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

[Goshawk]

All this talk is USELESS UNLESS YOU CALL/WRITE YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES!

Crush it hard now, or sit back and watch it happen!

[Humptulips]

All this talk is USELESS UNLESS YOU CALL/WRITE YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES!

Crush it hard now, or sit back and watch it happen!

Don't think there aren't Legislators watching this. There are. Maybe hashing out a plan people can live with is important too.

[Northway]

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.

An REIT classification could be a benefit in the sense that there is the potential for more internal pressure to get a deal done when it comes to conservation easements. 90% of their net income has to be distributed to shareholders and a large-scale deal could pad net income for an entire year by 10% or more.

I don't think adjusting for inflation will necessarily cause those laws to be revisited any sooner. There have been groups hammering the DOI for years about raising graze fees on public allotments. The rate was set at $1.35/AUM in 1978 and has never once been adjusted for inflation, even though the going rate on many of those allotments would now be 10 times that.

BP is right that putting the tax incentives on the table could bring too much opposition from rural legislators. I do not have any information on it, but I'm willing to bet that there are a number of rural legislators who themselves have parcels of land that could be affected by that discussion.

If some of these tax breaks were created with the intent to limit development of timberlands, it doesn't seem like a stretch to negotiate easements that involve some sort of expense to taxpayers since we are basically subsidizing conservation on those properties already.

[Humptulips]

I think if you are talking about additional tax breaks to keep the land open or purchasing easements with government funds and not identifying a new source for those funds it would be a hard sell in the Legislature.
At the present time at least in W WA I think the owners who lease their land for hunting are in the minority. Probably wouldn't get much opposition from landowners that weren't being affected.
I really think you could write this so there would be no effect on taxes if the landowners maintained the status quo. That's the carrot. Go to leases for hunting there would be a cost. Maybe not as much as received from the lease but take some of the profit out of it to where it is less attractive. That's the stick.

I also think WDFW could exert a little pressure through the damage control permits and the special permits for bodygripping traps they issue. If we could get them to look at that it all of a sudden maybe doesn't look like such a good deal to lock the public out. That is going to take political pressure too. Governors office if possible. Not sure if he would help though.

[bearpaw]

I know one county in Eastern Wash. has that if your land is enrolled in "feel free to hunt" it counts on the public benefit rating system that reduces land taxes in the open space-open space category.  We could do something like that--or only target timber owner with over 5,000 acres for increased values and taxes if they do not provide access.  We taxpayers could also just charge a special tax on the income generated from the fees/leases, that way it would only affect the ones that charge.

I would think you would have a legitimate argument for this. It seems the asumption was the land was not going to generate any income between harvests of trees. Now they will be going to revenue generated through out the harvest cycle.

Yes that does sound like a reasonable argument to tax the lease income.
One of the issues that bobcat pointed out was the huge reduction in public opportunity. How could a special tax on lease income improve that?

You probably already know what I feel. Because the property is producing income every year and not just once during the harvest cycle the tax valuation should go up. If you don't lease it the valuation wouldn't go up. If you do it would go up. Provides an incentive in lower tax valuation to keep it open. I gather you don't like that.

Here's another thought I'll throw out there. What about extending the timber excise tax to other income the property produces. Might even try to get that tax money allocated to purchasing public easments to landlocked state land.
I see some difficulties wording that because the timber excise tax is not exclusive to forestland but it might be worth thinking about.

I wasn't very clear, I was agreeing that a different tax classification might be in order when a landowner is receiving additional annual income and the land is producing an income every year. There is another potential negative issue. Most timber land in my area is also leased for grazing. The ranchers need these grazing leases to make their operations profitable, I would hate to see additional taxation that makes it harder on ranchers to keep leases.

Bobcat had pointed out that there is a huge loss of opportunity with the limited number of access permits being issued. I like the idea of that extra taxation money being used to secure easements, not sure legislators will not want any extra funding for the general fund though. It certainly seems the end goal should be to secure access for hunters, not to create tax dollars for the state to waste.

[fireweed]

Here's what Senator Brian Hatfield had to say (followed by a bunch of Weyco. Press releases citing the typical garbage dumping etc.  as if making hunters pay will stop tweekers)

"I don't like Weyerhaeuser's new fees either and I empathize with you and others who enjoy access to Weyerhaeuser's lands.  Unfortunately, there is not anything else that I can do except to commiserate."

This legislator is taking his job seriously!

[Humptulips]

Here's what Senator Brian Hatfield had to say (followed by a bunch of Weyco. Press releases citing the typical garbage dumping etc.  as if making hunters pay will stop tweekers)

"I don't like Weyerhaeuser's new fees either and I empathize with you and others who enjoy access to Weyerhaeuser's lands.  Unfortunately, there is not anything else that I can do except to commiserate."

This legislator is taking his job seriously!

I talked to someone in the know yesterday. One of the things we talked about  applies to Brian and all other Legislators really. They are afraid to  write any kind of bill that goes against the timber companies unless it is coming from grass roots. If something originates from their desk without some push from voters it probably won't go anywhere and big timber will be helping their opponent next election cycle.
Somehow we need to agree on an outline for a bill and then flood  the legislators with messages.
I think any bill ideas should go through Hunters Heritage Council as they already have a lobbyist in place.

On the bill: I think there would be a lot of changes between idea stage and introduction. I would want to leave a lot of wiggle room for whoever introduces it so they could do some negotiating with WEYCO; Hancock; Et al.

[fireweed]

This is from the state's new SCORP recreation plan.  This is an approved and final public policy document, and it calls for re-examining the incentives in tax law.  Maybe this would plan would be helpful to engage legislature.

" ...some of the state’s best efforts to increase recreation opportunities may have backfired. For example, the state’s Open Space Taxation Act, enacted in 1970, allows for current use assessment, which values property at its current use rather than its highest and best use. This offers incentives to landowners whose properties qualify as one of the following classifications: open space land, farm and agricultural land, or timberland. One of the many qualifying factors for classification is enhancing recreation opportunities. In other words, among its many advantages, the Open Space Taxation Act encourages increases in recreation lands. However, as noted by some of the SCORP Town Hall contributors, there is a trend in private land ownership to limit public recreational access to no-entry or to a pay-to-enter model. This occurs despite the fact that similar taxation acts were enacted to encourage public recreation on these lands. As one contributor noted, “as timberlands are gated, public land often becomes landlocked and inaccessible by the actions of private companies [or landowners]. In effect, the loss of use of private timberlands, coupled with landlocked public lands has drastically reduced the ‘recreational’ spaces available to the public in the last 10-15 years.” It becomes important for the state to look at this and other similar programs designed to enhance public recreation opportunities to evaluate whether or not the goals of these efforts are being met."

[fireweed]

I also grilled my county assessor office on the meaning of "current use value".  It sounds fair enough--tax them at the value of timberland or ag land and not HBU (development/housing) rates.  BUT it turns out for timberland current use value doesn't mean current use value ie. it is not based on the going rate for bare timberland.   Farmland is based on the current lease rate of farmland.  Timber is getting two tax breaks= the difference between real market value of timberland and development value, and the difference between the state's chart of "current use" and the real market value of bare timberland. 

[bearpaw]

Sorry I have been busy hunting and not participating in the conversation. I agree that a well thought out recommendation for legislation should be submitted. I don't like to see the west side hunters lose opportunity. I am interested in helping put together something that everyone can live with. 

[509]

Years ago...At the request of the Kittitas County commissioners I did an economic analysis of public versus private ownership of land in Kittitas County.

One thing I remember due to timber and open space designation Plum Creek was paying TWENTY-NINE cents an acre per year in property taxes.  They were paying an additional 29 cents to DNR for fire protection.  Apple orchards pay a flat $100/ acre in taxes.....and so on.

Don't get me started on who pays taxes in Washington state.....but at least we have the "best government money can buy"!!

[headshot5]

Yeah,  terrible people/corporations following things like laws, and paying things like taxes.  They need to be punished.     (Note sarcasm font).

Thanks for the update cboom! 

Edit included the below:
I have to say in my personal opinion there are more pressing issues, like wolves (both sides of the state), hoof-rot (low land west side elk), and public lands not being utilized correctly (game and timber management and tribe interaction with state/federal lands) that I would prefer to be resolved.  One thing I would say is if they shutdown access to private property the wildlife will increase (not a terrible thing in a conservation sense), however the other above mentioned things work in the opposite direction (drastically reducing the amount of game animals).

If it were up to me I would be pushing to resolve the issues decimating our herds first as opposed to chasing private land owners whose property provides some of the best habitat.  I know it sucks that Weyco and others are moving away from free access.  I wish we (sportmen, outdoorsmen, and recreators) could work something out with private timber companies for at least walk-in access.  I would not care if they charge for drive in access that is their right, and it would pay for upkeep of their roads.

I do not understand the entitlement I hear though, and also do not understand why we would want to pass legistation by offering up ideas to the Legislator and WDFW and then letting them hash it out.  To me, that sounds like a recipe for disastor.  Let the Legislator (probably non-hunting poloticians, and WDFW (Political Olympia)) decide what is best for sportsmen/recreators/public.  We would probably get some good wolf legislation out of it  .  Since, Washington is not a right-to-hunt state, we are pushing to trample our states private property rights to satisfy our State Authorized priveledge to hunt. 

I would say we should be pushing to make hunting a right in Washington before worrying about who will or who won't let us hunt on their property.

[pianoman9701]

I have no such expectation of private property owners. I have always believed that landowners should be able to do that with their property as they wish, as long as it doesn't hurt the environment and surrounding properties. That has nothing to do with my original post. CBoom's post two posts back does address my original post. It's my belief that companies that receive tax relief for their land should get them for offering value to the public in exchange, such as maintaining or creating recreational opportunities for the public as a whole. If they choose to do other with their land, that's fine with me - it's their land. I just don't think they should get the tax relief. We have far too many acres of private timber company land in this state to be giving tax breaks without getting something for the people in return. You want to pay lower taxes? Give me some added value which warrants that lower rate. Otherwise, pay the full tax rate.

[biggfish]

If they're going to be selling licensing to the public they should have to get a business license and a store front to do so; and with it will come all inherent taxes and fees.  Granted if the access pass were in the $20-$30 range I wouldn't care but withe kind of profit margin they are looking at I see as a fully separate business.

[pianoman9701]

If they're going to be selling licensing to the public they should have to get a business license and a store front to do so; and with it will come all inherent taxes and fees.  Granted if the access pass were in the $20-$30 range I wouldn't care but withe kind of profit margin they are looking at I see as a fully separate business.

They're a timber company. I guarantee they have a business license.