Organized Boycott of Elk tag purchase due to private timber access permits

[stuckalot]

This kind of thought goes right along with "We should boycott the airlines that fly Boeing planes, because of the tax breaks Boeing gets".

The timber companies have been warning us YEARS they would have to do something ( charge, or even close land) if the misuse didn't stop.

Hunterman(Tony)

If Boeing gets a tax break for building planes parts A-B-C-and D here, then stops building A & B here,  then YES their tax break should go down.  Its only logical for the average taxpayer to get full value for their tax break.

State law justifies the property tax break timberland gets(we pay more so timber can pay less) because of the public benefits timberland provides.  One of those is providing recreational spaces, and another is wild game.  Now they have stopped providing that recreation for free, and are charging for access to our game.  So, logically, their tax break should be reduced.  Simple common sense.

There is absolutely no argument about abuse/dumping/garbage/ road maintenance that can be used to justify charging for non-motorized access.  I must costs them MORE to enforce a no entry policy than a walk-in only policy.
 
Maybe.....maybe I could understand a permit for motorized access, but when they require one for non-motorized access then scream garbage dumping, they should lose all credibility with thinking people--including everyone reading this.  And this is EXACTLY what they are doing.

Can you provide a link to where it states in WA tax law that to receive agricultural or timber tax rates a property owner is required to provide recreational opportunities to the general public?

 

I think there is a whole lot of misconception about tax rates on here.

[scout/sniper]

I think there is a whole lot of misconception about tax rates on here.

This is why we have meetings to figure out all of our options.

[ScottyG]

I have no problem with a landowner doing exactly what they want with their own land as long as it doesn't negatively affect others surrounding them. However, the current tax laws for timber lands were set up decades ago while the timber companies were allowing recreational use of their land. The rate at which these lands are taxed was lowered for those lands not currently being logged under the assumption that they would continue to allow the public to recreate on their property. The timber companies' attitudes about public recreation have changed and so should the tax rate which was developed under different circumstances. They're no longer allowing public recreational use so the public should no longer allow a lower tax liability. This doesn't force them to do anything with their private land, but it does require a more equitable taxation, more in line with what other private land owners pay.
[/quote]

I think this idea has merit, but could backfire.  I don't know the history of tax rates on timber land, but one could certainly look at the long history of public access to these huge tracts of land as a defacto tax that was being levied on the timber companies.  It seems that they are no longer paying that tax, so I see little issue with increasing their monetary tax rate and reducing any benefit ever given to them for the public access element of their property.

I would suggest that we find a way to help the timber companies with the vandalism costs that they incur because of the public access.  Then we'd get a better feel for the real motivation that is behind these moves.  If vandalism is truly the reason for the shutout of the public, it seems that paying for that damage would be a natural solution but I think there is more going on here than just a concern over vandalism.

Economics tells me that what is really happening here is a maximization of the value of those lands to those that own them.  Keep the costs down (the vandalism) and increase the income being generated by each acre of property.  If public access had value, this is an effort to monetize that value and convert it to shareholder wealth.  It only makes sense to reduce the taxes paid in any legal way possible and public access may be seen as a tax... its the corporate way to reduce taxes.  Unless there is a profit motive that says otherwise, why would they let people onto their land.  Goodness of their hearts?... please, we are talking about major corporations with shareholders, boards of directors, and whole departments of lawyers and accountants.  Throw "goodness of their hearts" out the window.  Unless someone can find a way that a company that gives public access can charge more for their wood, I see little to motivate them to give public access. 

I suppose you could give a tax break to the guys that gave public access... but that seem unlikely in these fiscal times.

Until there is a reason... like higher property tax rates for not granting public access or tax credits for granting public access... there is little incentive for corporations to change course.  The nice thing is that the timber companies can't just pick up and move their property like Boeing might move a factory and unless zoning changes they really can't use the property for anything but growing trees so they won't likely be converting these huge tracts of land to anything else.  The threat of higher taxes might work to increase access to the public.  They could just pass on the cost of the higher taxes to the consumer through the products that they sell, but that seems unlikely if the tax is local and they are competing to sell their globally against suppliers from areas that aren't taxed in this way... so maybe it would work.

But, the law of unintended consequences might bite us.  What if the timber companies gave public access but don't allow hunting.  Wouldn't that be a bitch.  Unfortunately, to raise the taxes you are probably going to have to get the general public's support to get the groundswell of political momentum you would need.  Its not a stretch for me to see the anti hunters jumping into this mess and convincing the city dwellers that its the access that is important, not the hunting.  Then, we'd really be up a creek.

Enjoy what's left and keep fighting to slow the process.

[Bob33]

"I suppose you could give a tax break to the guys that gave public access... but that seem unlikely in these fiscal times."

The whole point of this thread is that they already are getting a tax break to allow public access, but are charging it for it now.

[pianoman9701]

ScottyG, we don't officially know yet the reason they've closed their lands to paid access only. Some of us in WFW are formulating a plan to meet with them and get a formal statement as to that reason. If the reason is vandalism and littering, we may be able to get them to back off with serious and ongoing commitment from the hunting community to police their lands and educate other hunters about the resource and the importance of maintaining it responsibly. If, however, the reason for the closures is solely the revenue it generates, or if hunter participation isn't enough for them to drop the fees, we'll make plans to approach the legislature for a change in the outdated tax laws.

If you're interested in getting involved in this, we have a WFW meeting in Woodland tonight, 7 PM at Gilliano's Pizza 1147 N Goerig St
Woodland, WA 98674
(360) 225-4664

[fireweed]

I applaud what WFW is trying to do....However, its been done: SW Wash. Land Access Coalition, Eyes in the Woods, St. Helens Preservation Society, even the WDFW all tried this approach--be nice, patrol, pick up garbage--and then still get shut out.  Don't miss this legislative session to at least introduce strong tax reform.  They won't take us seriously until legislators talk taxes. 

ScottyG is right.  I also strongly suggest broadening the support beyond hunting.  The Rock Climbers are mad too since Weyco. has closed Fossil Rock, the geocachers are locked out, anglers can't get to the steelhead, hiker can't get to trailheads, horseback riders can't ride from home, simply going for a walk, bicycle ride or run is affected.    This needs to be about "Recreational access" not hunting access.  For me, living within a Weyco tree farm, this aspect is even more important that hunting access.  I want my kids to be able to play in the creek, ride their bikes, walk to the neighbors, or simply enjoy nature near home like I did without a pass, permit, or threat.  Making childhood a crime should be a crime.

[scout/sniper]

Fireweed,
All of this is being discussed and considered.
There is too much material for me to explain it all on this forum.
And I will not show my hand until I need to.
Some things need to be kept close to the vest.
You are more than welcome to contribute if you like.

[pianoman9701]

I applaud what WFW is trying to do....However, its been done: SW Wash. Land Access Coalition, Eyes in the Woods, St. Helens Preservation Society, even the WDFW all tried this approach--be nice, patrol, pick up garbage--and then still get shut out.  Don't miss this legislative session to at least introduce strong tax reform.  They won't take us seriously until legislators talk taxes. 

ScottyG is right.  I also strongly suggest broadening the support beyond hunting.  The Rock Climbers are mad too since Weyco. has closed Fossil Rock, the geocachers are locked out, anglers can't get to the steelhead, hiker can't get to trailheads, horseback riders can't ride from home, simply going for a walk, bicycle ride or run is affected.    This needs to be about "Recreational access" not hunting access.  For me, living within a Weyco tree farm, this aspect is even more important that hunting access.  I want my kids to be able to play in the creek, ride their bikes, walk to the neighbors, or simply enjoy nature near home like I did without a pass, permit, or threat.  Making childhood a crime should be a crime.

I agree completely. I've been on the trash cleanups. We still need to make sure we get an answer from them before go after it. And, you're right about this being an important issue to many groups of outdoors people. It'll make for some strange bedfellows for sure.  But once we get some momentum in WFW, we can approach other groups to join us. We're already meeting with another hunting group next week on Monday. You should join WFW, Fireweed. We could use you. They have beer and pizza at Gilliano's, so there's that!

[scout/sniper]

You should join WFW, Fireweed. We could use you. They have beer and pizza at Gilliano's, so there's that!

I agree with your entire statement pman, but  on the quote!

[b0bbyg]

I am not on the site as much or involved as many of you so for the sake of others in my shoes.

What exactly does WFW stand for? Washingtonians for Wildlife?  or  Worse for wear 
Does WFW have a website for more info about them?

[scout/sniper]

Follow the link. Membership is free.

http://www.washingtonforwildlife.com/join.html

[scout/sniper]

Washington For Wildlife Mission Statement:

"To protect Washington's hunting, fishing, and outdoor heritage;

to foster local programs enhancing habitat, wildlife, and outdoor activities in WashingtonState;

to hold regulating agencies accountable as the stewards of our wildlife;

to ensure that science used in wildlife management is both valid and reliable;

to work with other organizations in the furtherance of stated goals;

and to fight legal and legislative efforts to take our rights and freedoms provided
under the Washington State Constitution and the United States Constitution."

[pianoman9701]

I am not on the site as much or involved as many of you so for the sake of others in my shoes.

What exactly does WFW stand for? Washingtonians for Wildlife?  or  Worse for wear 
Does WFW have a website for more info about them?

Bobby, most of the work is done on the HuntWA website. Once you sign up for WFW, you'll have access to the WFW boards.

[b0bbyg]

Washington For Wildlife Mission Statement:

"To protect Washington's hunting, fishing, and outdoor heritage;

to foster local programs enhancing habitat, wildlife, and outdoor activities in WashingtonState;

to hold regulating agencies accountable as the stewards of our wildlife;

to ensure that science used in wildlife management is both valid and reliable;

to work with other organizations in the furtherance of stated goals;

and to fight legal and legislative efforts to take our rights and freedoms provided
under the Washington State Constitution and the United States Constitution."

Thanks, I'll check it out

[scout/sniper]

Thanks, I'll check it out

   If you decide to join, please let me know so I can add you to our list. You are in Region 5.