collapse
Guided Moose And Black Bear Hunts Bearpaw Outfitters, Quality Hunts for over 30 Years

Author Topic: Lawsuit against the WDFW  (Read 2459 times)

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10299
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
« Reply #45 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.

Offline CarbonHunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Aug 2014
  • Posts: 248
  • Location: Carbonado
  • Groups: RMEF, WSB
Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
« Reply #46 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 1800s 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.

Offline CementFinisher

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: Spanaway, wa
Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
« Reply #47 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).

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 16151
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
« Reply #48 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. 

Offline CementFinisher

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: Spanaway, wa
Re: Lawsuit against the WDFW
« Reply #49 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

Offline Elkcollector82

  • Work to live, not live to work.
  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2016
  • Posts: 725
  • Location: SW Washington
  • Hunt hard by laying boot tracks, Not tire tracks

 

* Recent Topics