Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 10:43:29 AM
The State is still setting seasons based on open access. What I mean is, hunters have to choose their weapon which dictates what seasons they get to hunt and in the case of archery and Black powder hunters, which units they get to hunt. It does no good to open a unit to archery or black powder hunting if the unit is a mostly fee hunting unit and the permits have been gobbled up by modern firearms hunters who outnumber archery and black powder hunters by a considerable amount. and sometimes the early and late seasons are open in different units. So say a bow hunter gets a permit from Weyerhauser to hunt the early season in one unit, but in the late season, that unit isn't open to archery, but a different one is and in that unit, you need a Rayonier permit. And the lease areas allow even less access.
One solution would be to allow archery and black powder hunters to have access to all units the same as modern hunters. That way if you had to buy a permit to access a hunting area from a timber company, you don't need to buy another one if it was even available for a late season in a different area. You can hunt the weapon of choice where your access permit is good.
Any other ideas?
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2015, 11:02:30 AM
I don't know what the answer is. The state generally doesn't like to have the same units open for archery and muzzleloader at the same time. So I'm not sure how your idea would work.
I do know I paid a lot of money for a Weyerhaeuser permit and I only got 7 days to hunt elk. No late muzzleloader season there because it is open for archery.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 23, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
I do know that for example, in 660 Minot Peak, for deer, Modern hunters get 19 days of buck hunting, Bow hunters get 67 days of ANY deer hunting, and black powder hunters get 9 days of buck hunting.
I think they could afford to take a week or two from the archers and throw that to black powder hunters so they could also have a late season there. It's crazy that modern hunters get more time in that unit than black powder hunters.
Then there is the question of making hunters buy two separate access permits (again if they are even available) to hunt deer and elk.
Post by: bowbuild on November 30, 2015, 02:20:28 PM
With the talk of Weyerhauser taking over Plum Creek and speculation that these timberlands will soon go to fee hunting, it brought up a thought with me.
The State is still setting seasons based on open access. What I mean is, hunters have to choose their weapon which dictates what seasons they get to hunt and in the case of archery and Black powder hunters, which units they get to hunt. It does no good to open a unit to archery or black powder hunting if the unit is a mostly fee hunting unit and the permits have been gobbled up by modern firearms hunters who outnumber archery and black powder hunters by a considerable amount. and sometimes the early and late seasons are open in different units. So say a bow hunter gets a permit from Weyerhauser to hunt the early season in one unit, but in the late season, that unit isn't open to archery, but a different one is and in that unit, you need a Rayonier permit. And the lease areas allow even less access.
One solution would be to allow archery and black powder hunters to have access to all units the same as modern hunters. That way if you had to buy a permit to access a hunting area from a timber company, you don't need to buy another one if it was even available for a late season in a different area. You can hunt the weapon of choice where your access permit is good.
Any other ideas?
[/quote
Weyerhauser (and others) end game is to have landowner issued permits (my opinion). Long ago before the permits were set in stone I complained of this very problem with buying a permit, and because of split seasons and closing units not being able to use the permits in the late hunt. Rifle hunters don't deal with this as far as I can tell
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 30, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
One other possibility would be to forbid any drawings for any property that isn't open for all hunters. Or to specify that the draw tag isn't good on private property that isn't open to the public.
Post by: bobcat on November 30, 2015, 02:39:22 PM
Either the state or Weyerhaeuser needs to change the dates so that people already have their access permit in hand before applying for special permit hunts. It would be nice if Weyerhaeuser and the WDFW could coordinate the timing of that so that hunters are not in limbo like we were this year.
Post by: fireweed on December 01, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
How about instead of the state bending over backward to benefit the fee system (like they did in Margaret) we get the governor to stand up to them like the Montana governor did in a letter which basically threatens all their tax perks
http://governor.mt.gov/Portals/16/docs/2015PressReleases/20151119_Doyle_Simons_%20Weyerhaeuser_CEO.pdf?ver=2015-11-19-151958-630
weyco's VIP's aren't too happy about this letter.
Post by: bobcat on December 01, 2015, 09:49:39 AM
Be careful what you wish for.
Post by: MADMAX on December 01, 2015, 10:20:04 AM
Unfortunately we are are own worst enemy,,,,,,,,,,,,, the bad apples.
If it was like an access fee which also allowed camping and done per family it would be ok with me at this point.
everything I used to hunt is gated anyway, the part I hate is leaving my vehicle where it also can be messed with.
Post by: NoBark on December 01, 2015, 10:41:36 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 01, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Might have to shorten the archery season so they don't overlap.
I do know that for example, in 660 Minot Peak, for deer, Modern hunters get 19 days of buck hunting, Bow hunters get 67 days of ANY deer hunting, and black powder hunters get 9 days of buck hunting.
I think they could afford to take a week or two from the archers and throw that to black powder hunters so they could also have a late season there. It's crazy that modern hunters get more time in that unit than black powder hunters.
Then there is the question of making hunters buy two separate access permits (again if they are even available) to hunt deer and elk.
They already did that - no thanks.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 01, 2015, 10:47:08 AM
"Our" Gov has no balls to stand up with. He's too busy in Paris to worry about Weyco and their schemes.Are Syrian refugees interested in hunting (other than infidels)? He wants to bring them all to Washington, so maybe he would work on Weyco access if it excludes them.
Post by: BigGoonTuna on December 01, 2015, 11:55:33 PM
i live about a mile from the vail tree farm, walk in access is a hell of a lot better than trying to beat a thousand guys to buy a $300 permit that sells out in 10 minutes, aka no access at all.
Post by: winshooter88 on December 02, 2015, 12:16:14 AM
The whole thing is because of vandalism, trash dumping, etc on private lands.
Unfortunately we are are own worst enemy,,,,,,,,,,,,, the bad apples.
If it was like an access fee which also allowed camping and done per family it would be ok with me at this point.
everything I used to hunt is gated anyway, the part I hate is leaving my vehicle where it also can be messed with.
It isn't all because of problems, there are investment firms buying into these timber companies and they want a return on their investment, doesn't matter if that return is from logging or selling access permits.
Post by: bbarnes on December 02, 2015, 06:59:41 AM
Post by: MADMAX on December 02, 2015, 09:16:01 AM
He said between the meth cookers, trash dumpers, vandals of the million dollar equipment Weyco was going to lock it down
Told me they just had a couple of the harvesters vandalized by idiots putting sand and dirt in the hydraulics.
I agree that it sucks though and tax breaks offered to the company should be revoked.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 02, 2015, 10:51:12 AM
The problem isn't charging access fees,it's the people buying them.Dont buy the passes,and the areas will be over run by wildlife, eating there trees.They will be forced to open areas to hunt,out of crop damage.The problem is everyone is focused on getting there kill,not the real problem.Also these timber company's have blocked and gated,state funded main line roads.Theres been about four of us that have been to our law makers,offices and the timber practice board.It will take a big effort to get this problem reversed by sportsman.This is more than archery or muzzle loaders, getting locked out.All user groups need to work together on this issue.i can also tell you the state is considering,giving management of our state lands, to the very timber company's that our locking you out.harvest success rates are too low in the alternate areas to actually expect people not to get timber passes. If USFS did a big log off and people were seeing forty deer a day again including bucks having three or more points, I would doubt that Weyco passes would be selling for $30 much less the $300.
Post by: westsidehntr on December 02, 2015, 01:32:24 PM
Its surprising how many people just don't get it. Free access is what has killed the free access program. People acted and still act like they are entitled to trespass on private ground, and they damage forests and equipment. I've heard the term "pay to play" thrown around here and that really is in no way applicable. Weyco or any other timber company hasn't just decided to make Joe the Plumber pay. What they have decided to do is make it harder for Joe the Plumber to get on their property and do damage.
We aren't too many years away from entire tree farms being leased by a single lease holder, and all passes and sub leases coming from them. Weyco will be out of the loop completely.
There isn't a soul here who would criticize a farmer that charges for access to his flooded duck fields. No one gripes about a private citizen charging a trespass fee to hunt his mountain. The real problem is that everyone thinks Weyco has too much money, and they are greedy. No more so than any other land owner. I choose to allow a select few people to hunt my property during bow season, just because I don't hunt archery anymore. If I choose to charge someone for the same access, screw anyone who has the audacity to tell me what I can and can't do with my own property. Same rules should apply to any company or person.
I can't speak for others, but I believe most on this thread don't feel entitled to people's private property. Most of us understand that Weyco isn't making a ton of money relative to their timber sales on this. The issue people have with this is the tax breaks for allowing public access. They should either get one or the other. Charge for access and no tax breaks, or free access to ALL the public and tax breaks.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 02, 2015, 02:10:04 PM
Its surprising how many people just don't get it. Free access is what has killed the free access program. People acted and still act like they are entitled to trespass on private ground, and they damage forests and equipment. I've heard the term "pay to play" thrown around here and that really is in no way applicable. Weyco or any other timber company hasn't just decided to make Joe the Plumber pay. What they have decided to do is make it harder for Joe the Plumber to get on their property and do damage.
We aren't too many years away from entire tree farms being leased by a single lease holder, and all passes and sub leases coming from them. Weyco will be out of the loop completely.
There isn't a soul here who would criticize a farmer that charges for access to his flooded duck fields. No one gripes about a private citizen charging a trespass fee to hunt his mountain. The real problem is that everyone thinks Weyco has too much money, and they are greedy. No more so than any other land owner. I choose to allow a select few people to hunt my property during bow season, just because I don't hunt archery anymore. If I choose to charge someone for the same access, screw anyone who has the audacity to tell me what I can and can't do with my own property. Same rules should apply to any company or person.
Yes it is surprising. Many people don't get why companies like WEYCO get deferred tax opportunities when there's little benefit to the public by giving it to them. They pay a fraction of the tax that you and I pay because when the tax law was written, it was assumed they'd continue let the public access their property for recreation. I don't think private land owners should be forced to allow public access. I also don't think they should get tax breaks when they make that decision. Their land should be taxed at a full rate when they close access or charge for access.
Post by: Bob33 on December 02, 2015, 02:12:51 PM
Pubic recreation was one of the options.:yike:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 02, 2015, 02:23:34 PM
It's a spelling police thing.Pubic recreation was one of the options.:yike:
I don't know what you meant by that? But there is a thread on here from maybe a year ago with links to the timber tax codes and the list of options they need to meet so many of is crystal clear. May not be convenient for many of the arguments on here, but crystal clear never the less.
Post by: westsidehntr on December 02, 2015, 02:36:48 PM
Its surprising how many people just don't get it. Free access is what has killed the free access program. People acted and still act like they are entitled to trespass on private ground, and they damage forests and equipment. I've heard the term "pay to play" thrown around here and that really is in no way applicable. Weyco or any other timber company hasn't just decided to make Joe the Plumber pay. What they have decided to do is make it harder for Joe the Plumber to get on their property and do damage.
We aren't too many years away from entire tree farms being leased by a single lease holder, and all passes and sub leases coming from them. Weyco will be out of the loop completely.
There isn't a soul here who would criticize a farmer that charges for access to his flooded duck fields. No one gripes about a private citizen charging a trespass fee to hunt his mountain. The real problem is that everyone thinks Weyco has too much money, and they are greedy. No more so than any other land owner. I choose to allow a select few people to hunt my property during bow season, just because I don't hunt archery anymore. If I choose to charge someone for the same access, screw anyone who has the audacity to tell me what I can and can't do with my own property. Same rules should apply to any company or person.
I can't speak for others, but I believe most on this thread don't feel entitled to people's private property. Most of us understand that Weyco isn't making a ton of money relative to their timber sales on this. The issue people have with this is the tax breaks for allowing public access. They should either get one or the other. Charge for access and no tax breaks, or free access to ALL the public and tax breaks.
This has been covered in detail in past threads. Public access never was a requirement for their tax rate. When this tax structure was set up timber companies were given a reduced annual property tax rate and required to pay an additional tax when trees were harvested (Makes complete sense to me for this type of business). Part of the deal with this tax structure was the timber companies had to meet a certain number (I believe it was 2) of criteria out of several options. Pubic recreation was one of the options. As discussed here in the past these companies already meet enough of the criteria without allowing public access. And I find it a stretch to say they are getting a tax break at all. They are paying the rate structured for their type of land use and meeting the qualifications for this rate. There are commercial properties that pay a higher tax rate than I do on my home. Does this mean I'm getting a tax break? If you believe I am then I guess you can say timber companies are as well. Personally I wouldn't call it a tax break, I am paying the rate structured for the type of land use I have just as the timber companies are.
And for the record I have no personal interest or ties to any timberland. But I do believe strongly in private property rights. I truly wish these lands were left open to the general public. But I sure don't blame these companies for shutting them down with all the abuse that has occurred on them.
I fully support private property rights too, and I agree with your last statement.
And, if their tax structure says nothing about public access, I take back everything I said. But, I need some proof. I guess I never saw the other threads that detailed this.
Post by: bbarnes on December 02, 2015, 10:59:21 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 03, 2015, 01:42:46 AM
Post by: bbarnes on December 03, 2015, 07:21:46 AM
Post by: fireweed on December 03, 2015, 09:43:02 AM
From what I hear Weyco will be year round permit required in 2016 for each tree farm--at basically double the price for St. Helens ($300). So when my kid turns 18 next year our house has to spend $600 to simply go for a walk to the nearby creek.
How about instead of the state bending over backward to benefit the fee system (like they did in Margaret) we get the governor to stand up to them like the Montana governor did in a letter which basically threatens all their tax perks
http://governor.mt.gov/Portals/16/docs/2015PressReleases/20151119_Doyle_Simons_%20Weyerhaeuser_CEO.pdf?ver=2015-11-19-151958-630
weyco's VIP's aren't too happy about this letter.
My neighbor has a creek through his property as well. His property is posted and he doesn't allow access. If he wanted to charge for access to it that is his right. This is how private property works.
As far as that letter goes I would hardly call that standing up to weyco. And in no place did it threaten to change tax rates. It sounded a lot more like him pleading to weyco.
Of course the governor isn't going to specifically threaten to hit their tax breaks--it's a veiled threat. There are a thousand ways the governor of a state can make a company's life miserable. When the CEO gets a letter from the governor before the merger is even completed and basically says "your bad reputation precedes you, and we are watching you" . When a governor tells a CEO that he is very concerned, and the fee program "will not be well received in Montana" its a threat. Just like Robert De Niro pointing to his eyes and warning his would-be sin-in-law "I'm watching you" it's a threat.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 08, 2016, 11:36:55 AM
The problem isn't charging access fees,it's the people buying them.Dont buy the passes,and the areas will be over run by wildlife, eating there trees.They will be forced to open areas to hunt,out of crop damage.The problem is everyone is focused on getting there kill,not the real problem.Also these timber company's have blocked and gated,state funded main line roads.Theres been about four of us that have been to our law makers,offices and the timber practice board.It will take a big effort to get this problem reversed by sportsman.This is more than archery or muzzle loaders, getting locked out.All user groups need to work together on this issue.i can also tell you the state is considering,giving management of our state lands, to the very timber company's that our locking you out.You seriously nailed this one .. I totally agreed to what your saying until about September 2015 .. I preached I would never buy into this crap but I did .. I am not that happy about the price to access but I must tell you it was worth it .. Gates to save the game ..and from what I seen this year I sure wish they had more permits for spring bear up North .. I literally seen acres and acres of trees peeled from bears ..unfortunately no spring bear permits in this unit . I am writing to Weyerhaeuser about what I have seen and find out why there are not permits in this unit ..Anyway we ended up with 1 bear and 1 deer off that permit ..I guess I got my monies worth ...seen a lot more game than in usual areas I hunt freely !