Post by: fireweed on August 05, 2013, 10:35:22 AM
From Eatonville Dispatch
http://www.dispatchnews.com/?p=2838 (http://www.dispatchnews.com/?p=2838)
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 05, 2013, 10:41:14 AM
Post by: snowpack on August 05, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
Post by: haulinbass on August 05, 2013, 10:55:25 AM
Post by: Goshawk on August 05, 2013, 07:51:51 PM
"The WDFW had no idea :yike: that hunters would object to paying for access to what was public lands."
Post by: bigtex on August 05, 2013, 08:01:36 PM
Allow me to translate this for you.
"The WDFW had no idea :yike: that hunters would object to paying for access to what was public lands."
The lands were never "public", they were private lands that were open to the public. Public lands are owned by the government, not a company.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 05, 2013, 08:12:27 PM
100% correct ..BUT do not these huge timber companies get huge Tax cuts from the government to share their lands for recreation ? The government needs to tax the living crap out of them for doing this ...pretty sad a guy can not even go on a walk with his dog because he does not have a permit ...I say :pee: on them :dunno:This is seriously a messed up deal !!!!!! :twocents:Allow me to translate this for you.
"The WDFW had no idea :yike: that hunters would object to paying for access to what was public lands."
The lands were never "public", they were private lands that were open to the public. Public lands are owned by the government, not a company.
Post by: fireweed on August 06, 2013, 08:45:34 AM
Allow me to translate this for you.
"The WDFW had no idea :yike: that hunters would object to paying for access to what was public lands."
The lands were never "public", they were private lands that were open to the public. Public lands are owned by the government, not a company.
But don't forget all the landlocked public lands now behind private gates and basically treated as private. Seems the landowner next to the public road gets to control everyone else. And its not just checkerboard, either. Here in the SW nearly ALL of our public lands are landlocked, including an entire 35,000 acre DNR forest and a 7,000 acre WDFW wildlife area.
Post by: Goshawk on August 06, 2013, 06:43:26 PM
Our own DNR continues to "swap out" public lands held close to population centers for lands held in the high elevations of North Eastern Washington where almost nobody can just drop by after work or school to enjoy.
Post by: Alan K on August 06, 2013, 06:50:25 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 06, 2013, 07:02:14 PM
Post by: Eli346 on August 06, 2013, 07:20:03 PM
Post by: Alan K on August 06, 2013, 07:28:58 PM
I'm thinking about carrying a box of road flares to toss across the gated lines. Screw em.
:yike:
I remember when rumors of the access permits were floating around thinking there might be a bunch of disgruntled hunters out there . . . Sounds like this fire season could be particularly bad, and not because of the weather! :yike: :bdid:
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 07, 2013, 06:46:14 AM
I'm thinking about carrying a box of road flares to toss across the gated lines. Screw em.
Really? Thinking about arson and posting it on the WWW? Brilliant. Best of luck in the future! :tup:
Post by: Curly on August 07, 2013, 08:21:05 AM
Yeah but it's only $30 to access DNR lands, and there's no limit to the number of permits they can sell. So, not quite the same. If Weyerhaeyser would sell access permits, for let's say $50 per vehicle, and no limit on the number sold, I think they'd bring in just as much money, and the average person could still afford to hunt on Weyerhaeuser.
:yeah:
I wish WEYCO and the others would allow access like IEP does in NE Wa. Just get a permit, what was it $40 or something, which allows you access to their lands. In getting the permit you read the timber company rules regarding carrying a shovel, fire extinguisher, etc. and you sign something saying you understand the rules........you then have a permit for a year at a reasonable price. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on August 07, 2013, 08:26:17 AM
I'm thinking about carrying a box of road flares to toss across the gated lines. Screw em.
Really? Thinking about arson and posting it on the WWW? Brilliant. Best of luck in the future! :tup:
:yeah:
:yike: :o :o
Better hope a suspicious fire doesn't start up.......they may come looking for you. :twocents: :o
Post by: Eli346 on August 07, 2013, 04:24:20 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 08, 2013, 07:12:06 AM
Wouldn't think of dropping a flare, just sarcasm and frustration. Lighten up.
It's not me you have to be concerned about lightening up. After your public post, if a suspicious fire starts in one of these tree farms, I'll be the least of your worries. Everything you post on the internet is there forever.
Post by: Bob33 on August 08, 2013, 07:16:55 AM
What kind of road?
:yike:
Post by: Axle on August 08, 2013, 07:29:14 AM
Quote
Yeah but it's only $30 to access DNR landsOnly $30.00? :yike: Be patient Bobcat, their foot is in the door :bdid:. Won't be long before it goes waaaaaay up from there :sry:
Post by: boneaddict on August 08, 2013, 07:34:16 AM
Post by: fireweed on August 08, 2013, 07:46:46 AM
"And what did you mean by landowners next to a pubic road controlling everybody else?"It means the one with the legal access (public road frontage) gets to control all the land behind them on the logging roads. We all know in Wash. state USFS owns the Mountains, DNR then might own the foot hills, and private owns the lowland next to the public roads. So if the lowland gates are shut, they can block all the land "behind" them (the public land). Where I live we have many thousands of acres of public lands blocked by private timber simply because of this--to get to the public land from a public road you must first go through a few miles of private. I DO blame the agencies for this. They had chances in the past to get easements, but were getting public access (then!) without easements for free, so they didn't bother. Now it is a big issue--for access, tourism, economic development, rural quality of life. Those landlocked public areas, no matter how large, are ineligible for most public funding like grants. So we pay in via taxes, but cant get funds for our public lands. I have no sympathy for landowners who think it is their "right" to control public land. Getting legal easements to landlocked public lands is the perfect use of eminent domain, especially for large parcels (1000's of acres) using existing roads. How could America or any country develop if roads to key areas couldn't pass through private lands?
What kind of road?
:yike:
Post by: Bob33 on August 08, 2013, 11:34:21 AM
Read the quoted sentence again, carefully. ;)"And what did you mean by landowners next to a pubic road controlling everybody else?"It means the one with the legal access (public road frontage) gets to control all the land behind them on the logging roads.
What kind of road?
:yike:
Post by: snowpack on August 08, 2013, 11:37:18 AM
I think they have those kinds of roads in Seattle.Read the quoted sentence again, carefully. ;)"And what did you mean by landowners next to a pubic road controlling everybody else?"It means the one with the legal access (public road frontage) gets to control all the land behind them on the logging roads.
What kind of road?
:yike:
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 08, 2013, 11:43:39 AM
Post by: headshot5 on August 08, 2013, 11:50:21 AM
Quote
if a section of public land is completely surrounded by private land, there has to be a way for the public to enter it. Can anyone address this?
Sure there is a way for the public to enter... Helicopter! :dunno:
Okay, I'm joking.
Post by: Curly on August 08, 2013, 11:54:03 AM
Quoteif a section of public land is completely surrounded by private land, there has to be a way for the public to enter it. Can anyone address this?
Sure there is a way for the public to enter... Helicopter! :dunno:
Okay, I'm joking.
You may be joking, but you are 100% correct.
Several years ago there was actually an ad in the WDFW hunting regs where a company was advertizing helicopter trips for hunters. It would have been the only way to access some of the state land in the Toutle; my brother actually thought about hiring them to fly him in when WEYCO had the gates shut and no access was allowed by foot to get to the landlocked state land. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on August 08, 2013, 12:16:04 PM
I thought that private land-locked public land had to be accessible through easement. :dunno: - if a section of public land is completely surrounded by private land, there has to be a way for the public to enter it. Can anyone address this?
No, there's nothing that says all public land is accessible by the public. There is a lot of state DNR land that does have easements through private land, but the problem is these easements are only for DNR employees or contractors who are working on the state land.
Same thing with National Forest. Lots of it has no legal access for the public.
Post by: JLS on August 08, 2013, 12:25:32 PM
I thought that private land-locked public land had to be accessible through easement. :dunno: - if a section of public land is completely surrounded by private land, there has to be a way for the public to enter it. Can anyone address this?
No, it can be completely unavailable to the public. The only exception is if a historic use easement existed.
This varies by state, but in WA there is no guarantee of legal public access.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 08, 2013, 12:29:04 PM
Post by: fireweed on August 08, 2013, 05:20:16 PM
For all you the Toutle and Margaret tag holders who get locked out of public land every fire season, yell at the Forest Service. USFS specifically passed on easements back in 1985 because (this is quoted from their plan) "The landowners have traditionally had an open access policy...If in the future public demands indicate a need for public access rights, the Forest Service will acquire those rights." These easements would open up the Toutle block DNR plus adjacent USFS. We've been demanding for years now, and the USFS is aware of the issue, but they haven't gotten serious...Surprise! (I'm a broken record... and don't just think I pick on timber co's for access. This landlocked situation is squarely the fault of agencies and they've all heard from me!Maybe if they got letters from more folks they would take it seriously. I was especially miffed that the DNR was asking you to have a DP once you got to their landlocked land.)
Post by: bigtex on August 09, 2013, 08:58:03 AM
And,
Our own DNR continues to "swap out" public lands held close to population centers for lands held in the high elevations of North Eastern Washington where almost nobody can just drop by after work or school to enjoy.
People need to remember DNR's #1 purpose is NOT providing public land access but rather profiting from timber sales
Post by: headshot5 on August 09, 2013, 09:05:23 AM
Quote
People need to remember DNR's #1 purpose is NOT providing public land access but rather profiting from timber sales
:yeah:
Post by: grundy53 on August 09, 2013, 09:08:02 AM
Exactly!"And what did you mean by landowners next to a pubic road controlling everybody else?"It means the one with the legal access (public road frontage) gets to control all the land behind them on the logging roads. We all know in Wash. state USFS owns the Mountains, DNR then might own the foot hills, and private owns the lowland next to the public roads. So if the lowland gates are shut, they can block all the land "behind" them (the public land). Where I live we have many thousands of acres of public lands blocked by private timber simply because of this--to get to the public land from a public road you must first go through a few miles of private. I DO blame the agencies for this. They had chances in the past to get easements, but were getting public access (then!) without easements for free, so they didn't bother. Now it is a big issue--for access, tourism, economic development, rural quality of life. Those landlocked public areas, no matter how large, are ineligible for most public funding like grants. So we pay in via taxes, but cant get funds for our public lands. I have no sympathy for landowners who think it is their "right" to control public land. Getting legal easements to landlocked public lands is the perfect use of eminent domain, especially for large parcels (1000's of acres) using existing roads. How could America or any country develop if roads to key areas couldn't pass through private lands?
What kind of road?
:yike:
I don't know of any land owners that think it is their "right" to control public lands. It is not their fault the agencies were dumb enough to end up with these situations. If I had landlocked public land behind mine I sure as heck wouldn't keep an open road to it that I had to maintain and clean up garbage on, not to mention dealing with vandalism that inevitably goes along with it. Meanwhile sitting back waiting for a guy to run off the road and sue me because he claims a pothole or something was the cause.
"Getting legal easements to landlocked public lands is the perfect use of eminent domain" I think you are spot on here! But I don't see how you can villainize the landowners because this is not happening :bash: I think it is pretty clear by now that the government agencies don't care to much about us. My bet is the only thing stopping them from purchasing easement's is that they don't want to pay for them and maintain the roads. They are doing a piss poor job of maintaining the roads they already do have in my area.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on August 09, 2013, 09:09:49 AM
:yeah:And,
Our own DNR continues to "swap out" public lands held close to population centers for lands held in the high elevations of North Eastern Washington where almost nobody can just drop by after work or school to enjoy.
People need to remember DNR's #1 purpose is NOT providing public land access but rather profiting from timber sales
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Goshawk on August 11, 2013, 08:51:06 PM
And,
Our own DNR continues to "swap out" public lands held close to population centers for lands held in the high elevations of North Eastern Washington where almost nobody can just drop by after work or school to enjoy.
People need to remember DNR's #1 purpose is NOT providing public land access but rather profiting from timber sales
Well then, I think they really screwed that up big time. Some of the land swaps I've seen are loosing lowland forests for high elevation forests that have a much slower rate of regrowth. Now toss in the outright land sales and your just loosing ground all around.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on August 11, 2013, 09:11:16 PM
Wouldn't think of dropping a flare, just sarcasm and frustration. Lighten up.
It's not me you have to be concerned about lightening up. After your public post, if a suspicious fire starts in one of these tree farms, I'll be the least of your worries. Everything you post on the internet is there forever.
My property borders Vail. Everything I own is here including a 150 years of family history and heirlooms.
Think about it
Post by: Coastal_native on August 11, 2013, 10:38:01 PM
And,
Our own DNR continues to "swap out" public lands held close to population centers for lands held in the high elevations of North Eastern Washington where almost nobody can just drop by after work or school to enjoy.
People need to remember DNR's #1 purpose is NOT providing public land access but rather profiting from timber sales
Interesting...I wonder if they know that. They're currently cutting 1/3 of what would be considered sustainable...meanwhile the state is broke and people have to pay for access.
Post by: snowpack on August 11, 2013, 10:48:27 PM
I think that DNR gets hamstrung by the greenies/laws so much more than the private farms (but not nearly as much as USFS) that they can't really capitalize on the timber.And,
Our own DNR continues to "swap out" public lands held close to population centers for lands held in the high elevations of North Eastern Washington where almost nobody can just drop by after work or school to enjoy.
People need to remember DNR's #1 purpose is NOT providing public land access but rather profiting from timber sales
Interesting...I wonder if they know that. They're currently cutting 1/3 of what would be considered sustainable...meanwhile the state is broke and people have to pay for access.
Post by: bobcat on August 12, 2013, 02:48:11 AM
Post by: KFhunter on August 12, 2013, 03:05:03 AM
I really don't see a lot of difference from Silverwood charging to get through their gates vs weyco to get through their gates etc.
Post by: RadSav on August 12, 2013, 03:29:36 AM
Timber companies own twice as many acres as those covered by the DPass. I expect because of the pass they are seeing an increase in sportsmen using their land. And they are seeing no monetary benefit to the increased use, wear and vandalism. I'd bet if the state wanted to keep private timber lands open to the public they could simply offer to expand the DPass program. But then again that sounds like a simple solution. And we all know government hates anything that might be simple!
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 12, 2013, 05:45:18 AM
Post by: TheHunt on August 12, 2013, 08:25:34 AM
Post by: templar021 on August 23, 2013, 11:15:51 AM
no...public lands are owned by us. They are only managed by the government.
Post by: headshot5 on August 23, 2013, 11:19:13 AM
Quote
Quote"Public lands are owned by the government, not a company"no...public lands are owned by us. They are only managed by the government.
Fixed that last statement for you... :tup:
no...public lands are owned by us. They are only mis-managed by the government.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 23, 2013, 11:33:06 AM
Get a group for hunting. Hire a helicopter to drop you in the State property that is land locked. Not sure what the payment would look like but not sure it would be too much split between three or four people.
Just have to wait till the next day before hunting, but that would work... :tup: