Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 15, 2016, 01:00:01 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 15, 2016, 01:07:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 15, 2016, 01:09:09 PM
Post by: 1bugman on November 15, 2016, 01:09:36 PM
Post by: Wanttohuntmore on November 15, 2016, 01:11:12 PM
Post by: Branden on November 15, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 15, 2016, 01:16:51 PM
In addition, why would we give special dispensation to one group of hunters based on the fact that they pay more money to hunt? This would seem to be in direct contrast to the North American Wildlife Management Model. Could this further encourage trends which rewards those who can afford to pay to play and leave behind those who can't? Just thoughts.
Post by: baldopepper on November 15, 2016, 01:26:02 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 15, 2016, 02:10:17 PM
SWWashington has many units that are mostly timberland and have limited entry now by permit only. Copalis, Minot Peak, Fall River, Lincoln, Willapa Hills, Williams Creek, Bear River etc......Of course there are small holdings of private land, but they are negligible as far as the total area goes.
If the State is going to allow this practice, it's time to look at the management scheme and make changes where it will do no harm to the stocks.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 15, 2016, 02:30:21 PM
The system is already in place and seemingly accepted by the State. This idea wouldn't be giving anything more to hunters who pay the access fees than they already have except for choice of when they hunt. It certainly wouldn't hurt the game populations in these areas to encourage more of the permit holders to hunt with primitive weapons, ie muzzle loaders or archery, that have a lower success rate.
SWWashington has many units that are mostly timberland and have limited entry now by permit only. Copalis, Minot Peak, Fall River, Lincoln, Willapa Hills, Williams Creek, Bear River etc......Of course there are small holdings of private land, but they are negligible as far as the total area goes.
If the State is going to allow this practice, it's time to look at the management scheme and make changes where it will do no harm to the stocks.
Not true. You suggested they be allowed to use any method they want and using your example of ML, increase the number of days they get to hunt over those who hunt public land. That's special treatment. I don't support special rules for people who pay more money to hunt. I'd personally like to see it go the other way and for our government to discourage large private landowners moving away from allowing unfettered public access by removing lowered land values and attaching conditions of access to damage tags.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 15, 2016, 02:53:56 PM
The system is already in place and seemingly accepted by the State. This idea wouldn't be giving anything more to hunters who pay the access fees than they already have except for choice of when they hunt. It certainly wouldn't hurt the game populations in these areas to encourage more of the permit holders to hunt with primitive weapons, ie muzzle loaders or archery, that have a lower success rate.
SWWashington has many units that are mostly timberland and have limited entry now by permit only. Copalis, Minot Peak, Fall River, Lincoln, Willapa Hills, Williams Creek, Bear River etc......Of course there are small holdings of private land, but they are negligible as far as the total area goes.
If the State is going to allow this practice, it's time to look at the management scheme and make changes where it will do no harm to the stocks.
Not true. You suggested they be allowed to use any method they want and using your example of ML, increase the number of days they get to hunt over those who hunt public land. That's special treatment. I don't support special rules for people who pay more money to hunt. I'd personally like to see it go the other way and for our government to discourage large private landowners moving away from allowing unfettered public access by removing lowered land values and attaching conditions of access to damage tags.
If the State was interested in discouraging this practice, all they would need to do is pass a law that said either all of the public is allowed to hunt or no one is. No damage control hunts allowed either.
As for increasing the amount of days you can hunt, I said make it equal to modern firearms. In my example I said, if a permit holder hunts modern, they get 21 days and muzzle loading only 7. So if the chose muzzle loading over modern, what is the big deal if they still get to hunt 21 days? And these rules would apply to anyone who bought a permit to hunt so no one is getting preferential treatment. Get the permit, get the choice.
But the state already gives people different time frames to hunt based on weapon and where they hunt and if they have a master hunter permit. How are any of these things not preferential treatment in your scenario?
Modern elk season west side 12 days. Eastern modern elk 9 days or 17 days depending on where you hunt.
There is also a modern eastern hunt from Aug 1 to Jan 20 if you have a master hunter permit.
The seasons are based on management harvest goals not on being "fair". If the new hunt by access permit and lease scenario affects those goals being met, then seasons can and should be adjusted to meet those goals. Managers should also manage for more opportunity when it doesn't affect management goals.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 15, 2016, 03:41:12 PM
The system is already in place and seemingly accepted by the State. This idea wouldn't be giving anything more to hunters who pay the access fees than they already have except for choice of when they hunt. It certainly wouldn't hurt the game populations in these areas to encourage more of the permit holders to hunt with primitive weapons, ie muzzle loaders or archery, that have a lower success rate.
SWWashington has many units that are mostly timberland and have limited entry now by permit only. Copalis, Minot Peak, Fall River, Lincoln, Willapa Hills, Williams Creek, Bear River etc......Of course there are small holdings of private land, but they are negligible as far as the total area goes.
If the State is going to allow this practice, it's time to look at the management scheme and make changes where it will do no harm to the stocks.
Not true. You suggested they be allowed to use any method they want and using your example of ML, increase the number of days they get to hunt over those who hunt public land. That's special treatment. I don't support special rules for people who pay more money to hunt. I'd personally like to see it go the other way and for our government to discourage large private landowners moving away from allowing unfettered public access by removing lowered land values and attaching conditions of access to damage tags.
If the State was interested in discouraging this practice, all they would need to do is pass a law that said either all of the public is allowed to hunt or no one is. No damage control hunts allowed either.
As for increasing the amount of days you can hunt, I said make it equal to modern firearms. In my example I said, if a permit holder hunts modern, they get 21 days and muzzle loading only 7. So if the chose muzzle loading over modern, what is the big deal if they still get to hunt 21 days? And these rules would apply to anyone who bought a permit to hunt so no one is getting preferential treatment. Get the permit, get the choice.
But the state already gives people different time frames to hunt based on weapon and where they hunt and if they have a master hunter permit. How are any of these things not preferential treatment in your scenario?
Modern elk season west side 12 days. Eastern modern elk 9 days or 17 days depending on where you hunt.
There is also a modern eastern hunt from Aug 1 to Jan 20 if you have a master hunter permit.
The seasons are based on management harvest goals not on being "fair". If the new hunt by access permit and lease scenario affects those goals being met, then seasons can and should be adjusted to meet those goals. Managers should also manage for more opportunity when it doesn't affect management goals.
1st Bolded area. Wed need to tax them at the same rate I pay real estate taxes when they don't allow public access.
2nd Bolded area. The people who buy a permit, under your outline, get preferential treatment. Not everyone who hunts can afford an extra $300-500 per year to do so.
3rd Bolded area. Yes, the state does give different people with Master Hunter permits, and any other draw permit, individual opportunities. The difference is that we don't have to pay $300-500 dollars for the privilege and these opportunities are open to everyone who hunts. The key here is the money that you have to pay for these accesses. Again, not everyone can afford them.
Post by: fireweed on November 18, 2016, 10:25:32 AM
Carving out special rules for pay-to-play is WRONG and totally opposite of what they should be doing:
For example, it is completely preposterous and baffling that the WDFW gives damage tags and sets special damage seasons, like spring bear, for companies that won't let damage hunters on for free. Timber companies complain about damage, then turn around and force the hunters that are HELPING THEM kill problem animals pay a fee for access.
Its like complaining to the government about mice in your house, the government offering you a free cat, then you turn around and CHARGE the cat for the privilege of killing your mice.
Post by: cumminsbassguy on November 18, 2016, 10:46:19 AM
Post by: NoBark on November 18, 2016, 11:49:33 AM
"In addition, why would we give special dispensation to one group of hunters based on the fact that they pay more money to hunt? This would seem to be in direct contrast to the North American Wildlife Management Model. Could this further encourage trends which rewards those who can afford to pay to play and leave behind those who can't? Just thoughts."
It already happens with the multi-season tag. More play for more money. Bummer in my opinion as I've seen the crowding we now as in Late Archery deer due to multi-season tags.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 18, 2016, 11:53:21 AM
Good discussion. As for this....
"In addition, why would we give special dispensation to one group of hunters based on the fact that they pay more money to hunt? This would seem to be in direct contrast to the North American Wildlife Management Model. Could this further encourage trends which rewards those who can afford to pay to play and leave behind those who can't? Just thoughts."
It already happens with the multi-season tag. More play for more money. Bummer in my opinion as I've seen the crowding we now as in Late Archery deer due to multi-season tags.
It's not the same thing but it's closer. A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford the MS tag.
Post by: baldopepper on November 18, 2016, 12:42:32 PM
Post by: csaaphill on November 19, 2016, 02:02:14 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on November 19, 2016, 05:06:07 AM
Post by: baldopepper on November 19, 2016, 09:17:22 AM
Post by: bowbuild on November 28, 2016, 10:00:34 AM
Unless it results in substantially more money than what they're pulling in now, I can't see the timber companies lobbying for anything. I don't think they ultimately care about harvest, unless it's a way to increase the bottom line.
Of course they care about harvest, less rats eating their profit margins..... :(
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 28, 2016, 01:36:07 PM