Citizen's Initiative for timber tax rate change.

[grundy53]

My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.

What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.

I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.

Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry.  So now we are going to subsidize them more?  I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.

How are we subsidizing them? We aren't giving them money. We just aren't charging them as much for their land. By the way an acre of land that only has trees on it is worth a lot less then an acre of land with a house or improvements...

sent from my typewriter

[Goshawk]

I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.

To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.

Agreed...

[Goshawk]

This could be as simple as "Revenue acquired through other means besides timber harvests shall be considered when establishing timber tax status".

Either way, the question remains.

Do you support a tax structure that encourages open public access for outdoor recreation on timber lands?

[Elkaholic daWg]

But then we get snarky.............

thank you!!  that's how i roll...



i was merely attempting to stipulate that the timber companies should remain free to gate everything they choose to and deny access to vehicles as long as public access was allowed. i do not believe that public access equals vehicular access.  i did not intend to imply that any person or company should be required to do so.

this is still based on my conclusion that they are getting a reduced tax rate partly inspired by their allowance of public recreational access.

A.D.A. ?

[bobcat]

I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.

To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.

Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.

Federal land isn't much good for hunting anymore, due to the lack of logging (and fires.)

State land in general does have good habitat for big game animals, but is often crowded, and only getting worse as private lands are being shut down.

[pianoman9701]

I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.

To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.

Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.

Federal land isn't much good for hunting anymore, due to the lack of logging (and fires.)

State land in general does have good habitat for big game animals, but is often crowded, and only getting worse as private lands are being shut down.

True dat! We need a couple of really good fires to clean it all up in Gifford Pinchot. Or some logging.

[fireweed]

My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.

What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.

I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.

Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry.  So now we are going to subsidize them more?  I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.

How are we subsidizing them? We aren't giving them money. We just aren't charging them as much for their land. By the way an acre of land that only has trees on it is worth a lot less then an acre of land with a house or improvements...

sent from my typewriter

Don't take my word for it.  Here is what my county says about the subsidy:

If land is approved for classification in the Current Use Open Space
Program, it is then taxed according to its current use rather than its highest
and best use. The Assessor’s Office keeps a dual roll for these properties—
one indicating the true market value of the property and one for the
taxable (or Current Use) value. This reduction in taxable value causes a tax
shift when applying the levy formula:
Total District Levy ÷ Total Value in the District = Levy Rate
Taxing Districts still collect their full levy, but since it is collected on a
reduced taxable value, a portion of the tax obligation for the district is
shifted to the other taxpayers within the district. In other words, the same
total tax is collected, but the rate is a little higher for everyone because of
the reduction in value. These charts demonstrate the amount of tax dollars
that has been shifted in the county and what impact this shift has on an
average taxpayer.

The charts they have showed about $12 per 100,000 shifted.  And reading carefully, it seems they are only explaining the affect on "special levies" aka. school, fire and not the general county tax. 
And FYI for everyone "current use" is not the selling value of pure timber or ag land.  For timber it is only based on the price of logs sold in the state.  Other  income (like leases and fees) is not used in the "current use" calculation--yet. 

[fireweed]

I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.

To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.

Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.

You are lucky to have access to public land.  In SW Washington nearly (50,000+ acres in addition to official USFS trailheads) are locked behind private industry gates!!

[pianoman9701]

I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.

To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.

Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.

You are lucky to have access to public land.  In SW Washington nearly (50,000+ acres in addition to official USFS trailheads) are locked behind private industry gates!!

  x2

[snowpack]

I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.

To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.

Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.

Federal land isn't much good for hunting anymore, due to the lack of logging (and fires.)

State land in general does have good habitat for big game animals, but is often crowded, and only getting worse as private lands are being shut down.

True dat! We need a couple of really good fires to clean it all up in Gifford Pinchot. Or some logging.

Have you guys been in contact with your local forest regarding forest management?  There are actually some projects being planned out and they are usually looking for comments.  Sometimes it will be coordinated with RMEF and local tribes.  Rarely will USFS entertain clearcuts, but when sold as calving meadows they occasionally let a few acres get opened up.  Mostly what they allow these days are thinnings designed for forest improvement/wildlife habitat.  I think typically they try to keep projects 49 acres or less because the money from the sale goes to the local FS district.  50 or above and it usually goes to a general account in the Treasury and they have to lobby to get money back.  One of the bigger projects is proposing to thin 5,000 acres to simulate a late seral forest.  They haven't said it, but I suspect it is being prepped for wilderness conversion.  Last year they did 200 acres specifically to improve food for elk.  Just kind of have to be nosy with the FS sometimes to see all the stuff they have planned.  Sorry for thread drift.

[grundy53]

My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.

What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.

I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.

Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry.  So now we are going to subsidize them more?  I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.

How are we subsidizing them? We aren't giving them money. We just aren't charging them as much for their land. By the way an acre of land that only has trees on it is worth a lot less then an acre of land with a house or improvements...

sent from my typewriter

Don't take my word for it.  Here is what my county says about the subsidy:

If land is approved for classification in the Current Use Open Space
Program, it is then taxed according to its current use rather than its highest
and best use. The Assessor’s Office keeps a dual roll for these properties—
one indicating the true market value of the property and one for the
taxable (or Current Use) value. This reduction in taxable value causes a tax
shift when applying the levy formula:
Total District Levy ÷ Total Value in the District = Levy Rate
Taxing Districts still collect their full levy, but since it is collected on a
reduced taxable value, a portion of the tax obligation for the district is
shifted to the other taxpayers within the district. In other words, the same
total tax is collected, but the rate is a little higher for everyone because of
the reduction in value. These charts demonstrate the amount of tax dollars
that has been shifted in the county and what impact this shift has on an
average taxpayer.

The charts they have showed about $12 per 100,000 shifted.  And reading carefully, it seems they are only explaining the affect on "special levies" aka. school, fire and not the general county tax. 
And FYI for everyone "current use" is not the selling value of pure timber or ag land.  For timber it is only based on the price of logs sold in the state.  Other  income (like leases and fees) is not used in the "current use" calculation--yet.

Sounds like we have more of a problem with our government rather then timber companies.... problem

sent from my typewriter

[headshot5]

Sounds like we have more of a problem with our government rather then timber companies.... problem

Yep, timber companies are just following the rules (laws).  Bad legislation is where we are at today.  Like I mentioned before intent of laws does nobody any good.  Timber companies are currently not breaking the law by locking up their land and charging. 

What I don't like is the idea that we need to get something pushed through (as fast as possible) to protect our right.  Where do you think bad legislation comes from?  The same quick-fix legislation that everybody wants on the books right now, is probably what they passed in 1968.  As soon as it gets passed, the gray area not spelled out (or not considered) in the legislation is fair game for exploitation, and if the law is written poorly the side effects (unforeseen complicated situations) are worse than the original sickness (no access).

   

[pianoman9701]

Sounds like we have more of a problem with our government rather then timber companies.... problem

Yep, timber companies are just following the rules (laws).  Bad legislation is where we are at today.  Like I mentioned before intent of laws does nobody any good.  Timber companies are currently not breaking the law by locking up their land and charging. 

What I don't like is the idea that we need to get something pushed through (as fast as possible) to protect our right.  Where do you think bad legislation comes from?  The same quick-fix legislation that everybody wants on the books right now, is probably what they passed in 1968.  As soon as it gets passed, the gray area not spelled out (or not considered) in the legislation is fair game for exploitation, and if the law is written poorly the side effects (unforeseen complicated situations) are worse than the original sickness (no access).

 

Hunting on private property isn't a right. It's a privilege, both because it's hunting, and because it's private property. Pushing through faulty legislation is a problem, I agree. As well, ignoring the shortcomings of existing faulty legislation is also a problem. When you see a problem, fix it, as Ross Perot used to say.

[fireweed]

Our initiative should be  very simple and direct just like the poll--and instruct the legislature to consider or include free public access in tax rates for industrial timberland.  Any law change should then go through the legislative process with a lot of scrutiny from the public.  I don't like initiatives that "quickly" become law through flashy TV ads full of half-truths.  Look at trapping fiasco and moles.  No Thanks.  Even a well-written petition, and not a real initiative could do the same thing--instruct the legislature to look into the situation.  It has to be loud and it has to be grass roots because of the lobbyist influence in our state, and the bought legislators.

[Goshawk]

There needs to be something added to give this thing its' proper direction otherwise we'll pass it and the state will send a letter out saying "sure wish you would open your gates" and that will be it.

How to phrase something specific enough to get the needed results without creating a negative ripple.

Oh, and I have a buddy who works for Weyerhaeuser. According to him, we're already being watched by corporate here at this website.