I was just wondering how everyone felt about damage control permits given to landowners.

I don't really mind that they get them as much as they charge people to use them. I know that they are charging for the privlidge to "Hunt Private Land" but without the damage permits not many would pay the prices they get for these hunts. If you crops are being damaged they should want hunters to come in and HELP them. I also don't mind landowners charging to hunt their land during general season's thats their right but once they ask and recieve damage permits they should not be alowed to charge for these hunts. I hate to see these guys make a profit for getting help to controll the elk on their property. How would they feel if the Game department started charging them 5-10K for their permits. Sorry about my ranting here i just had a customer come in who has no crop to be damaged but applied and recieved 3 damage permits for cows on his property the only reason he got them was so he could make some extra cash (He admitted to this so it's not speculation) he already sold the right to hunt his land to two people for 1500.00 each and he will give them the permit.

Just wondering how others feel about this.


-ian

It is their land. Would you like somebody else telling you what you could do with your property?

I'm not sure this is a new development as I seem to remember my Dad and Mom hunting deer with orchard damage permits and paying for the permit and the right to hunt in the Wenatchee area. I could have the memory twisted a bit as it was in the '50's and I about 8 or 9.

It is their land, but they are our elk. Wildlife is publicly owned, so the issue allowing them to make money for the killing of public property (which is a zero sum game since only x number of elk are killed each year) is different from the issue of allowing them to charge to access their land. It seems different to me to allow landowners to exlude people from their land and to allow landowners to use damage tags, meant to remove problem animals and eleviate damage to their property, to make extra profit. In short, the issue isn't telling them what they can and can't do with their property, it is allowing them to receive personal profit at the expense of the hunting public and public property.

I know it's their land and for any general tag i belive they can charge whatever they want close it completly open it for everyone whatever they want. I am just against charging for damage hunts. If they want to keep their crops damage free maybe they should put a 12 foot fence aroud it at their own cost not the states. Maybe they should not complain about their crops being damaged if they are not willing to let hunters on their land.

I completly understand why landowners close their land to the public. I would say MOST ALL hunters respect the land and take good care of it. There are however the Few who should just stay home. I hunt private property every year for general season elk the property is open to the public to permission needed. The only thing the owner asks is that you pick up you litter watch your fires closly and no wood cutting. Seems like easy rules to follow but every year i see people cutting wood leaving camp with the fire still going and i am always picking up beer cans and candy wrapers on the game trails and along the road. I see lots of other hunters picking up trash also. There is one camp in particular that is there every year they always leave wiskey bottles and beer cans hanging from trees we usually wait till they leave on the last day of elk season and clean up after them as we like hunting this area and want to keep it lookin nice and keep it open. So i definatly see why landowners close their land or charge to ensure everything is taken care of.

Since i mentioned about the trash in the woods i would like to thank all the other hunters out there that also pick up their trash and pack out every thing they packed in and maybe more. Seems like a great bunch of guys on this site and i'am sure this applies to everyone here so THANK YOU ALL for letting my kids enjoy the same experinces i have had.

I've heard tags are giving away to friends or sold fairly cheap on some places. They can use that money to repair fences or replace crops. The only problem I have is I want one of those tags. :-)

i think the farmers have every right to choose who comes on their land for these damage hunts friends family or whatever just not at a cost. If they can't handle giving them out free the game department should step in and instead of giving them damage control tags they should here is a list of people willing to harvest a elk you can call them or we will at your request if they don't let anyone hunt elk damage becomes their problem.

These are just my opinion's on the matter i would sure like to here from more of you on this one.

That's what I put in the hunting survey proposals to start a call list of unsuccessful elk hunters to harvest in problem or overpopulated areas like Mt. St. Helens. Then they should call me.

Man, does your fish and game do ANYTHING right...

Its been a long running battle with land owners over here and the public wins. Land owners are alloted tags ( numbers depending on the amount of deeded land they own) They can give these tags to anyone they like... they just can't SELL them.. period. The game belongs to the people of the state, not they guy who's land they happen to be on. Its the way it should be. Keeps hunting within reach of the common guy.

On damage control hunts, the land owner requests them. The fish and game issues the tags in a drawing. The land owner with the complaint "has" to let the public in to shot the elk or deer that are causing him the problem. he can't charge you a damn thing for "helping" him out. So simple.

How did you guys get down this road where land owners can charge people for depredation hunts ?? Thats goofy as a football batt.

Football Bat... Well put B-RUN

They are not alowed to charge for the permit here either they charge for the use on the land and give you the permit that way they are not charging you for the game that belongs to the public and the game department look the other way.

KNOPHISH

I too have voiced my opinin to the game department. I would even be happy if they made sure the landowner was using them himself or giving them away to whoever he wants. He should have the right to decied who comes on his land.

The whole scene you are describing has played out here before.

1> Land owner does not allow anyone to hunt on his land
2> All the elk in the area figure this out and camp out on said land owners land
3> Land owner goes crying to the fish and game because his fences and crops are getting torn up
4> fish and game comes out and looks it over, decides that they will allow 20 cows to be shot
5> Land owner says he knows who will get the tags
6> Fish and game tells him to F.O They will have a drawing. Landowner "has" to let these people in or he gets zero help on the matter.
7> No money changes hands period

A different Land owner situation

There are units over here that have a fantastic number of huge mule deer. The tags are coveted. In one unit, 5,000 people apply for 75 tags. Land owners get a few tags for themselves. They want to be able to sell these tags to the highest bidder ( I kid you not, a buck tag in unit 45 would sell for over 20,000 dollars on the open market ) They want to change it so that the land owner can sell these tags to outfitters, who can then line up the clients etc.

Hell... NO... Ain't gonna happen.

Outfitters

There is a group of outfitters who are suing various states because they feel they should be issued tags in addition to the tags already out there. One group " United States Outfitters" or USO, contends that even though they are based out of Colorado, they are being prevented from making a living by not being able to get tags anyplace they want.. screw them as well. Ain't gonna happen

The day that money gets involved with hunting, is the day the avg man is done. So far, money is out of the equation over here.

I am aware of a guy from San Jose that bought a 12,000 acer ranch just for the land owner tags ( 4 for deer, 4 for elk ) thats how serious some of these money guys are about it

That exactly illustrates my point that landowners charging to shoot public property is entirely different from choosing who has access to their land.

Agreed sort of. They can choose who gets on their land. They can "give" one of "their" tags to anyone they want.. they just can't sell them. This is general season rules.

However, when they ask for help with depredation, they don't get to decide who gets on their land. they open it up so the job can get done. You can't ask for the publics help, then decide who you think the publics going to be. The fact that they don't let the public hunt is the reason they have this problem in the first place.

Side note: Depredation hunts are closely monitored and most often a fish and game officer is on site. They also have " on call lists" so that they can organize and have a depredation hunt virtually in a 24 hour time frame.

Looks like Idaho has a much better system in place. I wish our Game Department would do the same thing. Do you know if they have the laws that apply to this on-line i would like to use it as an example for our Game Department next time i speak with them on this. So far all my complaining has got me NO where but if enough hunters get together on a issue they will have to listen.

Don't most of the big timber companies do this to some extent? The difference is that in some cases they restrict or charge a fee to trespass on what is essentially public land. Private property is a different issue. The landowner should be able to do as he/she sees fit.

Maybe all public and PRIVATE land should be open to every 206'er yahoo with a rifle.

RVW

We have a similar, although lame and totally mismanaged, depredation program in Washington. There is a "call list" for the areas that have large amounts of damage, namely around Yakima and Ellensburg. AHE hunters, myself included, have an antlerless season from August through February, and can give their name to the "hunt-master," who is a volunteer not employed by WDFW, and hope to get called. The problem is that it is administered by the Ellensburg good old boys, and good luck getting called unless you know the hunt master. I think this AHE damage season would be a much better way to go than landowner permits if it were administered properly. It is basically the same thing that B-Run is talking about but it is administered very poorly. Landowners end up not wanting hunters on their land for various reasons, including the stupid things that hunters do such as running over irrigation pipes, gates, and the like, but also for all the reasons that you would assume. The problem could be taken care of by not giving landowner permits or giving very few, and then not compensating those landowners who don't allow hunters access to their property for damage caused by elk during the hunting seasons. Basically what we have in Washington is the landowners and their buddies (read good old boys club) cornering the market. Also, when I say good old boys I'm not just talking about excluding the so called "coastees" from access, but people who live 20 miles away and are known to the individuals in charge. The problems associated with the current AHE system are why the system is currently on hold. Examples of the current problems include road hunting, trespassing, elk slaughters (meaning 6 good old boys pull up and shoot 8 elk out of herd, leaving the extras in the farmer's field), and the like.

I already do and I'm not that old. The good old days are gone, look at your game regs under Elk Landowner Hunting Permits. You'll see names like 4-0 Cattle Company (30 permits), Silver Dollar Association (39 permits), Blackrock Ranches (14 permits), and so on. You will also see the phrase, "An access fee may be charged in order to utilize these permits". I don't hold an economics degree but this one's easy to add up. I would venture to guess that you will continue to see more property purchased and slapped with an access fee as prime public hunting land diminishes. Like most of you I'm not a fan of paying twice to harvest a public resource especially in the name of damage control or herd management.

There is a landowner around here that gets damage permits.

Last year my sister had a cow tag for the same area.We went by and saw 8 or 10 cows in his field.I asked if my sister could shoot 1.

He didnt know the elk were there till I told him.He never sais a word.Goes to his truck.Grabs his rifle and goes to look.Just sees cows.

Tells my sister that he would rather leave them alone and see if a bull joins them.I was steamed.

I think landowners should be able to recoup some of the cost of the damage.I know people that lose a significant amount of money every year to elk damage.

I also think we should be able to access a list of landowners who get damage permits.

Tried checkin last year and got exactly nowhere.