Post by: True Sportsman on January 26, 2011, 08:30:45 AM
Post by: Sneaky on January 26, 2011, 08:32:10 AM
Post by: Bigtine96 on January 26, 2011, 08:33:33 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 26, 2011, 08:38:13 AM
Post by: agchawk on January 26, 2011, 08:48:47 AM
However, I can see thread heading in the wrong direction really quickly.
Post by: C-Money on January 26, 2011, 08:50:49 AM
Post by: Alan K on January 26, 2011, 08:51:36 AM
Way to go man!
Post by: woodywsu on January 26, 2011, 08:54:00 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on January 26, 2011, 08:57:49 AM
Post by: Sneaky on January 26, 2011, 09:09:28 AM
Hell with the naysayers, I'd say a good 80% of guys drive and glass when they hunt, especially on days like that!
Way to go man!
80% of hunters don't have the keys to locked gates!
Nothing against true sportsman, nice buck, I just wouldn't be all excited to post up the story on that one! especially on here.
Post by: Lowedog on January 26, 2011, 09:13:41 AM
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 09:14:07 AM
Post by: CP on January 26, 2011, 09:21:39 AM
Nice buck.
Could you drive the truck up to it or did you have to drag him to the road?
It’s a good story too. He could have easily made a few changes:
I wanted to share my deer I got a couple years ago
Post by: Alan K on January 26, 2011, 09:22:22 AM
80% of hunters don't have the keys to locked gates!
Can't knock the guy for taking advantage of perk to his job. . . That's like bashing the pencil pushers from the Seattle area on here for getting free copies on the company copy machine, while I have to pay for them at Kinkos! lol
And that 80% is anywhere there's access to a gate, regardless of how they have it, by way of keys or the gate being opened already.
Personally I drive and glass every morning and every evening. I hit the brush mid day.
Post by: huntnfmly on January 26, 2011, 09:26:07 AM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on January 26, 2011, 09:46:49 AM
Post by: yelp on January 26, 2011, 09:58:01 AM
Don’t be haters; it was a legal and ethical hunt.
Nice buck.
Could you drive the truck up to it or did you have to drag him to the road?
It’s a good story too. He could have easily made a few changes:
I wanted to share my deer I got a couple years agowhile road hunting. I worked for a timber company at the time and a co worker and Ihad keys to all the gates. The company gave usgot permission todrive andhunt behind the gates. On Thursday of late buck, we seen 6 bucks before noon. 2 spikes, 2 2points, and 2 3points.We basically just drove around untilI spotted this deer on a hillside with a couple does. Igot out of the truck, got off the road, stalked within range and shot it. Then weput it in the truck and continued to drive around. I kind of felt bad when we drove past guys who had hiked in, because it waspacked it out in a pouring down rain, and we were in the warm cab of the pickup. I hope you guys like the pics.
I agree..perfectly legal good job. Growing up like a lot of hunters I read lots of hunting stories..I rarely saw articles in Outdoor Life that read like short stories. They had adventure and intrigue..LOL .I have friends that road hunt and I do to..I put on a lot of miles scouting with my truck. Some of my buds success stories read just like yours. It got the job done and every wadventure doesn't need 12 chapters. LOL.. Congrats.
Post by: TeacherMan on January 26, 2011, 10:06:20 AM
How many hunters out there actually get out of there truck? The point being is we are all outdoorsman and sportsman and we all need to stick together. I wouldn't want an issue only voted on by the people that actually get out and put miles on there boots. We wouldn't be hunting.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on January 26, 2011, 10:09:19 AM
Post by: h20hunter on January 26, 2011, 10:15:35 AM
Post by: fireguy459 on January 26, 2011, 10:29:12 AM
Post by: h20hunter on January 26, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Post by: NWBREW on January 26, 2011, 10:39:18 AM
I love the honesty, most guys would have made up a BS story, you just said it how it was. I would have done the same thing in those conditions. If you ever need a hunting partner let me know I will pay for lunch and the gas ;)
How many hunters out there actually get out of there truck? The point being is we are all outdoorsman and sportsman and we all need to stick together. I wouldn't want an issue only voted on by the people that actually get out and put miles on there boots. We wouldn't be hunting.
I agree with you teacherman......nice blacktail. T.S, nothing wrong with that. Stay honest....no regrets. I don't road hunt but you are welcome at my campfire T.S.
Post by: agchawk on January 26, 2011, 11:13:30 AM
Nice buck! CONGRATS
However, I can see thread heading in the wrong direction really quickly.
WOW! Very nice to see that I was wrong. I was worried that this thread would quickly turn into a total free-for-all mess.
I will repeat my first post..CONGRATS! I saw nothing wrong with using what was available to ya but was afraid others would jump all over ya. Nice Blackie...You SHOULD be happy!
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 11:30:51 AM
I love the honesty, most guys would have made up a BS story, you just said it how it was. I would have done the same thing in those conditions. If you ever need a hunting partner let me know I will pay for lunch and the gas ;):yeah: love the honesty. I would've done the same thing.
How many hunters out there actually get out of there truck? The point being is we are all outdoorsman and sportsman and we all need to stick together. I wouldn't want an issue only voted on by the people that actually get out and put miles on there boots. We wouldn't be hunting.
Post by: wsucowboy on January 26, 2011, 11:51:28 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 12:00:22 PM
Post by: 724wd on January 26, 2011, 12:12:05 PM
I will be the ass hat here. If I knew there would be other hunters having to hike in while I had the privledge of having the key to the gate, I wouldn't do it. I'd feel like a POS. And with a user name as "True Sportsman" to post a story like this, it just sits in my stomach wrong. Just my take on the situation. Nice legal blacktail though.
i'm having trouble figuring this out. if you had the opportunity, you WOULDN'T drive behind the gate to hunt, just because someone else didn't have the same access? do you refuse the offer of private land because others aren't allowed in? do you choose to hunt with a $100 dollar pawn shop rifle with electrical tape holding the stock together because some people cannot afford a nice browning A-Bolt like you can? :dunno: :chuckle:
not trying to stir the pot, just thought it was kind of a funny statement.
i just want to say congratulations on a nice buck, and i've done the exact same thing and saw no problem with it.
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 12:28:51 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on January 26, 2011, 12:31:07 PM
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 12:36:09 PM
724wd: 1) This situation has nothing to do with private land that one guy can hunt, and others can't. 2) What the hell does being able to afford a nicer rifle than somebody else have to do with anything? What I'm referring to is: I, personally, would NOT drive behind a gate to benefit my hunting opportunities, while others had to walk in, when the land was open for both of us to hunt. That's how I roll, and I know there are many others out there that would do the same. :)
It is private land. Owned by his company. It's a perk of the job. The people walking in are lucky the timber company allows public access. I wouldn't feel bad. He worked for the privilege.... literally.
Post by: bobcat on January 26, 2011, 12:37:44 PM
Post by: 724wd on January 26, 2011, 12:39:03 PM
heath
Post by: woodywsu on January 26, 2011, 12:39:25 PM
Post by: h20hunter on January 26, 2011, 12:42:25 PM
Post by: Devinshoe on January 26, 2011, 12:45:17 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on January 26, 2011, 12:47:31 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 26, 2011, 12:48:15 PM
This thread appears to have been jacked and turned into an ongoing thread regarding the ethics of his particular hunt. I'd shut it down or simply congrulate him and move on. Start a new thread if you want to debate this.
The original poster obviously wanted a debate over his story- why else would he emphasize how it was nothing but "road hunting" and he only got out of the truck long enough to shoot the deer? I don't see a problem with discussing opinions regarding the facts of the story that was given. I would keep the debate (if any) within this thread rather than starting another one. :twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 12:49:29 PM
724wd: 1) This situation has nothing to do with private land that one guy can hunt, and others can't. 2) What the hell does being able to afford a nicer rifle than somebody else have to do with anything? What I'm referring to is: I, personally, would NOT drive behind a gate to benefit my hunting opportunities, while others had to walk in, when the land was open for both of us to hunt. That's how I roll, and I know there are many others out there that would do the same. :)
It is private land. Owned by his company. It's a perk of the job. The people walking in are lucky the timber company allows public access. I wouldn't feel bad. He worked for the privilege.... literally.
I'm well aware that it's private land, as many of my relatives have retired from that company and had many perks also. 724wd: you're way out of my relm of comprehension. h20, I voiced my opinion, and said nice blacktail. I will also back up every comment I make. As for this thread, I'm done:)
Post by: h20hunter on January 26, 2011, 12:52:33 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 26, 2011, 12:54:48 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on January 26, 2011, 12:58:41 PM
To me it's more interesting than a thread in which every post is the same: "congrats. nice buck!" (boring!!!)
:yeah:
And any sort of debate that isn't about wolves or tribes is a welcome break :rolleyes:
Post by: yelp on January 26, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 01:14:10 PM
Post by: yelp on January 26, 2011, 01:20:14 PM
You're right yelp, I'd have to take another weeks vacation if I had to walk up to the Pasayten. :P
LOL..but you would be in such great shape by the time you got to the trailhead! :chuckle: Seriously though it sucks to be hunting in the woods on a closed road..and have a vehicle drive by ya..that really pisses me off! Then they never offer to give me a ride back! Maybe its the firearm and the death stare? LOL
Post by: GoldTip on January 26, 2011, 01:36:17 PM
That all being said whether he killed it from the road or not, thats a darn fine buck.
Post by: provider on January 26, 2011, 01:45:07 PM
Post by: yelp on January 26, 2011, 01:51:48 PM
Every single thing about that story is disappointing... as is all the guys trying to justify it.
Not justifying it at all..just not trying to lump all road hunting into it..thats all. The fact that the "true sportsman" drove around timber co land hunting with permission during a rainstorm..is one thing but then he claims to feel sorry for other hunters he passes while in a warm cab..Thats BS. It sounds like he is rubbing it in now but not sure if that is what he meant. To many open ended ?'s to judge him. The buck is the only part of the whole story I liked.
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 01:59:07 PM
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 01:59:41 PM
Post by: yelp on January 26, 2011, 02:01:57 PM
It was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.
Nobody said it was illegal did they? Your correct that the Timber co. is responsible for allowing it.
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 02:02:34 PM
It was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.So is shooting a fawn off her mom's tit during a doe season. Would you do it?
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 02:07:20 PM
It was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.
Nobody said it was illegal did they? Your correct that the Timber co. is responsible for allowing it.
Yes i know no one said it was illegal. But people are making it sound as bad as if he shot it at night in a spot light from his truck. Why treat him like a lepper just cause he doesn't share your views? I really don't get it. Why can't people just hunt the way they want and have people mind their own business? Congratulate him or don't, then move on... If no one road hunted it would get awfully crowded in the brush...
Post by: h20hunter on January 26, 2011, 02:08:35 PM
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 02:08:43 PM
It was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.So is shooting a fawn off her mom's tit during a doe season. Would you do it?
No. but I also wouldn't ruin someones Topic by bashing them for it. I would keep my mouth shut and mind my own business.
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 02:09:19 PM
If I was hungry enough I'd shoot a fawn right off the teat. I guess Im one of the dissapointing ones because if it was me I would have taken the deer also. I'd also have been happy with it enough to post. The only dissapointing thing is not supporting a hunter that was in all ways legal.
:yeah:
Post by: CP on January 26, 2011, 02:09:55 PM
It was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.So is shooting a fawn off her mom's tit during a doe season. Would you do it?
Why not? I’ve killed a calf with a ball-peen hammer, what’s the difference, they are both food?
Post by: bush_beater on January 26, 2011, 02:10:11 PM
Post by: bush_beater on January 26, 2011, 02:12:46 PM
Post by: provider on January 26, 2011, 02:15:16 PM
Quote
It was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.
Yes we should judge him. And he is responsible for his own actions... not the timber company or anyone else. He should seriously consider changing his handle on this site to something more befitting.
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 02:17:04 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on January 26, 2011, 02:20:26 PM
Post by: h20hunter on January 26, 2011, 02:20:45 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on January 26, 2011, 02:22:08 PM
Geezus... you guys are right, burn this kid at the stake. I mean holy smokes he had access to private ground and he used it, he then has the audacity to play by the rules and then be honest about it. What is this world coming to :bash:
No kidding!!!
Congrats True!!!
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 02:22:11 PM
QuoteIt was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.
Yes we should judge him. And he is responsible for his own actions... not the timber company or anyone else. He should seriously consider changing his handle on this site to something more befitting.
???? "his own actions" were completely legal and to most people, Ethical. Why should he have to copy his hunting style from you?
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 02:24:25 PM
I don't see how he is taking advantage of any other hunters. I certainly don't feel that way and I'm a "other hunter". Please don't speak for all of us. The only advantage he took was he had a key to the gate during his employment with the company. If I own land and have it gated I'm allowed to give anyone I want a key and still post a sign saying feel free to hunt without permission. My land, my rules. If you feel that you are being disadvanted by having access to gated land knowing full well there are people, hunters even, with keys you probably should find a roadless area. By hunting a roadless area you will then, by your statment, not being taken advantage of.
:yeah: If you don't like it then don't hunt on property that allows their employee's to drive behind the gates.
Post by: Lowedog on January 26, 2011, 02:33:45 PM
Geez, if I hurt his feelings with my original post, I'm sorry. Just thought a "true sportsman" wouldn't take advantage of his other hunters by driving by them when they couldn't, then post his success story on a public forum. If I pulled that sh*t in my neck of the woods, I'd probably get beat up at the local watering hole the next night. :)
I'm sure you would never do anything like that! :chuckle: :rolleyes: Yeah Right!
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 02:39:24 PM
Geez, if I hurt his feelings with my original post, I'm sorry. Just thought a "true sportsman" wouldn't take advantage of his other hunters by driving by them when they couldn't, then post his success story on a public forum. If I pulled that sh*t in my neck of the woods, I'd probably get beat up at the local watering hole the next night. :)
I'm sure you would never do anything like that! :chuckle: :rolleyes: Yeah Right!
The thing is, you could have too.............there wasn't a locked gate.............and I didn't post my success story. :P :chuckle:
Post by: Lowedog on January 26, 2011, 02:48:11 PM
Geez, if I hurt his feelings with my original post, I'm sorry. Just thought a "true sportsman" wouldn't take advantage of his other hunters by driving by them when they couldn't, then post his success story on a public forum. If I pulled that sh*t in my neck of the woods, I'd probably get beat up at the local watering hole the next night. :)
I'm sure you would never do anything like that! :chuckle: :rolleyes: Yeah Right!
The thing is, you could have too.............there wasn't a locked gate.............and I didn't post my success story. :P :chuckle:
How do you know I didn't?
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 02:50:27 PM
Geez, if I hurt his feelings with my original post, I'm sorry. Just thought a "true sportsman" wouldn't take advantage of his other hunters by driving by them when they couldn't, then post his success story on a public forum. If I pulled that sh*t in my neck of the woods, I'd probably get beat up at the local watering hole the next night. :)
I'm sure you would never do anything like that! :chuckle: :rolleyes: Yeah Right!
The thing is, you could have too.............there wasn't a locked gate.............and I didn't post my success story. :P :chuckle:
How do you know I didn't?
I meant, you DID too! :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on January 26, 2011, 02:52:06 PM
Post by: kglacken on January 26, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Too many people get carried away with road hunting but hey if i had keys to a gate during late buck id be covering as much ground as possible! Good job man great hunt!
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 26, 2011, 02:54:32 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 26, 2011, 02:55:51 PM
:dunno:
I posted it in my story plain as day too.
Post by: 6x6in6 on January 26, 2011, 02:57:32 PM
Post by: Bigtine96 on January 26, 2011, 02:59:57 PM
It's going to be a long off-season here at hunt-wa.Lol x2!
Post by: huntnfmly on January 26, 2011, 03:01:11 PM
Post by: grundy53 on January 26, 2011, 03:04:41 PM
Whats odd is that I didn't get trashed for killing my buck off the road this year.
:dunno:
I posted it in my story plain as day too.
:chuckle: :chuckle: Thats how i got mine this year too. I was driving to my next hunting spot and there he was just standing there out in a little clear cut. I think most on here are honest enough to admit they would do the same thing. I'm not going to let a big buck live just because he was dumb enough to be "too close" to a road at the wrong time.
Post by: yelp on January 26, 2011, 03:07:22 PM
Post by: wsucowboy on January 26, 2011, 03:10:25 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 03:14:25 PM
Whats odd is that I didn't get trashed for killing my buck off the road this year.
:dunno:
I posted it in my story plain as day too.
I don't think that him shooting it from the road was the real issue that was getting argued here jackelope--more, the going behind a locked gate when others couldn't, then posting his success with a contradicting user name. I'd like to know the percentages of late muley tag holders that DON'T harvest their animal within a few yards of the road. I sure did with my late tag. :) Once again, my original post was never meant as a bashing. Just my opinion of a "True Sportsman".
Post by: Woodchuck on January 26, 2011, 03:18:50 PM
Post by: Devinshoe on January 26, 2011, 03:21:24 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 26, 2011, 03:23:19 PM
Post by: yelp on January 26, 2011, 03:28:42 PM
LOL, and the funniest thing is, is that this was never intended to be turned into a road-hunter bashing!:chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on January 26, 2011, 03:31:48 PM
:dunno:
Post by: teanawayslayer on January 26, 2011, 03:42:49 PM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 26, 2011, 03:51:30 PM
I think what he's saying is that it was in poor taste to drive past a bunch of guys hoofing it in on foot even if you could or were allowed to. I wouldn't disagree with that. I would actually not drive into that area. It's just the way I am.
:dunno:
Nice buck, but as if this post wasn't intended to :stirthepot:. Come on now, been a lot of talk about road hunting lately, getting key's to gates, etc..
Post by: deerslyr on January 26, 2011, 05:01:58 PM
Post by: rasbo on January 26, 2011, 05:03:02 PM
exactlyI think what he's saying is that it was in poor taste to drive past a bunch of guys hoofing it in on foot even if you could or were allowed to. I wouldn't disagree with that. I would actually not drive into that area. It's just the way I am.
:dunno:
Nice buck, but as if this post wasn't intended to :stirthepot:. Come on now, been a lot of talk about road hunting lately, getting key's to gates, etc..
Post by: rotty33 on January 26, 2011, 05:50:26 PM
Post by: Antlerking on January 26, 2011, 05:59:41 PM
The more road hunters the better. 8) :twocents:
:yeah:
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on January 26, 2011, 06:16:14 PM
As for the situation, I dunno what a "True Sportsman" would or should do. I know what I would do and what I expect the guyz I hunt with to do. Thats it. Not gonna tell anybody what that is or whether its right or wrong. Just dont take it personally if I dont hunt with you either. :chuckle:
Post by: longrange7mm on January 26, 2011, 06:32:57 PM
Nice buck, but as if this post wasn't intended to :stirthepot:. Come on now, been a lot of talk about road hunting lately, getting key's to gates, etc..
[/quote]
:yeah:
I am hung up on this True sportsman? You obviously took this deer legally not questioning that, but I'm hung up on the title of this :chuckle: Its just your username and the title of this thread as MtnMuley said. not bashing you, your deer, your cousin brother, or your hunting method but just seems a little contradicting to me that's all.
But again nice deer congrats
Post by: TeacherMan on January 26, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Post by: jstone on January 26, 2011, 07:09:52 PM
Post by: True Sportsman on January 27, 2011, 09:09:12 AM
I love the honesty, most guys would have made up a BS story, you just said it how it was. I would have done the same thing in those conditions. If you ever need a hunting partner let me know I will pay for lunch and the gas ;)
How many hunters out there actually get out of there truck? The point being is we are all outdoorsman and sportsman and we all need to stick together. I wouldn't want an issue only voted on by the people that actually get out and put miles on there boots. We wouldn't be hunting.
I appreciate that. Thanks.
Post by: True Sportsman on January 27, 2011, 09:40:20 AM
Things were a little slow on here, (Too much wolf talk) so I thought I would give an honest account of my 2009 hunt. I knew many of you had lots of strong opinions about this type of thing, and I wanted to hear them.
Working for a timber company gives you many perks. Working in the woods 5 days a week, scouting, shed hunting, and patterning deer movements. Driving around road hunting is one of them, too. I would bet that 95% of you, if employed for a timber company, would take advantage of this perk, and drive into a gated area. The other 5% might be too good for that. Sometimes you drive past people who hike in, that is just how it is.
Is killing this deer my fondest hunting memory? Not even close. Am I proud of the effort it took to kill it? Not really. Did I have a great time with my co worker and kill a nice buck? Hell Yes!
The funniest part of all the posts was people's opinion on my name and how it equates to my story! It would have been acceptable to road hunt and post a story about it, had my name not been "True Sportsman"
Post by: True Sportsman on January 27, 2011, 09:43:24 AM
So you just drove around all morning and afternoon until you found a nice deer to shoot? hmmm legs broke? Oh well not my style of hunting but nice deer. I would have used the key to drive in a couple miles to get where i wanted to go and then start my hunt and put some boot miles on but I wouldnt drive around all day in the truck. :twocents:
That is exactly what I did. I drove around all day until I found the deer I wanted to shoot. I wanted to expend the least amount of effort possible. I am not disabled either, I am in really good shape!
Post by: TeacherMan on January 27, 2011, 09:46:38 AM
That is exactly what I did. I drove around all day until I found the deer I wanted to shoot. I wanted to expend the least amount of effort possible. I am not disabled either, I am in really good shape!
thats just trying to push a few buttons :chuckle:
Post by: 400out on January 27, 2011, 09:48:00 AM
:bdid:So you just drove around all morning and afternoon until you found a nice deer to shoot? hmmm legs broke? Oh well not my style of hunting but nice deer. I would have used the key to drive in a couple miles to get where i wanted to go and then start my hunt and put some boot miles on but I wouldnt drive around all day in the truck. :twocents:
That is exactly what I did. I drove around all day until I found the deer I wanted to shoot. I wanted to expend the least amount of effort possible. I am not disabled either, I am in really good shape!
Post by: bigdave on January 27, 2011, 09:52:02 AM
Did you by any chance have a flashlight taped to any part of your weapon, body :yike:, or vehicle? (Stir..stir) Are you sure that was a BT and not a housecat with antlers taped to it? (stir...stir) :chuckle:
Post by: BIGINNER on January 27, 2011, 09:53:24 AM
Post by: Alan K on January 27, 2011, 10:02:04 AM
Why work at McDonalds for minimum wage when you could work another job for several times the pay? It's human nature to be as efficient as possible in whatever we do. . .
Why walk for 3 hours to get somewhere it'd take you 5 minutes to drive to? Why limit yourself to seeing just handful of units at first light before hitting the brush (walking in), when you could drive in and get a look at the majority of the units on the mountain while the animals are active before hitting the brush during midday at full energy (driving in)?
If anyone really says they wouldn't drive in given the opportunity I call BS, why wouldn't you? Even if someone was already there walking in, if I got up on a Saturday morning to go hunting with the spot I wanted to be at at first light in mind, having busted my ass setting chokers all week, I'll be damned if someone at the gate already is going to stop me and blow my plans out of the water. Like it or not I'd feel as though I'd have more of a right to being there, being an employee of the company and a local, than some city folk who drove down from the Seattle area to hunt for the day. :twocents:
Post by: runamuk on January 27, 2011, 10:04:54 AM
did you point and laugh at the guys who had to hike in? in the pouring rain? (stir..stir) :chuckle:
Bad town crier...not nice making fun of the people who walk....
I have hiked my ass off....and I have driven....and still nothing...coulda run over a nutria if I hadn't been trying to figure out what it was ....
There are some nice deer posted and it was off to a seriously fun start and then......elitism arrived....dumdumdum......
Why do we have to always compete .... :dunno:
Post by: chongo469 on January 27, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on January 27, 2011, 10:18:25 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 27, 2011, 10:19:16 AM
Post by: True Sportsman on January 27, 2011, 10:46:15 AM
I know one thing about this though.. I'd be a helluva alot prouder of a spike that I had hiked in 3 miles and packed out than a big 3 point shot while road hunting. The spike would stand out more on the wall and be the true trophy. A trophy should be measured by effort rather than inches anyways. :twocents:
I completely agree with you. Deer I have earned with effort are a lot more memorable to me. Thats why this deer isnt very memorable. I had fun though.
Post by: blmathis12 on January 27, 2011, 11:23:44 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 27, 2011, 11:26:43 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on January 27, 2011, 12:02:17 PM
I know one thing about this though.. I'd be a helluva alot prouder of a spike that I had hiked in 3 miles and packed out than a big 3 point shot while road hunting. The spike would stand out more on the wall and be the true trophy. A trophy should be measured by effort rather than inches anyways. :twocents:
I completely agree with you. Deer I have earned with effort are a lot more memorable to me. Thats why this deer isnt very memorable. I had fun though.
Somehow I had a feeling you'd agree with that ;)
By all means tho a hunter should still be proud and not ashamed of harvesting a deer while road hunting, especially a Blacktail.. I've wore out so many pairs of boots chasing them damn blacktail around to where an easy one near the road is nice and all good.
Post by: singleshot12 on January 27, 2011, 12:09:59 PM
Post by: grundy53 on January 27, 2011, 12:20:55 PM
I know one thing about this though.. I'd be a helluva a lot prouder of a spike that I had hiked in 3 miles and packed out than a big 3 point shot while road hunting. The spike would stand out more on the wall and be the true trophy. A trophy should be measured by effort rather than inches anyways. :twocents:
I completely agree with you. Deer I have earned with effort are a lot more memorable to me. That's why this deer isn't very memorable. I had fun though.
I completely agree. The harder I hunt the more proud I am. BUT I will not hesitate to take an easy one if the opportunity arises. I prefer the brushy sh!t holes but after hunting the brush hard for a couple rainy days straight sometimes it's nice to go from clear cut to clear cut to do some glassing and covering more ground. :twocents:
Post by: TwoFeet on January 27, 2011, 07:28:46 PM
Thanks for sharing your pics and story.
Post by: Jerome on January 27, 2011, 07:32:23 PM
and the other 5% lie about not doing it!!Haha.
Post by: AKBowman on January 27, 2011, 07:37:49 PM
Yeah its a nice buck, probably above average for most areas in SW WA. Hope you enjoyed the meat.
Post by: Typical8 on January 27, 2011, 07:48:37 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on January 27, 2011, 07:54:11 PM
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on January 27, 2011, 08:20:26 PM
QuoteIt was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.
Yes we should judge him. And he is responsible for his own actions... not the timber company or anyone else. He should seriously consider changing his handle on this site to something more befitting.
Such as what?
Post by: bobcat on January 27, 2011, 08:34:51 PM
From now on I would suggest that those hunters using mountain bikes behind locked gates not post that fact in there story. It may offend those poor hunters that have to hike in on foot.QuoteIt was legal. If you guy's don't like it then don't do it. But you shouldn't judge him. If anything judge the timber company for allowing it.
Yes we should judge him. And he is responsible for his own actions... not the timber company or anyone else. He should seriously consider changing his handle on this site to something more befitting.
Such as what?
"Road Hunter"? :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on January 28, 2011, 08:01:29 AM
From now on I would suggest that those hunters using mountain bikes behind locked gates not post that fact in there story. It may offend those poor hunters that have to hike in on foot.
A mtn bike compared to a truck? Really? Anyone with permission could throw his mtn bike over the gate and ride in. They couldn't throw their truck over the gate.
In my country, I've been passed several times while hiking early in the morning by guys with mtn bikes behind closed gates. More power to them. However, it's funny that when the road gets steep, I always seem to pass them.............
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 09:03:02 AM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 09:27:17 AM
Post by: huntnfmly on January 28, 2011, 09:33:13 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2011, 09:35:09 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on January 28, 2011, 09:36:46 AM
From what I read on this board, it sounds like Weyerhaeuser began doing the same thing this year- allowing employees to drive in behind locked gates. I don't know if this was for all of Weyerhaeuser's tree farms but at least one in SW Wa. I'm not sure I agree with it but it is private land and the owner of the land should be able to do what they want and make their own rules. The sticky part though is that the wildlife on those private lands are owned by the public. Also timber companies pay very little in property tax on those lands. So it does seem like the public should have equal access for hunting. If not maybe the timber companies should be paying higher taxes. :dunno:
i would agree, but if everyone was allowed in,.. the place would be turned into a dump, :twocents: :hello:
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 09:39:11 AM
From what I read on this board, it sounds like Weyerhaeuser began doing the same thing this year- allowing employees to drive in behind locked gates. I don't know if this was for all of Weyerhaeuser's tree farms but at least one in SW Wa. I'm not sure I agree with it but it is private land and the owner of the land should be able to do what they want and make their own rules. The sticky part though is that the wildlife on those private lands are owned by the public. Also timber companies pay very little in property tax on those lands. So it does seem like the public should have equal access for hunting. If not maybe the timber companies should be paying higher taxes. :dunno:
All true, the State really should be a little more active in making sure access programs are operating at the same level, it is either open to the public or it isn't, under the same guidelines. This is much the same as Goldmark considering letting the tribes drive in behind DNR gates.
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 09:42:37 AM
And the policy on driving in varies from tree farm to tree farm, it's not an overarching company policy, it's set by the office. PeEll just started allowing their employees to buy access permits which allow them and three or four others to go in with them. Vail has always let their employees, and even contractors in a lot of cases drive in during the week off the clock.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 09:43:54 AM
Timber companies get a tax break for allowing the public to walk in, and drive in in some cases on weekends etc. Their taxes would be much greater if they barred the public from access at all.
And the policy on driving in varies from tree farm to tree farm, it's not an overarching company policy, it's set by the office. PeEll just started allowing their employees to buy access permits which allow them and three or four others to go in with them. Vail has always let their employees, and even contractors in a lot of cases drive in during the week off the clock.
Maybe why they harvest 1/3 the deer out of Vail they did 15 years ago...
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 09:44:11 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2011, 09:46:21 AM
Timber companies get a tax break for allowing the public to walk in, and drive in in some cases on weekends etc. Their taxes would be much greater if they barred the public from access at all.
Do you know that for a fact or is it just a rumor you heard? If that is true, do companies like Hancock pay more taxes on their property since they are charging the public for access? I really don't think access policies have any affect on how they are taxed. I think it's one rate for forested lands and that's it. But I could be wrong.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 09:47:01 AM
And believe it or not, limited access is a good thing in a number of cases. It helps with animal escapement and the overall quality of the herds.
You just made my point.
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 09:50:46 AM
Do you know that for a fact or is it just a rumor you heard? If that is true, do companies like Hancock pay more taxes on their property since they are charging the public for access? I really don't think access policies have any affect on how they are taxed. I think it's one rate for forested lands and that's it. But I could be wrong.
I know for a fact they get a tax break, how much though, I don't know. That's the only reason they allow scumbags on their property to dump garbage and vandalize their equipment. I'd assume Hancock would be paying more because it's limited access not unlimited like a Weyco, but like I said I don't know.
Maybe why they harvest 1/3 the deer out of Vail they did 15 years ago...
You're kidding right? Have you ever been to Vail on a weekend?
There are maybe ~100 employees that work that tree farm, and not all of them hunt. Even if they were all successful every year, and a friend of theirs they take in too, it wouldn't match what the harvest is from the public be it on the weekends or walking in.
In my opinion it has a lot to do with the loss of hound hunting . . . The cats in there are EVERYWHERE! That in combination with the hair loss on the outskirts of the farm, and the invention of the internet and everyone talking about all the deer there despite passing a fellow hunter every 4 minutes while hunting.
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2011, 09:53:08 AM
The problem is in limiting motorized access for some but not all.
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 09:53:23 AM
All true, the State really should be a little more active in making sure access programs are operating at the same level, it is either open to the public or it isn't, under the same guidelines. This is much the same as Goldmark considering letting the tribes drive in behind DNR gates.
So it should all be open like Capitol Forest? Because those herds are doing so well. . . :rolleyes:
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 09:54:04 AM
The problem is in limiting motorized access for some but not all.
And now we're back to where we started lol. . . It's a perk to the job.
Post by: True Sportsman on January 28, 2011, 09:55:00 AM
Timber companies get a tax break for allowing the public to walk in, and drive in in some cases on weekends etc. Their taxes would be much greater if they barred the public from access at all.
Do you know that for a fact or is it just a rumor you heard? If that is true, do companies like Hancock pay more taxes on their property since they are charging the public for access? I really don't think access policies have any affect on how they are taxed. I think it's one rate for forested lands and that's it. But I could be wrong.
I believe timber companies are taxed at a timberland rate, regardless of whether they let the public in or not. I think you are correct Bobcat.
Post by: Caseyd on January 28, 2011, 09:55:57 AM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 09:56:20 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/hunting_access/private_lands/landowners.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/hunting_access/private_lands/landowners.html)
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 09:58:18 AM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 10:00:29 AM
http://www.timbertax.org/statetaxes/states/proptax/washington/ (http://www.timbertax.org/statetaxes/states/proptax/washington/)
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 10:01:47 AM
The only tax I'm aware of is the timber classification tax. Many may have seen the green sign below while driving in the larger tree farms. This sign means the property is eligible and usually receiving Federal and State funds (taxpayer $$) to manage and improve their lands in order to keep the property open to recreation under the guidelines outlined in the program, pretty basic.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/hunting_access/private_lands/landowners.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/hunting_access/private_lands/landowners.html)
Tax break, kickback, whatever it is, they benefit by letting the public in. There's no other reason for them to let people in and risk damage to their property, equipment, and dumping.
Dude I'm talking about what you just posted before, they're benefiting by allowing public access.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 10:03:21 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2011, 10:06:23 AM
I know for a fact they get a tax break, how much though, I don't know. That's the only reason they allow scumbags on their property to dump garbage and vandalize their equipment.
I think it could also be due to political reasons and good public relations that companies like Weyerhaeuser allow public access to their lands. It's not because they pay less taxes if they allow access, because I don't believe that is the case.
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 10:09:36 AM
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 10:12:15 AM
I know for a fact they get a tax break, how much though, I don't know. That's the only reason they allow scumbags on their property to dump garbage and vandalize their equipment.
I think it could also be due to political reasons and good public relations that companies like Weyerhaeuser allow public access to their lands. It's not because they pay less taxes if they allow access, because I don't believe that is the case.
Oh I'm sure it does to some extent. The end all be all is the mighty dollar, and they place some monetary value on their public image.
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 10:24:42 AM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 10:40:10 AM
You have to be joking dman. Now you want the government telling people how to use their land? Why don't we just have the government seize everybodies land?
In this case, understanding the dynamics of the landowner access program, yes. Government being the WDFW as an extension of public input on how they run the access program. It really doesn't have anything to do with what I, or anyone else want's, it is the duty of the WDFW and federal agencies to administer these programs under their respective charter's. If they aren't, then they haven't done their job.
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 12:08:14 PM
You have to be joking dman. Now you want the government telling people how to use their land? Why don't we just have the government seize everybodies land?
In this case, understanding the dynamics of the landowner access program, yes. Government being the WDFW as an extension of public input on how they run the access program. It really doesn't have anything to do with what I, or anyone else want's, it is the duty of the WDFW and federal agencies to administer these programs under their respective charter's. If they aren't, then they haven't done their job.
Not really. If Weyerhouser wanted to put a gate on every single road and only give keys out to guys named Fred they could. They are still allowing public access(walking) so they meet the access requirements. Any level of access after that is none of the governments Damn business. As long as you are not breaking any codes or laws the government should have no say what you do on your property.
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 12:15:20 PM
Post by: deerslyr on January 28, 2011, 12:24:01 PM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 12:35:01 PM
You have to be joking dman. Now you want the government telling people how to use their land? Why don't we just have the government seize everybodies land?
In this case, understanding the dynamics of the landowner access program, yes. Government being the WDFW as an extension of public input on how they run the access program. It really doesn't have anything to do with what I, or anyone else want's, it is the duty of the WDFW and federal agencies to administer these programs under their respective charter's. If they aren't, then they haven't done their job.
Not really. If Weyerhouser wanted to put a gate on every single road and only give keys out to guys named Fred they could. They are still allowing public access(walking) so they meet the access requirements. Any level of access after that is none of the governments Damn business. As long as you are not breaking any codes or laws the government should have no say what you do on your property.
You take tax money and it becomes every one's business. >:(
Post by: xxlx7 on January 28, 2011, 12:37:42 PM
Kyle
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 12:59:38 PM
You have to be joking dman. Now you want the government telling people how to use their land? Why don't we just have the government seize everybodies land?
In this case, understanding the dynamics of the landowner access program, yes. Government being the WDFW as an extension of public input on how they run the access program. It really doesn't have anything to do with what I, or anyone else want's, it is the duty of the WDFW and federal agencies to administer these programs under their respective charter's. If they aren't, then they haven't done their job.
Not really. If Weyerhouser wanted to put a gate on every single road and only give keys out to guys named Fred they could. They are still allowing public access(walking) so they meet the access requirements. Any level of access after that is none of the governments Damn business. As long as you are not breaking any codes or laws the government should have no say what you do on your property.
You take tax money and it becomes every one's business. >:(
Which is why they allow public access. Do you think the freaking government should run everyones business? Im sorry if I can't except this socialist train of thought. I think the more the government sticks its nose in our private businesses the worse off they are. Name one thing that the government runs better then its private industry counter part? You can go ahead and give up your freedoms one step at a time. I think I will fight to keep mine.
Post by: Devinshoe on January 28, 2011, 01:04:05 PM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 01:20:18 PM
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 01:33:30 PM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 02:13:27 PM
They pay for public access. They got it. Simple as that. You want more access then the government should pay them more and pay to remove all the garbage that will show up and all the equipment that will be vandalized, and all the wood that will be stolen. These companies are in the timber business not the hunting land management business.
Hancock or Weyerheauser? Green Diamond or Merrill and Ryng? They all have totally different management strategies, Merrill and Ryng is strictly fee access and those fee's are high enough to cover cleanup and maintenance of the limited few who enter. Green Diamond is feel free to hunt for the most part, Weyco is feel free to hunt on most blocks. Hancock totally depends on which farm you are on. The revenue generated by Hancock from hunting activities is reported as "income", which does make it a "business", same with MR. You just described what most here wouldn't mind, paying more to level out access, still restrict numbers, yet provide equal opportunity, Hancock probably is closest to this model in Kapowsin/ WR and Snoqualmie. This is the format most Western States are going to for private access and it work's well and most of these larger farms still participate in the landowner access program. When you have issue's is when a small to medium-sized landowner want's to participate in the program, but doesn't provide realistic access for the average hunter, enough to justify the compensation they are receiving. The reality is, only so many can hunt smaller blocks, thus vehicles really are not ideally suited to those smaller parcels for the sake of providing equal opportunity under the program.
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 02:45:25 PM
They pay for public access. They got it. Simple as that. You want more access then the government should pay them more and pay to remove all the garbage that will show up and all the equipment that will be vandalized, and all the wood that will be stolen. These companies are in the timber business not the hunting land management business.
Hancock or Weyerheauser? Green Diamond or Merrill and Ryng? They all have totally different management strategies, Merrill and Ryng is strictly fee access and those fee's are high enough to cover cleanup and maintenance of the limited few who enter. Green Diamond is feel free to hunt for the most part, Weyco is feel free to hunt on most blocks. Hancock totally depends on which farm you are on. The revenue generated by Hancock from hunting activities is reported as "income", which does make it a "business", same with MR. You just described what most here wouldn't mind, paying more to level out access, still restrict numbers, yet provide equal opportunity, Hancock probably is closest to this model in Kapowsin/ WR and Snoqualmie. This is the format most Western States are going to for private access and it work's well and most of these larger farms still participate in the landowner access program. When you have issue's is when a small to medium-sized landowner want's to participate in the program, but doesn't provide realistic access for the average hunter, enough to justify the compensation they are receiving. The reality is, only so many can hunt smaller blocks, thus vehicles really are not ideally suited to those smaller parcels for the sake of providing equal opportunity under the program.
You just made might point for me. They all chose their own strategy the government didn't force them to do it. As far as Hancocks kapowsin tree farm being closest to the perfect model of what would equal the playing Field. I don't know what you could be thinking? For one it does NOT provide an equal chance for everyone. If you don't have a permit you can't be on that property. What about the people that can't afford the permit? what about when they sell out? what about everyone else? If all the big timber companies did this what would happen is 85% of the people would say screw this and hunt state or federal lands. so now you have over crowding there. The huge tracts of private land will now only be available to a certain few that could afford/lucky enough to obtain special access permits. How is This "Equal opportunity" as you have put it? Another scenario would be that there wouldn't be enough demand (due to price) for these access permits and the companies wouldn't make enough money to justify the hassle. which would end the little experiment. This second scenario is what I think would most likely happen. Because if they thought they could make a proffit they probably would be doing it right now. Honestly I think each company should do what works for them.
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on January 28, 2011, 02:46:10 PM
From now on I would suggest that those hunters using mountain bikes behind locked gates not post that fact in there story. It may offend those poor hunters that have to hike in on foot.
A mtn bike compared to a truck? Really? Anyone with permission could throw his mtn bike over the gate and ride in. They couldn't throw their truck over the gate.
In my country, I've been passed several times while hiking early in the morning by guys with mtn bikes behind closed gates. More power to them. However, it's funny that when the road gets steep, I always seem to pass them.............
Apparently I have to explain the quote about mountain bikes. It was "sarcastic". :rolleyes:
I do not see why anyone cares that timber companies allow employees to drive behind locked gate. Chances are they are going to drive right by and go 10+ miles in. Most on foot hunters are not going to hike in 10 miles on a day hunt. Seperates the crowd.
If you think about it, it is smart. The timber companies are getting FREE patrols.
Plus it is "private" property. The "owners" should be allowed to let in who they want and how they want. I do not get that perk and it doesn't bother me more than being a tiny bit envious. Why is it some feel they deserve what everyone else has and everything has to be equal.
You want something you earn it. Everything isn't free.
If I were the timber company I would be resticting access to walk in only due to all the scum that dump trash, vandalize equipment, cut down trees, grow pot, etc, etc. Sometimes I wonder why they allow any access in some areas. Maybe if hunters took a bigger interest in helping control the garbage left in the woods on private timber company land, reported vandalism they would open a few gates. Why should timber companies be 100% responsible for the clean up when it was there generosity that allowd hunters the access?
Until then the owner is protecting "his" property. I do not blame them for shutting down the roads. I blame those that are causing the owners of the timber companies to have to make the decision.
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 02:58:16 PM
From now on I would suggest that those hunters using mountain bikes behind locked gates not post that fact in there story. It may offend those poor hunters that have to hike in on foot.
A mtn bike compared to a truck? Really? Anyone with permission could throw his mtn bike over the gate and ride in. They couldn't throw their truck over the gate.
In my country, I've been passed several times while hiking early in the morning by guys with mtn bikes behind closed gates. More power to them. However, it's funny that when the road gets steep, I always seem to pass them.............
Apparently I have to explain the quote about mountain bikes. It was "sarcastic". :rolleyes:
I do not see why anyone cares that timber companies allow employees to drive behind locked gate. Chances are they are going to drive right by and go 10+ miles in. Most on foot hunters are not going to hike in 10 miles on a day hunt. Seperates the crowd.
If you think about it, it is smart. The timber companies are getting FREE patrols.
Plus it is "private" property. The "owners" should be allowed to let in who they want and how they want. I do not get that perk and it doesn't bother me more than being a tiny bit envious. Why is it some feel they deserve what everyone else has and everything has to be equal.
You want something you earn it. Everything isn't free.
If I were the timber company I would be resticting access to walk in only due to all the scum that dump trash, vandalize equipment, cut down trees, grow pot, etc, etc. Sometimes I wonder why they allow any access in some areas. Maybe if hunters took a bigger interest in helping control the garbage left in the woods on private timber company land, reported vandalism they would open a few gates. Why should timber companies be 100% responsible for the clean up when it was there generosity that allowd hunters the access?
Until then the owner is protecting "his" property. I do not blame them for shutting down the roads. I blame those that are causing the owners of the timber companies to have to make the decision.
Couldn't have said it better myself Michelle. :tup:
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on January 28, 2011, 03:11:19 PM
They pay for public access. They got it. Simple as that. You want more access then the government should pay them more and pay to remove all the garbage that will show up and all the equipment that will be vandalized, and all the wood that will be stolen. These companies are in the timber business not the hunting land management business.
Hancock or Weyerheauser? Green Diamond or Merrill and Ryng? They all have totally different management strategies, Merrill and Ryng is strictly fee access and those fee's are high enough to cover cleanup and maintenance of the limited few who enter. Green Diamond is feel free to hunt for the most part, Weyco is feel free to hunt on most blocks. Hancock totally depends on which farm you are on. The revenue generated by Hancock from hunting activities is reported as "income", which does make it a "business", same with MR. You just described what most here wouldn't mind, paying more to level out access, still restrict numbers, yet provide equal opportunity, Hancock probably is closest to this model in Kapowsin/ WR and Snoqualmie. This is the format most Western States are going to for private access and it work's well and most of these larger farms still participate in the landowner access program. When you have issue's is when a small to medium-sized landowner want's to participate in the program, but doesn't provide realistic access for the average hunter, enough to justify the compensation they are receiving. The reality is, only so many can hunt smaller blocks, thus vehicles really are not ideally suited to those smaller parcels for the sake of providing equal opportunity under the program.
You just made might point for me. They all chose their own strategy the government didn't force them to do it. As far as Hancocks kapowsin tree farm being closest to the perfect model of what would equal the playing Field. I don't know what you could be thinking? For one it does NOT provide an equal chance for everyone. If you don't have a permit you can't be on that property. What about the people that can't afford the permit? what about when they sell out? what about everyone else? If all the big timber companies did this what would happen is 85% of the people would say screw this and hunt state or federal lands. so now you have over crowding there. The huge tracts of private land will now only be available to a certain few that could afford/lucky enough to obtain special access permits. How is This "Equal opportunity" as you have put it? Another scenario would be that there wouldn't be enough demand (due to price) for these access permits and the companies wouldn't make enough money to justify the hassle. which would end the little experiment. This second scenario is what I think would most likely happen. Because if they thought they could make a proffit they probably would be doing it right now. Honestly I think each company should do what works for them.
First you say you disdain Government programs supporting tree farmer's with tax-moneys being regulated by the Government, then you say each tree farm should do as they choose, which is it :dunno:. Is it not "earned" when you pay for it, as opposed to just being "given" a privilege? I've not met one hunter who can't afford a permit, my nephew could purchase one with his allowance if it was for a full-year, that's not valid to me, I began hunting when I had an extra $500 a year outside of bills to my name and still hunted permit lands, hunting cost's money today and that's reality. The more public land there is to hunt and be managed, the higher license and State access fee's go up too, that isn't a cure-all. Hancock in fact does allow walk-in hunting without a permit for the lands I mentioned with the one exception of Kapowsin the difference is it's big enough to support both vehicle and foot traffic. I'm done on this topic. It's like talking to a wall.
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 03:17:06 PM
Beyond that, of course they should be able to do as they choose with their property. . . It doesn't allow the government complete control lol
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 28, 2011, 03:23:33 PM
Whats odd is that I didn't get trashed for killing my buck off the road this year.
:dunno:
I posted it in my story plain as day too.
You didn't put it in your title.
Besides, you are obviously incredibly selfish, to be hunting a unit closed to every other state-licensed hunter. How can you sleep at night having hunted on a limited entry hunt not open to everyone?
A true sportsman only pursues an opportunity that is equally available to everyone. Oh wait, my bad, that's what a true Communist does!
Post by: Alan K on January 28, 2011, 03:30:37 PM
Whats odd is that I didn't get trashed for killing my buck off the road this year.
:dunno:
I posted it in my story plain as day too.
You didn't put it in your title.
Besides, you are obviously incredibly selfish, to be hunting a unit closed to every other state-licensed hunter. How can you sleep at night having hunted on a limited entry hunt not open to everyone?
A true sportsman only pursues an opportunity that is equally available to everyone. Oh wait, my bad, that's what a true Communist does!
Maybe the best post on this thread!
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2011, 06:06:40 PM
They pay for public access. They got it. Simple as that. You want more access then the government should pay them more and pay to remove all the garbage that will show up and all the equipment that will be vandalized, and all the wood that will be stolen. These companies are in the timber business not the hunting land management business.
Hancock or Weyerheauser? Green Diamond or Merrill and Ryng? They all have totally different management strategies, Merrill and Ryng is strictly fee access and those fee's are high enough to cover cleanup and maintenance of the limited few who enter. Green Diamond is feel free to hunt for the most part, Weyco is feel free to hunt on most blocks. Hancock totally depends on which farm you are on. The revenue generated by Hancock from hunting activities is reported as "income", which does make it a "business", same with MR. You just described what most here wouldn't mind, paying more to level out access, still restrict numbers, yet provide equal opportunity, Hancock probably is closest to this model in Kapowsin/ WR and Snoqualmie. This is the format most Western States are going to for private access and it work's well and most of these larger farms still participate in the landowner access program. When you have issue's is when a small to medium-sized landowner want's to participate in the program, but doesn't provide realistic access for the average hunter, enough to justify the compensation they are receiving. The reality is, only so many can hunt smaller blocks, thus vehicles really are not ideally suited to those smaller parcels for the sake of providing equal opportunity under the program.
You just made might point for me. They all chose their own strategy the government didn't force them to do it. As far as Hancocks kapowsin tree farm being closest to the perfect model of what would equal the playing Field. I don't know what you could be thinking? For one it does NOT provide an equal chance for everyone. If you don't have a permit you can't be on that property. What about the people that can't afford the permit? what about when they sell out? what about everyone else? If all the big timber companies did this what would happen is 85% of the people would say screw this and hunt state or federal lands. so now you have over crowding there. The huge tracts of private land will now only be available to a certain few that could afford/lucky enough to obtain special access permits. How is This "Equal opportunity" as you have put it? Another scenario would be that there wouldn't be enough demand (due to price) for these access permits and the companies wouldn't make enough money to justify the hassle. which would end the little experiment. This second scenario is what I think would most likely happen. Because if they thought they could make a proffit they probably would be doing it right now. Honestly I think each company should do what works for them.
First you say you disdain Government programs supporting tree farmer's with tax-moneys being regulated by the Government, then you say each tree farm should do as they choose, which is it :dunno:. Is it not "earned" when you pay for it, as opposed to just being "given" a privilege? I've not met one hunter who can't afford a permit, my nephew could purchase one with his allowance if it was for a full-year, that's not valid to me, I began hunting when I had an extra $500 a year outside of bills to my name and still hunted permit lands, hunting cost's money today and that's reality. The more public land there is to hunt and be managed, the higher license and State access fee's go up too, that isn't a cure-all. Hancock in fact does allow walk-in hunting without a permit for the lands I mentioned with the one exception of Kapowsin the difference is it's big enough to support both vehicle and foot traffic. I'm done on this topic. It's like talking to a wall.
No I said the government shouldn't tell them how to operate their lands. Which means the tree farms should be able to do what they choose with their lands. how is that contradictory? As far as the permit prices... I know a lot of people that wouldn't be willing to pay the permit fee because they would feel that they could not afford to spend that much money to access one area. You still haven't answered how you believe with limited permits there could be equal opportunities for all hunters? I'm not sure I'M the wall here.... Maybe it's because I still believe people should have the right to choose for themselves and not have the government tell them what to do.... I also believe in the free market. If the timber companies think this is a good idea they have every right to do it. I personally don't think it's a good idea though which might be the reason they haven't implemented it across the board..
Post by: borntoslay on February 02, 2011, 01:17:37 AM
haha
Post by: Miles on February 02, 2011, 02:22:25 AM
Whats odd is that I didn't get trashed for killing my buck off the road this year.
:dunno:
I posted it in my story plain as day too.
:mod_smackdown:
:chuckle:
Post by: ICEMAN on February 02, 2011, 05:36:50 AM
Post by: Bigtine96 on February 02, 2011, 08:22:11 AM
I just wasted my time reading this whole thread.... :bash:
X2 what did I just do!!!
Post by: Kent Hunter on February 02, 2011, 09:11:52 PM