Post by: finnman on July 28, 2008, 01:59:15 PM
Does anyone else use the states private land permission system with success?
This property consists of approx. 7,500 acres of wheat, wheat stubble, CRP and sagebrush. They give out 10 permission slips a year for deer season, my group has 5 for this year, should be good hunting!
Finnman
Post by: robodad on July 28, 2008, 02:13:40 PM
Quote
Does anyone else use the states private land permission system with success?
Can't say I have heard of this in Washington, Do you hunt another state ??
Post by: saylean on July 28, 2008, 02:14:15 PM
Got family in Montana (dad just got back from gopher blasting) with about 1000 acres and nothing around for miles, including hunters...
I think next year, its gonna be my first Montana hunt....
Got a few ranchers willing to let me kill some yotes...I hope that works into some deer opportunities down the road.
Good luck on the hunt man! Great buck!
Post by: Dman on July 28, 2008, 02:27:51 PM
Post by: finnman on July 28, 2008, 02:51:09 PM
This is in WA, its the "Hunt by Written Permission Only" system, many of you have probably seen the yellow signs all over parts of eastern WA.
We have had fairly good success using this program in eastern WA.
Post by: Ridgerunner on July 28, 2008, 02:54:09 PM
Post by: MountainWalk on July 28, 2008, 03:01:21 PM
Post by: E-Town Hunter on July 28, 2008, 05:27:16 PM
Post by: finnman on July 28, 2008, 05:46:13 PM
Post by: PolarBear on July 28, 2008, 06:59:01 PM
Post by: robb92 on July 28, 2008, 07:22:38 PM
Post by: rosscrazyelk on July 28, 2008, 07:40:14 PM
There has to be a better way. So basically I just hunt public
Post by: Jackjr on July 28, 2008, 09:15:02 PM
Post by: poulsbo on July 30, 2008, 07:37:56 PM
Post by: yelp on July 30, 2008, 07:40:27 PM
A lot of the landowners I contact get several calls the week before season. Gas prices aside hunters have become lazy now a days and don't spend the time talking with landowners or understanding them. I respect that some hunterson are doing it right and offering to do things for landowners. Also not all landowenrs are created equal....Most landowners are nice and polite...some are ass*&%$#. Don't give up...keep on them. Either way its their land.
The WDFW Go Hunt Website has them listed on there map. There isn't phone numbers mainly to keep landowners land open...many of them feel the yellow signs with names and phone numbers are enough advertising for them. Also not every landowern allows deer hunting some only allow goose hunting or upland bird hunting...You also must ask that question...A majority of them do allow deer hunting though. Most prefer rifle season vs archery. But some allow archery...it all depends on the landowner and thier preferences. Remember first impressions too. Good luck. If you have any further questions PM me.
Post by: yelp on July 30, 2008, 08:02:15 PM
Post by: Dman on July 30, 2008, 08:53:50 PM
Post by: MountainWalk on July 30, 2008, 08:58:44 PM
nope. no fences here.
I want to take that back. I hunt the horse farm some, but it isnt cropland. So i guess i hunt private a little.
Post by: E-Town Hunter on July 30, 2008, 09:17:58 PM
Post by: finnman on July 30, 2008, 09:46:17 PM
IT TAKES SOME REAL PATIENCE, BUT IF YOU ARE SERIOUS, YOU WILL GET PERMISSION!
HINT: Take your wife or daughter with you :chuckle: it seems to work!!!!
I think the program needs some refining but it has worked for my party, then again we talk to anyone!!!! Sign or no sign!
Finnman
Post by: Antlershed on July 30, 2008, 09:50:53 PM
Post by: yelp on July 30, 2008, 09:53:31 PM
Post by: yelp on July 30, 2008, 10:07:57 PM
Post by: Dman on July 30, 2008, 10:10:32 PM
Post by: Dman on July 30, 2008, 10:11:57 PM
Dman...the go hunt website has a private land layer and that should focus the aimless driving.
I'll try that, I don't think that was a feature when I looked a couple years ago.
Post by: yelp on July 30, 2008, 10:14:59 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on July 30, 2008, 10:29:10 PM
There was no list and phone numbers as it would have lead to a mass exodus of participating landowners. Rather Upland Biologists who worked in the program assisted folks to find and gain access to these areas. Many were given contact info for these bio's from Regional offices and headquarters in Olympia. Printed material was also available with names and areas worked. Although occasional glitches, it worked well. Mis-use by landowners was checked and if they were purposely abusing the agreements they were dropped.
It was up to the landowner as to what you could hunt and how many he allowed on the permission side...basically unlimited on the Feel Free To Hunt end. Register was like Feel Free except one dropped a card with license number in a box and parked in designated areas. Consider that property open in any form of public access is far better than closed to all. Yes it's true ...in some cases,not all though, permission went to family members especially during the first week or so. Nothing wrong with that.....most here would probably do the same if you owned the land. Cut the landowner some slack...his granting of access is a priviledge not a sportman's right.
This program was essentially redirected starting in 1999 and lost momentum. Blame the *censored*es at WDFW headquarters for that one.....not the landowners or the bio's who work in the program. Above and beyond the access there was countless examples of expanded habitat development that occured from 1991 till the late 90's (when the WDFW changed the emphasis). Some work still continues but at a much reduced level. That worked enhanced wildlife all over eastern Washington.
One example of the successful end results of this program was TURKEYS. Did you see many prior to the late 80' -early 90's? Hell no! Do you think that was ok? I think most would agree....pretty damn good end result.
Come on guys....give some credit where due. Now I'm not saying to praise the Dept. as quite a few who control things management wise in Olympia and at the regional offices couldn't manage themselves out of a wet paper bag. But the folks working on this program give it their all in spite of the dumb ass higher ups.
Someone mentioned the Montana program. Can't compare apples to oranges. Landowners in Montana individually own much larger tracts than the average landowner in Washington. These larger tracts with a lot of open range etc. pose less of a concern than say a 3600 acre farm with muliple crops and out buildings. Secondly...Washington is the smallest state west of the Mississippi River with the second largest population after California. Those two things alone pose unique differences in management. I'll bet in Montana there isn't the same level of habitat development going hand in hand with the access as in Washington.
Nothing works perfect, and I'm not saying that folks here don't have a legitimate complaint, but there are tons of examples of hunters who believe it's their right...don't need to ask....to lazy to ask....didn't like the denial so I won't follow up after the season for next year...damn relatives....bla, bla, bal and so on. I personally know of folks that were pissed off getting denied access when they asked if they could turkey hunt on opening day morning. One case some *censored* even woke a landowner up at 4-4:30 on opening day to ask to turkey hunt. Try putting yourself on the other side of the door and ask what you would do.
In summary, the initial post and photo of the nice Mulie sums it up......Here's a guy who has done his homework and developed a relationship which now proves beneficial. Persistance and a good attitude will in many cases prove successful if one stays with it. Enough said....flame away for what it;s worth :chuckle:
Post by: ThePascoKid on July 31, 2008, 06:34:09 AM
Post by: yelp on July 31, 2008, 07:19:26 AM
Post by: yelp on July 31, 2008, 07:28:06 AM
didn't mean to make that last post negative towards you personally...I have seen the other side of the coin I guess. You posted.."I would rather they just put up a no hunting sign rather than give a guy false hope that there maybe a slight chance to hunt just to be shot down one more time I have given up on this" So I assume that you have been rejected and didn't like it. I have been told NO too...and sometimes it is legitimate. Sorry if you were offended.
Yelp
Post by: Wacenturion on July 31, 2008, 08:53:49 AM
Portion of an article regarding Montana's Block Management Program...
"The Montana Block Management Program, while a necessary tool to manage some of Montana’s hunting lands, has contributed to the conditioning of Montana landowners to expecting payment for hunting privileges. Some have suggested that they haven’t paid to hunt on private land and that they are not about to start now. These individuals don’t realize that they have been paying to hunt indirectly through the Block Management Program. Each time you sign into Block Management, you are indeed paying that landowner to hunt on their land.
Fee hunting is coming whether we like it or not. Montana is far behind the curve (perhaps only Wyoming is further behind) when it comes to fee hunting operations. Fee hunting has been the norm in many states and fee hunting operations account for the continued viability of countless ag operations, many of which would have long since vanished to become subdivisions."
Regarding South Dakota's Walk in Program........
"While Walk-In Areas help to influence the overall satisfaction of the hunting experience, the areas also have an economic impact. In 2005, GF&P invested about $1.8 million in payments to landowners. According to the survey results, this produced an estimated 160,000 days of hunting and additional hunting-related expenditures of $11 million."
So lets examine the differences.....Both Montana and South Dakota PAY landowners to allow access Might note in 2004 South Dakota had 900,000 acres. Washington in the late 90's had 3.5 million acrers under it's program. Washington does not pay...or at did not pay during the time I refer to. Investments were made in habitat development to affect wildlife rather than lease payments. WDFW might pay for some now as the thought is to have less but higher quality. What a bunch of crap.......start paying a few and all those landowners who have shared their land over the years for basically the cost of signs and enforcement, which should be done anyway regardless of where hunting takes place, will also want to be payed or they drop out. Not going to happen ...way to expensive.
Oh..and South Dakota.....approx. 19% of their residents hunt which is about 128,000 folks. Low population, fair sized state, mostly rural, low numbers hunting available lands.....little easier to provide overall satisfaction to hunters there....although many of the complaints voiced here can be found on just about any state's outdoor forums. The grass isn't always greener.
Post by: Todd_ID on July 31, 2008, 09:00:42 AM
Post by: ThePascoKid on July 31, 2008, 12:46:53 PM
P.S. I shouldn't have said stuck like these are bad places to hunt I have taken several bucks off of FFTH lands and I appreciate them greatly
Post by: BLUEBULLS on July 31, 2008, 06:15:25 PM
Post by: Gutpile on July 31, 2008, 06:39:17 PM
On the other hand, I've had up to 12 little blue cards in my wallet at once for deer/pheasant/yotes whatever. You can get permission but it takes time and patience.
Be polite. I've hunted 1 particular ranch for 12 years straight and there is this 20 something kid that started hunting there. Then he drove on there land BIG NO NO and he started pressuring the land owner to let him camp at a different spot. Now they're not sure if they'll let him back. Don't do stupid *censored* and stay persistant. You'll get land to hunt.
Post by: ThePascoKid on July 31, 2008, 06:51:59 PM
Quote
While Walk-In Areas help to influence the overall satisfaction of the hunting experience, the areas also have an economic impact. In 2005, GF&P invested about $1.8 million in payments to landowners. According to the survey results, this produced an estimated 160,000 days of hunting and additional hunting-related expenditures of $11 million."
Wacenturion is this an argument for or against SD's program because $11 million generated from $1.8 million sounds like a pretty good rate of return on the people of the states money.
Post by: Wacenturion on July 31, 2008, 09:02:23 PM
QuoteWhile Walk-In Areas help to influence the overall satisfaction of the hunting experience, the areas also have an economic impact. In 2005, GF&P invested about $1.8 million in payments to landowners. According to the survey results, this produced an estimated 160,000 days of hunting and additional hunting-related expenditures of $11 million."
Wacenturion is this an argument for or against SD's program because $11 million generated from $1.8 million sounds like a pretty good rate of return on the people of the states money.
Wasn't an argument against...was merely pointing out that South Dakota as well as Montana pay landowners. However the figures can be mis-leading. That $11 million in expenditures related to hunting....i.e. gas, motels, meals, ammo, etc., or at least the majority of it still would have been generated as these folks just would have hunted elsewhere in the state. Man days in the field are man days in the field irregardless of where they occur.
Post by: Todd_ID on July 31, 2008, 10:20:42 PM
Post by: ThePascoKid on August 01, 2008, 05:42:40 AM
Post by: Dman on August 04, 2008, 01:38:33 PM
These states make hunting nonresident friendly because they know where their bread is buttered, without these large tracts of accesible hunting property nobody from out of state is going to go hunt there. The tags generate a ton of revenue not to mention fuel, hotel, and food.
My opinion is Washington, as far as big game shouldn't even really entertain making our State "nonresident" freindly until it is more resident friendly in regards to hunting private lands. I have not participated in the "program", but I ALWAYS get a response from DFW on other issues, this one I did not when I asked for some kind of list of private lands. To me this is so basic, a person shouldn't even have to ask, if you have a computer it should be right on their site, or in the regs. As I said, there is no need for the landowner to ever be contacted personally if the DFW uses a reservation company. I can say for certain, if a private property or two was more accessable in Eastern Washington, I would also spend money in local businesses to go there and hunt as I would not attempt a day hunt from that distance. Any landowner's that are part of the program and receiving assistance should not be allowed excuses. It sounds harsh, but they should also not be allowed to "reserve" space for freinds and relatives, there are ways around that, the 3rd party reservation system for one.
Post by: ThePascoKid on August 04, 2008, 01:54:53 PM
Post by: Dman on August 04, 2008, 01:59:33 PM
Post by: 6 Point on August 05, 2008, 08:36:44 AM