E-mail from WDFW

[bearpaw]

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

After reading that link and post I can see why you may think you are cheated. The law does say "in providing scenic and recreational spaces", however, it does not say "in providing access to scenic and recreational spaces", unless I am lacking in my english comprehension, there is a difference. I would think someone with a law degree could elaborate more, because maybe I am wrong. 

[Northway]

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.

As a real-estate investment trust, Weyerhauser would sell their lands to developers if that was the most profitable course of action for them. Currently it is most profitable to shave off small portions of land-holdings for development, and either log, or enter into conservation eastments & continue to log (Snoqualmie Tree Farm, etc.) everything else.

Certainly if taxpayer funds go towards conversation easements covering hundreds or thousands of acres, those should include hunting rights. Large conservations easements haven't come up in SW Washington to a great extent that I'm aware of, but they will in the future, IMO.

I'm not sure what your statement about raising taxes on Weyerhauser is in reference to?

As far as the reference to Boeing, I think that oversimplifies a complicated situation. You have a free for all of states offering subsidies, union issues, and an over-emphasis on global supply chains by a Jack Welch disciple that are all contributing to jobs leaving this state. There is no doubt that trying to outsource too many functions has caused serious financial damage to Boeing to tune of billions of dollars. 

[C-Money]

How much is the access fee? Seems like I have bought access permits from timber companys in N Idaho to hunt their land. Lots of acres to hunt for a small fee. If the price is reasonable, I think I would just pay the fee and keep hunting. Yes, it sucks, but what are you gonna do? Comparing this permit fee to the wolf problem is crazy as I dont see any access permits eating your families way of life.

[bobcat]

How much is the access fee? Seems like I have bought access permits from timber companys in N Idaho to hunt their land. Lots of acres to hunt for a small fee

Again, that is not the issue. The issue is thousands of hunters being displaced, and having to hunt elsewhere. They aren't offering enough permits for everyone who will want one.

[KFhunter]

What about private property rights? Have you all opened your acreage or back yards up to public use? 

That's different. This is land owned by a large corporation, not a person or persons.

I am very mixed on cooperate land ownership - especially where the owner is no longer alive and and the company is publically traded.

Also to toss a wrench in the works how about wholly owned Chinese cooperations?

[C-Money]

How much is the access fee? Seems like I have bought access permits from timber companys in N Idaho to hunt their land. Lots of acres to hunt for a small fee

Again, that is not the issue. The issue is thousands of hunters being displaced, and having to hunt elsewhere. They aren't offering enough permits for everyone who will want one.

I see. 

[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.

As a real-estate investment trust, Weyerhauser would sell their lands to developers if that was the most profitable course of action for them. Currently it is most profitable to shave off small portions of land-holdings for development, and either log, or enter into conservation eastments & continue to log (Snoqualmie Tree Farm, etc.) everything else.

Certainly if taxpayer funds go towards conversation easements covering hundreds or thousands of acres, those should include hunting rights. Large conservations easements haven't come up in SW Washington to a great extent that I'm aware of, but they will in the future, IMO.

I don't disagree at all, if Weyerhauser has accepted public funds for public recreational easements that is certainly a much different story. Obviously they would be breaking their contract by charging for hunting access if that was the case. So the question that really matters: Has Weyerhauser been paid by public funds for a conservation easement specifying recreational access?

Perhaps this falls on the legal interpretation I referenced in my last post.

[KFhunter]

I'm probably going to get bashed here... But if any of these timber companies want to start charging people to hunt their land, that's their deal.  You can either choose to hunt it or not.  It's their land, not mine.   We've had the privilege of using their land, it's never been a right. Just my 

I mean how much were your tags and special permits this year?  It's a sign of the times, hunting is expensive all around.  It sucks, but it's a reality we have to face.

 

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

No; but if you were to LLC it then then get share holders buying into it because you had financial hardships, until you got so many share holders you had do an IPO and list "your" 32 acres on the stock market and trade stocks publically, then supercomputers calculated trades on it by the nano second then the bulk of the shares are sold foreign (China) and the Chinese government became the de-facto owner and gated you and everyone else out and raped that 32 acres for timber then found a big vein of gold and started an open pit mine then maybe we got a problem?

[bearpaw]

I am very mixed on cooperate land ownership - especially where the owner is no longer alive and and the company is publically traded.

Also to toss a wrench in the works how about wholly owned Chinese cooperations?

These are the most valid points I have seen and certainly deserve additional consideration. These are much different points than saying you own land I don't, I should be able to go on your land.

[Curly]

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? 

Capital Forest is DNR land.  It is already overcrowded.  Add 2,000 displaced hunters to Capital Forest and it is going to be crazy.  There is USFS land up on the Peninsula.  Not many deer or elk left up there to hunt.  

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.  but do they severely limit the number of people they let have access?  I paid IEP for access into the Mica Peak area several years ago and I was happy to pay and glad to have access.

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.   The writing is on the wall.  We're going to have to start leasing land

[bearpaw]

I'm probably going to get bashed here... But if any of these timber companies want to start charging people to hunt their land, that's their deal.  You can either choose to hunt it or not.  It's their land, not mine.   We've had the privilege of using their land, it's never been a right. Just my 

I mean how much were your tags and special permits this year?  It's a sign of the times, hunting is expensive all around.  It sucks, but it's a reality we have to face.

 

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

No; but if you were to LLC it then then get share holders buying into it because you had financial hardships, until you got so many share holders you had do an IPO and list "your" 32 acres on the stock market and trade stocks publically, then supercomputers calculated trades on it by the nano second then the bulk of the shares are sold foreign (China) and the Chinese government became the de-facto owner and gated you and everyone else out and raped that 32 acres for timber then found a big vein of gold and started an open pit mine then maybe we got a problem?

Does China own Weyerhauser? Are the Chinese displacing American hunters?

I have no problem with mining, we need mining, as long as they follow the law let them mine. 

On the flip side, Americans own companies in many other countries! 

[Northway]

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.

As a real-estate investment trust, Weyerhauser would sell their lands to developers if that was the most profitable course of action for them. Currently it is most profitable to shave off small portions of land-holdings for development, and either log, or enter into conservation eastments & continue to log (Snoqualmie Tree Farm, etc.) everything else.

Certainly if taxpayer funds go towards conversation easements covering hundreds or thousands of acres, those should include hunting rights. Large conservations easements haven't come up in SW Washington to a great extent that I'm aware of, but they will in the future, IMO.

I don't disagree at all, if Weyerhauser has accepted public funds for public recreational easements that is certainly a much different story. Obviously they would be breaking their contract by charging for hunting access if that was the case. So the question that really matters: Has Weyerhauser been paid by public funds for a conservation easement specifying recreational access?

Perhaps this falls on the legal interpretation I referenced in my last post.

I shouldn't have mentioned the conservation easements since they most likely don't have much relevance to this particular issue in SW Washington.

Weyerhaeuser didn't obtain all of the land they own in SW Washington on the up and up. Some of was obtained by the company through deception and manipulation. They were notorious for obtaining lands in some pretty dishonorable, but profitable ways. With Weyerhaeuser in particular, why should they not allow hunting access as a thank you for all the times they cut & run leaving devastated local economies, brushed aside laws, manipulated politicians, and circumvented environmental obstacles?

[KFhunter]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WY


Northway - pretty much describes all public companies with a board making decisions for investors.   



Profit above all else.  If you get big enough you lobby and pad politician bankrolls.

[bearpaw]

These are the most valid points I have seen and certainly deserve additional consideration. These are much different points than saying you own land I don't, I should be able to go on your land.

I said basically the same thing yet you disagreed with me.   

I took it that you were saying because Weyerhauser owns a lot of land and you don't, that you should be able to use it. Sorry but I can't agree with that premise.

KF brought in a different aspect, that Weyerhauser is publically traded and possibly not even American owned. In my mind that could change the way Weyerhauser should be treated in regards to property rights.

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.

As a real-estate investment trust, Weyerhauser would sell their lands to developers if that was the most profitable course of action for them. Currently it is most profitable to shave off small portions of land-holdings for development, and either log, or enter into conservation eastments & continue to log (Snoqualmie Tree Farm, etc.) everything else.

Certainly if taxpayer funds go towards conversation easements covering hundreds or thousands of acres, those should include hunting rights. Large conservations easements haven't come up in SW Washington to a great extent that I'm aware of, but they will in the future, IMO.

I don't disagree at all, if Weyerhauser has accepted public funds for public recreational easements that is certainly a much different story. Obviously they would be breaking their contract by charging for hunting access if that was the case. So the question that really matters: Has Weyerhauser been paid by public funds for a conservation easement specifying recreational access?

Perhaps this falls on the legal interpretation I referenced in my last post.

I shouldn't have mentioned the conservation easements since they most likely don't have much relevance to this particular issue in SW Washington.

Weyerhaeuser didn't obtain all of the land they own in SW Washington on the up and up. Some of was obtained by the company through deception and manipulation. They were notorious for obtaining lands in some pretty dishonorable, but profitable ways. With Weyerhaeuser in particular, why should they not allow hunting access as a thank you for all the times they cut & run leaving devastated local economies, brushed aside laws, manipulated politicians, and circumvented environmental obstacles?

So no public easements or public contracts are being violated?

Not sure specifically what you mean by deception, manipulation, devastated economies, etc. Do you or do you not have specific proof they violated any laws or cheated anyone and can you post that proof?

Honestly I know almost nothing about Weyerhauser other than a heck of a lot of people have gotten paychecks from them, that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, my interest in this discussion is protecting property rights.

[BOWHUNTER45]

Well it stinks but they could stop us all together ...We all hate it but it is coming to this !!!! We all know that