Manulife Hancock Forest Lands in Oregon to become Fee Access only!

[BuckSmasher]

Leases are pretty common across the southeastern US, as far as I understand. I'd hate to see that become the model in the PNW - join a club so you can be one of a huge group with access to 1k acres of tree farm.

Oh for sure they are. At least in Texas where I am from. One of the major reasons I left. I couldn't see paying 3 or 4k a year to hunt smallish whitetails and maybe hogs if you are lucky on the same couple hundred acre piece of land year in and year out. No thanks.

 

[hibernation]

Being stuck with only 1k acres to hunt would seriously suck

Yeah and it turns into "well I paid so much, I have to hunt that spot". I really liked Oregon's tradition of walk-in access to industrial timber but I also don't know how much of that was the result of public funds through A&H.

 

[Chris in TN]

Oh for sure they are. At least in Texas where I am from. One of the major reasons I left. I couldn't see paying 3 or 4k a year to hunt smallish whitetails and maybe hogs if you are lucky on the same couple hundred acre piece of land year in and year out. No thanks.

I'm not saying this to be antagonistic but I think the point is most clearly made when I say it this way:

When I, a private landowner in the southeast, read that, what I read is 'I couldn't see paying........to hunt'.

Or, alternately, you don't value the opportunity to hunt.

Paying $400 or $500 for access to a limited-entry hunting spot seems like a dream come true to me. I'm not saying that to be critical at all, I just want people to understand that it's hard sometimes to think people really value hunting when their enjoyment of it hinges on it being free.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Just been a matter of time since Weyco introduced the permits ~10 years ago. I can't blame them for being sick of all the issues that come with public access, but I would've preferred if they went with more gates and walk-in access only. I'd even settle for weekends only, like Stimson does.

Gates don't stop anyone with a wheeler or SxS.

 

[wapitibob]

Gates don't stop anyone with a wheeler or SxS.

They do in Sled.

This permit won't change the hunting one bit, it's been shiit for a number of years now. I've been there almost every year of the last 10+. Multiple harvester sides clearcutting good sized mature stands is eliminating the escape cover as well as shifting where these Elk hang out. Wolves haven't helped but aren't the only reason this herd has fallen off a cliff.
Manulife may own "33%" of the unit, more like 50 when you look at a map, but more than half of the other ground is cheatgrass canyon land void of game. Lately, most of the Elk have been in that east side FS ground and it becomes a crowded clown show with hunters jamming each other every time a bull bugles.
They'll make good money off this, $500 if you Bear hunt or Turkey hunt, $500 for most every Elk tag holder, bow and rifle. I don't blame them, I'd do the same thing.

 

[IdahoBeav]

They do in Sled.

They must use low or multi-rail gates and have some pretty radical borrow ditches. I wish they would advise Potlach on gates.

 

[hibernation]

They must use low or multi-rail gates and have some pretty radical borrow ditches. I wish they would advise Potlach on gates.

The big gates that industrial timber uses around here are definitely stopping the vast majority. Most of them, you could get a dirt bike under or around but it still wouldn't be easy.

Forest service gates, I see people bypass with ATVs pretty regularly. I've seen that on private timber maybe once.

 

[IdahoBeav]

The big gates that industrial timber uses around here are definitely stopping the vast majority. Most of them, you could get a dirt bike under or around but it still wouldn't be easy.

Forest service gates, I see people bypass with ATVs pretty regularly. I've seen that on private timber maybe once.

Here most of them either have a trail cut around them or the rail is high enough to walk an ATV beneath.

 

[Valumpessa]

They have active patrol/enforcement at the gates, which is primarily what the A&H program paid for. And then you have all the hunters, including me, calling in violators. It worked very well in keeping motorized vehicles, including e-bikes, outta there.

 

[wapitibob]

They must use low or multi-rail gates and have some pretty radical borrow ditches. I wish they would advise Potlach on gates.

They don't even close most of the gates; everybody knows the rules and we all ride bikes in. They use trail cameras too.

 

[hibernation]

I'm not saying this to be antagonistic but I think the point is most clearly made when I say it this way:

When I, a private landowner in the southeast, read that, what I read is 'I couldn't see paying........to hunt'.

Or, alternately, you don't value the opportunity to hunt.

Paying $400 or $500 for access to a limited-entry hunting spot seems like a dream come true to me. I'm not saying that to be critical at all, I just want people to understand that it's hard sometimes to think people really value hunting when their enjoyment of it hinges on it being free.

A lot of it used to be some form of public land, there's complicated history of how it was all parcelled out along with a lot of tax breaks for timber. I'm not an expert on all the details but there is a history and cultural expectation that some form of public access was part of the deal. I'd liken it to the English/European "right to roam" concept.

As far as the value goes, I could justify the cost for my own hunting. I'm thinking more of the family that wants to get out and pick chanterelles for a day or two in the fall. We're lucky that they can mostly just drive up the road and hit the State or National Forest instead. Still, I think that the big corporate timber landowners should be obligated to provide some reasonable degree of access to these massive lands that they have, as part of their social contract. In the same way that we'd expect them to help pay for the public roads that they use.

I totally get why it's a headache for them and how a handful of individuals have ruined it for the rest of us. But I still think we're worse off losing the cultural norm that these 100k acre tree farms be reasonably accessible to the average person.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about an individual that owns a woodlot. I'm talking about something that affects hundreds of thousands of acres for maybe a half dozen corporations.

 

[hibernation]

They don't even close most of the gates; everybody knows the rules and we all ride bikes in. They use trail cameras too.

Yeah, plus going through an open logging gate in the morning is just asking to get locked in. Seen that in the Coast Range more than a few times.

 

[BuckSmasher]

I'm not saying this to be antagonistic but I think the point is most clearly made when I say it this way:

When I, a private landowner in the southeast, read that, what I read is 'I couldn't see paying........to hunt'.

Or, alternately, you don't value the opportunity to hunt.

Paying $400 or $500 for access to a limited-entry hunting spot seems like a dream come true to me. I'm not saying that to be critical at all, I just want people to understand that it's hard sometimes to think people really value hunting when their enjoyment of it hinges on it being free.

I'm not understanding what you are trying to say I don't think?

Paying $3500 to be the 8th guy on a 500 acre lease in west central Texas with a chance to have two box blinds designated as yours and MAYBE shoot a 135-140" buck every other year is a hard no for me. Not how I like to hunt, and not a good value.

 

[hibernation]

They must use low or multi-rail gates and have some pretty radical borrow ditches. I wish they would advise Potlach on gates.

Usually something like this:

 

[Chris in TN]

A lot of it used to be some form of public land,

I used to live near a big chunk of eastern public land that *used to be* some form of private land, and the people that owned it didn't want to sell.

And now I live near another smaller chunk of public land, that the people who used to own it, many of them also didn't want to sell. But they were forced to. Ironically, the chunk near where we live now, a lot of people held out and the project was cancelled and they were able to keep their land. I wasn't here but as I understand it the /gov just dropped the legal battles when the project was cancelled, but those who had already relented, didn't get theirs back.

I'll just say that private property, as a concept and basis for civilization, means as much to me as public property, as a recreational thing, means to a lot of western guys.

 

[OregonSteeler]

I hunt the OR coast range and LOVE the paid access. I only purchase the walk-in access permits and have yet to run into someone while hunting/scouting in the woods. People kill themselves to get the drive-in access permit but there's always walk-in only permits leftover!

 

[Chris in TN]

I'm not understanding what you are trying to say I don't think?

Paying $3500 to be the 8th guy on a 500 acre lease in west central Texas with a chance to have two box blinds designated as yours and MAYBE shoot a 135-140" buck every other year is a hard no for me. Not how I like to hunt, and not a good value.

Yeah, we all like free stuff.

 

[BuckSmasher]

Yeah, we all like free stuff.

At the risk of trying to rationalize with a stranger on the internet I still don't get what you are saying?

When I lived in Texas I hunted on the National Forest in the eastern portion of the state and spent money on western hunts every year. I perceived a lot more value in spending 2k and going to Montana on an archery elk hunt on millions of acres of public land than being constrained to a small parcel closer to home for nearly twice as much and shooting a deer coming to a corn feeder.

Do you own a lease and you think you provide a good value? Maybe for your tenants you do! They don't have to drive, don't have to walk, can drive right up to what they shoot, and get to be home for supper. No shame in that. Not my cup of tea.

 

[manbugle]

Really curious about exactly where this allowed camping will be.
n addition,
dispersed camping within 300 feet of an open road is
allowed as long as campers do not block, impede or
interfere with land management activities or others use of
the open road. There is a 14-day limit on all camp sites.

 

[wapitibob]

Really curious about exactly where this allowed camping will be.
n addition,
dispersed camping within 300 feet of an open road is
allowed as long as campers do not block, impede or
interfere with land management activities or others use of
the open road. There is a 14-day limit on all camp sites.

Same places they've historically been, other than their 2 year paid camping fiasco, fire restriction dependent per usual. I did email the boss and asked about changing access to mirror the Forest Service since they were charging now and would know who was on their property; they may look at that.

https://manulifeimlanduse.com/

faq
scroll to the btm, NE Oregon