landowner for charging that amount.

[JPhelps]

I agree that they own the land and can do as they please.  I don't like it all though and I wish WDFW would partner with some of the private timber companies to allow access.

I hate the thought that I may not be able to take my kids hunting on the ground that my family has been hunting way before land management strategies changed.

[tman24]

I had a permit and camp in the fossil creek permit area last year. I only hunted archery and loved it.  I didn't run into many people at all during early and late season.  I did talk to several truck drivers that were in the area and they said modern season was a zoo.  They were really nervous that they would end up hitting someone on the many utilty vehicles/quads. The access gate was the gate right on the bridge over fossil creek about 6 or 8 markers up.   When/if the permits come out again, I'll be trying to secure mine again.  I also talked to Weyco security earlier this year and they bought almost 2,800 gates to install in the Willipa Hills and surrounding areas.  He said that Weyco is moving to have access permits soon. 

[BowBender87]

He said that Weyco is moving to have access permits soon.

 

[mrgoodwrench]

wierd...not sure where the 5800 is i havent spent a whole lot of time in the fossil creek area...but i did go down a couple weeks ago and biked in about 6 miles..the signs at the gates just said no vehicle access with out permit...walk in was still allowed..and that was on rayonier

You didn't read the sign correctly.....there is NO PUBLIC ACCESS without a permit.  You don't want a criminal trespass ticket in Pacific County.  I know a couple guys who got them and they were $1100.

[mrgoodwrench]

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?



YES.  All public access in this area is on a fee basis and requires a permit.  It is legal, you can cahrge for ACCESS....that is what Rayonier is selling.

[mrgoodwrench]

Rayonier's plans aren't finalized yet for the Fossil/Salmon Creek permits.  Expect something very similar to last year to come out this summer.

I understand everyone's complaints, I used to hunt all of this area, and I work for the company.  I now hunt public land since I can't hunt the tree farm without a permit.  The only thing I can say is that I see more elk and far fewer hunters when I get out on public land than in the areas that are open to the public on private industrial timberland. 

Rayonier isn't the only company doing permits, Hancock has the Kapowasin, Merril and Ring has the Physt, Weyco had one in Molalla Oregon, I think Port Blakely has one by Riffe Lake......and there will be more to come from other companies.  Rather than pissing and moaning online.....everyone should pressure WDFW to secure some hunter access with the money we spend. 

[BowBender87]

wierd...not sure where the 5800 is i havent spent a whole lot of time in the fossil creek area...but i did go down a couple weeks ago and biked in about 6 miles..the signs at the gates just said no vehicle access with out permit...walk in was still allowed..and that was on rayonier

You didn't read the sign correctly.....there is NO PUBLIC ACCESS without a permit.  You don't want a criminal trespass ticket in Pacific County.  I know a couple guys who got them and they were $1100.

I wont argue about a sign that I seen. The sign I read allowed walk/bike in and it was rayonier.

[HoofsandWings]

I used to be on the mailing list for those access permits. I found them too pricey. The ones who usually bid on those permits are large families or clubs. They camp there all year. Some of the areas are a square mile, while others are several square miles. The more land, the higher the minimum bid.
This practice started in the South (Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, etc). The timber companies that own land there also own land here.
 

[HoofsandWings]

http://www.rayonierhunting.com/Help/FindPropertyGuide.pdf