Citizen's Initiative for timber tax rate change.

[Goshawk]

Something on a legal document? I've never seen that since I was not part of the Washington State Legislature when this all took place. I do however seem to remember lots of adds, bumper stickers and even a few commercials pounding out "Private forests do the public good" accompanied with photo shots of fishing, hiking and the like to narrations saying how Washington's forest lands are recreational wonderlands, or something to that effect.

[Goshawk]

Corporate property taxes are a way of life. Why not use them to encourage continued public access?

[509]

I voted no for the simple reason this needs to cover ALL open space not just timberlands.

Why not farms??

[Knocker of rocks]

I'm sure Fireweed will correct me, but the land use taxation scheme we are talking about is timberland.  Open space, golf courses and farms are under a completely different structure.

Fireweed did explain that pretty well

[Curly]

Sounds to me like the whole problem is that there was never really a written law to require public access to get the tax breaks.  It sounds like that was one of the issues brought up to gain support, but then the legislature back in the 60's just let that portion fall through the cracks and it never became law even though the public access/recreation benefit was assumed to be part of the deal and was a big part of creating the tax benefits.

Oh, and it is now time to go in and write some laws to back-up the intent of what they did back in '68.

[alecvg]

I am against it.  As much as I would LOVE to be able to drive into all those areas, it is PRIVATE land.  They have every right to lock it up.  I hope they have it open for walk in or bike in access, but if I was in the position I would have it all locked up too!  Look at all the areas that aren't locked up, illegal firewood cutting, illegal offroading, illegal mountain biking (off road) People dumping trash, groups going up and shooting hundreds of clay pigeons and not picking up a single shot shell... I could go on and on.  If they want to keep that kind of bs off of their PRIVATE property, that is their damn right.  Whats next? Taxing the *censored* out of farmers to open up their cornfields for duck hunting?

[bobcat]

I'm all for property rights too, but they can also be taxed accordingly. The intent of the tax laws as written back in 1968 was for these large timber companies to pay an extremely low tax in exchange for providing a place for the citizens of the state to recreate. This may not have been written explicitly into the law, but back then I'm sure it was assumed that these timberlands would always be a available for public use. It's time for the tax laws to be re-written.

[Northway]

Lonview Fiber just sold all its holdings to WYCO in the skagit valley area. 

Link?

[Northway]

I'm for it as long as it doesn't effect smaller property owners and isn't punitive to the extent that it would promote accelerated development of timberlands.

I think the long-term solution is to purchase some sort of easement from the timber companies on these lands.

My question for hunters who only look at private property rights as a black and white issue, no matter what other factors are in play: How could you flatly reject the idea of trying to use an existing public tax-break to leverage reasonable public access from a corporate interest and also support the North American Wildlife Model? Aren't they both influencing the behavior of private property owners?

[pianoman9701]

I'm for it as long as it doesn't effect smaller property owners and isn't punitive to the extent that it would promote accelerated development of timberlands.

I think the long-term solution is to purchase some sort of easement from the timber companies on these lands.

My question for hunters who only look at private property rights as a black and white issue, no matter what other factors are in play: How could you flatly reject the idea of trying to use an existing public tax-break to leverage reasonable public access from a corporate interest and also support the North American Wildlife Model? Aren't they both influencing the behavior of private property owners?

We already know that most of the people on this thread who would oppose it are connected to the timber industry. That's just an observation, not an indictment.

The North American Wildlife Model only influences the behavior of private property owners to the extent to which they feel obliged to participate. As stated earlier, I don't think anyone on here is proposing to tell private land owners what to do with their property. I do agree though that the laws written in the 60s were written with a lot of assumptions about the willingness of the timber companies to provide hunting, hiking, and camping opportunities to the general public as a fair trade in getting the reduced tax rate. The opinion of many, including myself, is that the laws need to be rewritten to specifically require access to outdoor activities in order to qualify for this rate. I also have no problem exempting smaller, individually owned tree farms (like Grundy has). These changes in the law should be aimed at large tracts of land that which are owned by large timber companies.

[Curly]

These changes in the law should be aimed at large tracts of land that which are owned by large timber companies.

Exactly.  5,000 acres or more...........or something along those lines.

[ctwiggs1]

You guys understand EVERYTHING is connected to timber right?  Your desk, your printer paper, your house, your hardwood floors, etc?  Your cabinets at home?  Your rifle stocks?  Your game calls that are custom turned? 

Look - I am REALLY frustrated by the fact that I have to pay $225 and I may not even get to hunt.  Let's just start with that.  If they shut our season down, they have to pro-rate some money back to us. 

The reality though is this is a lot more complicated than what post people are laying out here.  I don't want to change their tax rates at all - but I do want them to give me some of my money back when I'm not able to use my expensive permit.

Curtis

[pianoman9701]

You guys understand EVERYTHING is connected to timber right?  Your desk, your printer paper, your house, your hardwood floors, etc?  Your cabinets at home?  Your rifle stocks?  Your game calls that are custom turned? 

Look - I am REALLY frustrated by the fact that I have to pay $225 and I may not even get to hunt.  Let's just start with that.  If they shut our season down, they have to pro-rate some money back to us. 

The reality though is this is a lot more complicated than what post people are laying out here.  I don't want to change their tax rates at all - but I do want them to give me some of my money back when I'm not able to use my expensive permit.

Curtis

Good luck with that. I bet there's a stipulation that there are no refunds for closed areas.

I can afford 1-2% increase on my paper and wood. I can't afford an additional $300 to hunt each year.

[Curly]

Yes, I understand that everything is connected to timber.  My job is connected to the housing industry in many respects and I'm getting sick of this lousy Obama economy and reduced hours because of the crap economy.  If lumber prices were to go up, I know my hours in my job would likely drop even more.  But I'm also sick of all the timber companies locking us out and, as Fireweed has pointed out many times, the tax laws that went into effect in 1970 were with the understanding that public access would be provided. 

Now, if the tax codes get re-written and timber companies don't want to pay higher taxes, then they simply can provide access like they have in the past.  Then there would be no reason for them to have to increase lumber prices to cover increased taxes because the taxes wouldn't increase if they allowed access. 

Hell, they can even charge permit fees to allow a certain number of people to drive-in, but just allow everyone else to access by foot, horse, or bike and I think most would be happy with that.  I also wouldn't have a problem with them charging a small fee for non-motorized access permits.  Say $30 for a permit like that.  Look at Inland Empire Paper in the NE corner of the state; they charge a small yearly fee for access..........I don't have a problem with that and I've never heard anyone complain about that.

I just can see the end of hunting for a lot of folks with these permit and lease requirements.  And it is sad that hunting is becoming a rich man's sport.  Maybe if the forest circus would log in Western WA then there might be more animals to hunt on USFS land, but the way it is in western WA, most of the good hunting is on timber company lands, so it's not like people can just switch to public land hunting......... and DNR lands do get logged, but what is the crowding going to be like there now that most of the hunters can't access timber company land?

[headshot5]

Now, if the tax codes get re-written and timber companies don't want to pay higher taxes, then they simply can provide access like they have in the past.  Then there would be no reason for them to have to increase lumber prices to cover increased taxes because the taxes wouldn't increase if they allowed access. 

Right, taxes wouldn't increase, but if they go back to traditonal drive in free reign access to everybody, who pays for road maintenance, and cleaning up garbage?  Who is getting the shaft in that situation.

I'm not an advocate for the timber industry, I don't like what they are doing, but I believe in fair play.  I agree the timber company would be smart to allow walk in access and sell drive in permits.  This would probably make most people happy, and allow the timber company to charge those that cause wear and tear on the road systems.  Regardless of whether they charge for access or not, I actually like all the gates on the road systems.  It keeps people from dumping garbage all over.

Also, I don't think anybodys going to get anywhere with intent of the law from 1968.  If it was the intent why isn't it explicitly spelled out?  Is it the timber company's fault that they follow the letter of the law vs the intent?  Sounds like bad legislation to me.