Private Timberlands Charging for Access. What's next? What can we do?

[motg9_6]

dont know of to many hunter places that will allow you your spouse your kids and your grand kids for $150. seems like a pretty good deal to me. sure beats paying $500 plus for 1 person.

[baldopepper]

If you check out what many, many major private landowners across the west are doing, you'll consider this a bargain.  At least they are still allowing general public access.  I know it doesn't seem like a bargain when you dig into your pocket for it but I can tell you from battles in other states, there really isn't a damn thing you can do about it.  Sorry to say it, but I've been watching this happen around the west for well over 50 years now.  Places we used to hunt freely are now totally inaccessabile unless you shell out thousands of dollars or in some cases closed entirely.  Hope this can be an exception.

[jay.sharkbait]

Well, the Aberdeen tree farm will have 8,000 permits, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if St Helens will have 15,000, considering it's got to be twice the size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then why would Vail have less than a thousand? The thousand number (actually 800) is just a WAG.

How do you know?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's the internet........some info is credible some isn't

Weyerhaeuser updated their website on April 22nd. Here is what it says: 

    We will sell up to 15,000 permits online for $150. Each permit will be good for the permittee, legally married spouse, and children and grand children 18 years old and younger. A permit is required for motorized and non-motorized access. These permits will be valid from August 1st, 2014 through January 31st, 2015 and are required to access the majority of the tree farm during that time frame. 

And thats for St Helens?

[bobcat]

Yes, sorry, that is for St Helens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jay.sharkbait]

Yes, sorry, that is for St Helens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just found it.....you are right.

15,000 seems odd when you look at the numbers for the other areas.

[motg9_6]

im curious to see the total revenue from this this year. should be in the MILLIONS right? 

[sirmissalot]

Personally I don't mind paying for the access. I know if it were my land, I'd be doing the same.

I also know that in my neck of the woods the timber/lumber industry is big business, and accounts for a huge number of jobs in our community. If it takes me paying an access fee to enjoy a sport I love, in order for them to have black ink on the bottom line, I'm all for it.

I could see better quality hunting with these permit fees as well. Less hunting pressure, less poaching, and HOPEFULLY the indians don't get keys to the gates and limit the effects of tribal hunting as well (I'm sure that's wishful thinking).

I do realize its going to cause some people to give up the sport, or not get into it in the first place and that's unfortunate. But I think those of us who don't just hunt, but are hunters, will still be able to enjoy it much the same. Maybe even better!

[fireweed]

It frustrates me to no end seeing hunters claim this is fine and dandy because it might make their hunting better.   Or state there's nothing we can do anyway so roll over and take it.

For people that live in the middle of these tree farms, this isn't just about hunting season--its about life as we know it.  My kids can't play in the crick, ride their bicycles, take the back roads to a neighbor's, go for a walk, pick berries, collect plants for school, ride horses, go fishing, pick agets or generally enjoy life as we have for over a century without a permit.  HALF of our county is now permit for entry. 
And every single homeowner subsidizes big timber each time they pay property taxes.  Its just wrong, folks. 

[longwalker]

i guess there should be no such thing as property ownership then. we'll just abolish that. how bout it, you in? by the way your yard is where im going to park my trailer form now on

[baldopepper]

Fireweed, I , for one, don't think it's right or fair necessarily, but these big companies and land owners can do what they want , within reason, with their own property.  No court or politician can do much about it.  These are the same companies that close mills, putting hundreds out of work to save money.  Transfer jobs out of the country or out of state to save money.  Clearcut huge swaths of ground because it's the cheapest way to do it.  I could go on and on, but it only frustrates me.  If they can legally make a buck on their land, they're gonna do it and to hell with who it hurts or impacts.  The scenario in many places in the west is first to charge an access fee and then eventually turn the hunting rights over to a "wildlife management group"- i.e. guide service.  When you have many, many hunters willing to pay out $25,000 or more for a chance to shoot a big bull elk or $10,000-$15,000 for a trophy deer it's not long before they limit the area to 50-100 hunters willing to fork out that kind of money.  These "management groups" take all the hassle out of it for them and they can rake in a few more millons without ever having to answer a phone themselves. I truly sympathize with you, but I honestly don't have any known path you can take to prevent it.  I've seen it happen so many times in the western states these last few years, I'm only surprised it hasn't happened sooner in Washington. Hard to get much sympathy out of the urban people who don't hunt (or are outright antihunting) and don't relate to the rural lifestyle. Good luck in your fight.

[motg9_6]

i think you nailed the root cause of the problem. there are people willing to pay thousand of dollars so it is seen as an opportunity to make money. given that same opportunity i think anybody that says they wouldnt do it are hypocrites.

fireweed
 do you put in for special hunts??? is so how is that different than people wanting to pay for hunting rights to make the hunting better. thats why hunting clubs tie up a bunch of land and only let so many hunters in to manage and provide a quality hunting experience

[fireweed]

The line in the sand for me is charging for non-motorized access.  Now that that line is crossed, it's time to change the rules of the game ie.  Tax breaks must be tied to real public benefits.  WE ARE NOT POWERLESS.  Other states require free public access (non-motorized) if large landowners want to enjoy the full property tax break/shift.  Why can't Washington do this.  Sure, they can still charge, but at least we are subsidizing this behavior less.  Then the system would really reward landowners that open to recreation--not lump everyone together.

Sure they can close the land, charge, etc. but they are not "entitled" to all these tax breaks.  Citizens can take them back--we doled them out to compensate for the public benefits of forest and we can take them away.  Remember, everyone pays more ALREADY on their property taxes so timber can pay less. 

[longwalker]

.  Remember, everyone pays more ALREADY on their property taxes so timber can pay less.

this is maybe the funniest comment on this thread. you really expect anyone to believe that the reason property taxes are what they are is for the sole benefit of timber company's?  i think you give there lobbyist to much credit.raping us for taxes is incentive of its own for the government of the united states. the IRS  could give a *censored* less about "big" timber. too funny 

[bowbuild]

i guess there should be no such thing as property ownership then. we'll just abolish that. how bout it, you in? by the way your yard is where im going to park my trailer form now on

Government does it all the time to people, so guess I am in.....whether I like it or not.

[Humptulips]

.  Remember, everyone pays more ALREADY on their property taxes so timber can pay less.

this is maybe the funniest comment on this thread. you really expect anyone to believe that the reason property taxes are what they are is for the sole benefit of timber company's?  i think you give there lobbyist to much credit.raping us for taxes is incentive of its own for the government of the united states. the IRS  could give a *censored* less about "big" timber. too funny 

Apparently you don't understand the tax laws. Anytime WEYCO, Rayonier or Hancock gets their property taxes reduced by a below market property tax valuation that is set by law everybody else has to make up for it.
That may not be so noticeable for someone from a county with a big Metropolitan area but you take a county like Pacific it probably doubles everyone elses taxes.
So the local people are already paying for the land to be open, now they have to chip in some more if they want to go pick blackberries, take a hike or whatever.

As for you camping in my front yard, How about you pay half my property taxes and then when you show up to camp I'll ask you to buy a permit too.