Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 07, 2017, 02:24:00 PM
Free Camping!...at designated campgrounds
select your elk tag for the drawing before the drawing...added 2 rifle permits as well...
New permits go on sale March 17th...
Grade
Post by: trophyhunt on March 07, 2017, 02:33:43 PM
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 07, 2017, 02:58:06 PM
If anything, I hope past permit holders call and complain about the youth opportunities taken away. How is it OK for adults to kill does but not have youth get that opportunity? Makes no sense...
Grade
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 07, 2017, 03:07:08 PM
Why keep it quiet...the new rules suck for the youth hunters, other than that it's not much of a change...going back to the 2 pt min. (who cares, not like a bunch of people bought the permits to shoot spikes) and the permits don't sell out anyway, so it's not like there's going to be a mad dash and no chance at a permit...
If anything, I hope past permit holders call and complain about the youth opportunities taken away. How is it OK for adults to kill does but not have youth get that opportunity? Makes no sense...
Grade
Archery doe hunt vs a 300 yard rifle kill? Big difference. Apply for a different unit that's open then for doe. Deer numbers aren't what they should be up there.
Post by: trophyhunt on March 07, 2017, 03:12:18 PM
Why keep it quiet...the new rules suck for the youth hunters, other than that it's not much of a change...going back to the 2 pt min. (who cares, not like a bunch of people bought the permits to shoot spikes) and the permits don't sell out anyway, so it's not like there's going to be a mad dash and no chance at a permit...Id just like to go into the elk draw with the best odds possible, I hope your right and less people get the pass.
If anything, I hope past permit holders call and complain about the youth opportunities taken away. How is it OK for adults to kill does but not have youth get that opportunity? Makes no sense...
Grade
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 07, 2017, 03:18:49 PM
Grade
PS. Adult kills a doe at 30 yards with a bow or kills one at 300 yards with a rifle...still a dead doe...let the youth have that opportunity not an adult with an over the counter tag that has many more GMU's open for does.
Post by: Dhoey07 on March 07, 2017, 03:31:37 PM
As for archery does, that is pretty much on par with the state regs.
Post by: grundy53 on March 07, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
I don't get a Kapowsin pass, but I grew up hunting on the westside and I wasn't discouraged from hunting because I couldn't shoot a doe. The idea that a youth is more inclined to pursue hunting because they can shoot a doe is a farce IMO.Agreed. I never hunted does when I was a youth and I still managed to get addicted to hunting.
As for archery does, that is pretty much on par with the state regs.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 07, 2017, 09:02:35 PM
Grade
Post by: Dhoey07 on March 07, 2017, 09:23:15 PM
"As for archery does, that is pretty much on par with the state regs."...So are the youth antlerless permits put out by the WDFW, which by the way, will still be issued by the WDFW for GMU 654 but Hancock is saying they won't honor the WDFW permit on their lands...the game animals cannot be privately owned in WA, as they are owned by the people, this is a big land owner imposing their own management on our animals (which they have every right to do on their lands) but it makes no sense that they allow adults to kill does but not youth...and as far as "still managed to get addicted to hunting" without youth doe permits, well, keep in mind WA is losing hunters at an alarming rate and soon non-hunters and anti-hunters will even have more of a stronghold...if the WDFW gives youth doe permits then Hancock should think twice about allowing them on their lands, after all, it's mostly hunters who buy the permit and hunter numbers are dwindling...soon there won't be hunters to buy the permit...makes no sense is all I'm saying.
Grade
It's no different than if I owned 200 acres and let you hunt on it as long as you didn't shoot a doe. I agree with you that hancock should think twice about allowing doe tags, but they chose to manage their property differently than the state. In fact, you could argue while they are actually managing their land while the state is managing for revenue.
Post by: Clearcut on March 07, 2017, 09:28:02 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on March 07, 2017, 09:37:42 PM
I think allowing timber companies to make such decisions like these are a slippery slope. Ya it's "their land to manage", but where does the line get drawn? What if all the companies take this route?
What if they close it to everybody?
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 07, 2017, 09:52:04 PM
Duckslayer89...if you look at my post I specifically say Youth...I could care less about adults shooting does, with a bow or a rifle...but why discourage the youth, especially when they give out specific youth tags for antlerless that starts the week before the general season...I agree that the deer numbers aren't the same as they used to be but this isn't because of youth hunters, it's because of the combination of all hunters as well as game management and forest practices...
Grade
PS. Adult kills a doe at 30 yards with a bow or kills one at 300 yards with a rifle...still a dead doe...let the youth have that opportunity not an adult with an over the counter tag that has many more GMU's open for does.
I know you said youth. When I was a kid I literally dreamed about bow hunting before I got to take hunters ed. Get your kid a bow and practice a bunch, or go to another unit that allows for antlerless hunting where there are more deer
Post by: Buckhunter28 on March 07, 2017, 09:52:52 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 07, 2017, 10:04:17 PM
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 08, 2017, 09:30:08 AM
Again, yes, this is their land, they can manage it any way they want...just like if I owned 200 acres and I didn't want does killed, that's my choice...but to say one group of hunters (mostly adults due to weapon abilities/draw poundage, etc) can shoot does but not provide an opportunity to another user group (youth, who happen to be the one user group that needs this type of hunt the most to increase our hunter population for the future) is setting a really bad example...Hancock has a great opportunity to do good for the hunting community in which they make a lot of money off of...
Long story short: Archery hunters are primarily adults (buy passes) and have a 9 week doe or 2pt+ bucks season...youth can't buy passes and their doe hunts aren't honored. Makes no sense unless you follow the $$$
Grade
Post by: dvolmer on March 08, 2017, 10:31:48 AM
I know nothing about this west side hunting access permits by Hancock but it does bring up an interesting topic. Private land owners by law are not allowed to make up there own hunting laws. They can charge for access if they want. They can work with the game dept to come up with special permit opportunities for themselves and others. But they aren't supposed to make up their own laws.
for example, in the Bitterroot valley of Montana, a very rich man bought up a lot of land that the public had hunted for many years. he kept it all to himself and got a reputation as a jerk my the locals. to try and alleviate some of this he decided to let first time youth hunters access his land and shoot a cow elk if they scored so high on their firearm safety test. This worked out fine until one kid came in to hunt. When he got there and was put in front of the herd his dad told him to shoot the biggest bull in the herd. He did and the landowner went ballistic. He called the game warden and when he showed up he asked the land owner if he had given permission to the kid to access his land to hunt. the land owner told him he did but that he could only shoot a cow and not a bull. The game warden showed the land owner that the unit that his land was in was opened for both bull and cow for youth hunters. he could give or deny access to people but the animals are owned by the people that are on his land and not by him. So the kid did absolutely nothing that was illegal and shot a bull on land that he had been given permission to access and bull season was open in that unit.
I am not totally sure of this, but I heard it was true about the ranches that side up to the Hanford site here in Washington. These ranches were charging people access to hunt their land at $1000 per antler point. This came back as illegal. They could charge what ever access fee they wanted to but it couldn't be based on the animal they killed because they don't own the animals. So they can charge a $10,000 access fee if they want but whether you shoot a 3x3 rag horn or a 8x8 trophy it doesn't matter.
This land you are all talking about should be ruled by the Washington State Game dept. Not a land owner. If the land owner and state get together and make the rules then that is different. I'm not sure, maybe that is what is done here. Just a little bit to think on.
Post by: Branden on March 08, 2017, 10:41:12 AM
Hancock will probably just pull your permit if you shoot a spike.
Post by: cavemann on March 08, 2017, 10:58:42 AM
Post by: Clearcut on March 08, 2017, 10:59:59 AM
Post by: dvolmer on March 08, 2017, 11:04:17 AM
Post by: dvolmer on March 08, 2017, 11:07:39 AM
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 08, 2017, 11:09:50 AM
Grade
Post by: dvolmer on March 08, 2017, 11:11:13 AM
Post by: cavemann on March 08, 2017, 11:21:00 AM
Post by: Clearcut on March 08, 2017, 11:28:22 AM
Post by: JeffRaines on March 08, 2017, 11:29:02 AM
I don't hunt this area in question. I think 2pt or better is a good rule. But i don't think it's this "timber management" companies decision to make. It's what WDFW is for. Even though how well they manage anything could be in question it's what there here to do. Allowing these types of things to start could be the start of the end for hunting for 99% of people here. What if Weyco (nazi Germany) decided that they were gonna no longer honor cow permits on there tree farms and bull had to be 5pt or better and in 5 years there charging thousands of dollars for access per person. ? Should they be able to have rules on there property? Absolutely.. but not when it comes to game management.
I assume the way Hancock 'gets away with it' is they issue special permits for the elk permit guys and close the lands during the elk seasons to prevent someone who doesn't have a permit from shooting one. Its a loophole of sorts.
Post by: Clearcut on March 08, 2017, 11:44:24 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 08, 2017, 01:00:53 PM
Private land owners by law are not allowed to make up there own hunting laws. They can charge for access if they want. They can work with the game dept to come up with special permit opportunities for themselves and others. But they aren't supposed to make up their own laws.Not true.
A landowner can enact their own stipulations (or regs if you want to call them that) for hunting on their lands. These stipulations can be more restricted then the state regs, but can't be looser then the state regs. What Hancock did was restrict the state regs even further.
For example, a landowner with land in an "any deer" unit can say I'll let you on my land but you can only shoot bucks with a 3pt minimum. Now if he shoots a 2pt is it poaching, no not under state laws. But he can be charged for trespass since he broke the landowner's regulations.
Post by: trophyhunt on March 08, 2017, 01:01:45 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but unit 654 in which where kapowsin is located. Is open for general seasons for all 3 weapons. So if them issuing elk permits to access permit holders is doing you a favor 🤔Hancock is in 654, that unit does have otc elk hunts. But, Hancock closes access to their property during all elk seasons, except to those who draw the permits. Basically it's an access permit more than an elk permit. They will prosecute to full extent of the law for trespassing if your caught in there during elk season without permission.
Post by: cavemann on March 08, 2017, 01:25:28 PM
There's no irony. If you live an hunt western Washington then your surrounded by timberland that has become paid access. I'll admit. I played the game for the first few years, but haven't since then. Once one company gets away with something an others see a benefit in it they'll follow the leader. So having this happen even though apparently I have no idea where his tree farm is according to you cavemen it's close enough to home for me that it will be like a ripple effect and before long be knocking on my door.. like I said. I don't disagree with 2pt minimum. I've been saying for years it's should be 2pt or better. But that's wdfw call not Hancock
It's a matter of opinion.. You and dvolmer both stated you either didn't know where Hancock was or have never been there. Simply stated, Hancock is not violating laws and has restricted elk hunts similar to the 2pt minimum for deer they are putting in place now. They can do as they wish.
As I stated earlier, it is not worth it anyway.. No deer, roads are crowded and it's way over priced. I'm all for boycotting them and think western wa hunters should do the same and not buy their permit... Send a message... Their is a ton of free access land in the Methow, Entiat and E Wa.. Mule deer are everywhere and whitetail are on the mend around the Palouse and Ione.. Less restrictions, more deer and friendly locals who will help.
Post by: krapmit on March 08, 2017, 01:30:17 PM
Post by: rasbo on March 08, 2017, 01:41:08 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on March 08, 2017, 02:06:21 PM
how much $$ is the pass this year?375.00
Post by: biggfish on March 08, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but unit 654 in which where kapowsin is located. Is open for general seasons for all 3 weapons. So if them issuing elk permits to access permit holders is doing you a favor 🤔There is no late season elk that is all by permit after riffle season. Also no early muzzleloader deer. But there is state and federal land on the south side and Glacier Peak is open for high buck, so the unit has a lot of opportunity.
Sent from my LG-K425 using Tapatalk
Post by: duckmen1 on March 08, 2017, 02:54:28 PM
Just sayin
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 08, 2017, 03:28:33 PM
Serious question for ya (just in case others on here think I am being "funny" or sarcastic) but for trespassing you have to be on private lands without permission...and trespassing while hunting is being on private lands without permission and hunting...but if you are a pass holder, and it is open to pass holders so you have permission and it is legal to shoot a spike by state law how are you trespassing as you stated? The permit is for access and it clearly states that if you violate the rules of the pass that they can and will take your pass away, but they can't impose state laws of trespassing because you broke an "Hancock rule" as this would be the same thing if you were speeding, or riding a dirt bike or didn't sign in...your not breaking any state laws, they can't call the sheriff and have you arrested for trespassing in those instances, so how is shooting a legal spike any different? I would think they would kick you out and revoke your permit...but no court would find you guilty of trespassing when you showed up and had a permit to be allowed on the land...can you explain if I am wrong on this one.
I looked up the RCW just to make sure...and it says the person enters or remains unlawfully...if you have a pass and it's legal to shoot a spike per state law, they are there lawfully...just not in compliance with Hancock's rules but RCW's can only be applied to state statutes not private rules. Again, I equate this to having a warming fire on a ridge during a snowstorm, not against the law but against Hancock rules of no fires outside of the camping area, they can't call the sheriff and have you arrested for the fire as its not against the state law to have one, they can just kick you out and revoke your permit.
And just this past week the "Bullwinkle" case set case law on this very subject...
RCW 9A.52.080
Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
thanks in advance,
Grade
Post by: Clearcut on March 08, 2017, 04:09:14 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 08, 2017, 04:11:40 PM
Bigtex,It's case law that's been applied under the criminal trespass statute. You are correct that there is not a codified statute in the WA trespass law that says you can't violate a landowner's rule. The courts have set a precedent that when someone/a company allows you onto their lands you do so at the will of the landowner and have to follow their stipulations. Once you break that stipulation you are trespassing.
Serious question for ya (just in case others on here think I am being "funny" or sarcastic) but for trespassing you have to be on private lands without permission...and trespassing while hunting is being on private lands without permission and hunting...but if you are a pass holder, and it is open to pass holders so you have permission and it is legal to shoot a spike by state law how are you trespassing as you stated?
Post by: olyguy79 on March 08, 2017, 04:12:37 PM
:yeah:Bigtex,It's case law that's been applied under the criminal trespass statute. You are correct that there is not a codified statute in the WA trespass law that says you can't violate a landowner's rule. The courts have set a precedent that when someone/a company allows you onto their lands you do so at the will of the landowner and have to follow their stipulations. Once you break that stipulation you are trespassing.
Serious question for ya (just in case others on here think I am being "funny" or sarcastic) but for trespassing you have to be on private lands without permission...and trespassing while hunting is being on private lands without permission and hunting...but if you are a pass holder, and it is open to pass holders so you have permission and it is legal to shoot a spike by state law how are you trespassing as you stated?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on March 08, 2017, 04:28:35 PM
So, you can be charged with tresspass if you don't follow their own rules?:yeah:Bigtex,It's case law that's been applied under the criminal trespass statute. You are correct that there is not a codified statute in the WA trespass law that says you can't violate a landowner's rule. The courts have set a precedent that when someone/a company allows you onto their lands you do so at the will of the landowner and have to follow their stipulations. Once you break that stipulation you are trespassing.
Serious question for ya (just in case others on here think I am being "funny" or sarcastic) but for trespassing you have to be on private lands without permission...and trespassing while hunting is being on private lands without permission and hunting...but if you are a pass holder, and it is open to pass holders so you have permission and it is legal to shoot a spike by state law how are you trespassing as you stated?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JBar on March 08, 2017, 04:53:04 PM
Again that would need to be approved and added by the WDFW. As a matter of fact even if they say it's a 2 point minimum on bucks they couldn't stop a person from shooting a spike as long as the GMU is a any buck unit. Yes they could kick you out, void your permit and not allow you to purchase another but you have broken no law by shooting a spike as long as the GMU allows it. If you add a cow permit for modern it's unit wide so anyone could put in and receive that permit even if they don't have a Hancock access permit. Would love to see the elk thinned out a bit and more opportunity given but it will be limited on how they can do it.
:yeah:
A lot of the suggestions here are really things out of Hancock's control and are more in WDFW's management. Hancock can say 2pt minimum for deer but if you shoot a spike you wouldn't really be "poaching" in the legal view of things since technically the unit is open for spikes.
Bigtex- The above quote in bold was from you referring to my post above that about Hancock on another thread. I'm not going to shoot a spike and risk my permit but just need some clarification. Its not poaching but is trespassing?
Post by: bigtex on March 08, 2017, 05:03:41 PM
Quote from: JBar on December 16, 2016, 01:50:02 PMYou could not be cited for a wildlife offense, because quite simply you didn't violate any state hunting regs. You simply went against the landowners stipulations/regulations for accessing their property. What is "poaching" is up to each person's view, it's not a legal term in WA, or most states.
Again that would need to be approved and added by the WDFW. As a matter of fact even if they say it's a 2 point minimum on bucks they couldn't stop a person from shooting a spike as long as the GMU is a any buck unit. Yes they could kick you out, void your permit and not allow you to purchase another but you have broken no law by shooting a spike as long as the GMU allows it. If you add a cow permit for modern it's unit wide so anyone could put in and receive that permit even if they don't have a Hancock access permit. Would love to see the elk thinned out a bit and more opportunity given but it will be limited on how they can do it.
:yeah:
A lot of the suggestions here are really things out of Hancock's control and are more in WDFW's management. Hancock can say 2pt minimum for deer but if you shoot a spike you wouldn't really be "poaching" in the legal view of things since technically the unit is open for spikes.
Bigtex- The above quote in bold was from you referring to my post above that about Hancock on another thread. I'm not going to shoot a spike and risk my permit but just need some clarification. Its not poaching but is trespassing?
Post by: biggfish on March 08, 2017, 05:25:16 PM
Glacier peak is way up north. Where the high hunt takes place. Glacier view is in the 654. There is no high buck hunt in september for glacier view/654.You are correct and I should've known I hunt in there but archery so it's never been an issue. That could have been a horrible mistake this year as I will be going back to gun hunting this year.
Just sayin
Sent from my RCT6873W42 using Tapatalk
Post by: duckmen1 on March 08, 2017, 11:01:30 PM
Glacier peak is way up north. Where the high hunt takes place. Glacier view is in the 654. There is no high buck hunt in september for glacier view/654.You are correct and I should've known I hunt in there but archery so it's never been an issue. That could have been a horrible mistake this year as I will be going back to gun hunting this year.
Just sayin
Sent from my RCT6873W42 using Tapatalk
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 09, 2017, 09:01:53 AM
Grade
Post by: fireweed on March 09, 2017, 09:45:17 AM
The WDFW sent all of this power to big private landowners a few years ago when they facilitated the "hunting while trespassing" law. Before that if you followed the WDFW rules, the landowner could only get you for trespassing. After that law was put in, the landowner became a game farm manager--who could charge you with trespassing AND poaching if you broke their hunting rules (and not the state's hunting rules). It opened the floodgate to landowners now doing this type of east-coast thing by creating their own game management rules on top of the states, and they now have two laws to use as a weapon.Private land owners by law are not allowed to make up there own hunting laws. They can charge for access if they want. They can work with the game dept to come up with special permit opportunities for themselves and others. But they aren't supposed to make up their own laws.Not true.
A landowner can enact their own stipulations (or regs if you want to call them that) for hunting on their lands. These stipulations can be more restricted then the state regs, but can't be looser then the state regs. What Hancock did was restrict the state regs even further.
For example, a landowner with land in an "any deer" unit can say I'll let you on my land but you can only shoot bucks with a 3pt minimum. Now if he shoots a 2pt is it poaching, no not under state laws. But he can be charged for trespass since he broke the landowner's regulations.
The state legislature needs to fix this or we will have nothing but game farms masquerading as tree farms. Breaking arbitrary corporate rules should not be the same as breaking state law. If you follow state wildlife laws, the only punishment should be leave the area, lose your access permit privileges.
Post by: fireweed on March 09, 2017, 09:57:23 AM
Which is a way the law can be read--but some county sheriffs are taking the view that they DO NOT enforce corporate policy. The Cowlitz County sheriff has, as you know, made this stand. They will contact someone that is asked to leave, and cite that person if they refuse to leave, but will not enforce corporate policy nor check permits.Bigtex,It's case law that's been applied under the criminal trespass statute. You are correct that there is not a codified statute in the WA trespass law that says you can't violate a landowner's rule. The courts have set a precedent that when someone/a company allows you onto their lands you do so at the will of the landowner and have to follow their stipulations. Once you break that stipulation you are trespassing.
Serious question for ya (just in case others on here think I am being "funny" or sarcastic) but for trespassing you have to be on private lands without permission...and trespassing while hunting is being on private lands without permission and hunting...but if you are a pass holder, and it is open to pass holders so you have permission and it is legal to shoot a spike by state law how are you trespassing as you stated?
Post by: dvolmer on March 09, 2017, 01:43:12 PM
Post by: chester on March 09, 2017, 02:00:36 PM
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 09, 2017, 02:27:09 PM
Grade
Post by: chester on March 09, 2017, 02:28:15 PM
:bdid:
Post by: cavemann on March 09, 2017, 02:36:20 PM
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 09, 2017, 02:40:48 PM
And caveman, I do agree with you that if you don't like the rules and aren't going to abide by them then don't buy the pass...that is not the argument here. What is being discussed is the fact that a landowner is making up their own "laws" and bigtex is saying you can go to jail for breaking up their made up rules...and the thread did take a turn (as they always do) as I originally posted this topic to highlight the changes...which happen to be a landowner making up their own game laws...slippery slope which started the debate.
Grade
Post by: ellensburgpo on March 09, 2017, 04:47:17 PM
Its a civil contract only...legally binding for their rules that they can revoke your permit and not give your money back for breaking the rules...but you can't make up state laws enforced by the cops just because someone signs a piece of paper with made up rules...again, if I buy a movie ticket I am agreeing to adhere to the movie theatre rules and the ticket gives me access, if they say "no cell phone use during the movie" and I use my cell phone they can't call the cops and have me arrested for trespassing they can only kick me out without refund...
And caveman, I do agree with you that if you don't like the rules and aren't going to abide by them then don't buy the pass...that is not the argument here. What is being discussed is the fact that a landowner is making up their own "laws" and bigtex is saying you can go to jail for breaking up their made up rules...and the thread did take a turn (as they always do) as I originally posted this topic to highlight the changes...which happen to be a landowner making up their own game laws...slippery slope which started the debate.
Grade
:yeah: not sure how violating a civil contract with a private corporation equals a criminal offense in this. It's a private company, they can't have your freedom taken from you over their rules. It's like saying if you drive 10mph in the Fred Meyer parking lot but it's posted 5mph you can go to jail for breaking their rules. The government decides what you go to jail for. Ie laws. I rarely disagree with you big Tex but I do in your assessment that it'd be trespassing if you broke their rules.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 09, 2017, 04:55:34 PM
Post by: Jpmiller on March 09, 2017, 05:50:49 PM
I don't know why you would choose to shoot a spike if you know you're in for a fight. There was a guy I heard about near ellensburg that tried something similar (testing the rules of a hunt) and while he was found not guilty I don't think it worked out well for him.
Post by: grundy53 on March 09, 2017, 06:29:54 PM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: ellensburgpo on March 09, 2017, 07:51:55 PM
Could the trespassing thing be that once you are in violation of the contract you are no longer legally allowed to be on property and therefore trespassing?
By that logic I'm violating all kinds of places rules by having a chew in but it says no tobacco products. Or guys that carry guns at a business that request they not be carried. The logic of it being turned into trespassing is seriously flawed. I'm not saying it's not possible to find a cop unreasonable enough to cite it, and a similarly unreasonable prosecutor to try someone under the circumstances. But I'd personally be more concerned with getting hit by lightning. If they catch you breaking their rules, tell you to leave and you refuse at that point your asking for an actual trespass issue in my opinion. I'm not advocating signing a contract knowing you're going to violate it, I'm just trying to provide clarity about the outcome of that.
Post by: ellensburgpo on March 09, 2017, 07:52:55 PM
If you don't like the rules don't buy their pass.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
:yeah: Seems that simple
Post by: Tbar on March 09, 2017, 07:56:35 PM
Post by: justyhntr on March 09, 2017, 09:41:21 PM
If you don't like the rules don't buy their pass.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Exactly , and if Hancock sells less passes this year then they will know people aren't happy . But it would not have mattered what changes they made somebody was not going to be happy . I have a friend complaining about the new camping rule . He believes that now that it is included with the pass that everybody is going to be camping in there and he won't be able to find a spot .He says he won't be buying the pass this year , I bet he does . A common theme in the earlier survey thread was to not allow doe harvest , Hancock drops the doe harvest for modern and muzzy special permits and people aren't happy . Be careful of what you ask for . As an archer I will readily admit that I lobbied Hancock for archery and to maintain doe harvest . I didn't lobby against other group , only lobbied for archers by using what ever data I could find for 654 only because we can not get harvest reports for Kapowsin ( it would be nice if they put those numbers out ) . I have never harvested a doe on Hancock land but I hate to see opportunity taken away , it's just to hard to get back . If Hancock would have taken doe harvest from archers then I would be hunting somewhere else next year . $375 for less opportunity , just wouldn't be worth it to me .I can find bears in other places . As it stands we'll be back in there this year , only difference , we now will be doing some camping . As for deer numbers , still to many predators . We are in there every week end hunting predators and so far have only come across one other person other than our selves hunting predators hard . Last week end we found what we believe to be a cougar kill on a young elk . I'm still irritated that they shut down the cougar season early .
Post by: fireweed on March 10, 2017, 10:19:06 AM
If you don't like the rules don't buy their pass.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
:yeah: Seems that simple
The problem with "just say no" is that in some areas these big landowners have what amounts to a monopoly on land. Having so much land with little competition gives unfair control. For places like Cowlitz county, Weyerhaeuser owns nearly half of all the land in the county, and controls access to most of the public land too.
Post by: brokentrail on March 15, 2017, 08:27:53 PM
To me, it is unfortunate that they won't honor the youth doe permits. Two of my boys have used that permit to kill their first deer, I have another one who is about to be licensed and that opportunity may not be there for him, depending on if they keep or change this rule. I'm not a biologist and therefore can't say there are plenty of does, although nor am I against the 2 pt minimum, but taking away youth opportunity for success wasn't what I had hoped for with their rule changes.
I'll buy it again this year and hope they think about the youth permits differently next year.
Post by: Jharstad7182 on March 20, 2017, 09:45:29 AM
Post by: Old Man Yager on March 20, 2017, 04:53:12 PM
Post by: scottfrick on March 23, 2017, 06:31:54 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 23, 2017, 06:54:59 PM
As I look at it, it's their property so it's their rules. I'll keep buying the permit because it's close to home and I know a lot of Buddies that also buy the permit. I would like to see them open up the bridge gate side for spring bear.... that would be awesome.
:yeah: I would definitely put in for kapowsin spring bear if they opened bridge gate
Post by: elkh8me on March 26, 2017, 10:12:19 AM
Post by: Thehowler on March 26, 2017, 11:49:09 AM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 26, 2017, 01:02:18 PM
Post by: jackmaster on March 26, 2017, 01:12:46 PM
:bash: Shhhhhhhh, let's get our permits before we bring this up!!! It went so long to, I thought we had a chance of the changes not getting posted on here......slim chance but a chance.:chuckle: we were just talking about this, haha, I was really hoping not to see this pop up on here, went longer than I expected, haha
Post by: trophyhunt on March 26, 2017, 01:27:22 PM
Yeah, we knew it would pop up! At least it didn't impact the pass sales.:bash: Shhhhhhhh, let's get our permits before we bring this up!!! It went so long to, I thought we had a chance of the changes not getting posted on here......slim chance but a chance.:chuckle: we were just talking about this, haha, I was really hoping not to see this pop up on here, went longer than I expected, haha
Post by: cem3434 on March 26, 2017, 03:01:09 PM
Post by: justyhntr on March 27, 2017, 11:21:20 AM
Yeah, we knew it would pop up! At least it didn't impact the pass sales.:bash: Shhhhhhhh, let's get our permits before we bring this up!!! It went so long to, I thought we had a chance of the changes not getting posted on here......slim chance but a chance.:chuckle: we were just talking about this, haha, I was really hoping not to see this pop up on here, went longer than I expected, haha
Ya , I don't think their changes had the desired impact they where looking for . It looks like sales are off even from last year . Last I looked Eatonville hasn't even sold half .
Post by: scottfrick on March 28, 2017, 04:21:32 PM
Haven't received mine yet either. Bought mine the morning they went on sale.A bulk got sent out in today's mail. Tomorrow should start receiving them!!
Post by: CarbonHunter on March 28, 2017, 04:57:28 PM
Haven't received mine yet either. Bought mine the morning they went on sale.A bulk got sent out in today's mail. Tomorrow should start receiving them!!
Hopefully they included us slackers that waited until last weekend to buy ours.
Post by: trophyhunt on March 28, 2017, 06:24:27 PM
Post by: westside bull on March 28, 2017, 06:36:40 PM
I got my pass before 7 am the day the sale began, no key or packet yet?I know a lot of people who received there's already I would be emailing them.
Post by: trophyhunt on March 28, 2017, 06:42:42 PM
Agree, just sent one off. They definitely don't respond very fast for me though. ThanksI got my pass before 7 am the day the sale began, no key or packet yet?I know a lot of people who received there's already I would be emailing them.
Post by: westside bull on March 28, 2017, 06:47:38 PM
Post by: crowinghen on March 28, 2017, 08:51:03 PM
Post by: scottfrick on March 29, 2017, 05:09:51 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on March 29, 2017, 06:48:02 PM
Post by: scottfrick on March 29, 2017, 06:58:28 PM
I got mine today.Hm. Mine must be one of the lucky elk drawing permits. That makes since why it's taking longer to receive.