Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Bear Hunting => Topic started by: time2hunt on May 31, 2018, 04:02:51 PM


Advertise Here
Title: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: time2hunt on May 31, 2018, 04:02:51 PM
WDFW sued over bear hunts on timber farms
http://www.king5.com/mobile/article/tech/science/environment/wdfw-sued-over-bear-hunts-on-timber-farms/281-560352815
(Via KING 5)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: eastsidemallard74 on May 31, 2018, 04:14:15 PM
"Tried to keep out of the public eye" Remember the days before social media......... :bdid:
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 31, 2018, 05:33:13 PM
Wonder if the timber companies will help out WDFW in fighting this?  Maybe it will lead to OTC spring bear or if all goes to the tribal houndsmen.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: KFhunter on May 31, 2018, 05:43:04 PM
Wonder if the timber companies will help out WDFW in fighting this?  Maybe it will lead to OTC spring bear or if all goes to the tribal houndsmen.

timber companies :pee:



They want to keep public off their property AND pay cheap property tax rates AND have WDFW slaughter bears AND not let anyone use the carcasses?



Ya, pizz on em.  I hope WDFW looses the suit and bears strip the hell out of their trees until they fling open all their gates and beg hunters to come get some bears
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: hunter399 on May 31, 2018, 06:01:45 PM
Wonder if the timber companies will help out WDFW in fighting this?  Maybe it will lead to OTC spring bear or if all goes to the tribal houndsmen.

timber companies :pee:



They want to keep public off their property AND pay cheap property tax rates AND have WDFW slaughter bears AND not let anyone use the carcasses?



Ya, pizz on em.  I hope WDFW looses the suit and bears strip the hell out of their trees until they fling open all their gates and beg hunters to come get some bears
:yeah:  +1
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Stein on May 31, 2018, 06:35:08 PM
I was hunting bears on timber property today and ran across a trespasser on a quad that beat a path around the gate and was ripping circles in the road digging big ruts.  A couple hours later, I ran across another truck of trespassers that flat out told me they didn't have permission but had the code for the gates.  At just about every pullout, there was a pile of garbage and every sign had a bunch of bullet holes in them.

Maybe it's just me, but I bet they won't be begging for more people on their land anytime soon.

That said, the lawsuit says you can take two bears and bait them, so that is different from the draw hunts as far as I know, it must be a completely different program.  I also don't see them complaining when bears get into urban neighborhoods and are dealt with.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 31, 2018, 07:16:28 PM
I just seen the report on channel 5.  How can judges take these people seriously in court?  I think it is time for a real judge to step up and issue a ruling saying that it is the job of the wdfw to set the regulations and that a 20 year old initiative and a lawsuit from a liberal group is not how we manage wildlife.

Was the tribes listed as a violator of the law or are the liberals only suing the wdfw and the corporate timber companies?
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Ghost Hunter on June 01, 2018, 06:14:12 AM
Bet if they win it taxpayers will pay the attorney fees.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: jackmaster on June 01, 2018, 06:36:27 AM
I will NEVER blame timber companies from shutting down their lands, it's THEIR land, I know if I owned a couple hundred thousand acres I wouldn't let people hunt it or I would do what the timber companies do and sell a few keys to responsible people , look at what people do to the land that is state owned :bash: it's a joke and a disgusting mess, having said that , wdfw needs to man up and get rid of the no trapping, no baiting, no hounding laws and let us get out there and control the damn predator problem!!
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 01, 2018, 07:01:35 AM
I will NEVER blame timber companies from shutting down their lands, it's THEIR land, I know if I owned a couple hundred thousand acres I wouldn't let people hunt it or I would do what the timber companies do and sell a few keys to responsible people , look at what people do to the land that is state owned :bash: it's a joke and a disgusting mess, having said that , wdfw needs to man up and get rid of the no trapping, no baiting, no hounding laws and let us get out there and control the damn predator problem!!

You won't ever own that much property.  And usually, the actual companies doing the logging don't either.  These are billionaires out to make a buck, however they see fit.  Not lifetime loggers who know the land.  This isn't a property owners right issue.  It's investment groups who are taking advantage of massive tax breaks and not giving back in return what they were supposed to.  How on earth this is still happening is beyond me.

I'm with KF on this one.  Paying $300 to access property that they get a reduced tax rate on to allow public access to, only to have them start managing wildlife on their own with no regard to what WDFW puts out?

WDFW's wildlife policies suck, but the answer is not competing agencies.  It's cleaning up what we have.


Now, if a timber company buys some land and pays the full tax on it.... Let them do what they want as far as access goes.  As for the bears, they still need to obey the law!
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: X-Force on June 01, 2018, 07:15:07 AM
CBD sucks.

If timber companies don’t come to bat with WDFW CBD will wipe the floor with current practices.

If CBD wins our west side spring bear hunts will be next. :twocents:

Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: baker5150 on June 01, 2018, 07:18:33 AM
Simple solution, change the law, allow baiting and hounds again. 

Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: baker5150 on June 01, 2018, 07:22:10 AM
"They've taken what was a small exemption in the voter initiative and driven a Mack truck through it."
What a massive over reaction. 
 
I'd be willing to bet if one of these bears chewed one of their tree huggin buddies, they wouldn't complain about using dogs to track it down.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 07:30:15 AM
I will NEVER blame timber companies from shutting down their lands, it's THEIR land, I know if I owned a couple hundred thousand acres I wouldn't let people hunt it or I would do what the timber companies do and sell a few keys to responsible people , look at what people do to the land that is state owned :bash: it's a joke and a disgusting mess, having said that , wdfw needs to man up and get rid of the no trapping, no baiting, no hounding laws and let us get out there and control the damn predator problem!!

You won't ever own that much property.  And usually, the actual companies doing the logging don't either.  These are billionaires out to make a buck, however they see fit.  Not lifetime loggers who know the land.  This isn't a property owners right issue.  It's investment groups who are taking advantage of massive tax breaks and not giving back in return what they were supposed to.  How on earth this is still happening is beyond me.

I'm with KF on this one.  Paying $300 to access property that they get a reduced tax rate on to allow public access to, only to have them start managing wildlife on their own with no regard to what WDFW puts out?

WDFW's wildlife policies suck, but the answer is not competing agencies.  It's cleaning up what we have.


Now, if a timber company buys some land and pays the full tax on it.... Let them do what they want as far as access goes.  As for the bears, they still need to obey the law!

Lots of people pay reduced taxes including farmers, low income seniors, etc.  The only reason timber companies get the heat around here is that they used to allow free access.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 07:36:09 AM
Lets remember who owns the land.  I would not want people trespassing on my land especially the way people leave it and what they do on it.  It's called private by correct definition.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 01, 2018, 07:38:24 AM
The voters of the state, particularly King/Snohomish/etc; voted to allow this.  Didn't they read the actual initiative?
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Old Man Yager on June 01, 2018, 08:20:26 AM
I don't like the news report. It makes it sound like the bear hunters can just kill any bear they see. I talked to bear Hunter in Hancock a coule of months ago. From what he said, they are pretty tightly regulated. Now I'm sure there are some that abuse it, but the guy I talked to said when he goes out after a bear, he is given a specific area he can go to where tree damage was reported. His dogs have GPS collars, and WDFW can pull that data and see exactly where the dogs have been. If he gets outside the area, he's going to get hammered for it. He said it's pretty frustrating to get damage calls, load up his dogs, and then not even be able to do what is asked of him because of the reasons I stated above. The article doesn't give all the facts. Regardless of people's feelings on whether or not these hints should be allowed or not, the greenies in Seattle of course didn't tell the whole story. And if you were a business owner, and were taking a financial loss, wouldn't you want to be able to protect your assets( in this case trees)? If there are millions in losses, somebody has to pay for those, and in the end, it's consumers who pay a higher cost for the products.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: trophyhunt on June 01, 2018, 08:48:23 AM
If we had lawmakers who gave a crap about our hunting future, now would be a good time to pass the sportsman’s law, make it so if hunting/fishing laws are changed they need 60%.  Then Wdfw should help push for another vote on baiting/hound hunting of cats and bears! 
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 01, 2018, 09:36:15 AM
Lets remember who owns the land.  I would not want people trespassing on my land especially the way people leave it and what they do on it.  It's called private by correct definition.

Do you pay real estate taxes at a rate of 1/50th that everyone else pays?
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: WSU on June 01, 2018, 10:15:15 AM
I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access.  That includes farmers and tree farmers.  While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt.  I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 12:12:13 PM
I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access.  That includes farmers and tree farmers.  While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt.  I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.

If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land.  I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax.  I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do.  The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs.  Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: WSU on June 01, 2018, 12:35:06 PM
I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access.  That includes farmers and tree farmers.  While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt.  I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.

If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land.  I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax.  I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do.  The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs.  Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.

Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 01, 2018, 12:44:04 PM
I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access.  That includes farmers and tree farmers.  While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt.  I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.

If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land.  I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax.  I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do.  The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs.  Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.

If what you were saying were true, I could potentially side with you.  After watching Hancock intentionally shut down areas during archery and muzzle loader, then open it back up only for modern firearm opener...Then shut it down again after opening weekend.....
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2018, 12:47:12 PM
The voters of the state, particularly King/Snohomish/etc; voted to allow this.  Didn't they read the actual initiative?

 :yeah: Part of the language of the bill was to allow hound hunting and baiting as needed by agents of the state to stop timber damage. People voted for it!  :dunno:

This isn't an open hunting season for hound hunters, it is tightly regulated by the state using specific hound hunters to remove problem bear from damage areas only. Another misleading story by anti-hunters and the liberal news media!

I do have to laugh, WDFW thinks they can work with these people, how is that going!  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 12:50:40 PM
Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land?  Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?

The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals.  If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general.  That is how it works in places like England.

In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 01:00:27 PM
The voters of the state, particularly King/Snohomish/etc; voted to allow this.  Didn't they read the actual initiative?

 :yeah: Part of the language of the bill was to allow hound hunting and baiting as needed by agents of the state to stop timber damage. People voted for it!  :dunno:

This isn't an open hunting season for hound hunters, it is tightly regulated by the state using specific hound hunters to remove problem bear from damage areas only. Another misleading story by anti-hunters and the liberal news media!

I do have to laugh, WDFW thinks they can work with these people, how is that going!  :chuckle:

I shouldn't want to get in bed with anti's when they go after a management tool used by big timber, but I've been irritated at big timber practices for quite a while be it public or private.  DNR, USFS and other NGO big timber property owners are all in bed in gating off roads and herding people into small areas still left open; but that is a different issue and shouldn't be conflated with bear management.

Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 01, 2018, 01:01:19 PM
Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land?  Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?

The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals.  If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general.  That is how it works in places like England.

In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.

I believe the property tax rate was negotiated with access in mind.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 01:14:20 PM
Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land?  Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?

The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals.  If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general.  That is how it works in places like England.

In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.

I believe the property tax rate was negotiated with access in mind.

I haven't seen that, from WA Department of Revenue:

Quote
Forest tax – sometimes called timber tax – is an excise tax that began in 1971, when the Legislature excluded timber from property taxation. In place of a property tax on trees, timber owners pay a 5 percent excise tax on the stumpage value of their timber when it is harvested. In 1982, the Forest Tax was extended to timber harvested from state and federal land, in addition to private land.

From WDFW:

Quote
In general, landowners get no special tax breaks for allowing public access to their property.  In addition, landowners in special tax categories (e.g., timberland) are not required to allow public access.  One exception exists in Asotin County where someone can be allowed to enter into the “Open Space” tax category if they meet requirements for and are enrolled in our Feel Free to Hunt public access program.

If access was part of the deal, it should have been included in the bill in 1971.  Everything I read says it was simply replacing one tax with another and the timber companies asked for it to match their tax expenses to the revenue streams - they pay a bunch when they are logging and a little when they aren't.  It seems like more of a cashflow thing.

It is often portrayed as a simple tax break, which is not correct.  Whether they would pay more one way or another is difficult to say, it depends obviously on how much they cut and the price of timber when it is cut.

That's what I have been able to find anyway, there could be more facts to the story.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: WSU on June 01, 2018, 01:16:53 PM
Property tax is a related issue.  I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc.  My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.

So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land?  Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?

The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals.  If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general.  That is how it works in places like England.

In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.

I'm not talking about a bear in a neighborhood.  I'm talking about crop damage from elk from a landowner that won't allow access.  Or tree damage to a tree farm that won't allow access. 

I agree that my thoughts do raise issues about who should and who shouldn't be required to allow access.  It just strikes me as wrong that people get granted special privileges (kill permits, reimbursement for damage) when their decision to not allow hunting creates their damage.  I agree there isn't an easy answer.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 01:22:56 PM
I think once there's a board of trustee's involved, they have a CEO, or the company is publicly traded, then access should be a much bigger deal. 


I don't believe in cooperate person-hood and I don't think rights granted to the individual by the bill of rights or constitution should apply to a cooperation.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 01:24:05 PM
I hear you on that.  My point is that if we "punish" them by not providing WDFW support, they will either manage the animals themselves or completely not manage them, both of which are actually punishment for the rest of us.  Timber companies could effectively wipe out nearly all the bears under the current rules either by hunting, operations or habitat destruction, all totally legal.  They could also not do anything and end up with a ton of bears.  Both situations are bad for hunters anywhere near that land.  I would prefer WDFW were involved as much as possible whether they allow access or not.

There are a bunch of acres of timber land that hold tons of animals, is critical habitat for winter range, calving range or other critical aspects.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2018, 01:31:47 PM
When a bear comes to a back yard and attacks the pet goat or rabbits are the people going to want help? I see topics here on this forum every year to that effect. When people are out camping at the lake and a family member is attacked by a cougar are people going to want the cat caught? Myself and my hunting partners have acted on behalf of the state in the past to catch bear and cougar that have attacked livestock, pets, and humans, we were acting as agents of the state under the same language of the legislation that was pushed by the anti-hunting groups and voted in by the voters. I would expect the right judge to throw this out of court, but I guess it depends on the personal beliefs of the judge that gets the case.  :dunno:

I think once there's a board of trustee's involved, they have a CEO, or the company is publicly traded, then access should be a much bigger deal. 


I don't believe in cooperate person-hood and I don't think rights granted to the individual by the bill of rights or constitution should apply to a cooperation.

So if I decide to incorporate my business for tax or liability benefits I should lose all my property rights?
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 02:36:24 PM
I'm not talking about small businesses or LLC's (limited liability Company) no one can vote you off the island and if you need a loan for your business, even as an LLC, it's you who must personally guarantee it. An LLC it cannot survive with out a single person at the head, and that person cannot be voted out by a group of share holders who can and do sell their stock at the click of a button.   

No, I'm talking about big S corporate who's members come and go yet the corporation carries on, there's no longer a single person who must be present to guide the company, thus any since of morality is no longer guaranteed from one board member elected CEO to the next, only the bottom line matters. 

And even then I'd advocate for a certain size S corp who regularly acquisitions land for commercial purposes. IE: big timber, big AG etc.



Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 02:54:30 PM
The Supreme Court has already settled this one, corporations are people and money is speech.  It would take a change to the US constitution to fix that mess.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 02:55:16 PM
yup yup, just pontificating  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 02:58:44 PM
Funny thing is that I think it would be possible to drum up over 50% support if you took a national poll.  Of course, congress wouldn't go for it unless their back was truly up against the wall.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 01, 2018, 04:01:35 PM
I'd be more concerned with C corps, at least S corp members have to at least be US residents.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2018, 07:20:43 PM
Thanks for the clarification!  :tup:
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 08:42:30 PM
Lets remember who owns the land.  I would not want people trespassing on my land especially the way people leave it and what they do on it.  It's called private by correct definition.

Do you pay real estate taxes at a rate of 1/50th that everyone else pays?

I would love a debate but just cannot on a black and white issue of privately owned property.  The timber tax breaks are no different than the farm land use breaks.  No issues with the wheat Farmers that some years they struggle to break even.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 08:48:51 PM
And believe me I pay my fair share of taxes way more than the average.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: CarbonHunter on June 01, 2018, 08:50:18 PM
I would be far more worried about the tribes getting the land and not paying any taxes if they get it into the trust. Keep in mind that if corporations didn’t get these tax breaks the only groups on the planet that could afford these vast tracts of land would be the feds, states or tribes because they won’t pay any tax on the land which in turns means all our taxes would increase.

Everyone thinks there is too many predators but when an effort is made to reduce them all of a sudden we have a problem with timber companies not allowing everyone in without paying?  I say the corporate  timber companies are doing a far better job managing their land than the  state and feds are and we should stand behind them against the liberals.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 08:55:18 PM
Obviously I'm not a business owner but I think the message intent is clear.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 09:00:32 PM
 :tup: carbonhunter agree.  If the timber companies were not managing and working the land where would this land be?  What condition would it be in without the exercise of Forrest management the timber companies implement?  What other incentive would exist to manage the forests as they do?  For one I am grateful for the timber companies and the limited access they do provide.  Back when the northwest was less populated indeed a better time but change does happen with the times and not too long ago the NW was the emerging frontier, well that time in the rear view mirror has passed.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 09:08:41 PM
A bit off topic but a good read and a good reminder that not too long ago we (NW) was the verge of the last frontier....  Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey.  EPIC
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: j_h_nimrod on June 01, 2018, 11:07:52 PM
The one thing that aggravates me about the timber company lands is that “as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong” most of these lands were originally US public lands that were granted to certain entities (railroads primarily)as compensation for the rails they installed and they had very generous tax incentives with certain public uses accepted. Otherwise they were granted or purchased  at obscenely low rates for economic development through county and state programs that specified public access as a requisite for their tax incentives. Other portions were set aside for public economic benefits to schools and mental health with general public access as part of the agreement.

Long story short, many of these lands were government owned and given away for certain uses, with certain public uses excepted in their management. Again, this is how I have been lead to understand some of the issue, correct me if this is not the case.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 01, 2018, 11:55:04 PM
Wasn't every bit of land owned by the government (still is basically)?  I think all the land before statehood, during territory, was granted as homestead.  If you go back before US acquisition from the colonies to california, the land was given by a government such as England, France or Spain allowed to stay private as it was brought under US control.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: CarbonHunter on June 02, 2018, 07:05:36 AM
The one thing that aggravates me about the timber company lands is that “as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong” most of these lands were originally US public lands that were granted to certain entities (railroads primarily)as compensation for the rails they installed and they had very generous tax incentives with certain public uses accepted. Otherwise they were granted or purchased  at obscenely low rates for economic development through county and state programs that specified public access as a requisite for their tax incentives. Other portions were set aside for public economic benefits to schools and mental health with general public access as part of the agreement.

Long story short, many of these lands were government owned and given away for certain uses, with certain public uses excepted in their management. Again, this is how I have been lead to understand some of the issue, correct me if this is not the case.

This is how I understand it.  For every mile of track they installed they got 1 section of land in an effort to build the transcontinental railroad. The special interest groups of the mid 1800’s were way better at getting what they wanted than the ones today. One railroad even created a timber company known as Plum Creek and others sold their land to timber companies.
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: CementFinisher on June 03, 2018, 09:34:13 PM
KFhunter- remember that you not wanting timber company's to have the depredation hunts as a tool also takes away from fellow hunters (houndsmen).
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: KFhunter on June 03, 2018, 09:46:37 PM
That part sucks I agree. 

Too bad we can't have houndsmen make a contract with the timber company to take guided hunters hound hunting on that timber companies property. 
Hunters who'd be ecstatic to take a bear, use the rug and consume the meat. 

The houndsmen would have the keys and ensure nothing gets trashed, bears would be killed, less trees would be stripped, WDFW would look better, houndsmen would make some cash. 
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: CementFinisher on June 03, 2018, 10:37:09 PM
I655 made the depredation hunts the only legal way for houndsmen to run bear. yes we would all love to have what you mentioned but i655 was passed
Title: Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
Post by: Elkcollector82 on June 16, 2018, 04:53:17 PM
https://apnews.com/85a44cb734054fd089af5ffc493835f0

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal