Vail/ PeEll tree farm permits

[The Gobble-stopper]

Wait a minute, whats up with this? The new WDFW pamphlet is out and it shows this year you have to buy permits to hunt Weyerhaueser lands??
Thats all fine and dandy, but it was my understanding that the WDFW took part of my license fees and gave it to Weyerhaueser to keep their land open to hunting. If so than we arnt getting our moneys worth. So as I see it, somebody needs to talk to Weyerhaueser, open there lands without fees, or demand all our money back given to them, cut all money going out to them from WDFW, and lower our license fees to reflect the lack of hunting to reflect our loss. Someone tell me what they know, and am I right or am I wrong? The other thought was, that Weyerhauser opened their land to eliminate some of the damage to their equipment from disgruntled people. Now what will happen when the population finds out about this??

[Huntboy]

Here in case you didn't realize it this topic of conversation was started a while ago.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,123979.msg1642792/topicseen.html#new

[bbarnes]

Every hunter on this site needs to call there reps in Olympia and the ag committee.What about there timber tax break just another example of a broken WDFW.Also call the lands commissioner Peter Goldmark tell him this is illegal.Write a letter of criminal negligence stating,there taking our moneys for land use for profit and were being locked out.

[blackdog]

I don't like this at all but private land is private land. Bruce Barnes what about this is illegal?

[bbarnes]

The animals belong to the state that's all of us. Also the money they take from licence sales to keep the lands open not to mention the tax breaks they receive and money the receive from the state and feds.I also have private lands i allow hunting on because its the right thing to do.Whats the point of the WDFW if they cant manage the wildlife.No access no management we!

[Dirty Mike]

Just got this email today...
WDFW WILDLIFE PROGRAM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Dear Permit Applicant,

Some timber companies in western Washington have recently announced plans to begin requiring permits and charging fees to hunt on private forestlands where these access restrictions were not previously in place. We are notifying you to make sure you are aware of these changes, which may be a consideration in applying for special hunting permits this year.

The five game management units currently affected by new access requirements are GMUs 501, 506, 530, 672 and 667. Your special permit application history shows that you have previously applied for a special hunting permit in one or more of these areas.

If you plan to submit hunt choices for deer or elk in any of these areas this year, we advise that you check timber company websites or hotlines for more information on the new requirements before you submit your special permit application. The deadline for submitting a special permit application this year is May 22.

In recent years, WDFW has made a concerted effort to work with private timber companies throughout the state to expand hunter access to commercial timberlands. However, while we've been successful in a number of areas, WDFW does not have the legal authority to regulate private landowners' decisions about restricting access or charging fees to hunt on their land.

Sincerely,


WDFW
Wildlife Program

[Goshawk]

How about a two tier timber lands property tax rate.
Present rates for timber companies allowing open access.
Higher rates for timber companies that have pay to hunt, based on what a golf course is taxed at.

Start calling your state reps or stand back and loose it!

[blackdog]

Again Bruce what is the illegal part? Can you cite an RCW?

[Humptulips]

Again Bruce what is the illegal part? Can you cite an RCW?

Not illegal but it would seem there is a pretty big stick to make them rethink this. Damage control permits and the whole tax break they get on their land.
Do you think $150/acre valuation on timberland is fair? That's what they pay taxes on in most of GH county. Some tracts less, down to $5/acre.

Seems like an implied threat from the right people could get them to rethink things.

[blackdog]

The threat needs to be credible. I would be surprised if the majority on this site believe landowners both small and large who recieve property tax rates based on current use and not highest and best use should be compelled to allow the general public access to their land for free.

[Alan K]

The threat needs to be credible. I would be surprised if the majority on this site believe landowners both small and large who recieve property tax rates based on current use and not highest and best use should be compelled to allow the general public access to their land for free.

 

Anyone have any credible reading that explains how timber companies receive tax breaks in exchange for public access?  I thought that was a debunked myth. . . As far as I know it's taxed as timberland, the same as yours and I's would be with the same age class etc. timber.   

[Goshawk]

There is no RCW xx.xxx.xxx that says if your a major timber company who pays property taxes at a ridiculously low rate you have to let the public on your lands.
What there is, is years of advertising by WyCo boasting how they have earned their standing as a good citizen and neighbor by being environmentally sensitive to wildlife, the environment, salmon, clean water and by providing recreational opportunities all across the Pacific Northwest.
My gripe is this. The major holders of timberlands, some acquired through DNR land swaps (thanks a bunch Washington state DNR for screwing Chehalis out of all that public hunting ground!) have over the years negotiated a super low tax rate in order to grow timber at a profitable rate. Part of the Timber land tax argument was based on several positive aspects of timber lands that are deserving of that low tax rate, including PUBLIC ACCESS!

An example for those of you not familiar with the timber tax rate. In Lewis County, WA. there was a DNR land holding that was swapped out to Manke Lumber Co. Parcel #021898002003. It's 238 acres of excellent ground with a small year around creek through it. The taxes for that little slice of once public ground, now closed to you and I, is $165.97. Just next to this is a little 8 acre slice of forest, also in timber land. It's tax rate is $241.64.

No there is no law being broken here by taking advantage of corporate tax rates for timber lands. What I'm talking about is going back on the public trust that kept you and I in the forest for generations. Now that WyCo's profits are up 19% (according to a press release) and they are going to start charging for access it's time to reconsider who deserves that low timber tax rate. I am in favor of a tax rate as is for public access ground but a higher tax rate for timber lands that are pay to use only. If revenue is collected for recreational use on timber lands, then it needs to be taxed differently than closed timber lands.

We need to push hard for a change now, or watch public access slip through the fingers of our children and into the hands of those rich enough to form private hunting clubs. Get Loud, or get ready to pay. It's entirely YOUR CHOICE!

Goshawk

[Humptulips]

The threat needs to be credible. I would be surprised if the majority on this site believe landowners both small and large who recieve property tax rates based on current use and not highest and best use should be compelled to allow the general public access to their land for free.

They aren't based on current use or highest and best use. Their valuation is pegged on a sliding scale from $234/acre to $1/acre http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140
 Does anyone think any land in WA has an actual value that low. You can bet when they sell it, it goes for more then that.
When tree farm land is sold a price is set. That is what the valuation should be based on. I'm not talking about timberland that is being taken out of a tree farm for development. I'm talking timberland that is staying timberland.
Ok, so the valuation is set through RCW. A credible threat is look Mr timberland owner, you're not keeping your land open to the public anymore and making money off allowing a few on your land maybe that valuation set in RCW should go up. How much is up to you depending on how public spirited you are.

You can't tell me there aren't a good deal of Legislators that wouldn't jump at a chance to raise someones taxes and I doubt you would get a groundswell of public sentiment against sticking it to timber companies. They know it would be a battle and I think they might cave. Could be wrong but that's how I see it.

[Goshawk]

TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE PEOPLE. 
START HERE http://www.leg.wa.gov/pages/home.aspx

[6x6in6]

Be careful what you ask for.
I actually find this more taxes part of this kind of strange conversation around here.   
Bruce, you would like to see timberland sold as timberland be assessed on a sale for example, and that's what you say it should be taxed at?
That would equate to the same as your property being taxed at it's sales rate, or fair market value (appraised value).
You, like me, could not file a tax appeal fast enough to have your land value at it's assessed value vs. appraised value.  Look at your own property tax statement.   
Now, you want Weyco's timberland (or it's buyer) for example to be taxed at a higher rate?
Guess who ultimately would pay the price for this tax increase?  You and I the consumer.  The board foot price of a 2x4 would increase relative to the tax increase.  Weyco and other timber companies will just spin the cost off to the consumer.  That's what happens in the economy.  Government raises taxes, manufacturers carry their costs thru to the consumer.
Boom, we now have another housing tailspin.....
If you think that timber companies are going to use the revenue generated from use fees to offset the higher cost of board foot lumber courtesy of a higher tax rate, you are crazy.  They would certainly pull the higher tax rate card and cram it down the consumers throat at the checkstand.
As an employee of a developer, I know full well that every single price increase we incur gets spun off to the consumer.  The only thing that changes our margin is what the market will bear.  We don't provide housing and commercial space for the good of the community. 
If I did produce a no profit project for my boss, Inslee would be my employer and Obama would be my cell phone provider.  And that would suck!