Post by: JamesK. on January 05, 2013, 10:33:33 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 05, 2013, 10:53:45 PM
What style of hunting do you prefer? You can run the gamut down there when it comes to terrain, access, etc.
Post by: Alan K on January 05, 2013, 11:01:02 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on January 05, 2013, 11:18:08 PM
Post by: JLS on January 05, 2013, 11:19:18 PM
I want the one with the biggest bulls and the flattest land... The one you can drive right up to the 400" bull and shoot it. LOL
Those are in the Colockum. 8)
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on January 05, 2013, 11:38:47 PM
I want the one with the biggest bulls and the flattest land... The one you can drive right up to the 400" bull and shoot it. LOL
Well hell just hire a helicopter.....seemed to work for Reichert! :chuckle: :chuckle: Although the aftermath might not be so nice!
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 06, 2013, 08:21:18 AM
Post by: Bigtine96 on January 06, 2013, 08:32:51 AM
I can understand that you're trying to plan your big hunt of a lifetime. But here's how it is. I moved to WA in 2006 since then I've hunted with a guy who's had max points the whole time and has been putting in for the a blues archery tag. He used to say "maybe next year" now he doesn't even plan on drawing. The long and short of it is that you CAN NOT plan on drawing a quality permit tag in WA no matter how many points you have. The truth hurts...
^ this
I have 13 deer and elk and I still dont plan on drawing anytime soon >:(
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 06, 2013, 09:08:29 AM
Post by: ellensburgpo on January 06, 2013, 09:39:09 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 06, 2013, 09:46:38 AM
His website says one day in, six days hunting, one day out for that price :dunno: it doesn't say anything about less hunting days if there's two of you.I talked to him on the phone before, back when I was certain I was gonna draw. The time is evenly spent between two hunters, it's one guide for 2 hunters for 5000, 2500 a piece. Or you can pay 5000 and go it alone and have the 6 days to yourself. If you have a partner and it's his day to hunt you can still hunt, you just won't be guided that day.
Post by: ellensburgpo on January 06, 2013, 10:02:55 AM
Post by: JamesK. on January 06, 2013, 10:06:36 PM
Post by: JamesK. on January 06, 2013, 10:35:18 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 06, 2013, 10:43:44 PM
:dunno:
Post by: huntnnw on January 07, 2013, 04:09:39 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 07, 2013, 07:04:26 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on January 07, 2013, 07:22:10 AM
Access abounds in the Tucannon.. its mostly all public ground.:yeah: less people as well IMO
:dunno:
Post by: JamesK. on January 07, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Post by: mtncook on January 08, 2013, 12:31:54 AM
Actually you guys are pretty much right on. As of yet we have not had 2 hunters for a quality bull tag in the same camp. Only 2 hunters have not tagged a bull in our guided camps and those were not because the opportunity was not there. One hunter left early due to cutting his leg and needed some stitches. It has taken to day 5 to find a bull the hunter would shoot after passing on several in the class that another hunter would tag on day 2. It is hard to pass on a 320 bull that gives you a perfect 20 yard shot. As I tell all my hunters you will not kill a 350 plus by shooting a smaller one.
If the time comes when 2 hunters choose the camp with one guide I'm certain we will make some adjustments so that both are busy. The guys I spoke to on the phone or email usually know we are flexible and want every hunter to tag a good bull.
I'm still waiting for some pictures from 2012 to post here, I have to admit my camera did not make many trips so I'm depending on the hunters to send a few.
The Dayton unit does not have an Outfitter special use permit issued. As of late there has been permits issued to the Governors Tag and Raffle tag holders. They are not allowed to enter my unit or the non commercial Wenaha West. I feel like I'm abused on this occasionally with all the "scouts" in the area. These permits are issued for 1 Bull Elk. Permit expires upon the tagging of 1 bull.
mtncook
Post by: fair-chase on January 08, 2013, 12:37:15 AM
Post by: BLUEBULLS on January 09, 2013, 07:02:59 AM
I would say the dayton has more of the bigger bulls, it seems everyear the more bulls come from the dayton. And yes, the tuc is full of public land. The toughest decision is what weapon to choose, archery has more tags, muzzy has less tags but a better chance at killing something out to 100yds (or more). With 17 points (me) going into it, it makes you think hard about your choice. I just wish they would hurry up and put 50% of the (quality) tags in a 10 points or more category!!!
You have to be careful when applying for the Dayton permits. Some (not all) of the permits; you cannot hunt the national forest. Most the general hunters hunt spikes there. The big bulls you are referring to are on (private land) Kelly Allens property (attorney out of Spokane). Or Wilber Eaton (farmer) who is a known crook with the game department. Niether will let you hunt. Drive up the North or South Patit Rd. Starveout Rd is another good spot, if you want to see some 400 class bulls in Sept. They hold up there, as they know they are protected, unless the land owners have a special draw tag. I know of a kid from Ellensburg, who drew a raffle tag in 2009. He had permission to hunt the property, but that was only because Scott Raisley (Land Access Mgr. for the Game Department) was working with Kelly Allen to give the kid access as a one time exception because he had a raffle tag. In return Kelly Allen was issued 3 cow permits during the general modern firearm season. Must be nice...
Not really trying to call you out but about 65% of this is false.
Post by: Woodchuck on January 09, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
Seems like a reckless statement about Scott. He does an awful lot for folks around here.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 09, 2013, 07:38:34 AM
Post by: WaHeadhunter on January 09, 2013, 12:40:25 PM
Quote
You have to be careful when applying for the Dayton permits. Some (not all) of the permits; you cannot hunt the national forest. Most the general hunters hunt spikes there. The big bulls you are referring to are on (private land) Kelly Allens property (attorney out of Spokane). Or Wilber Eaton (farmer) who is a known crook with the game department. Niether will let you hunt. Drive up the North or South Patit Rd. Starveout Rd is another good spot, if you want to see some 400 class bulls in Sept. They hold up there, as they know they are protected, unless the land owners have a special draw tag. I know of a kid from Ellensburg, who drew a raffle tag in 2009. He had permission to hunt the property, but that was only because Scott Raisley (Land Access Mgr. for the Game Department) was working with Kelly Allen to give the kid access as a one time exception because he had a raffle tag. In return Kelly Allen was issued 3 cow permits during the general modern firearm season. Must be nice...
Dude. you have no clue what your'e talking about regarding 162 landowners. There are plenty of big bulls above the Tucannon, in the National Forrest and on Bennett land (provided they allow access), and at sometimes during the year they are as low as the Patit Road and even Lewis Gulch road.
You keep rolling Wilbur Eaton under the bus and have not said anything yet about him that is the truth. He's never been convicted of any game violations and never paid any fines. He can be an onery old coot but with some persistence and treating him with some respect he's a landowner that allows guys to hunt.
What do you expect all private land owners to do, just give carte blanche access to their property without somehow having earned the right in someway to ask for the privilege? Showing up the week before hunting season and pulling in the driveway to ask doesn't cut it with most landowners I know regardless of asking for permission to hunt big game, turkeys or birds or even varmints and it's also not specific to 162 landowners, it most of them anywhere in Eastern WA.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 09, 2013, 02:28:16 PM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on January 09, 2013, 02:39:22 PM
Post by: BLUEBULLS on January 09, 2013, 03:20:58 PM
oops, just realized we were thread jacking, sorry.
Post by: WaHeadhunter on January 09, 2013, 03:35:15 PM
Post by: BLUEBULLS on January 10, 2013, 07:45:23 AM
Basically, all of the landowners mentioned allow some hunting, some more than others. They have excellent elk habitat and help to keep the herd healthy. If I were them, I wouldn't let you hunt either. I've personally hunted on 2 of the 3 and friends have hunted on the others.
Post by: Woodchuck on January 10, 2013, 08:07:14 AM
The inference I got from your post was that the landowner was given these anterless permits in exchange for letting the young man hunt. This is not the case.:yeah: likely more. :twocents:
Seems like a reckless statement about Scott. He does an awful lot for folks around here.
You might want to re-read what I wrote. I said he HELPED A KID get land access, who drew a raffle tag. How is that making a reckless statement about Scott. Scott is a good guy and has helped me tremendously over the years.
Post by: 270Flat on January 10, 2013, 08:41:28 AM
When there are no elk inthe Blues!!
Post by: Woodchuck on January 10, 2013, 08:55:00 AM
Post by: WaHeadhunter on January 10, 2013, 09:12:30 AM
Quote
ou may want to get educated and read the game regulations. YOU CANNOT HUNT THE NATIONAL FOREST with SOME (NOT ALL) of the special draw permits; across all weapon choices. Since you seem to think I am an idiot; let me post it for you so you can feel stupid.
I don't feel stupid at all, I know all that stuff. Those regs are what sportsmen have to abide by and that puts the burden on you to find ground to hunt, it hardly obligates any landowner to allow access to private property.
My point is with an attitude like yours a landowner could see you coming from a mile away. You seem to have some sense of entitlement going on and and if a landowner doesn't give you access you get bent out of shape about i and feel the need to hide anonymously on some chat board to say things that are not true about them.
Unless you know the two landowners you are trashing, what makes you think they don't have hunters on their land to allow access to herds? I've hunted both those landowners properties and was told where I could hunt and when I could hunt due to other hunters having access as well.
In fact, I've heard that Kelly Allen had 2 big bulls taken off his land this year, one muzzy and one modern by draw permit holders.
Good luck in your future hunting adventures, you need it.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 10, 2013, 09:18:00 AM
Post by: Landowner on January 10, 2013, 10:12:59 AM
Also, the antlerless tags given aren’t trade for “special hunting privileges”, they’re for crop damage. They’re an alternative for crop damage $$ and sometimes they’re not even filled, by choice not chance.
oops, just realized we were thread jacking, sorry.
Agreed! Please read the policy regarding them. If a landowner received anterless tags for submitting damage claims, they are REQUIRED by the game department to supply their contact information to the public, and open up a percentage of their land to the public to help manage the animals doing the damage. This is part of the Land Access Program, which Scott heads up. As of 2009; there was only 7 land owners on the list (162 and 163) submitting damage claims. Kelly Allen was by far the majority land owner on the list and his LAND IS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. He may let you hunt it after his family runs ATVs all over the property and fills their tags, but by then it is towards the end of the season and your wasting your time. Like I said in my previous post. He allowed 1 raffle tag holder to hunt it. He was GIVEN 3 cow tags for doing it, because he was on the Land Access Program land owner list. The truth is; he don't really let anyone hunt it, yet he still gets tags because the game department doesn't want to screw up the relationship and plays politics.
@Skywalker. Been reading your posts where you continue to trash certain Dayton landowners. I happen to personally know those landowners very well, much better than you by a long shot. So here's the facts.
Fact: Allen has never received 3 elk tags in any year. The Dayton 162 landowners who grow crops incur substantial damages from elk and deer on a yearly basis, often in the $10k to $20k plus range. Maximum number of tags WDFW issues in lieu of cash compensation is two cow elk depredation tags per year.
Fact: Public hunting by written permission is allowed by the landowners you reference for all species . Not surprisingly, the landowners----who pay the mortgages, taxes and other substantial expenses of their farming operations---have some say as who gets to enter their property to hunt. These landowners are mindful of providing quality hunts to those granted permission so that an orange hat is not on every rock. And these landowners are mindful that if their lands were open to every person who drove by, virtually every deer and elk in the area would be killed. WDFW is well aware of the benefit of these lands to wildlife---which is wildlife that is transient and constantly moving on and off public/private grounds.
Fact: Allen's ground produced a kill of 6 elk (two big bulls) this past season, and 8 bucks and 3 does---none of which were killed by the "family" you reference except his 12 year old niece with her first buck. 2012 Harvest included kills by disabled, youth and elderly---weapons included muzzleloader, rifle and archery.
Fact: Eaton's ground produced 2012 elk kills to hunters who had never harvested off his ground before including one nice big bull. And he lets a LOT of hunters on all of his ground.
Final Point: While I can't say for sure who it was, I am aware from Eaton of a certain hunter in 2009 who had permission to hunt elk in a designated area of his ground---but that certain hunter decided on his own to expand the area he had been given permission to hunt. And he got called on it. Funny, it happened to be a guy from around the neck of the woods you listed in your avatar.
Post by: D-Rock425 on January 10, 2013, 10:26:04 AM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 10, 2013, 10:27:36 AM
Post by: D-Rock425 on January 10, 2013, 10:29:17 AM
Oh snap... snap indeed.:chuckle:
Post by: buglebuster on January 10, 2013, 10:32:51 AM
Oh my this is awesome :chuckle:Also, the antlerless tags given aren’t trade for “special hunting privileges”, they’re for crop damage. They’re an alternative for crop damage $$ and sometimes they’re not even filled, by choice not chance.
oops, just realized we were thread jacking, sorry.
Agreed! Please read the policy regarding them. If a landowner received anterless tags for submitting damage claims, they are REQUIRED by the game department to supply their contact information to the public, and open up a percentage of their land to the public to help manage the animals doing the damage. This is part of the Land Access Program, which Scott heads up. As of 2009; there was only 7 land owners on the list (162 and 163) submitting damage claims. Kelly Allen was by far the majority land owner on the list and his LAND IS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. He may let you hunt it after his family runs ATVs all over the property and fills their tags, but by then it is towards the end of the season and your wasting your time. Like I said in my previous post. He allowed 1 raffle tag holder to hunt it. He was GIVEN 3 cow tags for doing it, because he was on the Land Access Program land owner list. The truth is; he don't really let anyone hunt it, yet he still gets tags because the game department doesn't want to screw up the relationship and plays politics.
@Skywalker. Been reading your posts where you continue to trash certain Dayton landowners. I happen to personally know those landowners very well, much better than you by a long shot. So here's the facts.
Fact: Allen has never received 3 elk tags in any year. The Dayton 162 landowners who grow crops incur substantial damages from elk and deer on a yearly basis, often in the $10k to $20k plus range. Maximum number of tags WDFW issues in lieu of cash compensation is two cow elk depredation tags per year.
Fact: Public hunting by written permission is allowed by the landowners you reference for all species . Not surprisingly, the landowners----who pay the mortgages, taxes and other substantial expenses of their farming operations---have some say as who gets to enter their property to hunt. These landowners are mindful of providing quality hunts to those granted permission so that an orange hat is not on every rock. And these landowners are mindful that if their lands were open to every person who drove by, virtually every deer and elk in the area would be killed. WDFW is well aware of the benefit of these lands to wildlife---which is wildlife that is transient and constantly moving on and off public/private grounds.
Fact: Allen's ground produced a kill of 6 elk (two big bulls) this past season, and 8 bucks and 3 does---none of which were killed by the "family" you reference except his 12 year old niece with her first buck. 2012 Harvest included kills by disabled, youth and elderly---weapons included muzzleloader, rifle and archery.
Fact: Eaton's ground produced 2012 elk kills to hunters who had never harvested off his ground before including one nice big bull. And he lets a LOT of hunters on all of his ground.
Final Point: While I can't say for sure who it was, I am aware from Eaton of a certain hunter in 2009 who had permission to hunt elk in a designated area of his ground---but that certain hunter decided on his own to expand the area he had been given permission to hunt. And he got called on it. Funny, it happened to be a guy from around the neck of the woods you listed in your avatar.
Post by: 270Flat on January 10, 2013, 10:35:27 AM
Post by: The100Road on January 10, 2013, 10:38:14 AM
Oh snap... snap indeed.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: WaHeadhunter on January 10, 2013, 10:46:45 AM
Post by: elkfins on January 10, 2013, 10:47:02 AM
@Skywalker. Been reading your posts where you continue to trash certain Dayton landowners. I happen to personally know those landowners very well, much better than you by a long shot. So here's the facts.
Fact: Allen has never received 3 elk tags in any year. The Dayton 162 landowners who grow crops incur substantial damages from elk and deer on a yearly basis, often in the $10k to $20k plus range. Maximum number of tags WDFW issues in lieu of cash compensation is two cow elk depredation tags per year.
Fact: Public hunting by written permission is allowed by the landowners you reference for all species . Not surprisingly, the landowners----who pay the mortgages, taxes and other substantial expenses of their farming operations---have some say as who gets to enter their property to hunt. These landowners are mindful of providing quality hunts to those granted permission so that an orange hat is not on every rock. And these landowners are mindful that if their lands were open to every person who drove by, virtually every deer and elk in the area would be killed. WDFW is well aware of the benefit of these lands to wildlife---which is wildlife that is transient and constantly moving on and off public/private grounds.
Fact: Allen's ground produced a kill of 6 elk (two big bulls) this past season, and 8 bucks and 3 does---none of which were killed by the "family" you reference except his 12 year old niece with her first buck. 2012 Harvest included kills by disabled, youth and elderly---weapons included muzzleloader, rifle and archery.
Fact: Eaton's ground produced 2012 elk kills to hunters who had never harvested off his ground before including one nice big bull. And he lets a LOT of hunters on all of his ground.
Final Point: While I can't say for sure who it was, I am aware from Eaton of a certain hunter in 2009 who had permission to hunt elk in a designated area of his ground---but that certain hunter decided on his own to expand the area he had been given permission to hunt. And he got called on it. Funny, it happened to be a guy from around the neck of the woods you listed in your avatar.
now where is that LIKE button???
Post by: WaHeadhunter on January 10, 2013, 11:07:59 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on January 10, 2013, 11:23:42 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 10, 2013, 11:54:56 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 10, 2013, 11:55:27 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2013, 12:11:54 PM
Maybe I missed it somewhere. Did you draw a 1010 permit?
Post by: WaHeadhunter on January 10, 2013, 12:16:26 PM
Quote
All I stated was land access can be challenging; especially when applying for Dayton 162. Nobody can argue that. It is stated in the regulations. Further; I went on to explain MY EXPREIRENCE. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote
Or Wilber Eaton (farmer) who is a known crook with the game department
So how does your statement about Eaton serve any purpose? When. its. not. true?
Post by: ellensburgpo on January 10, 2013, 12:21:03 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2013, 12:22:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2013, 12:23:08 PM
Isn't skywalker the guys who's all fired about about not getting access in another thread? Maybe there's a pattern?
There is. It seems there's a little bitterness from him regarding private land access in the Blues.
Post by: 270Flat on January 10, 2013, 12:35:40 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 10, 2013, 12:56:03 PM
Isn't skywalker the guys who's all fired about about not getting access in another thread? Maybe there's a pattern?A pattern may be indicative of truthful information as well. Just sayin'.
Post by: Woodchuck on January 10, 2013, 01:07:17 PM
I will say this Skywalker, if you had come on and explained your experience like you just did from the get go you would not have gotten some of the reactions you got. The fact that you just belted out names with derogatory statements is gonna draw fire. :twocents:
Post by: Woodchuck on January 10, 2013, 01:36:43 PM
Hang in there man. :tup:
Post by: BLUEBULLS on January 10, 2013, 02:12:03 PM
Marengo unit is what it was called, gmu 163 and 162 out side the Nat forest.
I will say this Skywalker, if you had come on and explained your experience like you just did from the get go you would not have gotten some of the reactions you got. The fact that you just belted out names with derogatory statements is gonna draw fire. :twocents:
:yeah:
These landowners deal with a HUGE amount of people asking to hunt. The Quality permit guys for all weapons and 2 different hunt choices, the antlerless permit guys for a few different hunt choices, the general elk guys(archery and modern), the general deer guys, all the deer permit guys.
Imagine the number of people that ask each year. If I were the landowner, I would probably have guard dogs at the door and not own a telephone.
I’m not sure it “would be nice”.
Post by: Bob33 on January 10, 2013, 02:13:59 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2013, 02:40:12 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on January 10, 2013, 02:54:37 PM
Post by: 270Flat on January 10, 2013, 08:52:27 PM
Post by: firecrotch on January 11, 2013, 01:23:54 PM
:yeah:Marengo unit is what it was called, gmu 163 and 162 out side the Nat forest.
I will say this Skywalker, if you had come on and explained your experience like you just did from the get go you would not have gotten some of the reactions you got. The fact that you just belted out names with derogatory statements is gonna draw fire. :twocents:
:yeah:
These landowners deal with a HUGE amount of people asking to hunt. The Quality permit guys for all weapons and 2 different hunt choices, the antlerless permit guys for a few different hunt choices, the general elk guys(archery and modern), the general deer guys, all the deer permit guys.
Imagine the number of people that ask each year. If I were the landowner, I would probably have guard dogs at the door and not own a telephone.
I’m not sure it “would be nice”.
Your right BB, and its going to get tougher as time goes on. Land owners are becoming more posted to their property than ever before because of the quality of elk that there are here, and more general pressure. And to be added when people like Mossback Outfitters are running around the attention is going to bring on more population in the Blues. Land owners are in a tough position. Its something ive noticed with first hand. Every year its amazing when hunting season gets closer how many friends you have, or how many people you haven't talked with in a year start calling. By the times hunting season finishes up you never hear from those friends or can't get ahold of them, but by golly the time hunting season rolls around you have all these yearly friends again expecting permission.
Post by: Landowner on January 13, 2013, 12:36:19 PM
I personally field over a 100 annual requests starting with turkey in the Spring, and of course the big game seasons, starting with archery and other seasons well before the September 1st launch dates. (not to mention the upland bird seasons throughout the Fall). It simply is impossible to provide quality opportunities to everyone who wants to hunt.
Keeping a healthy wildlife population is a factor that myself and some other landowners I know consider in determining how many hunters to allow. I try to keep a temperature on the game population on my ground, as my family and I enjoy seeing the wildlife---even though the elk are capable of inflicting major crop damage at times when no depredation hunting is allowed due to calving, and calves being too young to be without mom. And yes, landowners have people who help or work for them that have earned the right to hunt, and landowners have families who also like to hunt. Every landowner has some kind of criteria they apply to screen hunters.
The windmill access is an interesting one. Some landowners in the 163 unit have not turned over total control to the power companies for hunting permission and access. Not sure if the issue has been resolved, but a local landowner told me that PSE put the burden on the landowners to insure against damage to the turbines from recreational users. Result was that some (who had never done so before) posted their ground so that they didn't need to incur the insurance costs. I'll let Ms. Walsh wade in on the actual facts on that issue.
On the bright side, there are a lot of quality hunting opportunities on a lot of public ground in the Tucannannon and USFS areas in the Blues. I admire the guys who get out of their pick-ups and walk into the woods to hunt. Too many guys driving around all day instead of hunting---and I'm not putting the disabled hunters in that category.
Post by: Landowner on January 13, 2013, 03:31:26 PM
I will agree, generally speaking, that if someone gets permission to hunt---and by that I mean a firm "promise" of access that the landowner intends for the hunter to rely upon in applying for a tag---then a hunter should be able to rely upon that promise.
But, along with that comes the condition that the hunter also must abide by the deal----including sticking to where they are given permission to hunt and any other rules that are part of the permission.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 15, 2013, 07:29:43 AM
Now that I've given you a lashing just like everyone else I will share with you my lesson learned for this year. I cashed in 8 points and $500 to hunt Oregon, I scouted as hard as I could, I could've done more. After 4 days everyone I ran into had scouted less than me and had seen bulls... I still hadn't seen a elk. On day 8 I called in two bulls. The first was tiny and I didn't have a shot. The second was a "big raghorn" (not the 320 bull I had hoped for). I passed on him for 5 minutes and then called him back and put one right where I was aiming...right in the heart...it was not so. I have a picture of the arrow sticking right outta where I thought the heart would be. I found no blood and I tracked him for 4 days and that was my hunt. My lesson learned this year ----> Aim higher!!
Lessons learned and they don't come cheap...
Post by: Landowner on January 15, 2013, 10:15:05 AM
In the FWIW column-----purely my own opinions and rambling thoughts-----landowners, like hunters, talk to one another. Not surprisingly, guys with good reputations have better chances to secure permission to hunt than those who don't. As with a person's reputation in any walk of life, it takes time to build it, and only a moment in time to destroy it. And, of course, first impressions can make a difference.
I talk regularly with our local Columbia County landowners. We talk about encounters and experiences with hunters, where they are from, how many guys are in a pick-up, the color and kind of rig they drive, who looks to be the road hunters instead of real hunters, who was caught or suspected of trespassing, everyday kinds of things that stick out when you meet and hear about people.
And while permission is not always granted, a hunter's reputation built over time will usually increase their chances. Persistence in moderation helps----I turn down a lot of hunting requests based primarily on sheer numbers of those requests, and it's not easy for me to say "no". I'm mindful that it takes some courage to ask for permission, and of course, no one likes the uncomfortable moment when "no" is the word. It gets harder to say no with that courteous and persistent hunter who doesn't take initial rejection as the end of the line.
Every landowner has their own criteria for granting or denying permission. For me, I like to see guys get a quality hunt without a lot of other guys in every draw and canyon. I also try to be mindful of keeping a healthy population of wildlife. I'm not a biologist and don't take census counts of wildlife on my ground, but I know where the wildlife hang on my place and have a pretty good sense of how the population is doing. And, I have to allow for some family, a few long-time friends, and people who contribute to the farm operation.
Lest I be accused of adopting only a landowner's perspective, I have to say there are a few local landowners who are plain horse's ***es in how they treat people who ask for permission to hunt. Those few usually bleed that attitude into other areas of their life, and don't have many friends amongst most landowers, IMHO. That's because, like some hunters, their reputation precedes them.
And, as a final point, I don't expect gifts from those who hunt my ground. Sure, we get some whisky and other goodies because many hunters want to express their appreciation, but that's not a requirement. For me, I appreciate seeing someone enjoying the experience.
Post by: Todd_ID on January 15, 2013, 11:42:36 AM
Thanks! :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on January 15, 2013, 01:32:07 PM
In the FWIW column-----purely my own opinions and rambling thoughts-----landowners, like hunters, talk to one another. Not surprisingly, guys with good reputations have better chances to secure permission to hunt than those who don't. As with a person's reputation in any walk of life, it takes time to build it, and only a moment in time to destroy it. And, of course, first impressions can make a difference.Thank you for the comments on building successful landowner relationships. There is a lot of wisdom in them.
I talk regularly with our local Columbia County landowners. We talk about encounters and experiences with hunters, where they are from, how many guys are in a pick-up, the color and kind of rig they drive, who looks to be the road hunters instead of real hunters, who was caught or suspected of trespassing, everyday kinds of things that stick out when you meet and hear about people.
And while permission is not always granted, a hunter's reputation built over time will usually increase their chances. Persistence in moderation helps----I turn down a lot of hunting requests based primarily on sheer numbers of those requests, and it's not easy for me to say "no". I'm mindful that it takes some courage to ask for permission, and of course, no one likes the uncomfortable moment when "no" is the word. It gets harder to say no with that courteous and persistent hunter who doesn't take initial rejection as the end of the line.
Every landowner has their own criteria for granting or denying permission. For me, I like to see guys get a quality hunt without a lot of other guys in every draw and canyon. I also try to be mindful of keeping a healthy population of wildlife. I'm not a biologist and don't take census counts of wildlife on my ground, but I know where the wildlife hang on my place and have a pretty good sense of how the population is doing. And, I have to allow for some family, a few long-time friends, and people who contribute to the farm operation.
And, as a final point, I don't expect gifts from those who hunt my ground. Sure, we get some whisky and other goodies because many hunters want to express their appreciation, but that's not a requirement. For me, I appreciate seeing someone enjoying the experience.
Post by: TheHunt on January 15, 2013, 01:48:02 PM
Wow, Wow, Wow....
After reading this I could see both sides.
The king here is the person who pays the taxes for the property.
The internet good, bad, and ugly provides a much more public view of individuals life events.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 15, 2013, 01:52:02 PM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 15, 2013, 03:25:45 PM
Post by: bullcanyon on January 15, 2013, 07:01:02 PM
Post by: WaHeadhunter on January 15, 2013, 08:23:11 PM
Quote
All I ever posted, was my EXPERIENCE with the guy. Just like a few other members posted thiers. Sorry I don't sugar coat things, and I tell it like it is. Welcome to the internet and hunt-wa.
I'm thinking one issue or point Mr Landowner was making was your blatant accusation regarding Mr Eaton being charge with felonies, that were dismissed by the prosecutor as well as you assertion that he was a crook. Those type of unfounded accusations are hardly related to your "EXPERIENCE".
But I could be wrong. :dunno:
Post by: huntnnw on January 15, 2013, 11:08:10 PM
Post by: bucklucky on January 15, 2013, 11:44:58 PM
Man I just love pissing matches. Sure makes me want to read through these threads :bash:
Post by: Todd_ID on January 16, 2013, 12:47:12 AM
Expressing personal experiences on both sides of the debate in the interest of sharing knowledge is certainly allowed. Many, many hunters have these same types of questions about these areas every year, myself included. This site is so interesting to us as hunters because we get to see glimpses of others' experiences and knowledge; when it gets to the point where the knowledge ends and the fighting begins is when the lock goes on. This likely should have been removed a couple of times already, but I think I made my point clear to a few in PM's, and this will either get back to informative or die away.
THIS THREAD WILL STAY ON THE TOPIC WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ATTACKS, RIGHT GUYS!?
Post by: BLUEBULLS on January 16, 2013, 06:46:33 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on January 16, 2013, 07:14:39 AM
Post by: ellensburgpo on January 16, 2013, 07:34:39 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a little tougher for a guy to get permission this next season after reading all of this. Maybe this is why more and more of the land in 162 is posted "no hunting" every year.
Ding ding ding winner :yeah:
Post by: jackelope on January 16, 2013, 08:42:35 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a little tougher for a guy to get permission this next season after reading all of this. Maybe this is why more and more of the land in 162 is posted "no hunting" every year.Yes, excellent point. We sit here watching folks bicker about private land access, bad mouth landowners, post their names and personal issues and then complain because landowners won't allow access. Huh...weird. This thread started out with good intentions, sorry it got trashed. I guess my input is if you don't have private land access don't apply for permits for areas that are comprised of mostly private land. Then you won't have private land access issues.