E-mail from WDFW

[pianoman9701]

Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.

If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.

Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.

 

Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of.   (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)

Access to private property is a privilege, not a right.  I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres.  Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision.  It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.

Your statement completely misrepresents the sentiment here. No one is advocating increased taxes on anyone. I'm glad you enjoyed using their land previously, but it was far from free of charge. They got tax breaks for it - they didn't have to pay a portion of their tax liability if they let you use their land for free. Like I've said before, people should be able to do whatever they want with their own land. However, when you receive a recreational use tax exemption on your own land and then close it to the general public by selling a limited number of permits, you should lose that exemption. I don't get any exemptions for my land. Do you? They shouldn't, either if they don't want me hunting on it for free.

[bearpaw]

Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.

If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.

Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.

 

Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of.   (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)

Access to private property is a privilege, not a right.  I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres.  Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision.  It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.

Your statement completely misrepresents the sentiment here. No one is advocating increased taxes on anyone. I'm glad you enjoyed using their land previously, but it was far from free of charge. They got tax breaks for it - they didn't have to pay a portion of their tax liability if they let you use their land for free. Like I've said before, people should be able to do whatever they want with their own land. However, when you receive a recreational use tax exemption on your own land and then close it to the general public by selling a limited number of permits, you should lose that exemption. I don't get any exemptions for my land. Do you? They shouldn't, either if they don't want me hunting on it for free.

Has anyone gotten a legal decision on the language which some of you seem to think suggests they must provide access? If we can show they are getting a tax break for "free access" I would agree with you. But the way I read the law that was posted, it says they must provide recreational spaces, I'm not sure that means "free access" to those spaces.

If the intent of the law was that they provide free access to the public then certainly they should do that. If that was not the intent then they have no obligation for free access. To know this, you need a legal interpretation from the attorney general's office. I would think if a legally organized group like Washington For Wildlife asked for a legal determination from the AG's office that we might get one.

If it's determined that there is no requirement for legal access to the land with their tax designation then I would strongly suggest starting an effort to organize a conservation/recreational easement between the state and Weyerhauser. They are a "for profit" company, I am sure they would consider a public easement.

[mpetersen]

Don't forget folks, weyco employees will be sucking up a good share of these permits at half price. This will diminish an already small number available to the public.  This might not seem like a big deal to someone from the eastside but it's huge for deer and elk hunters on the west side. Weyco land holds the largest elk herds in the state, if you don't believe me check the new harvest report and check Winston unit. We have to make a stand now with the Vail and PeEll tree farms because I gotta believe St. Helens will be next. I guess my deer hunting will have to change a bit with limited access, will have to pick on the eastside mulies.     

[pianoman9701]

Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.

If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.

Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.

 

Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of.   (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)

Access to private property is a privilege, not a right.  I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres.  Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision.  It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.

Your statement completely misrepresents the sentiment here. No one is advocating increased taxes on anyone. I'm glad you enjoyed using their land previously, but it was far from free of charge. They got tax breaks for it - they didn't have to pay a portion of their tax liability if they let you use their land for free. Like I've said before, people should be able to do whatever they want with their own land. However, when you receive a recreational use tax exemption on your own land and then close it to the general public by selling a limited number of permits, you should lose that exemption. I don't get any exemptions for my land. Do you? They shouldn't, either if they don't want me hunting on it for free.

Has anyone gotten a legal decision on the language which some of you seem to think suggests they must provide access? If we can show they are getting a tax break for "free access" I would agree with you. But the way I read the law that was posted, it says they must provide recreational spaces, I'm not sure that means "free access" to those spaces.

If the intent of the law was that they provide free access to the public then certainly they should do that. If that was not the intent then they have no obligation for free access. To know this, you need a legal interpretation from the attorney general's office. I would think if a legally organized group like Washington For Wildlife asked for a legal determination from the AG's office that we might get one.

If it's determined that there is no requirement for legal access to the land with their tax designation then I would strongly suggest starting an effort to organize a conservation/recreational easement between the state and Weyerhauser. They are a "for profit" company, I am sure they would consider a public easement.

I understand what you're saying, Dale, but I think it means free access. Otherwise, companies like ski areas would get tax breaks for it and I don't believe that's the case.

[bobcat]

As I have said before, I don't believe the law explicitly states that timber companies must allow public access to their lands. However, I'm pretty sure that at the time the tax laws were written, it was assumed, and expected, that Weyerhaeuser and other large timber companies would always allow access to their lands.

[bearpaw]

Don't forget folks, weyco employees will be sucking up a good share of these permits at half price. This will diminish an already small number available to the public.  This might not seem like a big deal to someone from the eastside but it's huge for deer and elk hunters on the west side. Weyco land holds the largest elk herds in the state, if you don't believe me check the new harvest report and check Winston unit. We have to make a stand now with the Vail and PeEll tree farms because I gotta believe St. Helens will be next. I guess my deer hunting will have to change a bit with limited access, will have to pick on the eastside mulies.   

I don't care where you hunt, you can hunt practically in my back yard in GMU 111 if you want. 

What matters is whether they have a legal obligation to open their land to the public or if there is no legal obligation in which case the public needs to work out a better access program with them. I completely understand that hunters need access, but you cannot overlook the legalities if you really want to do any good. First you need to know if there is any legal standing for them to open their lands to the public. If not, then an organized effort will be needed to pursue ways to get them open their lands.

If they have serious plans to commercialize hunting on their land this may be an uphill issue, if they are only looking to control access it seems this would be a much easier issue to deal with.

[bearpaw]

When people start talking about forcing private landowners to provide access to the public on their land you are going to rile most rural landowners. Property rights should not be trampled for any purpose, that would set a very dangerous precedent. When I saw that some were talking about trampling property rights that is the reason I spoke out.

If you are trying to say that any private land which falls under timberland tax classification must be open to the public that will also draw great opposition because most timbered land in the state is owned by farmers, other small landowners, and timber companies  (some large, some small companies) and is taxed as timberlands. You will not win that battle, there will be great opposition by everyone who owns any timberland, for crying out loud it takes 30 years or more to grow a log to sell. I would be farther ahead to clear my land and sell it off in lots and others will feel the same exact way, that would cause a great loss of habitat if it ever happened.

If Weyerhauser is not required by law to provide public access then some negotiating is going to be needed. I suspect WDFW is already well into this discussion within the dept.

Just trying to bring some realism to this conversation. 

[Curly]

Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.

If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.

Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.

 

Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of.   (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)

Access to private property is a privilege, not a right.  I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres.  Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision.  It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.

Your statement completely misrepresents the sentiment here. No one is advocating increased taxes on anyone. I'm glad you enjoyed using their land previously, but it was far from free of charge. They got tax breaks for it - they didn't have to pay a portion of their tax liability if they let you use their land for free. Like I've said before, people should be able to do whatever they want with their own land. However, when you receive a recreational use tax exemption on your own land and then close it to the general public by selling a limited number of permits, you should lose that exemption. I don't get any exemptions for my land. Do you? They shouldn't, either if they don't want me hunting on it for free.

Has anyone gotten a legal decision on the language which some of you seem to think suggests they must provide access? If we can show they are getting a tax break for "free access" I would agree with you. But the way I read the law that was posted, it says they must provide recreational spaces, I'm not sure that means "free access" to those spaces.

If the intent of the law was that they provide free access to the public then certainly they should do that. If that was not the intent then they have no obligation for free access. To know this, you need a legal interpretation from the attorney general's office. I would think if a legally organized group like Washington For Wildlife asked for a legal determination from the AG's office that we might get one.

If it's determined that there is no requirement for legal access to the land with their tax designation then I would strongly suggest starting an effort to organize a conservation/recreational easement between the state and Weyerhauser. They are a "for profit" company, I am sure they would consider a public easement.

I understand what you're saying, Dale, but I think it means free access. Otherwise, companies like ski areas would get tax breaks for it and I don't believe that's the case.

I don't even think charging a fee for access is the issue (unless they start charging way more than most are willing to pay for access)........it is the really low number of permits available.  And if they get taxed at a lower rate for providing recreation, then keeping people out is not providing recreation.  (Of course lawyers will have to argue how many people they allow in meets the recreation requirement, but when historically there has been around 3,000 people hunting the area and then all of a sudden it is reduced to 750 that seems to me that they are restricting recreation instead of providing for recreation.  And this is just the people that hunt; there are lots of other users: hikers, dog walkers, mtn bikers, fishermen, mushroom pickers, etc.)

This is going to displace hunters or make the hunters give up hunting.  Most hunters on this site are very dedicated, but there are a lot of hunters that only go on opening weekend up to Vail every year (for tradition).  Those people will likely just give up.  If you're not a Weyco employee, you're likely not going to be able to hunt there.

[pianoman9701]

Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.

[bobcat]

I could actually support a small fee for drive in access on the Vail mainline. I could see that being justified as hunters are making use of the road system that Weyerhaeuser has built, and maintains.

But why limit the number of permits? If Weyerhaeuser is in it to make money, it seems the more permits sold, the better. If deer and elk populations need to be protected by limiting hunting pressure, let the WDFW do that by limiting the number of hunters by GMU.

It's kind of hard to say we should have free access by motorized vehicle when we don't even have that on our state owned public land. (Discover pass)

But why are they not allowing walk in access? They did in the Molalla tree farm in Oregon, even during the two years that the pay to drive in program was in effect.

I guess they must be modeling these new access programs after Hancock's. and if Hancock can do it, why not Weyerhaeuser?

[6x6in6]

Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.

Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.

[pianoman9701]

Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.

Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.

I'm not sure how to answer your question other than to say that if that money isn't going into the general fund, it's got to come from somewhere else. Do you think the tax pixies replace it, or do you think that when we start a new tax, like say a tax on soft drinks, that replaces it? It's lost revenue. It's OK if it's going toward something for the people, but when that stops, so should the exemptions.

[WDFW Hates ME!!!]

What some fail to realize is they are still providing access. They are only charging for Vail and Pe ell. So the st helens tree farm is still available (for now). So they are actually proving some access.

I don't support the change because the closure a few years ago locked me out of our honey hole. And now there is no chance to get into the honey hole as i will not buy a permit.

[6x6in6]

Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.

Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.

I'm not sure how to answer your question other than to say that if that money isn't going into the general fund, it's got to come from somewhere else. Do you think the tax pixies replace it, or do you think that when we start a new tax, like say a tax on soft drinks, that replaces it? It's lost revenue. It's OK if it's going toward something for the people, but when that stops, so should the exemptions.

Ok, so you can't show me how after you said we were.
I didn't think we were but I just wanted make sure of that cuz I would then be pissed!   

[bearpaw]

Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.

Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.

I'm not sure how to answer your question other than to say that if that money isn't going into the general fund, it's got to come from somewhere else. Do you think the tax pixies replace it, or do you think that when we start a new tax, like say a tax on soft drinks, that replaces it? It's lost revenue. It's OK if it's going toward something for the people, but when that stops, so should the exemptions.

Ok, so you can't show me how after you said we were.
I didn't think we were but I just wanted make sure of that cuz I would then be pissed!   

   I have 32 acres of timberland, I can assure you no one else is paying any of the tax, we are paying it all. I don't see how anyone is paying WH property taxes, but if we were I would also be concerned.