Post by: jbeaumont21 on February 09, 2014, 11:06:06 PM
Just curious if anyone else has heard anything about this? Does this even make sense? Do you think this is good, bad, indifferent? I haven't been able to find anything online to back this claim. I heard the rumor from someone who works as a consultant to the timber companies.
I also heard that Oregon did this years back and it has worked well for them. Here is a link to what I can find out abut the liability laws in WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210)
Post by: bigtex on February 10, 2014, 08:58:15 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on February 10, 2014, 09:03:36 PM
Post by: jbeaumont21 on February 10, 2014, 09:06:10 PM
Kind of old news...Already a thread on this
Sorry didn't know there was already a thread on this. I did a search and was unable to find anything. Does anyone care to share the link?
Post by: duckmen1 on February 10, 2014, 09:07:18 PM
Post by: jbeaumont21 on February 10, 2014, 09:10:00 PM
I think they shouldn't be aloud to charge more than 100. They want animals off the property because of timber damage but they make access difficult for a minimal wage guy to hunt.
I agree. I heard that weyco was planning to charge upwards of $500 bucks for a permit next year.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on February 10, 2014, 09:10:28 PM
Post by: fireweed on February 11, 2014, 08:19:39 PM
I heard a rumor that a couple of our Washington Senators who have a history of hunting on weyco land are trying to pass a bill that would limit the amount of money that private land owners (weyco) can charge for access to their land to $100 bucks. In return private land owners will be able to eliminate the liability protection which they currently have to pay because of charging access to their land and is supposedly very expensive for them.
Just curious if anyone else has heard anything about this? Does this even make sense? Do you think this is good, bad, indifferent? I haven't been able to find anything online to back this claim. I heard the rumor from someone who works as a consultant to the timber companies.
I also heard that Oregon did this years back and it has worked well for them. Here is a link to what I can find out abut the liability laws in WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210)
These two bills are along those lines.....
HB 2150 HB2243
Post by: Hunterman on February 11, 2014, 08:30:38 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: duckmen1 on February 14, 2014, 02:54:15 PM
Its their property, they should be able to charge what they want. After all we didn't do anything to stop all the damage that was caused for all the years it was free.
Hunterman(Tony)
My thoughts on this is take away all contract hunters for timberlands and make them follow regular state hunting regulations. They don't want us in there and we don't want excess animals shot from a group of contract killers. It can go both ways. And they will have excess loss of money from tree damage.
This is just a thought on a subject. Not an attack to you
Post by: Curly on February 14, 2014, 03:44:30 PM
Kind of old news...Already a thread on this
Sorry didn't know there was already a thread on this. I did a search and was unable to find anything. Does anyone care to share the link?
Link (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,144525.msg1927308.html#msg1927308)