Citizen's Initiative for timber tax rate change.

[pianoman9701]

I have no problem with walk in only. If they have problems with trash on their land, they can contact the DFW and any of the conservation groups like Eyes in the Woods and RMEF to request a clean-up.

[bobcat]

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. 

Probably because in 1968 they assumed the lands would always be open to the public. Even up into the mid 80's I never thought all the land open for hunting back then would be closed today. There were virtually no gates on Weyerhaeuser land. At least not on the Vail tree farm. Also there was state land and National Forest that if there was a logging road, you could drive on the road and hunt it. Gates were simply unheard of back then.

[grundy53]

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

Link?

Weyco bought Longview fiber. The whole company. It was in the Seattle Times.

sent from my typewriter

[fireweed]

  First and foremost, these tax breaks are REAL.  Anyone who doubts it needs to talk to their local county assessors office.  Needy folks get property tax breaks too: seniors, disabled...and then there's timber-- one of the largest industries in the state.  (Shows where the influence is, while regular homeowners pay full value). 

Again, there are no guarantees or requirements in the laws but the written legislative intent of the current law for designated timberland explicitly states:  RCW 84.33.10

 The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.

The legislature is laying out the PUBLIC BENEFITS of forestry, and justifying the low property tax rate.  If it did not benefit the citizens, everyone, future generations, or the public welfare (all these words they use) there would be no justification for such a tax break.  One of the benefits is scenic and recreational spaces.  There are no checks and balances to this tax break, nor is their a sliding scale of benefits like there is in open space/open space. 

I'm 5th generation timber.  I own forestland and I am very pro-forestry--but I also live amongst it, and seen rural quality of life suffer.  The industry used to be a good neighbor.  We citizens actually started a garbage pick-up group to benefit Weyco. the year before they closed the gates at St. Helens.  Wholesale land closure isn't just about hunting.  When the gates closed our small town suffered as hunters stopped buying, and hikers couldn't get to USFS trails. More restrictions will hurt rural communities economically, as well as socially.  When walking in the woods becomes illegal, our town might as well be on an island. And all this we home owners are subsidizing (don't take my word for it ASK YOUR ASSESSOR). 

Yes, it is their "right" to keep people off their land.  But they have no right and are not entitled to pay $2 or less per acre in property taxes forever--regardless of changes.  In the past we CITIZENS decided such a break was fair, and that the tax balanced with public benefits.  Not anymore. Any state legislator who doesn't look into this isn't working for constituents.

[snowpack]

I would kind of guess that with the taxes being as low as they are being purported, that even if it was a 100% increase, Weyco could just raise the pass fees or lease fees.  Seeing as how quickly Vail sold out, I'd venture a guess that they'd still sell out even at $500 a pass.  I'm not sure Weyco knows how much of a cash cow they are sitting on.

[snarkybull]

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? 

actually, no.  everything is connected to oil.  timber is reliant on oil and diesel fuel.

I am in full agreement that the legislature gave them tax breaks in exchange for public access (among other things).  but the aforementioned public access does not require allowing vehicles.  gate everything, most of us here would be thrilled by that.  and it would solve most of the timber companies problems, i believe.  except they wouldn't get to double dip in the public coin.

[Knocker of rocks]

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

Link?

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021205925_weycolongviewxml.html

[Elkaholic daWg]

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. 

Probably because in 1968 they assumed the lands would always be open to the public. Even up into the mid 80's I never thought all the land open for hunting back then would be closed today. There were virtually no gates on Weyerhaeuser land. At least not on the Vail tree farm. Also there was state land and National Forest that if there was a logging road, you could drive on the road and hunt it. Gates were simply unheard of back then.

Sure was great wasn't it!!

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

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? 

actually, no.  everything is connected to oil.  timber is reliant on oil and diesel fuel.

I am in full agreement that the legislature gave them tax breaks in exchange for public access (among other things).  but the aforementioned public access does not require allowing vehicles.  gate everything, most of us here would be thrilled by that.  and it would solve most of the timber companies problems, i believe.  except they wouldn't get to double dip in the public coin.

 But not all, and was it written specifically to NOT allow motorized?

[snarkybull]

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.

[Goshawk]

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.

[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.

[Goshawk]

It would have to be something like:

"timberlands in excess of 5,000 acres who have 99% or better in public access will be taxed at "-x" rather than x".

Oversimplified I know, but it serves to make the point.

[pianoman9701]

I personally feel we should all be focusing our energy on something we can all agree upon at this point in time. If we don't get the wolf problem under control, that will end hunting as we know it in the western states before to long. Land access won't be an issue when there is nothing left to hunt.

One is not mutually exclusive of the other.

[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.

[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.