Now that Tree Farms are all going "Pay-to-play",...

[sirmissalot]

I have a hard time saying we should raise taxes on timber companies. But, limiting permits the way they are is going to severely screw us. I truly don't mind paying an access fee... as much as many of you think its not right. Trust me I'd rather not, but like its been said a thousand times, it IS their land. The problem is they are going to be selling so few of permits, that I most likely won't get to hunt it, and I'm sure other timber companies will follow suit. You can raise taxes on them, but thats just going to raise the cost of building materials, etc. At least thats the way my little conservative mind thinks. We want these businesses to succeed, but we want to have recreational access as well...

[headshot5]

The problem is unless the law gets very specific, timber companies could collectively shut their gates to all but "recreational butterfly catching or similar. 

The best action would be the public to get with the timber owners and work out something...  (Example forestland cleanup etc.)... Instead of coercing them to open there property using the legislative stick.   

   

[snowpack]

Yeah, need to watch out as the antis could go buy up all the permits so they could look for butterflies and keep hunters out.

[pianoman9701]

This is specific to timberland.  The legislature is clearly justifying a low property tax rate because of the public benefits timber provides.  One of those public benefits cited is "recreational spaces".  If now they are charging for recreational spaces, their taxes should go up accordingly.  May need to tweek the law, but no public benefit, no tax break makes sense to me.  (Isn't it funny that they announce this as the legislature is recessing?? Too late this year)

RCW 84.33.010

Legislative findings.
 

As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:

     (1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.

I've written to Sen Benton to look into this. I've done volunteer conservation projects on their land cleaning up dumping sites and garbage, and planting trees in erosion areas. I think that they're taking advantage of their tax break by charging people to use the resource. If they're having problems with people abusing it, report it and get Eyes in the Woods out there keeping watch. But, to ask me to pay AND lose the tax revenue from the exemption is a bit much.

[bobcat]

It's not even so much the fact that they're charging a fee. What's more of a problem in my mind is that the number of permits is so limited. And, even with a permit there is NO access from January 1st to July 31st.

This new access plan would be much more acceptable if the number of permits was unlimited, and if the price was more in line with say, the Discover Pass. How about $50? And no limit on the number of permits sold. Or at least a more reasonable number. How about 3,000 for Vail? That would be more money for Weyerhaeuser at that price and would provide a lot more recreational opportunities for the public.

[Northway]

Weyerhauser converted to a real estate investment trust a while back, so I'm not sure how that conversion has effected the calculation of their tax liability.

With a status as an REIT, my guess is that there is an even greater focus on maximizing the profitability of their resources in the short-term. It was probably inevitable that there would be an attempt at some sort of monetization of hunting interest on their property.

[pianoman9701]

Weyerhauser converted to a real estate investment trust a while back, so I'm not sure how that conversion has effected the calculation of their tax liability.

With a status as an REIT, my guess is that there is an even greater focus on maximizing the profitability of their resources in the short-term. It was probably inevitable that there would be an attempt at some sort of monetization of hunting interest on their property.

That's fine. I have no problem with private landowners doing exactly what they want with their property. I do have a problem subsidizing it with a tax deduction, if that's what we're doing.

[Humptulips]

The tax break is in the low assessed value. Pegged by law at a maximum of $234/acre and then on a sliding scale to a minimum of $1/acre. In Grays harbor most are near $150/acre.

[pianoman9701]

The tax break is in the low assessed value. Pegged by law at a maximum of $234/acre and then on a sliding scale to a minimum of $1/acre. In Grays harbor most are near $150/acre.

That's not the exemption I'm talking about. I'm talking about the exemption they possibly receive to allow recreational use of their land.

[pianoman9701]

You guys have fun with this. I'm done  Thanks for the discussion.

[xd2005]

I'm confused what tax break we are talking about if not property taxes. What other taxes are their based on land use?

And yes, private property owners can do what they want with the land, the question is, how did they et this land? Was it granted to the, by us (gov't), or did they buy it (with funds not generated by selling land given to them by us)?

Type of entity means nothing, as that drives federal taxes more than anything.

[bearpaw]

I'm confused what tax break we are talking about if not property taxes. What other taxes are their based on land use?

And yes, private property owners can do what they want with the land, the question is, how did they et this land? Was it granted to the, by us (gov't), or did they buy it (with funds not generated by selling land given to them by us)?

Type of entity means nothing, as that drives federal taxes more than anything.

Agreed, I have never heard of a tax exemption for recreational use on timber land, this is a far reach that I don't think will hold any water. Reading through the language posted I see nothing indicating WH has specifically violated any part of their Timber land tax designation. They are still providing recreational opportunity, nothing says they cannot charge a fee, even the state is charging a fee for land access on the land which is publicly owned. If anyone tries to argue it's unfair for WH to charge an access fee I would certainly imagine that WH will immediately point out the Discover Pass fee and fees charged by other timber companies.

These REIT's or whatever, they are a different animal than timber land classification, someone should be looking up the legal description of that classification. But, I would imagine that WH has made sure they are not in violation.

I think the first course of action should be to get a legislator or someone to contact WH and try to determine the goal of their access fee and the reason for limitation of permits. Perhaps WH is only trying to recover administration costs to gate and patrol their land and replace damaged equipment. Perhaps they are trying to create trophy class hunting where they can charge more in the future. These are only guesses at some possibilities, but if you understand their goals then you can work toward a solution that works for everyone.

Perhaps WDFW can negotiate with damage permits as leverage, but if wildlife is damaging property (trees) I am nearly certain that WH could take action (kill bear to protect property) if WDFW refuses to address the damage problem. WDFW has been charged with controlling wildlife populations, I doubt it's legal for them to totally refuse to address damage problems. At best they could negotiate with more aggressive bear control.

As mentioned in one of the other topics, I think that a Conservation/Recreational Easement should be considered. There are many ways to negotiate, possibly with a tax break so that no upfront money would have to exchange hands and the end result due to tax benefits gained by the economics of recreational use would possibly net the state and counties more money that what is given up with a tax break for an easement on WH lands. Then the state actually would have the legal standing for maintaining public recreational use on WH lands. Just trying to offer some potential ideas. 

[xd2005]

Plenty of info on REITs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_investment_trust

[bearpaw]

Plenty of info on REITs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_investment_trust

Under U.S. Federal income tax law, a real estate investment trust (REIT) (pron.: /ˈriːt/) is "any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages" under Internal Revenue Code section 856.

So REIT is simply a corporate classification under IRS laws and has nothing to do with state real estate tax classification. WH is most likely still classified as timber lands for WA state real estate tax purposes.

[bobcat]

WH is most likely still classified as timber lands for WA state real estate tax purposes.

Yes, they are.