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

[fireweed]

"Current use isn't supposed to have anything to do with what the land would sell for. It is supposed to be based off average income made off that type of land. " 


I have looked up articles on the 1968 amendment to the state constitution.  The people voted on changing from highest use value taxation to "current use" value taxation.  There was no talk of income, yield, stumpage values, timber excise etc.  The intent was current use value based on sales of that type of land.  Rather quickly after the current use language was adopted, the legislature started modifying the current use meaning.  They separated out timber from land, and because then it was hard to find the price of bare land, they use a productivity formula for the land.  But the original language that was voted on says nothing about basing values on income production.

If you support continued valuation based only on income potential, you must admit these Leases/fees are increasing the average income per acre above and beyond the income from timber.  If today's values top out at $243 per acre, and now with leases/fees each acre is making say $20 more per year, the taxable values should go up accordingly.

That is a fair arguement. Maybe they should go up a bit.  My issue is with the idea they should be taxed more because they don't allow public access. One shouldn't have a thing to do with the other IMO.

Good, Good, good! Now we are getting toward a solution.  We can take the debate from access vs. no access, to chargers vs. non-chargers.  I've seen other posts where instead of looking at property tax increases (which we've seen are very complex with multiple Eiman laws attached) to looking at the actual lease/fee revenue (perhaps rolling that into the timber excise program) and directing those funds to public access. 

The devil's advocate would say, if you tax the lease/fee income, or have a slightly higher timberland value based on the lease/fee income, what's to stop companies from closing land altogether?  For small landowners, that may be a real possibility--either free access or no access.  But large landowners (like Hancock, Weyco. Rayonier, SPI etc) are all SFI certified and the SFI standard has a " provide public recreation" requirement, therefore to stay certified all the big companies must provide some sort of recreation.   They simply cannot close down their land to all recreation and maintain certification.  (SFI, as you probably know, is already being criticized and challenged as a industry rubber stamp by enviro groups and must show some backbone at some time)

[headshot5]

For small landowners, that may be a real possibility--either free access or no access.  But large landowners (like Hancock, Weyco. Rayonier, SPI etc) are all SFI certified and the SFI standard has a " provide public recreation" requirement, therefore to stay certified all the big companies must provide some sort of recreation.   They simply cannot close down their land to all recreation and maintain certification.  (SFI, as you probably know, is already being criticized and challenged as a industry rubber stamp by enviro groups and must show some backbone at some time)

Fireweed,

Can you tell me where in the SFI rules the public recreation thing is.  Your last post sounds good.  I don't know anything about the SFI program, and am planning on reading up on it.


Update. 

Nevermind I found it on sheet 3/14 (page 11 of 123 of the document) at this link.  http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/sfirequirements2010-2014pdf/  I think you are quite correct that we are now on the right track.  Instead of trying to break up landowners by size of holdings, and classification in Industrial timberlands, the SFI classification should be questioned.


Here it is from the link above for SFI classification and public interaction. 

5. Aesthetics and Recreation
To manage the visual impacts of forest operations, and to
provide recreational opportunities for the public.

[Curly]

I'm sure Weyco and the others that are charging will try to say that they are providing public recreation but just not for free (and the rules don't specify that access has to be free).

It is also a tough argument about public access to private timberlands (without having to pay an access fee) when we have to buy a Discover Pass to access state lands.

[fireweed]

Coincidentally I just learned that SFI is designing their new 3-year standard NOW

http://www.sfiprogram.org/sfi-standard/introduction-to-the-standard/standard-review-process/

It may not help us, but a "tougher" statement on recreation that values historic recreation practices on the forest, and promotes wellness in adjacent communities might be an improvement.
The real killer with closing land/limiting access is that for a century, nearby communities utilized these lands for traditional recreation, making forest access part of our rural culture.  (they would never get away with doing this in Brazil!) but to hurt rural American culture and economy seems somehow fine, even when these companies claim (like Weyco does) to "Promote the quality of life in communities where they operate"