Post by: AspenBud on June 20, 2014, 09:37:46 AM
So I thought I would ask a different question today. On Monday, Weyerhaeuser will start selling "recreational" permits that will allow people access to their land on the St Helens Tree farm between August and January. This is not the only area that they do this on and they are not the only timber company in the state to do this either and I have a gut feeling we can expect this trend to expand to other parts of the state as well. Looking at this logically, one can only conclude that this will effectively create wildlife sanctuaries in the months that people, particularly hunters, don't have access to the land and given the limited number of permits hunting pressure may well be lighter in those areas than it has historically been. On one hand I could see this as being beneficial since you'd inevitably have spillover of game animals into public lands. But as cougar populations grow, not to mention bear, and in particular wolves I could see another kind of spillover in the form of predators being a problem.
If what I think I see coming down the road comes to pass, how do we manage that? Further, if predator numbers actually increase in those areas as they become safe zones, what's to prevent most private timber land from becoming game animal deserts and further, wouldn't that actually be harmful to game on public land even if predators are held in check there? Just thinking out loud here. But my reference to lake states and wolf hunting there got me thinking, if you look at a state like Michigan for example, they have the most publicly owned timber land in the lower 48, their DNR can manage predators if they want and do it well because they have control over vast swaths of public land. But here in Washington we have huge tracts of privately owned timber and other than creating seasons the state can't do a lot about hunter access and predator management on those lands can they? :dunno:
Post by: timberfaller on June 20, 2014, 10:05:51 PM
Just my :twocents: but our government, state and Federal, DON'T like the term "private property" now days!
They can only ask and bribe at the moment, but down deep they want "control" over everything.
Actions speak louder then words.
Post by: Humptulips on June 20, 2014, 10:54:07 PM
Look at it, cougar quotas ridiculously small and little chance to fill them anyway without hounds. Can't bait or hound bear so very unlikely to keep the bear population under control anywhere. The one place where there is a chance to get the bear numbers down is when timber companies get depredation permits and they can use hounds or snares.
We can't trap coyotes and it is illegal to kill a wolf so tell me how WDFW is supposed to control predators?
Post by: AspenBud on June 21, 2014, 06:28:46 AM
Would be a good question if this state actually did something to manage predators which it does not.
Look at it, cougar quotas ridiculously small and little chance to fill them anyway without hounds. Can't bait or hound bear so very unlikely to keep the bear population under control anywhere. The one place where there is a chance to get the bear numbers down is when timber companies get depredation permits and they can use hounds or snares.
We can't trap coyotes and it is illegal to kill a wolf so tell me how WDFW is supposed to control predators?
So you would agree then that what's happening on private timber lands will lead to a major headache for the state if it ever gets its act together on predators?
Post by: timberfaller on June 21, 2014, 10:37:50 AM
My years on a irrigation ditch board in the Methow proved that to me! In the WHOLE water war days NOT ONE agency wanted to talk, let alone deal with "Predation" issues. IT was ALL, the water users FAULT :bash:
Post by: grundy53 on June 21, 2014, 10:44:00 AM
sent from my typewriter