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

[scout/sniper]

If solution D goes through I hope to see more legal enforcement due to trash, driving crazy, dumping yard waste ect.

Or get people off their azz and organize a group that would commit to cleanup, patrolling and reporting crimes.

[jay.sharkbait]

Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.

   I would say yes to this.

So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?

[scout/sniper]

Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.

   I would say yes to this.

So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?

It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.

[jay.sharkbait]

Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.

   I would say yes to this.

So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?

It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.

It covers the timber companies liability, but does it cover the permit holder? How much is a couple thousand acres of timber worth?

[scout/sniper]

Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.

   I would say yes to this.

So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?

It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.

It covers the timber companies liability, but does it cover the permit holder? How much is a couple thousand acres of timber worth?

I see your point.

[sakoshooter]

I'd sooner support a boycott against our entire sport turning into a special draw with nothing but $$$ for the WDFW. What we pay thru the noses for now used to be available on a general tag. Racketeering at it's finest.

[fireweed]

Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.

   I would say yes to this.

This is ALMOST what is proposed in the legislature right now.  HB 2150 allows them to charge $25 per person.  The big problem is it includes non-motorized access too.  Which under every circumstance should be free and without permits.  Absolutely none of the "excuses" ie garbage, wear/tear on roads, ruts, safety have anything at all to do with non-motorized access.   I could understand a $25 per vehicle fee (not-person) with free non-motorized and keep liability immunity.

[pianoman9701]

Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.

   I would say yes to this.

So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?

It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.

It covers the timber companies liability, but does it cover the permit holder? How much is a couple thousand acres of timber worth?

I see your point.

Why would the permit holder be carried for anything? It's your job to have the proper insurance when you go hunting. If this is the cost to the timber companies to cover them against lawsuits, I'd be OK with that.

Have we heard back from the Yacolt Burn Club president on the meeting tonight?

[jay.sharkbait]

Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.

   I would say yes to this.

So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?

It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.

It covers the timber companies liability, but does it cover the permit holder? How much is a couple thousand acres of timber worth?

I see your point.

Why would the permit holder be carried for anything? It's your job to have the proper insurance when you go hunting. If this is the cost to the timber companies to cover them against lawsuits, I'd be OK with that.

Have we heard back from the Yacolt Burn Club president on the meeting tonight?

Pianoman,

That was one of the good things about the WEYCO permits last year. The 150.00 included supplemental insurance to cover the permit holders liability after the permit holders insurance was exhausted.

I have pretty good coverage, but I doubt it would be enough to cover me if I accidently caused a large fire.

[REHJWA]

Hunting is becoming out of reach for more and more hunters as private land owners start charging fees and limiting access.

WDFW could be allotted 10% of the access to private lands when fees are charged to access private lands to hunt public game.  (kind of a "tax")

WDFW could then raffle the access to private lands. Private land owners would still be in control, WDFW could increase revenue, and hunters could gain access to private lands for the cost of the raffle vs the full price of a access permit.   

[Legacy]

Am still surprised that some hunters would want this boycott because private land owners charge access fees to hunt their lands and even more surprised that a proposed solution is to punish those timberland companies and owners that do so by demanding the legislature be approached to have their property taxes increased.

As hunters, we grudgingly pay money to the state for licenses fees and permits so the WDFW can manage wildlife; we pay money for guns, ammo, bows and arrows; we pay money for specialized clothing and footwear; we pay money for specialized camping and cooking gear; we pay money for tents, cots and sleeping bags; we pay money for specialized motor vehicles (4-wheelers, pick-ups, SUV's) and even trailers; we pay money for food and fuel; we pay money for processing and packaging meat if we are lucky enough to kill and elk or deer; we pay money for taxidermy; we even may pay money for guides, pack horses and the like; and yet, we somehow come up with the notion that if we have to pay a landowner or timber company a fee to access their private land that helps offset costs they incur to take care of that land, well that is just off limits, way out of line and patently unfair and un-American. If you look at it, do annual or season long access fees and permits like Weyco's or Hancock's really cost most hunters more than a good pair of hunting boots? Probably not, so why all the angst and anger?

And back to Weyco, according to their 2012 annual report and 10K filing (yes, its on line for all to read), they actually lost $27mm in 2012 for various land management initiatives, including recreational activities, land and hunting permits, grazing rights, firewood sales and other misc. related activities. So much for the notion that hunting and access fees are a gold mine for timber companies and private land owners and a way to stick it to hunters. With assets of $12 billion and annual US revenues of $5 billion, Weyco's idea to charge for hunting and access fees to the Vail, Pe Ell and St. Helens tree farms won't generate enough for tip money, let alone lunch money.

And lastly, why the push and plea for increased property taxes? Timberland owners, large and small, are really farmers...its just that it takes 40 - 50 years for their crops to rotate and generate revenues, rather than most dirt farmers whose crops can be rotated and sold to generate revenues every year. Timberland owners pay lower annual property taxes to offset the fact that their land set aside for growing trees generates no cash flow for a long period of time and then at the time of harvest 40 - 50 years later, they pay an extra excise tax to help make up for this property tax deferment.

Think about it...do we really want to prohibit any private landowner's right to restrict or limit the public's access to their lands for hunting and other recreational purposes ? If we own 6 acres, 60 acres, 600 acres or 6 million acres, none of us wants unfettered and unrestricted public access to our private property, even to those hunters who feel they have a "right" to hunt wildlife wherever they want and wherever it is...for free!

[boomstick]

The east coast is pay to play. It's what happens with to many people and to little land. As far as the public land in wa we need more logging of it to produce the same quality of habitat the the private land offers the game that live there.

[fireweed]

And back to Weyco, according to their 2012 annual report and 10K filing (yes, its on line for all to read), they actually lost $27mm in 2012 for various land management initiatives, including recreational activities, land and hunting permits, grazing rights, firewood sales and other misc. related activities. So much for the notion that hunting and access fees are a gold mine for timber companies and private land owners and a way to stick it to hunters. With assets of $12 billion and annual US revenues of $5 billion, Weyco's idea to charge for hunting and access fees to the Vail, Pe Ell and St. Helens tree farms won't generate enough for tip money, let alone lunch money.

And lastly, why the push and plea for increased property taxes? Timberland owners, large and small, are really farmers...its just that it takes 40 - 50 years for their crops to rotate and generate revenues, rather than most dirt farmers whose crops can be rotated and sold to generate revenues every year. Timberland owners pay lower annual property taxes to offset the fact that their land set aside for growing trees generates no cash flow for a long period of time and then at the time of harvest 40 - 50 years later, they pay an extra excise tax to help make up for this property tax deferment.

Think about it...do we really want to prohibit any private landowner's right to restrict or limit the public's access to their lands for hunting and other recreational purposes ? If we own 6 acres, 60 acres, 600 acres or 6 million acres, none of us wants unfettered and unrestricted public access to our private property, even to those hunters who feel they have a "right" to hunt wildlife wherever they want and wherever it is...for free!

According to the legislative findings of RCW84.33.010 the tax shift (we pay more so timber can pay less) has nothing to do with the length of time to grow trees.  That consideration is incorporated into the one-time excise tax on the trees when logged.  The reduced rate on the land, according to the legislature, is  "so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide"  then it lists those benefits including "providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces"  It's spelled out pretty clearly--you are getting this tax shift because of the public benefits of forests, not the time or investment it takes to operate a profitable forestry business.  Charging for recreational spaces is double-dipping, the same as charging the state for each elk on the property, or charging for clean water or clean air.  Other laws (forest practices) ensure clean water, but no other law covers recreational spaces. 

I agree that the fees are peanuts to them now, but I highly doubt they put much $$ into access, "land management initiatives" obviously is broader that anything related to public access.  Their own presentation to investors touted 19 Million income from southern recreational hunting leases in 2012.  And their policy is to increase income per acre.  What better way than charging or leasing while still keeping the publicly funded tax breaks?

We need property tax system like Wisconsin. One rate for free non-motorized public access and a higher rate for no access or charge for access.  Sure, they could charge something small for motorized, but for non-motorized if they don't allow the public on for free, then they pay property taxes on a higher value.  Simple.  Fair.  And what voters intended back in 1969 when they gave them the tax shift in the first place.

[fireweed]

We need property tax system like Wisconsin. One rate for free non-motorized public access and a higher rate for no access or charge for access.  Sure, they could charge something small for motorized, but for non-motorized if they don't allow the public on for free, then they pay property taxes on a higher value.  Simple.  Fair.  And what voters intended back in 1969 when they gave them the tax shift in the first place.

Would your property fall into the motorized access or non motorized access category?  Or does this only apply to big timber corporations?  I personally don't allow the public on my property without some kind of agreement being worked out between myself and the hunter.  I don't see how anyone can determine who has the "right" to access our private property other than the property holder.   

This state and the people that live here have a very strange outlook on private property and land owner rights.  An example that comes to mind is the "neighbor" informing me that they will leave me a deer or two on my land.  When questioned what that meant they seemed to think that since they had trespassed there before they could do so still, it was "their right, and the family's favorite place to hunt".  Strange stuff if you ask me.   

 

Of course, Landowners have the right to close their land, and nobody is suggesting they don't or can't.  The issue is closing their land while still being subsidized by the public at the full discount.  In Wisconsin you sign up in the "managed forest" if your land is open to non-motorized and you want the lowest taxes.  Here, where half the land is public, I would think a similar program would focus only on industrial timberland owners (5,000 acres or more).  The state already has different rules for different sized landowners.  Smaller landowners provide a different set of public benefits, like keeping open space in neighborhoods or more developed areas, with the large timberland providing the meaningful outdoor recreational spaces.

 I do have timberland, and if I lived in Wisconsin, for my more isolated parcels I would probably sign up allow public access and get the lowest rates, but for small pieces close to homes I would be willing to pay more in taxes ( I am not proposing small parcels or small landowners be included in any change in Washington)

[frostman]

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Weyco limit the amount of permits to just a few hundred or so at a nominal fee?
I don't think there is an unlimited amount of permits available. They will most likely be sold out immediately upon release in June or July.
And, if that is the case, I would speculate that this is NOT a revenue thing. It just doesn't add up to any significant $$$$.