E-mail from WDFW

[Skillet]

It is an interesting dilemma that the publicly owned resource in wildlife can freely cross over onto private land.  But the presence of a publicly owned animal doesn't necessarily turn private land public.  I don't believe that the timber tax classification has anything to do with hunting access - only tax deferral with the intent to prevent the "stump ranches" from being flipped to developers, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

If we want to hunt on private property, we need to be prepared to compensate the landowners for it by paying a trespass fee, fixing fences, bucking bales, whatever that landowner values in lieu of access.  The landowners have an investment in the property, and if it is their perogative to manage access to their property to maximize the benefits of owning it, that is entirely ok by me.

 

I own about 32 acres of timberland and these guys think they should be able to use it like it's theirs. 

I really don't think they're thinking that they can log your property like you could.  It is more about having access to cross the imaginary, man-made property line to pursue the animals that don't care or understand what a property line is.  Sure, some guys just want to dump refrigerators on your land, and that's why you'd have to restrict access if you didn't care about hunting one way or the other - timber classification or not.  Don't think most guys on here are refrigerator dumpers, though - they're just anguished over the lack of access to previously accessible lands.a

[bobcat]

Who's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?

You seriously want an answer to that question?

Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.

[Atroxus]

It sounds to me like the tax break everyone keeps referring to, was actually a tax deferral and had nothing to do with allowing access.

Now if there is a tax break that was given in exchange for timber companies allowing public access, then I absolutely agree that the timber companies should not be charging for access, and if they do that tax break should be revoked retroactively to the date the timber company began charging for access. 

[Spuddieselwwu]

Who's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?

You seriously want an answer to that question?

Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.

Wouldn't they rather pay the timber companies  for access to the land they've been accustomed to hunting rather than pay for a guided hunt with bearpaw?  I don't see those two being directly related.  One is $200, one is $5,000+...

[Spuddieselwwu]

It sounds to me like the tax break everyone keeps referring to, was actually a tax deferral and had nothing to do with allowing access.

Now if there is a tax break that was given in exchange for timber companies allowing public access, then I absolutely agree that the timber companies should not be charging for access, and if they do that tax break should be revoked retroactively to the date the timber company began charging for access. 

Do we even know that they get a tax break or deferral?  I've seen a lot of hypotheticals and assumptions - but no concrete proof that they get a tax break because they allow public hunters to have access to their land.

[Curly]

Who's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?

You seriously want an answer to that question?

Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.

Wouldn't they rather pay the timber companies  for access to the land they've been accustomed to hunting rather than pay for a guided hunt with bearpaw?  I don't see those two being directly related.  One is $200, one is $5,000+...

All the access permits will likely be bought up by Weyco employees before the general public even gets a chance at them.  Plus they are only giving 750 permits for Vail when there are usually 3,000 or so hunters in there.

[bobcat]

Who's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?

You seriously want an answer to that question?

Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.

Wouldn't they rather pay the timber companies  for access to the land they've been accustomed to hunting rather than pay for a guided hunt with bearpaw?  I don't see those two being directly related.  One is $200, one is $5,000+...

No, because everyone who wants a permit to access Weyerhaeuser, will not be able to get one! That seems to be the part that many are missing. The permits are extremely limited in number. So those people who aren't lucky enough to get a permit, will more than likely be traveling to eastern Washington to hunt on our public lands over there. As deer and elk populations plummet due to the increased hunting pressure (and wolves) I could definitely see more hunters paying trespass fees to hunt on private land, or paying to hunt with an outfitter.

[Curly]

Just wait for next year (probably) when Weyco shuts down how many millions of acres the St Helens tree farm is.  3 or 4 GMU's will be affected and there is going to be a lot of grumbling.  I suspect they are just testing the waters this year before implementing the same thing for St Helens.

[Spuddieselwwu]

Who's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?

You seriously want an answer to that question?

Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.

Wouldn't they rather pay the timber companies  for access to the land they've been accustomed to hunting rather than pay for a guided hunt with bearpaw?  I don't see those two being directly related.  One is $200, one is $5,000+...

No, because everyone who wants a permit to access Weyerhaeuser, will not be able to get one! That seems to be the part that many are missing. The permits are extremely limited in number. So those people who aren't lucky enough to get a permit, will more than likely be traveling to eastern Washington to hunt on our public lands over there. As deer and elk populations plummet due to the increased hunting pressure (and wolves) I could definitely see more hunters paying trespass fees to hunt on private land, or paying to hunt with an outfitter.

Touche' Sir.

[6x6in6]

Who's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?

You seriously want an answer to that question?

I'll take a swing at the answer for ya bobcat.
Probably someone in the AP department at WeyCo who probably follows a written procedure in the AP department manual that says pay property taxes on the due date.  This so they can maximize the interest on their funds and not the State.
Just like I do.  I pay on the due date.
My employer pays it's property taxes after 12:01PM the date due.  I know, I sign the checks.  The AP lady then spends the afternoon driving around the County and hand delivering checks.

[Curly]

As deer and elk populations plummet due to the increased hunting pressure (and wolves) I could definitely see more hunters paying trespass fees to hunt on private land, or paying to hunt with an outfitter.

Or giving up hunting altogether (most likely scenario) for most, I think.

[snowpack]

It sounds to me like the tax break everyone keeps referring to, was actually a tax deferral and had nothing to do with allowing access.

Now if there is a tax break that was given in exchange for timber companies allowing public access, then I absolutely agree that the timber companies should not be charging for access, and if they do that tax break should be revoked retroactively to the date the timber company began charging for access. 

Do we even know that they get a tax break or deferral?  I've seen a lot of hypotheticals and assumptions - but no concrete proof that they get a tax break because they allow public hunters to have access to their land.

My guess is that a major company like Weyco probably has really good team of accountants and attorneys and already looked into this.  If they do get a break, they probably found some kind of legal loophole to do this.  I can't imagine they'd risk jumping a tax bracket due to an oversight.

[Curly]

This same discussion was had 2 years ago when Rayonier started charging for access. Fireweed changed my mind on the subject with his posts.  Check out the thread here:  Link

[Northway]

really?  You really think that about private lands?  All private lands or just private lands you feel you need access to?

I think what? That the state's wildlife is on private land? Yes of course  I think that. It's a fact. What part of it do you disagree with?

That you deserve access to private lands to go hunt OUR animals.

No, I never said that. But, maybe you don't understand because you don't live over here, but a very large part of the hunting in SW Washington has historically been on Weyerhaeuser lands.

Funny how those who aren't affected by this don't seem to care. You know how wolves are a big issue in the NE? Well, this closure of Weyerhaeuser lands I consider to be even more of a detriment to hunting than wolves are over there. Does that give you an idea of the significance of the problem?

Weyerhauser has received more than enough sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers over the last 120 years to owe several generations to come reasonable access.

[bearpaw]

Weyerhauser has received more than enough sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers over the last 120 years to owe several generations to come reasonable access.

Maybe we could tax Weyerhauser heavier and cause them to move out of the state just like what is happening with Boeing? They could probably sell their lands in Washington to developers and buy more land in another state and pocket some money. But I doubt the developers would offer access permits.

Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.

I'm very, very, sorry you think I am that shallow. Perpetuating hunting for the average Joe is one of my top priorities in life, I just don't think the way to accomplish that is by punishing landowners or by taking away their property rights or charging them more taxes.

Also, hatred toward me because I am an outfitter is nothing new as I have been ridiculed by many who have a hatred for outfitters, so no harm done that way.

FYI - As an outfitter I could benefit by agreeing with adopting more wilderness areas in NE Washington, that would exclude many people from using the land who cannot afford horses or people who are not physically able or too old to hike in, then I would have more people needing horse pack trips. But, I am steadfastly opposed to more wilderness. That is public land that should be available for use by the entire spectrum of public users. I find it reprehensible that some people want to limit access to many other people.

It seems to me that most anyone can get to National Forest or State Land within 1 hour from most places in Washington, Vancouver, Seattle, Bellingham, Aberdeen, etc, so I don't see why anyone has to quit hunting, half this state is public land. In fact, I have seen bobcat mention hunting in Capitol Forest himself, isn't that state land? 

In my area some companies let you hunt free, some charge access, and some do not allow any public hunting. I figure that is their right to do as they please, but I respect the companies who allow hunting whether for free or for a fee. At least they allow hunting.

I pay fees to operate on the National Forest and BLM, you guys get to go there for free, I have no complaints. I am also happy to pay landowners to use their land for hunting. I have penciled it out many times, generally it is cheaper for me to lease land than buy land and pay the property taxes, that is why I do not own more acreage than I do.

Any of you can lease private land just like I do. Go door knocking and offer to pay them to hunt, sooner or later you will have a lease of your own, with the timber companies all you have to do is logon their website, pick your parcel, and pay. If you don't want to pay then jump in your rig and drive to public land, that's what it is for, free public use, except you will have to get a Discover Pass for state land now.