I can understand the state not planting fish in waters inaccessible to license holders. But, if say to a landowner that your land is closed to hunting or fishing because you don't allow public access just how much habitat protection you think will occur?

While the resources are public property, the land isn't. Why should a timberland owner have deer, elk, and bears on his land if he can't control access (essentially control behavior) on that land? Getting your equipment and roads and land trashed for the public sucks out money.

Maybe WA can do like WY does. Each big game tag has (or had) a voucher. Kill a deer, give the voucher to the landowner, and he gets money back from the state for providing access.