Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 09:29:10 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/03/mar20_2015_07_summary.pdf
2 branch antlered bull permits, 2 late mule deer buck permits, 2 late whitetail buck permits and 10 antlerless elk tags per year to Bennett Lumber that come directly out of our permit quota.
Curious to hear what you guys think of this.
Post by: Woodchuck on October 08, 2015, 09:39:17 AM
Post by: kirkl on October 08, 2015, 09:54:36 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on October 08, 2015, 10:01:05 AM
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 10:05:58 AM
In this case that is very true. One person I know that spoke to the land manager was told that all those permits were already given to employees and family of Bennett Lumber.
I had a friend call them several weeks ago about acquiring a permit and was asked by the Bennett contact "how did you find out about these?"
And for the record, it's BS! The state should control the tags through a 1 ticket per Wild ID raffle.
Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 10:07:46 AM
In this case that is very true. One person I know that spoke to the land manager was told that all those permits were already given to employees and family of Bennett Lumber.
I had a friend call them several weeks ago about acquiring a permit and was asked by the Bennett contact "how did you find out about these?"
:yike:
Post by: Bob33 on October 08, 2015, 10:09:50 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on October 08, 2015, 10:13:01 AM
Agree'd. The general hunting populous should not lose quality oppurtunities to a single private entity that has no intention of allowing any access to said populous.In this case that is very true. One person I know that spoke to the land manager was told that all those permits were already given to employees and family of Bennett Lumber.
I had a friend call them several weeks ago about acquiring a permit and was asked by the Bennett contact "how did you find out about these?"
And for the record, it's BS! The state should control the tags through a 1 ticket per Wild ID raffle.
Post by: Bob33 on October 08, 2015, 10:18:49 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/contact.html
In a presentation made by Brian Calkins which is referenced below, Bennett Lumber has been given multiple tags for deer and elk.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_08_presentation.pdf
It is my understanding that these tags reduce the number of tags available to the general public via permit drawings.
I have received confirmation from several hunters who have contacted Bennett Lumber that they give their LHP permits to family members and employees only, and none to the general public.
What is the justification for this practice? What are general hunters receiving in return for the loss of special permits?
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 10:21:09 AM
Send you comments to the commission. I just did.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/contact.html
In a presentation made by Brian Calkins which is referenced below, Bennett Lumber has been given multiple tags for deer and elk.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_08_presentation.pdf
It is my understanding that these tags reduce the number of tags available to the general public via permit drawings.
I have received confirmation from several hunters who have contacted Bennett Lumber that they give their LHP permits to family members and employees only, and none to the general public.
What is the justification for this practice? What are general hunters receiving in return for the loss of special permits?
:tup:
Post by: 7mmfan on October 08, 2015, 10:29:37 AM
Post by: emac on October 08, 2015, 10:39:30 AM
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: Woodchuck on October 08, 2015, 10:48:22 AM
I might be misreading this, but doesn't it state that the company is putting more land into huntable access in exchange for additional special permits?Yes, that is supposed to be the idea. However most of Bennett's land is "hunt by reservation". The problem is that from what I understand the average person will not be getting a reservation.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 08, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
This is from p. 2 of the .pdf proposal.
Post by: runamuk on October 08, 2015, 10:58:15 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on October 08, 2015, 11:01:20 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 11:04:22 AM
I might be misreading this, but doesn't it state that the company is putting more land into huntable access in exchange for additional special permits?Yes, that is supposed to be the idea. However most of Bennett's land is "hunt by reservation". The problem is that from what I understand the average person will not be getting a reservation.
Not sure of all the details, but at least some of their land is already open to public hunting via feel free to hunt or the reservation system.
Post by: Woodchuck on October 08, 2015, 11:18:33 AM
Hmmmmmmm. I wonder where that is.I might be misreading this, but doesn't it state that the company is putting more land into huntable access in exchange for additional special permits?Yes, that is supposed to be the idea. However most of Bennett's land is "hunt by reservation". The problem is that from what I understand the average person will not be getting a reservation.
Not sure of all the details, but at least some of their land is already open to public hunting via feel free to hunt or the reservation system.
Post by: BA Mongor on October 08, 2015, 11:19:32 AM
They can do whatever they want, whenever they want !
They do it with our fisheries and our wildlife.
We can't vote on it and our opinion means nothing to them !
It's so corrupt and embedded with policy, that nothing's going to change, until people with common sense our in positions of power. But that would mean we would need individuals who won't bow down to corporate greed !!
Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 11:38:43 AM
Hmmmmmmm. I wonder where that is.I might be misreading this, but doesn't it state that the company is putting more land into huntable access in exchange for additional special permits?Yes, that is supposed to be the idea. However most of Bennett's land is "hunt by reservation". The problem is that from what I understand the average person will not be getting a reservation.
Not sure of all the details, but at least some of their land is already open to public hunting via feel free to hunt or the reservation system.
#591 in the Peola GMU is open to hunt by reservation but what can be reserved at this point is all booked.
Some more dates are available to reserve after the 25th I think.
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 11:40:54 AM
If Bennett is only offering access to employees and friends and family of employees,
Those are not the only people getting access, why do you think there are two of each?
Let's discuss this possibility. Auction (AKA Governor Tags) go for tens of thousands of dollars, and on top of that, those with the means to buy a auction tag also need to pay for "access" or a trespass fee to places like Bennett if they see "the bull" they are after on their land.
What this new "permit" does is open up the same tag/trespass fee combo to the highest bidder, but likely with limited season dates, but let's face it, if you have the only tag and are the only one with access, then how much time do you really need?
There is no way Bennett gives these tags out to the average joe public random phone caller.
Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 11:48:19 AM
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 11:53:53 AM
All of a sudden you've got a guy buying the Auction tag, the raffle tag and the Bennett tag. He kills 3 big bulls in the same gmu in a year while the rest of us wait 20 years to draw a permit.
Exactly!
While I understand the frustration the family must be feeling, not being able to hunt their own land and having to draw tags like the rest of us, this is a complete sham. Bennett gets tax breaks by "allowing access" and gets a huge bonus on the backside being able to "sell" one of the permits, while not really giving access..........BS!
My guess is the cow tags will go to "Joe Public" just to make it look legit, but you will never see one of those bull tags go to anyone other than "connected" individuals.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 08, 2015, 12:05:01 PM
If Bennett is only offering access to employees and friends and family of employees,
Those are not the only people getting access, why do you think there are two of each?
Let's discuss this possibility. Auction (AKA Governor Tags) go for tens of thousands of dollars, and on top of that, those with the means to buy a auction tag also need to pay for "access" or a trespass fee to places like Bennett if they see "the bull" they are after on their land.
What this new "permit" does is open up the same tag/trespass fee combo to the highest bidder, but likely with limited season dates, but let's face it, if you have the only tag and are the only one with access, then how much time do you really need?
There is no way Bennett gives these tags out to the average joe public random phone caller.
I admittedly do not know the full extent of the lands, the "public" access being granted, or the land owner profit motive in partaking in the "hunt by reservation only" part of the Private Lands Access Program.
It seems a bit unseemly IF 1) these tag grants (a public resource) are being granted to promote public access and 2) there is little to no real public "access" or benefit being received, whether it be due to onerous access fees, landowner favoritism, or the economics dictating that proceeds of the "highest bidder" don't go back to WDFW and the hunting public to promote the public resource.
OP kind of makes that point. After reading the proposal, I would be disappointed to learn that the supposed "nothing for something" trade is exactly what this situation is about.
After reading your latest, it appears we are on the same page, but I'll let my comment stand.
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 12:08:49 PM
If Bennett is only offering access to employees and friends and family of employees,
Those are not the only people getting access, why do you think there are two of each?
Let's discuss this possibility. Auction (AKA Governor Tags) go for tens of thousands of dollars, and on top of that, those with the means to buy a auction tag also need to pay for "access" or a trespass fee to places like Bennett if they see "the bull" they are after on their land.
What this new "permit" does is open up the same tag/trespass fee combo to the highest bidder, but likely with limited season dates, but let's face it, if you have the only tag and are the only one with access, then how much time do you really need?
There is no way Bennett gives these tags out to the average joe public random phone caller.
I admittedly do not know the full extent of the lands, the "public" access being granted, or the land owner profit motive in partaking in the "hunt by reservation only" part of the Private Lands Access Program.
It seems a bit unseemly IF 1) these tag grants (a public resource) are being granted to promote public access and 2) there is little to no real public "access" or benefit being received, whether it be due to onerous access fees, landowner favoritism, or the economics dictating that proceeds of the "highest bidder" don't go back to WDFW and the hunting public to promote the public resource.
OP kind of makes that point. After reading the proposal, I would be disappointed to learn that the supposed "nothing for something" trade is exactly what this situation is about.
After reading your latest, it appears we are on the same page, but I'll let my comment stand.
I used your quote to point out the family/friends comment and lead into the other scenario, we are indeed on the same page. ;)
Post by: TheHunt on October 08, 2015, 12:11:40 PM
Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.
Post by: Woodchuck on October 08, 2015, 12:23:02 PM
Just to muddy the waters...Right but they actually allow access. Try calling Bennett and asking what access during a general season costs and when you can get in.
Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.
Post by: rosscrazyelk on October 08, 2015, 12:27:08 PM
No way they should be Givin any extra state tags... put the tags in the general hunt and let the public have access. If they want to keep it to themselves they have to draw just like the rest of us.
Everyone on this forum should call wdfw and let them have it...
Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 12:29:54 PM
Just to muddy the waters...Right but they actually allow access. Try calling Bennett and asking what access during a general season costs and when you can get in.
Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.
FWIW they do allow access on some of their land. FFTH and reservation system. I only specifically know of 1 piece in the 178 GMU and I think it's 706 acres?
Post by: JLS on October 08, 2015, 12:50:58 PM
I have been told by a few folks that have contacted Bennett Lumber about access that they were basically told "there would be no access granted to the general public"
Not true. They are enrolling land into the Hunt By Reservation program.
Post by: JLS on October 08, 2015, 12:51:54 PM
Reservation only hunts are a joke. All they do is let their family and friends hunt.
Reservations are done online. I've used this program quite a bit over the last couple of years with only two bad experiences. Both were remedied by WDFW.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 08, 2015, 12:52:58 PM
Quote
Bennett Lumber LHP proposal:1st pdf.
• Multiple Parcels
• 9,835 Acres
• Landowner permits: 6 buck, 2 bull, 10 cow
(1 bull in following years)
FWIW, this is the areas under discussion.
Quote
The Bennett Lumber property is located in Asotin, Columbia,2nd pdf.
Garfield, and Walla Walla counties (GMUs 154, 162, 166, 172, and 178)
Post by: coachcw on October 08, 2015, 01:00:07 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 01:11:08 PM
Is that 706 acres the FFTH, and is it the extent of the FFTH? How do other landowners compare?QuoteBennett Lumber LHP proposal:1st pdf.
• Multiple Parcels
• 9,835 Acres
• Landowner permits: 6 buck, 2 bull, 10 cow
(1 bull in following years)
FWIW, this is the areas under discussion.QuoteThe Bennett Lumber property is located in Asotin, Columbia,2nd pdf.
Garfield, and Walla Walla counties (GMUs 154, 162, 166, 172, and 178)
The 706 acre piece I was referring to is hunt by reservation land. It's #591 in the pic. The big chunk in the pic, 481, is hunt by written permission land.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F08%2F5f43cc9a697380e9d443b5345d3cc9eb.jpg&hash=c9cb0ea071fdc9b622f47e6f7bff1c9c4b3c3ba3)
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 08, 2015, 02:05:29 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on October 08, 2015, 02:14:49 PM
Post by: rosscrazyelk on October 08, 2015, 02:22:12 PM
As I have told you before Josh.. I believe this is absolutely Bull S#%£.
No way they should be Givin any extra state tags... put the tags in the general hunt and let the public have access. If they want to keep it to themselves they have to draw just like the rest of us.
Everyone on this forum should call wdfw and let them have it...
Do you think that the forest company/land owner shouldn't be given any incentive to enroll his land into the hunt programs? Why would any do it if there was no incentive for them? No matter how big or small a company they have to pay a person to answer a phone and manage the program. It would be far easier and cheaper to simply shut the gates and hunt behind them with their own land owner permits or go the way of Weyerhauser and lease it out to a few people that are easier to supervise.
If the state is gonna give them tags it should not count against our quota
Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 02:56:43 PM
Post by: kirkl on October 08, 2015, 03:06:16 PM
Post by: Bob33 on October 08, 2015, 03:16:43 PM
Special permit area for branch antlered Bulls and late deer tags.The Dayton GMU has approximately 20 to 25 special branch antlered bull permits available per year. A loss of two would be around 8% to 10%.
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 03:22:31 PM
To the best of my knowledge elk and deer tags are sold over the counter and unless I missed something they haven't ever sold out. Is this a special hunt draw area? Is there something other than the fact it is private land that makes tags harder to get for these GMUs?As I have told you before Josh.. I believe this is absolutely Bull S#%£.
No way they should be Givin any extra state tags... put the tags in the general hunt and let the public have access. If they want to keep it to themselves they have to draw just like the rest of us.
Everyone on this forum should call wdfw and let them have it...
Do you think that the forest company/land owner shouldn't be given any incentive to enroll his land into the hunt programs? Why would any do it if there was no incentive for them? No matter how big or small a company they have to pay a person to answer a phone and manage the program. It would be far easier and cheaper to simply shut the gates and hunt behind them with their own land owner permits or go the way of Weyerhauser and lease it out to a few people that are easier to supervise.
If the state is gonna give them tags it should not count against our quota
You really need to do some research! :twocents:
Post by: kirkl on October 08, 2015, 03:25:22 PM
To the best of my knowledge elk and deer tags are sold over the counter and unless I missed something they haven't ever sold out. Is this a special hunt draw area? Is there something other than the fact it is private land that makes tags harder to get for these GMUs?As I have told you before Josh.. I believe this is absolutely Bull S#%£.
No way they should be Givin any extra state tags... put the tags in the general hunt and let the public have access. If they want to keep it to themselves they have to draw just like the rest of us.
Everyone on this forum should call wdfw and let them have it...
Do you think that the forest company/land owner shouldn't be given any incentive to enroll his land into the hunt programs? Why would any do it if there was no incentive for them? No matter how big or small a company they have to pay a person to answer a phone and manage the program. It would be far easier and cheaper to simply shut the gates and hunt behind them with their own land owner permits or go the way of Weyerhauser and lease it out to a few people that are easier to supervise.
If the state is gonna give them tags it should not count against our quota
You really need to do some research! :twocents:
lol, yes, hes arguing and doesnt know what he is talking about.
Post by: ipkus on October 08, 2015, 03:36:26 PM
Special permit area for branch antlered Bulls and late deer tags.The Dayton GMU has approximately 20 to 25 special branch antlered bull permits available per year. A loss of two would be around 8% to 10%.
Not to mention when they carved special unit 1010 out of the Dayton unit a few years ago and took a chunk of Dayton permits for it. Now this.
Ridiculous.
Post by: Bob33 on October 08, 2015, 03:41:56 PM
I go down to the Big 5 every year and buy my over-the-counter Dayton bull permit. A few years back, I decided to try something new and bought a Colockum OTC bull permit and shot a 380 bull. I don't know the problem is.To the best of my knowledge elk and deer tags are sold over the counter and unless I missed something they haven't ever sold out. Is this a special hunt draw area? Is there something other than the fact it is private land that makes tags harder to get for these GMUs?As I have told you before Josh.. I believe this is absolutely Bull S#%£.
No way they should be Givin any extra state tags... put the tags in the general hunt and let the public have access. If they want to keep it to themselves they have to draw just like the rest of us.
Everyone on this forum should call wdfw and let them have it...
Do you think that the forest company/land owner shouldn't be given any incentive to enroll his land into the hunt programs? Why would any do it if there was no incentive for them? No matter how big or small a company they have to pay a person to answer a phone and manage the program. It would be far easier and cheaper to simply shut the gates and hunt behind them with their own land owner permits or go the way of Weyerhauser and lease it out to a few people that are easier to supervise.
If the state is gonna give them tags it should not count against our quota
You really need to do some research! :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 03:44:49 PM
I go down to the Big 5 every year and buy my over-the-counter Dayton bull permit. A few years back, I decided to try something new and bought a Colockum OTC bull permit and shot a 380 bull. I don't know the problem is.To the best of my knowledge elk and deer tags are sold over the counter and unless I missed something they haven't ever sold out. Is this a special hunt draw area? Is there something other than the fact it is private land that makes tags harder to get for these GMUs?As I have told you before Josh.. I believe this is absolutely Bull S#%£.
No way they should be Givin any extra state tags... put the tags in the general hunt and let the public have access. If they want to keep it to themselves they have to draw just like the rest of us.
Everyone on this forum should call wdfw and let them have it...
Do you think that the forest company/land owner shouldn't be given any incentive to enroll his land into the hunt programs? Why would any do it if there was no incentive for them? No matter how big or small a company they have to pay a person to answer a phone and manage the program. It would be far easier and cheaper to simply shut the gates and hunt behind them with their own land owner permits or go the way of Weyerhauser and lease it out to a few people that are easier to supervise.
If the state is gonna give them tags it should not count against our quota
You really need to do some research! :twocents:
:tup: Pure speculation on my part but I'd be willing to bet that unless the Bennett tags are designated spike only, they don't end up on spike bulls. ;)
Post by: Woodchuck on October 08, 2015, 03:45:12 PM
Post by: jimbow on October 08, 2015, 05:56:24 PM
I also have a huge problem with the arbitrary way these LHP's are selected and administered. Other landowners in the same areas that have always been open to public access are given NO consideration by WDFW when allotting these programs. Their only thanks for being open to the general public is a sound slap in the face when they see their neighbors being handed these lucrative permits in order to open their own properties to limited access.
If these programs are to exist, they need to be handled equitably to all and not just a few select individuals who make the most noise or happen to have a nice piece of ground that WDFW is interested in purchasing down the road. I would prefer instead that the whole program be scrapped with a return to the days of actually fostering good landowner relations without feeling the need to bribe them with quality permits for sale......oh excuse me, access to the land for sale. Just my 2 cents worth from a guy that knows a lot of the history of these programs.
If I were an adjacent landowner in this area, my land would be locked up tight and posted to demonstrate the down-side to selling the State's resources to the highest bidder. Why would I keep my land open for free if I can get my own "piece of the pie" like the others.
Post by: Bob33 on October 08, 2015, 06:02:24 PM
Post by: grundy53 on October 08, 2015, 07:36:00 PM
Just to muddy the waters...That is a general season 3 point or better unit. Why would they need a permit from the state?
Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on October 08, 2015, 08:32:49 PM
I don't fault the landowners at all for taking advantage of this opportunity and negotiating the best deal for themselves that they can. I do have a real problem with an already limited availability of permits for the average hunter. It literally took me 20 years to draw a muzzle-loader bull permit in the Blues, but if I'd had the money, I could have purchased "access" to one of the limited landowner permits available to the 4-0 Cattle Company or now Bennett Lumber. These are certainly NOT available to the average hunter.
I also have a huge problem with the arbitrary way these LHP's are selected and administered. Other landowners in the same areas that have always been open to public access are given NO consideration by WDFW when allotting these programs. Their only thanks for being open to the general public is a sound slap in the face when they see their neighbors being handed these lucrative permits in order to open their own properties to limited access.
If these programs are to exist, they need to be handled equitably to all and not just a few select individuals who make the most noise or happen to have a nice piece of ground that WDFW is interested in purchasing down the road. I would prefer instead that the whole program be scrapped with a return to the days of actually fostering good landowner relations without feeling the need to bribe them with quality permits for sale......oh excuse me, access to the land for sale. Just my 2 cents worth from a guy that knows a lot of the history of these programs.
If I were an adjacent landowner in this area, my land would be locked up tight and posted to demonstrate the down-side to selling the State's resources to the highest bidder. Why would I keep my land open for free if I can get my own "piece of the pie" like the others.
I'm afraid we'll be seeing that happening all too soon, and that will be a big loss for the hunters of this state.
Post by: pd on October 08, 2015, 08:42:47 PM
I don't fault the landowners at all for taking advantage of this opportunity and negotiating the best deal for themselves that they can. I do have a real problem with an already limited availability of permits for the average hunter. It literally took me 20 years to draw a muzzle-loader bull permit in the Blues, but if I'd had the money, I could have purchased "access" to one of the limited landowner permits available to the 4-0 Cattle Company or now Bennett Lumber. These are certainly NOT available to the average hunter.
I also have a huge problem with the arbitrary way these LHP's are selected and administered. Other landowners in the same areas that have always been open to public access are given NO consideration by WDFW when allotting these programs. Their only thanks for being open to the general public is a sound slap in the face when they see their neighbors being handed these lucrative permits in order to open their own properties to limited access.
If these programs are to exist, they need to be handled equitably to all and not just a few select individuals who make the most noise or happen to have a nice piece of ground that WDFW is interested in purchasing down the road. I would prefer instead that the whole program be scrapped with a return to the days of actually fostering good landowner relations without feeling the need to bribe them with quality permits for sale......oh excuse me, access to the land for sale. Just my 2 cents worth from a guy that knows a lot of the history of these programs.
If I were an adjacent landowner in this area, my land would be locked up tight and posted to demonstrate the down-side to selling the State's resources to the highest bidder. Why would I keep my land open for free if I can get my own "piece of the pie" like the others.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but well said, Sir.
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 09:34:59 PM
To the best of my knowledge elk and deer tags are sold over the counter and unless I missed something they haven't ever sold out. Is this a special hunt draw area? Is there something other than the fact it is private land that makes tags harder to get for these GMUs?As I have told you before Josh.. I believe this is absolutely Bull S#%£.
No way they should be Givin any extra state tags... put the tags in the general hunt and let the public have access. If they want to keep it to themselves they have to draw just like the rest of us.
Everyone on this forum should call wdfw and let them have it...
Do you think that the forest company/land owner shouldn't be given any incentive to enroll his land into the hunt programs? Why would any do it if there was no incentive for them? No matter how big or small a company they have to pay a person to answer a phone and manage the program. It would be far easier and cheaper to simply shut the gates and hunt behind them with their own land owner permits or go the way of Weyerhauser and lease it out to a few people that are easier to supervise.
If the state is gonna give them tags it should not count against our quota
You really need to do some research! :twocents:
lol, yes, hes arguing and doesnt know what he is talking about.
Not sure what argument your referring to, if these are special draws it makes sense to be miffed about losing some of the tags. I agree with you there. I think you all are being awfully short sighted when it comes to the access to private lands. They could give you 10 times the tags in the quota and if the land owner locks you out what good will it do you?
You are not listening Mac, go back and read from the bigginining and maybe it will become a little clearer. ;)
And for everyone else that is reading/commenting in this thread, I was informed today that both the permits have been filled already, the 1st permit and bull killed by the land manager, and the second by his buddy, the source is pretty well informed too.
Post by: emac on October 08, 2015, 09:49:44 PM
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 11:34:48 PM
I don't fault the landowners at all for taking advantage of this opportunity and negotiating the best deal for themselves that they can. I do have a real problem with an already limited availability of permits for the average hunter. It literally took me 20 years to draw a muzzle-loader bull permit in the Blues, but if I'd had the money, I could have purchased "access" to one of the limited landowner permits available to the 4-0 Cattle Company or now Bennett Lumber. These are certainly NOT available to the average hunter.
I also have a huge problem with the arbitrary way these LHP's are selected and administered. Other landowners in the same areas that have always been open to public access are given NO consideration by WDFW when allotting these programs. Their only thanks for being open to the general public is a sound slap in the face when they see their neighbors being handed these lucrative permits in order to open their own properties to limited access.
If these programs are to exist, they need to be handled equitably to all and not just a few select individuals who make the most noise or happen to have a nice piece of ground that WDFW is interested in purchasing down the road. I would prefer instead that the whole program be scrapped with a return to the days of actually fostering good landowner relations without feeling the need to bribe them with quality permits for sale......oh excuse me, access to the land for sale. Just my 2 cents worth from a guy that knows a lot of the history of these programs.
If I were an adjacent landowner in this area, my land would be locked up tight and posted to demonstrate the down-side to selling the State's resources to the highest bidder. Why would I keep my land open for free if I can get my own "piece of the pie" like the others.
Spot on.
Post by: Tikka 15 on October 09, 2015, 04:59:27 PM
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 09, 2015, 06:34:18 PM
I don't fault the landowners at all for taking advantage of this opportunity and negotiating the best deal for themselves that they can. I do have a real problem with an already limited availability of permits for the average hunter. It literally took me 20 years to draw a muzzle-loader bull permit in the Blues, but if I'd had the money, I could have purchased "access" to one of the limited landowner permits available to the 4-0 Cattle Company or now Bennett Lumber. These are certainly NOT available to the average hunter.
I also have a huge problem with the arbitrary way these LHP's are selected and administered. Other landowners in the same areas that have always been open to public access are given NO consideration by WDFW when allotting these programs. Their only thanks for being open to the general public is a sound slap in the face when they see their neighbors being handed these lucrative permits in order to open their own properties to limited access.
If these programs are to exist, they need to be handled equitably to all and not just a few select individuals who make the most noise or happen to have a nice piece of ground that WDFW is interested in purchasing down the road. I would prefer instead that the whole program be scrapped with a return to the days of actually fostering good landowner relations without feeling the need to bribe them with quality permits for sale......oh excuse me, access to the land for sale. Just my 2 cents worth from a guy that knows a lot of the history of these programs.
If I were an adjacent landowner in this area, my land would be locked up tight and posted to demonstrate the down-side to selling the State's resources to the highest bidder. Why would I keep my land open for free if I can get my own "piece of the pie" like the others.
As Jackelope said this is happening already. I am telling you now that if something isn't done about this, and very soon there will be literally hundreds of thousands of acres in that area that are going to leave the program. In an area of the state that is largely private that is a huge loss of access. The state cannot arbitrarily give out special permits to certain landowners that are valued in the 10s of thousands of dollars as an incentive to allow access, we are going down the wrong road statewide. Someone mentioned the Kapowsin tree farm as well where some of the biggest bulls on the west side of the state have come out of. Do you think it's fair that guys will pay the money for a pass for years in the hopes of being the guy that gets drawn to hunt elk in there, and meanwhile the shareholders get to hand out 8 permits to whomever they please. This isn't just a S.E. issues this affects all of us, we don't want to be a state where the mega rich, or very large landowners get to play by their own rules.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 09, 2015, 06:52:53 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 09, 2015, 09:42:55 PM
I know a neighboring landowner that has been giving permission to the public for years. Many of the quality Bulls in this unit come off his place. He does have a fare amount of damage each year to his crops and fences. What incentive does he have now to let anyone hunt his place if the neighbor with no damage gets a huge bone thrown to him. He gets no compensation for the damages just two cow tags. And a good part of the time it's a herd of Bulls doing a majority of the damage. I would not be surprised if he shuts his place down completely. Opening up new hunting opportunities my rear end. Better give each owner incentive or just leave it alone and no special tags given.
Welcome to the forum Tikka 15 and thanks for your input. I hope what you're saying doesn't happen, but I'm afraid it's too late. I know a pile of really nice Bulls have come off of and live on that land.
Post by: huntnphool on October 09, 2015, 09:49:28 PM
I know a neighboring landowner that has been giving permission to the public for years. Many of the quality Bulls in this unit come off his place. He does have a fare amount of damage each year to his crops and fences. What incentive does he have now to let anyone hunt his place if the neighbor with no damage gets a huge bone thrown to him. He gets no compensation for the damages just two cow tags. And a good part of the time it's a herd of Bulls doing a majority of the damage. I would not be surprised if he shuts his place down completely. Opening up new hunting opportunities my rear end. Better give each owner incentive or just leave it alone and no special tags given.
:tup: It would be a shame if that is the way things turn out, can't say I blame them though.
Welcome to the site. :hello:
Post by: rosscrazyelk on October 10, 2015, 07:03:31 AM
Rosscrazyelk does the same thing. I just prefer to chase spikes, the meat tastes better. :oLol
Post by: BLUEBULLS on October 11, 2015, 08:09:36 AM
I could see a couple cow or doe tags like other area landowners get but the trophy tags are a bunch of crap. What happens when the others want their bull tags? The ones who actually have property damage. The good thing is that most of those guys are level headed. I could see one or two money hungry landowners looking for their tags though.
My vote would be to shut the land back down and get our tags back.
Post by: Tikka 15 on October 11, 2015, 10:14:13 AM
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 11, 2015, 02:59:48 PM
Money hungry landowners ? Maybe they are landowners sustaining damages to their crops and finding a way to make up for financial loss. Not to mention the time taken out of their daily lives to answer phone call after phone call of people asking permission. I hear it gets overwhelming. Why do private land elk need to be managed to the point of trying to produce 350+ class Bulls. Seems wdfw and the big hunting clubs, timber companies only ones making a return. I would just as soon see all the elk stay on public land and keep it fair for everyone.
Welcome to the forum Tikka15. I think that you are completely correct, there is a huge cost of both time, and money to anyone that enrolls in the program, and not any real return for most of them. I know personally that many are enrolled because they do care about our outdoor heritage, and do everything they can to help people to have a positive experience in the outdoors. People do not see how much it costs them to repair fences, the loss of crops from people driving across seeded fields, the trash left behind, the poaching, the time spent on phones dealing with people who want access. Most of my friends who have land in the program don't get any real time to hunt themselves, meanwhile the WDFW hands very sought after permits to a chosen few. It isn't fair, and it needs to be fixed. I would be in favor of giving landowners who participate incentive points towards the draws if they are enrolled in the access program, but with how things are being handled at the moment I don't fault anyone for locking up their land.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 11, 2015, 03:03:04 PM
Just to muddy the waters...That is a general season 3 point or better unit. Why would they need a permit from the state?
Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
He is talking about the Kapowsin tree farm, and it has not been open to general elk for a very long time. Permit holders are put into a lotto, and a few are chosen every year to hunt elk in there.
Post by: grundy53 on October 11, 2015, 03:07:37 PM
I know what he is talking about. But he is confused. It is a general hunt. You don't need a permit. Kapowsin doesn't give anyone an elk permit. All they do is allow a small amount of people to access their land during elk season and it's not just their executives. The state doesn't give Hancock elk permits.Just to muddy the waters...That is a general season 3 point or better unit. Why would they need a permit from the state?
Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
He is talking about the Kapowsin tree farm, and it has not been open to general elk for a very long time. Permit holders are put into a lotto, and a few are chosen every year to hunt elk in there.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 11, 2015, 03:22:49 PM
Post by: grundy53 on October 11, 2015, 03:49:05 PM
You are correct Grundy.I just reread my post. It came off rude. I hope you didn't take it that way I wasn't trying to be snarky.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on October 13, 2015, 07:47:37 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on October 13, 2015, 08:04:33 AM
Post by: HntnFsh on October 13, 2015, 08:08:30 AM
I just saw a sign that's going to be posted in The Blues........ :bash:
Care to share?
Post by: Whitpirate on October 13, 2015, 11:16:52 AM
I don't fault the landowners at all for taking advantage of this opportunity and negotiating the best deal for themselves that they can. I do have a real problem with an already limited availability of permits for the average hunter. It literally took me 20 years to draw a muzzle-loader bull permit in the Blues, but if I'd had the money, I could have purchased "access" to one of the limited landowner permits available to the 4-0 Cattle Company or now Bennett Lumber. These are certainly NOT available to the average hunter.
I also have a huge problem with the arbitrary way these LHP's are selected and administered. Other landowners in the same areas that have always been open to public access are given NO consideration by WDFW when allotting these programs. Their only thanks for being open to the general public is a sound slap in the face when they see their neighbors being handed these lucrative permits in order to open their own properties to limited access.
If these programs are to exist, they need to be handled equitably to all and not just a few select individuals who make the most noise or happen to have a nice piece of ground that WDFW is interested in purchasing down the road. I would prefer instead that the whole program be scrapped with a return to the days of actually fostering good landowner relations without feeling the need to bribe them with quality permits for sale......oh excuse me, access to the land for sale. Just my 2 cents worth from a guy that knows a lot of the history of these programs.
If I were an adjacent landowner in this area, my land would be locked up tight and posted to demonstrate the down-side to selling the State's resources to the highest bidder. Why would I keep my land open for free if I can get my own "piece of the pie" like the others.
Some of the other landowners have responded. Looking pretty bleak down there. Pay to play is here to stay in WA.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 13, 2015, 12:16:54 PM
I don't fault the landowners at all for taking advantage of this opportunity and negotiating the best deal for themselves that they can. I do have a real problem with an already limited availability of permits for the average hunter. It literally took me 20 years to draw a muzzle-loader bull permit in the Blues, but if I'd had the money, I could have purchased "access" to one of the limited landowner permits available to the 4-0 Cattle Company or now Bennett Lumber. These are certainly NOT available to the average hunter.
I also have a huge problem with the arbitrary way these LHP's are selected and administered. Other landowners in the same areas that have always been open to public access are given NO consideration by WDFW when allotting these programs. Their only thanks for being open to the general public is a sound slap in the face when they see their neighbors being handed these lucrative permits in order to open their own properties to limited access.
If these programs are to exist, they need to be handled equitably to all and not just a few select individuals who make the most noise or happen to have a nice piece of ground that WDFW is interested in purchasing down the road. I would prefer instead that the whole program be scrapped with a return to the days of actually fostering good landowner relations without feeling the need to bribe them with quality permits for sale......oh excuse me, access to the land for sale. Just my 2 cents worth from a guy that knows a lot of the history of these programs.
If I were an adjacent landowner in this area, my land would be locked up tight and posted to demonstrate the down-side to selling the State's resources to the highest bidder. Why would I keep my land open for free if I can get my own "piece of the pie" like the others.
Some of the other landowners have responded. Looking pretty bleak down there. Pay to play is here to stay in WA.
:yike:
Post by: huntnphool on October 13, 2015, 12:44:30 PM
I just saw a sign that's going to be posted in The Blues........ :bash:
Care to share?
Sorry HntFsh, I just got back on but WP got it up. :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on October 13, 2015, 12:59:31 PM
Post by: Daytonite on October 13, 2015, 01:19:51 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 13, 2015, 01:22:04 PM
Where are these signs going up? I can't blame the landowners though
Blues
Post by: Daytonite on October 13, 2015, 01:25:27 PM
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 13, 2015, 01:28:40 PM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Daytonite on October 13, 2015, 01:31:23 PM
A large portion is in Garfield county. I can tell you that much.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Thank you
Post by: huntnphool on October 13, 2015, 01:31:34 PM
I was just curious what general area the landowners closed their land.
The signs are not up yet as far as I know, my guess is it will start a landslide throughout the entire area.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 13, 2015, 01:33:58 PM
Post by: emac on October 13, 2015, 04:13:02 PM
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: JLS on October 13, 2015, 04:50:14 PM
Anyone who hunts that way on private land might want to start calling some of the numbers on that sign. I don't think they are coming down unless we get a fire under the wdfw's ass to get this straightened out.
There's a whole lot of "I'll take my ball and go home attitude" coming in to play here with the landowners.
The system is not in any way perfect, and is in need of some major changes. They have been needed for years. LHP's, transferrable tags, ranching for wildlife is never a good thing, but it's been commonplace for quite a while now. How many complained years ago? For those that think this is the advent of pay to play, well you haven't been looking very hard.
If you want to raise cane, go ahead and do so. But do so in a productive manner. There are a number of fatal flaws in WDFWs public access programs, issuance of landowner tags, allowance of LHPs, and so on. I would suggest that rather than shooting from the hip, you actually do some research and come up with productive solutions. You'll find no better catalyst for change than what is happening right now.
Post by: Landowner on October 13, 2015, 04:55:13 PM
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 13, 2015, 05:21:58 PM
Anyone who hunts that way on private land might want to start calling some of the numbers on that sign. I don't think they are coming down unless we get a fire under the wdfw's ass to get this straightened out.
There's a whole lot of "I'll take my ball and go home attitude" coming in to play here with the landowners.
The system is not in any way perfect, and is in need of some major changes. They have been needed for years. LHP's, transferrable tags, ranching for wildlife is never a good thing, but it's been commonplace for quite a while now. How many complained years ago? For those that think this is the advent of pay to play, well you haven't been looking very hard.
If you want to raise cane, go ahead and do so. But do so in a productive manner. There are a number of fatal flaws in WDFWs public access programs, issuance of landowner tags, allowance of LHPs, and so on. I would suggest that rather than shooting from the hip, you actually do some research and come up with productive solutions. You'll find no better catalyst for change than what is happening right now.
I don't recall any land owner, or business being given the premium tags that Bennett lumber was given in exchange for public access. Maybe you can set me straight on that issue. I think some damage permits for does, or cow elk are not anywhere near on the level of what they were given. I do think there are much better ways for this to be handled, and I sent my thoughts into the commission where I am sure they will take very seriously :rolleyes:. I don't know how close you are to this issue, but this was ran through the proper channels to get resolved, and the issue was ignored by the powers that be. This isn't a childish game the landowners are playing, they are doing the only thing they can to bring attention to this issue.
Post by: JLS on October 13, 2015, 05:30:18 PM
Anyone who hunts that way on private land might want to start calling some of the numbers on that sign. I don't think they are coming down unless we get a fire under the wdfw's ass to get this straightened out.
There's a whole lot of "I'll take my ball and go home attitude" coming in to play here with the landowners.
The system is not in any way perfect, and is in need of some major changes. They have been needed for years. LHP's, transferrable tags, ranching for wildlife is never a good thing, but it's been commonplace for quite a while now. How many complained years ago? For those that think this is the advent of pay to play, well you haven't been looking very hard.
If you want to raise cane, go ahead and do so. But do so in a productive manner. There are a number of fatal flaws in WDFWs public access programs, issuance of landowner tags, allowance of LHPs, and so on. I would suggest that rather than shooting from the hip, you actually do some research and come up with productive solutions. You'll find no better catalyst for change than what is happening right now.
I don't recall any land owner, or business being given the premium tags that Bennett lumber was given in exchange for public access. Maybe you can set me straight on that issue. I think some damage permits for does, or cow elk are not anywhere near on the level of what they were given. I do think there are much better ways for this to be handled, and I sent my thoughts into the commission where I am sure they will take very seriously :rolleyes:. I don't know how close you are to this issue, but this was ran through the proper channels to get resolved, and the issue was ignored by the power that be. This isn't a childish game the landowners are playing, they are doing the only thing they can to bring attention to this issue.
You're missing the bigger picture. The resolution should not be whether or not Bennett Lumber should have been granted LHP status. The resolution should be the entire landowner permit structure and compensation program for allowing public access.
They can bring all of the attention they need to this matter right now without giving some poor Joe Schmoe the screws. It's called negotiation, and it doesn't always start and immediately end with "no, we don't like that, Mr. President wants the missiles fired".
Post by: grundy53 on October 13, 2015, 05:40:27 PM
What would you suggest they do to remedy this situation that would appease both sides? Not being a smart alec I would genuinely like your opinion.Anyone who hunts that way on private land might want to start calling some of the numbers on that sign. I don't think they are coming down unless we get a fire under the wdfw's ass to get this straightened out.
There's a whole lot of "I'll take my ball and go home attitude" coming in to play here with the landowners.
The system is not in any way perfect, and is in need of some major changes. They have been needed for years. LHP's, transferrable tags, ranching for wildlife is never a good thing, but it's been commonplace for quite a while now. How many complained years ago? For those that think this is the advent of pay to play, well you haven't been looking very hard.
If you want to raise cane, go ahead and do so. But do so in a productive manner. There are a number of fatal flaws in WDFWs public access programs, issuance of landowner tags, allowance of LHPs, and so on. I would suggest that rather than shooting from the hip, you actually do some research and come up with productive solutions. You'll find no better catalyst for change than what is happening right now.
I don't recall any land owner, or business being given the premium tags that Bennett lumber was given in exchange for public access. Maybe you can set me straight on that issue. I think some damage permits for does, or cow elk are not anywhere near on the level of what they were given. I do think there are much better ways for this to be handled, and I sent my thoughts into the commission where I am sure they will take very seriously :rolleyes:. I don't know how close you are to this issue, but this was ran through the proper channels to get resolved, and the issue was ignored by the power that be. This isn't a childish game the landowners are playing, they are doing the only thing they can to bring attention to this issue.
You're missing the bigger picture. The resolution should not be whether or not Bennett Lumber should have been granted LHP status. The resolution should be the entire landowner permit structure and compensation program for allowing public access.
They can bring all of the attention they need to this matter right now without giving some poor Joe Schmoe the screws. It's called negotiation, and it doesn't always start and immediately end with "no, we don't like that, Mr. President wants the missiles fired".
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Tikka 15 on October 13, 2015, 09:55:53 PM
Post by: JLS on October 14, 2015, 08:35:53 PM
I agree, JLS what would you like to see happen? Average joe has more throw than landowners. I'm having trouble determining which side of the table your on.
I'm not on any side of the table. I don't know any of the landowners, I don't know any Bennett employees/family. Heck, I don't even apply for permits in the Blues. I just want to see a very dysfunctional system fixed so that it truly addresses the access issue that is so pressing to hunters. It is by far the biggest issue of concern for hunters in the state of WA, in my humble opinion. It's time to overhaul the system and do it right, and get rid of commercialization in the process.
Post by: Tikka 15 on October 15, 2015, 06:12:39 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on October 15, 2015, 10:06:52 AM
I don't know the area but am a big fan of private property rights. I hate it when folks get credit for hunting by written permission from the state but have no intention of allowing the public to hunt. It seems that would be easy to audit.
On the other side of things, if I owned 100,000 acres of timber, it wouldn't take long to shut the gates due to garbage, vandalism etc.
Post by: Humptulips on October 15, 2015, 11:07:41 AM
I will say though the State has a very big stick and is not really using it. That is depredation hunts and special trapping permits. I know most if not all of the timber companies get them. They do this because of some type of animal damage. If WDFW would make them all conditional on public access, real access not just open to family and friends or limited pay to hunt then maybe we would get somewhere.
Just bear, mountain beaver and beaver damage would be a major issue for them if they had to live with it. They would have to choose between opening their land to the public or help with damage.
Post by: fireweed on October 16, 2015, 08:44:16 AM
Just to muddy the waters...
Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.
This is basically true. The tags are "general" but access is strictly limited, and some access is dedicated to employees. And a retiree got access a few years ago. . This year 12 hunters allowed on land--7 fee access, 5 employee. Really shows you that access is the same as a "tag" and selling access is selling wildlife
Weyerhaeuser wanted to give out cow tags as "safety" awards at the St. Helens a few years back, but (thankfully) the WDFW nixed that. The WDFW still controlled the tags, in that case.
Post by: grundy53 on October 16, 2015, 09:24:17 AM
The big difference between this and the actual topic of this thread is this has nothing to do with the WDFW.Just to muddy the waters...
Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.
This is basically true. The tags are "general" but access is strictly limited, and some access is dedicated to employees. And a retiree got access a few years ago. . This year 12 hunters allowed on land--7 fee access, 5 employee. Really shows you that access is the same as a "tag" and selling access is selling wildlife
Weyerhaeuser wanted to give out cow tags as "safety" awards at the St. Helens a few years back, but (thankfully) the WDFW nixed that. The WDFW still controlled the tags, in that case.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Woodchuck on October 26, 2015, 03:13:55 PM
I haven't heard about any of this latest "signs" issue. And I'm right smack in the middle of the Blues. Interesting.I saw one on some property out of Prescott.
Post by: Landowner on October 26, 2015, 07:26:36 PM
I haven't heard about any of this latest "signs" issue. And I'm right smack in the middle of the Blues. Interesting.I saw one on some property out of Prescott.
I did see a few of them this past week. Sounds like a few landowners, but a lot of acres.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on October 30, 2015, 11:40:23 AM
Post by: blackmouther on October 30, 2015, 06:38:12 PM
Post by: JLS on October 30, 2015, 07:13:48 PM
First off Unsworth has proved himself less than capable. 2nd off, I personally think that that timber company should pay taxes in the full amount vs their interpretation of open space. That would allow the WDFW to tell them to get bent on quality tags and if their friends and family want to hunt they can follow the same rules we all have to. It may open their eyes a bit when their special privaledges are revoked and they pay thru the nose. They want exclusive rights to their own property they can pay for it.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with being a timber company. It's an LHP, no different than the Buckrun, the 4-0, or any of the others. It wouldn't matter if they grew timber, cattle, llamas, or homing pigeons. It has nothing to do with tax structure, open space, or anything else of the sort. It's the LHP process and special permit preference for landowners who allow public access that needs addressed.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on October 30, 2015, 07:29:48 PM
First off Unsworth has proved himself less than capable. 2nd off, I personally think that that timber company should pay taxes in the full amount vs their interpretation of open space. That would allow the WDFW to tell them to get bent on quality tags and if their friends and family want to hunt they can follow the same rules we all have to. It may open their eyes a bit when their special privaledges are revoked and they pay thru the nose. They want exclusive rights to their own property they can pay for it.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with being a timber company. It's an LHP, no different than the Buckrun, the 4-0, or any of the others. It wouldn't matter if they grew timber, cattle, llamas, or homing pigeons. It has nothing to do with tax structure, open space, or anything else of the sort. It's the LHP process and special permit preference for landowners who allow public access that needs addressed.
Your exactly correct JLS, the system needs to be revamped to have a set policy to incentivize landowners to allow access. As it sits now LHP program is doing more harm than good as some landowners get huge benefits, and others are given virtually nothing. It is creating dissention, and many landowners are becoming increasingly frustrated, and locking up their land in turn.
Post by: grundy53 on October 30, 2015, 09:22:52 PM
:yeah:First off Unsworth has proved himself less than capable. 2nd off, I personally think that that timber company should pay taxes in the full amount vs their interpretation of open space. That would allow the WDFW to tell them to get bent on quality tags and if their friends and family want to hunt they can follow the same rules we all have to. It may open their eyes a bit when their special privaledges are revoked and they pay thru the nose. They want exclusive rights to their own property they can pay for it.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with being a timber company. It's an LHP, no different than the Buckrun, the 4-0, or any of the others. It wouldn't matter if they grew timber, cattle, llamas, or homing pigeons. It has nothing to do with tax structure, open space, or anything else of the sort. It's the LHP process and special permit preference for landowners who allow public access that needs addressed.
Post by: motg9_6 on October 31, 2015, 09:05:02 AM
It's a sticky issue....i agree with Gringo
I don't know the area but am a big fan of private property rights. I hate it when folks get credit for hunting by written permission from the state but have no intention of allowing the public to hunt. It seems that would be easy to audit.
On the other side of things, if I owned 100,000 acres of timber, it wouldn't take long to shut the gates due to garbage, vandalism etc.
so i have a question what or where can the information about tax incentives for keeping land open to public be found? i keeping hearing all this talk but havent seen documents. heres why i ask, i plan on talking to representatives about this issue and pushing pretty hard to get some of these "incentivised" (if thats a word) land owners to either loose there incentive (not allowing access) or have it reduced/pro rated (partial closures fire danger etc.). i hate telling private land owners (timber companies ranchers, farmers or residential) what they can do with their property but when they are receiving tax breaks (thats all our money) it changes things. if this is off topic sorry disregard if this info has already been produced elsewhere please point me in the right direction as my search function doesnt bring my an quality info reguarding the issue
Post by: fireweed on November 04, 2015, 09:15:15 AM
It's been covered on other threads, but here's a good place to start your research: the legislative findings for timber tax. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.010It's a sticky issue....i agree with Gringo
I don't know the area but am a big fan of private property rights. I hate it when folks get credit for hunting by written permission from the state but have no intention of allowing the public to hunt. It seems that would be easy to audit.
On the other side of things, if I owned 100,000 acres of timber, it wouldn't take long to shut the gates due to garbage, vandalism etc.
so i have a question what or where can the information about tax incentives for keeping land open to public be found? i keeping hearing all this talk but havent seen documents. heres why i ask, i plan on talking to representatives about this issue and pushing pretty hard to get some of these "incentivised" (if thats a word) land owners to either loose there incentive (not allowing access) or have it reduced/pro rated (partial closures fire danger etc.). i hate telling private land owners (timber companies ranchers, farmers or residential) what they can do with their property but when they are receiving tax breaks (thats all our money) it changes things. if this is off topic sorry disregard if this info has already been produced elsewhere please point me in the right direction as my search function doesnt bring my an quality info reguarding the issue
The problem with our tax break is it is "all or nothing" with no requirement for recreational spaces (or much of anything else for that matter)...look up what Wisconsin does for comparison where a timberland owner decides to allow public access and in return gets larger tax break, or close access and gets a smaller tax break.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 16, 2015, 11:59:19 AM
Link: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/nov1615a/
Post by: Bob33 on November 16, 2015, 12:31:24 PM
Vaguely on topic: Did I just read correctly that WDFW bought 2,061 acres from 4-O cattle company in Asotin for 3.7 million dollars??Yes. That's some valuable property.
Link: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/nov1615a/
Post by: Todd_ID on November 16, 2015, 12:58:30 PM
The county says it's worth less than $100/acre for taxes.Vaguely on topic: Did I just read correctly that WDFW bought 2,061 acres from 4-O cattle company in Asotin for 3.7 million dollars??Yes. That's some valuable property.
Link: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/nov1615a/
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 20, 2015, 09:31:31 AM
The county says it's worth less than $100/acre for taxes.Apparently closer to $2,000/acre...
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 20, 2015, 09:55:57 AM
It's a sticky issue....
I don't know the area but am a big fan of private property rights. I hate it when folks get credit for hunting by written permission from the state but have no intention of allowing the public to hunt. It seems that would be easy to audit.
On the other side of things, if I owned 100,000 acres of timber, it wouldn't take long to shut the gates due to garbage, vandalism etc.
All for private landowner rights. It's just that when they don't want to allow public access by locking gates and selling permits, which is their right, they shouldn't expect the public to defer the taxes on their land until timber is brought to the scales. I don't allow people on my land and I pay full taxes up front. I don't get to wait until I sell the assets on my property. Timber companies should be no different.
Post by: jackelope on June 12, 2016, 04:58:22 PM
Anyone seen these recently down there?
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160612%2F15376fb8e5aa91460992efe74d15a618.jpg&hash=e81989b290d3d181996ae0ffa7d63817dc735fb5)
Post by: grundy53 on June 12, 2016, 05:07:24 PM
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on June 12, 2016, 10:33:14 PM
Post by: huntingfool7 on June 13, 2016, 06:13:03 AM
Curious if any of you Blue Mountains folks have seen any of these signs down in the Dayton or Peola units. Or anywhere else for that matter. These have recently appeared it seems. Also curious to know if this seems legit to you folks. LHP's, elk and deer permits that come out of our quota #'s that are given out to family and employees of the company, all in exchange for public access, and now these signs.Did they lose their incentive permits?
Anyone seen these recently down there?
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160612%2F15376fb8e5aa91460992efe74d15a618.jpg&hash=e81989b290d3d181996ae0ffa7d63817dc735fb5)
Post by: jackelope on June 13, 2016, 07:04:07 AM
Curious if any of you Blue Mountains folks have seen any of these signs down in the Dayton or Peola units. Or anywhere else for that matter. These have recently appeared it seems. Also curious to know if this seems legit to you folks. LHP's, elk and deer permits that come out of our quota #'s that are given out to family and employees of the company, all in exchange for public access, and now these signs.Did they lose their incentive permits?
Anyone seen these recently down there?
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160612%2F15376fb8e5aa91460992efe74d15a618.jpg&hash=e81989b290d3d181996ae0ffa7d63817dc735fb5)
No
Post by: jackelope on June 13, 2016, 07:05:02 AM
I have a feeling things are going to get a little touchy down that way Jackelope. I would not be surprised to see some other large land owners starting to post some signs of their own since Bennett is getting preferential treatment from the state that none of the other folks are getting even though they go out of their way to give folks somewhere to hunt.
Oh it's definitely getting touchy.
Post by: whacker1 on June 13, 2016, 09:23:02 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 13, 2016, 09:45:09 AM
Post by: JLS on June 13, 2016, 11:43:23 AM
So, one way or the other they cannot get LHP tags without providing something in return. To imply that they are doing so would be false.
Post by: jackelope on June 13, 2016, 01:35:25 PM
There is not complete and factual information here. If they are in an LHP that requires access, they cannot continue getting LHP permits without access. If they abolished the access, they would still have to provide the public hunts as an LHP in order to get the LHP tags.
So, one way or the other they cannot get LHP tags without providing something in return. To imply that they are doing so would be false.
I know they own a piece of land in GMU 178 that is enrolled in the hunt by reservation program. There are no signs like that on that piece of property. I know that to be fact. I Believe it is 2 pieces of separate property totaling about 700 acres.
I don't disagree with your comments about incomplete information. That's why my last post was more of a question than a statement or an implication. I'd like to know if there are more of those signs around. That specific picture is at Cahill Mountain in the Dayton unit. I don't know enough about that area to say for sure whether or not it is the same "Cahill" property listed in WDFW's hunt by reservation page. I haven't posted anything that is not factual though.
The other possibility I've been made known of is that it could be angry/upset neighbor landowners putting those signs up just as an FYI to folks.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 13, 2016, 01:41:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 13, 2016, 01:45:32 PM
He said there is another one at the end of Berg Road off of cougar Canyon Road next to Wilbur Eatons ground.
Post by: jackelope on June 13, 2016, 01:49:07 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160613%2F3166bcd2607757954c360dfe442b85cb.jpg&hash=5468911da615699714954876d1fcb9f745fadfd0)
Post by: huntnphool on June 13, 2016, 01:52:18 PM
Anyone recognize the whereabouts of this gate/sign?
That may be the one on Berg.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on June 13, 2016, 08:13:19 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on June 14, 2016, 08:08:09 PM
Post by: KDB on June 14, 2016, 08:24:46 PM
Post by: Whitpirate on June 14, 2016, 11:02:31 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 14, 2016, 11:05:52 PM
The land manager for Guy Bennett lumber is a close friend of mine. I'll call him and find out what's going on.
That would be neat to hear straight from the horse's mouth. Thanks. Look forward to your follow up.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on June 16, 2016, 06:08:15 PM
I think they should make it a lottery just like all others for the folks enrolled. No guaranteed tags for any one property owner, you go in the hopper. You get drawn you get some tags, then you don't get to draw again for 2-4 years..... spread the love around. Incentivize all folks to enroll and provide access. Complaints or audits of things like Bennett is rumored to be doing disqualify you for 10 years.
I think some incentive like you mention would be a great benefit for landowners to open up more of their land. I would gladly give up a sought after tag for two if it would open up more opportunity for folks on a year to year basis. Lack of access is what is killing our sport so anything that increases it would be a huge positive in my book. As it sits most landowners are just getting signs, and insurance against anyone who might hurt themselves on their land in exchange for access. I don't know about you, but for me that would not be worth the trouble. Landowners are fielding tons of calls, dealing with trash left behind, dealing with people who tear up agricultural area's with their vehicles, as well as damaged property like fences, and gates. It seems it would be easier just to boot everyone off, and start having trespass tickets written for everyone who steps foot on your land.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on June 16, 2016, 06:11:37 PM
The land manager for Guy Bennett lumber is a close friend of mine. I'll call him and find out what's going on.
I also would be curious to see what the story is behind the signs. Posting your land is your right, but Bennett is being given prime tags for opening up some of their land. Those signs do not mention anything about how to go about gaining access to their property, they instead make it look like Bennett lands are shut down to the public period.
Post by: camp-cook on June 18, 2016, 06:28:34 AM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on June 18, 2016, 06:42:34 AM
The land manager for Guy Bennett lumber is a close friend of mine. I'll call him and find out what's going on.When were you planning on calling him? Mitch or Dave or Someone else?
Post by: KDB on June 18, 2016, 10:33:25 AM
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on June 18, 2016, 12:06:00 PM
How is it legal for WDFW to give state property (elk tags and deer tags) to private entities to profit from. WDFW will say they can't sell the tags but they can sell access.
Sounds a little like having your cake, and eating it too. It does make you wonder why out of all of the landowners in a part of the state that is mainly privately held would one landowner get such special treatment? This should be a bigger deal to people, these are some of the best tags the state has to offer, and yet there are the same handful of people on here discussing the subject. No one else even bothers to join the discussion they would rather post on the bigfoot thread instead of being proactive about issues that directly affect the opportunities we have as sportsman.
Post by: kentrek on June 18, 2016, 12:15:13 PM
How is it legal for WDFW to give state property (elk tags and deer tags) to private entities to profit from. WDFW will say they can't sell the tags but they can sell access.
Sounds a little like having your cake, and eating it too. It does make you wonder why out of all of the landowners in a part of the state that is mainly privately held would one landowner get such special treatment? This should be a bigger deal to people, these are some of the best tags the state has to offer, and yet there are the same handful of people on here discussing the subject. No one else even bothers to join the discussion they would rather post on the bigfoot thread instead of being proactive about issues that directly affect the opportunities we have as sportsman.
People only care if it directly affects them.....just like watching the stella unit get over ran with hoof rot...nobody cared...or when the tree farms started going permit only...east siders didn't care...so it shouldnt be a suprise that no body except the people directly affected care about this
"I don't hunt there why should I care ?"
It's a bad mentality that we all are guilty of
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on June 18, 2016, 12:33:40 PM
Post by: JLS on June 18, 2016, 01:37:33 PM
How is it legal for WDFW to give state property (elk tags and deer tags) to private entities to profit from. WDFW will say they can't sell the tags but they can sell access.
Sounds a little like having your cake, and eating it too. It does make you wonder why out of all of the landowners in a part of the state that is mainly privately held would one landowner get such special treatment? This should be a bigger deal to people, these are some of the best tags the state has to offer, and yet there are the same handful of people on here discussing the subject. No one else even bothers to join the discussion they would rather post on the bigfoot thread instead of being proactive about issues that directly affect the opportunities we have as sportsman.
Because they 1) Knew about the LHP program and wanted to enter it and 2) The timing was right that they could enroll. LHPs are capped, and when the 4-0 went to public ownership that eliminated a previously existing LHP. Bennett Lumber just happened to be in the right place, right time, with interest in the program.
As I've stated earlier in the thread, I don't like the program at all and this is a perfect example of why. All of a sudden you are looking at your neighbor getting a sweetheart deal when you've offered free access for years. It's a broken system.
Post by: emac on June 18, 2016, 09:01:54 PM
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on June 18, 2016, 09:47:27 PM
There are some who care unfortunately the handful of us that take the time to send a few emails, or donate time, and resources to the cause are in the minority. The hope is by talking about all of these things that some others will wake up, and start to take a proactive stance towards protecting our outdoor heritage.
+1
Post by: KDB on June 20, 2016, 06:52:38 PM
REMEMBER HUNTING ON PRIVATE LAND IS A PRIVELAGE NOT A RIGHT
Post by: jackelope on June 21, 2016, 02:52:22 PM
I talked to Bennett today and they do get one bull tag and in exchange Bennett allows access through the Reservation System which is run and controlled by the Department of Wildlife . Bennett has no say on who get chosen to enter their land through the reservation system
REMEMBER HUNTING ON PRIVATE LAND IS A PRIVELAGE NOT A RIGHT
Just FYI, they get a lot more than "a" bull tag.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/04/apr09_2015_08_presentation.pdf
Page 9 of 11
:
•
Multiple Parcels
•
9,835 Acres
•
Landowner permits: 6 buck, 2 bull, 10 cow
(1 bull in following years)
•
In lieu of special permits:
–
Larger parcels: Hunt by Reservation
–
Smaller parcels: Feel Free to Hunt
•
Creates more opportunity
So the question at this point is not what they get, moreso it's what is up with the signs I posted pictures of that seem to be new? Where is the 9835 acres that we have access to?
They have late mule deer buck permits that they give to their employees and family members that are good in units that don't have late mule deer buck permits available to the general public. They have a bull tag, cow tags, late whitetail and mule deer permits, all of which come out of the harvest numbers we are allotted through the state. As in, that's that many less permits that we get to draw.
Recently when a hunter I know called the WDFW to inquire about access to a piece of their ground that is open in the reservation system, why does WDFW tell that person they have to arrange that through Bennett Lumber and not until 2 weeks before the hunt starts? I thought the land in the WDFW reservation system booked through WDFW's website.
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on June 21, 2016, 07:05:54 PM
I talked to Bennett today and they do get one bull tag and in exchange Bennett allows access through the Reservation System which is run and controlled by the Department of Wildlife . Bennett has no say on who get chosen to enter their land through the reservation system
REMEMBER HUNTING ON PRIVATE LAND IS A PRIVELAGE NOT A RIGHT
The signs that are posting on their land don't seem as if they are allowing access in any way whatsoever. I have seen hunting by reservation signs so I know they are available, it seems as if Bennett is going our of their way to make it as challenging as possible for people to access their lands. I also don't agree with the amount of very sought after tags that are given to them which is completely disproportionate to what is being done to open up access with neighboring land owners. I understand that they are not at fault because they happened to come out ahead in a broken system. Though I think everyone can agree that this system needs some changes in order to provide maximum return on the incentives the wdfw are giving out.