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

[xd2005]

Exactly. It's irrelevant whether it's a sole prop, S-corp, C-Corp, LLC, etc. This is all about land use and state land taxation, not federal taxation.

[bearpaw]

Exactly. It's irrelevant whether it's a sole prop, S-corp, C-Corp, LLC, etc. This is all about land use and state land taxation, not federal taxation.

Agreed!

Understanding their goal and then negotiating in the public interest seems like the best answer to me. 

[bearpaw]

Companies do pay attention to public opinion, perhaps if they get some bad press and see the public frustration that will encourage them to open up more hunting opportunities. Someone mentioned that they had written their legislator, that is probably a very good course of action, letters to the editor in various newspapers throughout the area would draw attention too. Copy all letters to WH so they know all those letters are being sent.

I do not believe they have violated any laws but if they thought laws could be in danger of being changed that would get their attention. They know the huggers are already opposed to them, if they know the recreational public may go against them, that could be bad politics, so letters to the editor and letters to legislators might be very effective. 

[headshot5]

Spot on bearpaw.   

[bearpaw]

The way some of the arguments were first presented ruffled my feathers because I am a (very) small property owner myself. I would suggest keeping your messages to the point that Weyerhauser used to benefit the communities, now they are taking away recreational opportunity.

IMHO - If you attack property owners you will cause many small property owners to speak out in support of WH property rights exactly as I first reacted, so you need to make WH look like the big bad kid on the block for hurting the communities by taking away recreational opportunities and economic income derived from that recreational use. Mention how they used to benefit communities but now they are hurting communities by limiting recreational use and economic income from recreational users who spend money in local communities.

Focus on the terms "recreational use", "local economic income", "local economies", "public opportunity", and not just "hunting". 

[Special T]

So the question is this. The way tresspass laws currently work is the land has to be posted. Are they goint to post all thier land? Did the law pass that stated you could use orange paint on trees or posts to "post" the land?

[Curly]

So the question is this. The way tresspass laws currently work is the land has to be posted. Are they goint to post all thier land? Did the law pass that stated you could use orange paint on trees or posts to "post" the land?

I think I read where that orange paint law didn't go anywhere.

That is a good point.  You could just go hunt adjacent timber land (State, Green Diamond, etc.) and as long as you don't know where you are, you can't be cited for trespassing if you happen to wander onto Weyco land (unless they inform you that you are on their land). 

[Special T]

I'm kinda guessing this is an Access issue... The roads will be posted, and controlled, but like you said if you were on adjacent property and walked on.... This will increase surrounding pressure however.

I would imagine you wouldn't be able to hunt very far in the property since it would be walk in only, but...

[Humptulips]

The way some of the arguments were first presented ruffled my feathers because I am a (very) small property owner myself. I would suggest keeping your messages to the point that Weyerhauser used to benefit the communities, now they are taking away recreational opportunity.

IMHO - If you attack property owners you will cause many small property owners to speak out in support of WH property rights exactly as I first reacted, so you need to make WH look like the big bad kid on the block for hurting the communities by taking away recreational opportunities and economic income derived from that recreational use. Mention how they used to benefit communities but now they are hurting communities by limiting recreational use and economic income from recreational users who spend money in local communities.

Focus on the terms "recreational use", "local economic income", "local economies", "public opportunity", and not just "hunting". 

Dale,
 In other posts I proposed looking at tax valuations of land and the artificially low land valuations timberlands enjoy. Reading between the lines I gather you don't like that.
You now post to negotiate and compromise with them.
I think it is fair to say if you are going to negotiate you need something to negotiate with. If you go to them with hat in hand and public sentiment, you will get nowhere.
The only place that REITs have in the discussion is it emphasizes that the only thing that really matters is the bottom line.
The only thing we have to negotiate with is the threat of revisiting the law setting tax valuations for timberlands. Yes any change in the law would affect all timberland owners. I'm sure there are members opposed to this because they are enjoying the tax break but really that is all we have.
Those laws will be revisited at some point because there is no inflation adjuster in the law. Public sentiment will not like to hear about Hancock paying $3000/acre for WEYCO land and then it turning around and being valued for taxes at $150/acre. They know that and that gives us leverage to talk to them.
Without that you have nothing.

[bearpaw]

The way some of the arguments were first presented ruffled my feathers because I am a (very) small property owner myself. I would suggest keeping your messages to the point that Weyerhauser used to benefit the communities, now they are taking away recreational opportunity.

IMHO - If you attack property owners you will cause many small property owners to speak out in support of WH property rights exactly as I first reacted, so you need to make WH look like the big bad kid on the block for hurting the communities by taking away recreational opportunities and economic income derived from that recreational use. Mention how they used to benefit communities but now they are hurting communities by limiting recreational use and economic income from recreational users who spend money in local communities.

Focus on the terms "recreational use", "local economic income", "local economies", "public opportunity", and not just "hunting". 

Dale,
 In other posts I proposed looking at tax valuations of land and the artificially low land valuations timberlands enjoy. Reading between the lines I gather you don't like that.
You now post to negotiate and compromise with them.
I think it is fair to say if you are going to negotiate you need something to negotiate with. If you go to them with hat in hand and public sentiment, you will get nowhere.
The only place that REITs have in the discussion is it emphasizes that the only thing that really matters is the bottom line.
The only thing we have to negotiate with is the threat of revisiting the law setting tax valuations for timberlands. Yes any change in the law would affect all timberland owners. I'm sure there are members opposed to this because they are enjoying the tax break but really that is all we have.
Those laws will be revisited at some point because there is no inflation adjuster in the law. Public sentiment will not like to hear about Hancock paying $3000/acre for WEYCO land and then it turning around and being valued for taxes at $150/acre. They know that and that gives us leverage to talk to them.
Without that you have nothing.

It takes 30 years to grow a log verses 1 year for most other crops which couldn't be grown in most of the rugged country that is timberland anyway. Timberland is taxed heavy enough. Already in Eastern Washington we are taxed more because land is worth more in western WA. The last thing we need is more tax on timber lands.

If this is going to come down to asking for tax increases, in addition to myself, many of my family members, friends, and neighbors own small amounts of timberlands. I will very adamantly oppose increasing all our timber land taxes.

If you make raising timber land taxes the priority you are splitting your unity in half right off the get go, myself and I am sure many others will stand with WH against any timberland tax increase, please consider that.

I'm very sorry but I am already paying enough taxes, in essence you are asking me, my family, friends, and neighbors to pay more tax so you can pressure WH. While I understand and want to help the hunter's cause in western Washington, I'm not going to stand by and watch all of eastern Washington landowners pay the price. 

[bearpaw]

Have you considered having the county assessors re-value WH lands?

I just checked my tax assessment sheet, the county I live in has my timberlands valued at $2500 to just under $3000 per acre and it's sitting there waiting for trees to grow 30 years to return an investment. I think you may be wrong about WH lands valued at $150 per acre. If you are not wrong then you need to go after the county to re-assess WH land.

Please do not ask the state to raise the rates on the rest of us!

[bobcat]

I just looked up a parcel of Weyerhaeuser land in the Vail tree farm. It's 400 acres, and "taxable value" is shown as $53,490. That comes out to $133.72 per acre.

That's what they're paying taxes on.

It also shows a "market land" value of $399,850.

So they're saying the land is worth $1,000 per acre but they're being taxed on a value of $133 per acre.

[bearpaw]

I just looked up a parcel of Weyerhaeuser land in the Vail tree farm. It's 400 acres, and "taxable value" is shown as $53,490. That comes out to $133.72 per acre.

That's what they're paying taxes on.

It also shows a "market land" value of $399,850.

So they're saying the land is worth $1,000 per acre but they're being taxed on a value of $133 per acre.

Well then you have a problem in the county with the assessed valuations. Pressure the counties to reassess Weyerhauser land within their county. I just looked at my tax statement minutes ago, I am paying taxes on $2500 to almost $3000 per acre for my timber land. Land gets reassessed I think every 4 years here.

But please don't say you want rates increased because that rate increase will hit me at $2750 average valuation per acre while it only hits Weyerhauser at $133 valuation per acre.

I hope you can understand why private landowners will oppose a rate increase.

[bobcat]

Another parcel:

629.8 acres
"Taxable value" = $59,790
"Market" value = $629,800

So in this case for property tax purposes, the county has it valued at $94.93 per acre.

Even though the actual value is shown as $1,000 per acre.

[bearpaw]

How much tax did they pay on those parcels?

When I looked closer at my tax statement there are 11 different taxes I am being charge for, only one of those is state tax.