Hunting Washington Forum
Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: idahohuntr on May 13, 2014, 05:09:02 PM
-
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3182965/fg-could-allow-sale-of-landowner.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3182965/fg-could-allow-sale-of-landowner.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1)
The continued commercialization of public resources... :bash: :bash: Award the landowner tags in exchange for public access or habitat improvements...but lets not continue to sell our public resources to the highest bidder. :twocents:
-
Maybe there are benefits to the public?
The number of tags allocated to each landowner would be directly tied to the amount of habitat for deer, elk or pronghorn provided by the landowner, F&G officials said.
Additional tags would be issued to landowners who sign agreements for allowing hunter access and participating in habitat improvement and depredation management.
In the past, landowners had to provide public access to their lands in exchange for LAP tags, but that stipulation was dropped at the request of landowners.
Also under the new proposal, F&G is considering limiting where certain recipients of the LAP tags can hunt. Currently any recipient can use the tags in any part of a hunt area in which a landowner has drawn an LAP tag. Direct family members and employees of the landowner would continue to have that opportunity.
But hunters who purchase LAP tags from landowners and are not related to or employed by the landowner would be limited to private land within the hunt area, according to the proposal.
-
Do I understand this right ? If you are related or work for the landowner you can hunt the whole unit that is open ? And if you purchase a tag from the landowner who grew it and your not employed or related you can only hunt his land only ? Either way its just another thing revolving around money ...what a freakin shame ...just hard for me to support sheeeet like this ... :dunno:
-
I don't like either
-
Basically it sounds like CWMU system. Landowner (or combination of landowners) must have a certain amount of acreage to qualify and then they are authorized to issue (sell) a specified amount of permits, but make a few available to the general public. (I think the most any unit in Utah makes available is 2). The season for them is extended,usually at least 2 months for deer and elk, but the public permit holders can only hunt on certain days specified by the landowner. The effect there has been to take large chunks of ground that used to be accessible and turn them into private hunting units. Can't blame the landowners, it's proven to be very lucrative to many large landowners. The extended season allows them to accommodate several paying customers without crowding them into the shorter general hunting season. Hate to see it happen in Washington, but I think it's just a matter of time.
-
Washington already has a landowner program, it's in the hunting regulations. :dunno:
In Utah CWMU operators must give up at least 10% of tags to the public, in some cases the percentage is as high as 25% or more to the public. To keep the conversation factual, here are some of the available public permit numbers for deer, elk, and antelope. Many of these lands were not previously open to the public.
On the CWMU that I operate, I allow the public hunters to hunt almost anytime they want, I work the other hunters around the public hunters, we take very good care of the public hunters.
-
I know there some very fair CWMU units, but I'm more familiar with some of the southern units which used to allow hunting on a trespass fee basis. Wasn't the best system, but beat the heck out of the 2 permits now allowed. I honestly believe you are the exception if you work around the public permits, I'm sure you are familiar with some of the units that are very restrictive with their public permits. Many of the areas we openly hunted when I was growing up there are now CWMU units, guess it just makes me miss "the good olé days" because I really don't blame many of the landowners (mostly livestock operations) that try to scratch out a living in some tough country. Curious what unit you control, not many places in that state I haven't hunted something.
-
Im not opposed to landowner tag programs...if you own large tracts of ground in a limited hunt unit and you provide habitat/access etc. I think its fair. If you own land and want to charge a trespass fee...thats your choice. I do not believe these private landowners should be given tags they can turn around and sell...pretty much anything that takes the publics wildlife and reserves it for the wealthy and priveleged is a sharp turn from the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and I'm just not interested in seeing us go the route of some european system.
I definitely do not want Idaho to go anywhere close to what Utah does...that state is a disgrace when it comes to how they allocate tags and how SFW fleeces the sportsmen of that state with the wildlife expo tags they raffle :bash:
-
Geeze - don't get me started on the expo tags in that state-seems like the last I heard it was over 200 they donate - doesn't take much investigation to see what a scam that whole deal is. The state is a classic example of how big game hunting is slowly turning into a rich mans sport.
-
with the expo tags if you can attend the expo and purchase some of the raffle tickets you have far better odds in some of the raffles than the drawings itself...do I like that it revolves around money?..nope!
-
I have to agree with idahohunter on this one. Its a bad turn away from the way it was and going to an elitist/money thing. Unfortunately that is the way things are going. Most of the ranches I hunted in eastern Montana for free are all leased up now. Dont blame the rancher and glad they have another way to make money but still depressing.
-
I know there some very fair CWMU units, but I'm more familiar with some of the southern units which used to allow hunting on a trespass fee basis. Wasn't the best system, but beat the heck out of the 2 permits now allowed. I honestly believe you are the exception if you work around the public permits, I'm sure you are familiar with some of the units that are very restrictive with their public permits. Many of the areas we openly hunted when I was growing up there are now CWMU units, guess it just makes me miss "the good olé days" because I really don't blame many of the landowners (mostly livestock operations) that try to scratch out a living in some tough country. Curious what unit you control, not many places in that state I haven't hunted something.
I know that some CWMU's were not as fair with public tags, the association and state is working to eliminate that problem. I'm up in the northwest near Grouse Creek. Sort of like any group of people, there are the good and bad.
I have to agree with idahohunter on this one. Its a bad turn away from the way it was and going to an elitist/money thing. Unfortunately that is the way things are going. Most of the ranches I hunted in eastern Montana for free are all leased up now. Dont blame the rancher and glad they have another way to make money but still depressing.
I'm not sure what the answer is specifically to keep private lands open for free hunting access and to keep the overall cost of hunting affordable, that is a big problem. Most state agencies do have programs for purchasing free access for sportsmen (ID-WA-MT and probably others), of course that is being paid with sports dollars so hunters still pay. I do know that we are lucky in the west to have so much public land available to hunt. Folks in places like TX are not so lucky that way. One huge suggestion I have is that we encourage the managing agencies to do a better job of managing our public lands to support wildlife, including game animals. :twocents:
-
https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/webform/negotiated-rulemaking-landowner-appreciation-program-version-2 (https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/webform/negotiated-rulemaking-landowner-appreciation-program-version-2)
Above is the link to comment on Idaho's new LAP proposal.
Below is the link to the proposed changes:
http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/negotiatedRules/LAPproposalVersion2.pdf (http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/negotiatedRules/LAPproposalVersion2.pdf)
-
I guess I shot first and asked questions later on this one. This proposal (now that I have actually read it!) makes sense in a few ways. I really like the idea of using the tags as an incentive to at least try and get access to some landlocked public land. Access to these areas usually already involves paying a trespass fee or there is no access. Tags sold dont provide access to the entire unit etc. And the whole thing is basically about improving habitat that will benefit game that ends up on publice ground too.Just hate to see hunting keep moving towards revolving around money more and more. So still a little mixed on allowing the sale of the tags but might open up more land to the program. Totally agree Bearpaw huge step in keeping hunting open and affordable for the average family is managing already open public lands to maximize game and opportunity. Read somewhere that Idaho panhandle is already 2/3 public land so a lot of opportunity for the average guy if its managed right. We are lucky to have a lot of public ground out here.
-
Not a huge fan of landowner's selling tags. What I would propose is that in exchange for the landowner's giving permission for people to hunt their land, they would get a set amount of money per tag which is decided upon by the game department. This would take out the chance of it just going to the highest bidder and becoming a "rich man's game" Maybe then the hunters could either put in for a draw to get one of the tags or maybe bid on them up to a set price and then it becomes a draw. Very rough concept but with some tweaks, I think it would be good for both parties and help alleviate the movement towards just who has the most money. Heck, maybe just give the landowner a set dollar amount per tag allocated then auction them off and all the money over what was paid to the landowner would go towards habitat management.
-
While a lot of the talk revolves around previous "closed" ground being opened to limited public access, you don't see much talk about previously open ground that now has converted to CWMU units. There are nearly 125 units in Utah covering over 2,000,000 acres of ground. It would probably take a lot of research to find out the ratio, but I suspect it's tilted pretty heavily towards loss of open ground. If you are a landowner who was selling 100 trespass permits for, say, $50.00 and found out you could offer 2 public permits and sell the other 8 permits for $5000.00, what would you do? Less hassle, more money. The American way. I don't blame a landowner for doing something I would do under the same circumstances, but as a general, run of the mill hunter I don't like the system. Not sure how you could tweak it, but I know the landowners love the system and you'd be hard put to get them to change at this point.
