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

[bobcat]

Can anyone point me to where it says that Weyco is issuing 15,000 permits?

Weyerhaeuser hasn't given us that number yet. It was Pianoman and someone else on here who were told there would be 15,000 permits.

[jackmaster]

Can anyone point me to where it says that Weyco is issuing 15,000 permits?

Weyerhaeuser hasn't given us that number yet. It was Pianoman and someone else on here who were told there would be 15,000 permits.

that has to be a total of 15,000 for all of their property, right? i couldnt see, say the vail area handling 15,000 people so i assume it means for all property, atleast i hope 

[bobcat]

St Helens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[snowpack]

We could live in Texas where less than 2% of the state is federal land and a large chunk of that is a huge national park you can't hunt. In Texas, you better secure private land access or you probably won't be hunting. There is no BLM land east of Colorado, national forests are smaller and further apart as you get past Colorado.

Those states that are private, might actually cost less for hunting than the public lands here (per day and animal-not acre).  Discover Pass/NW Forest Pass are both around $30, but deer season here is roughly three weeks and generally only allowed one deer.  Lots of acres to spread out on, but all shared with other pass holders.  Those private states seem to have generous bag limits 5 deer a year in some, some it's two deer a day.  And they don't have limits on exotics.  In some, the deer seasons run around five months.  But acreage is limited, but also not shared.
Seems like when considering days available to hunt and animals allowed, those states aren't really that much more expensive. 

[jay.sharkbait]

Can anyone point me to where it says that Weyco is issuing 15,000 permits?

Weyerhaeuser hasn't given us that number yet. It was Pianoman and someone else on here who were told there would be 15,000 permits.

You guys really need better sources before going off like this.

[bobcat]

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

[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.

[bobcat]

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

[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

[fireweed]

Here's a few ideas-

1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests.  That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.

2) They are not getting a tax break for growing trees or providing jobs.  They are getting a tax break because timberland provides public benefits (one of which is recreation).  The whole system started from a citizen initiative to help preserve open space by making it cheaper to own farms and forests. The legislature has modified this law over time, but the low tax rates are still only justified because of the public benefits of timberland including providing "recreational spaces and wildlife habitat".   Remove (or charge for) a public benefit, the tax break should be reduced.  Simple math.  PS.  WE made this law, we can change it.
 
3) Copy Wisconsin's Managed forest law: they have a two-tiered system of property taxes.  One rate for land that is open to non-motorized public access, a higher rate if it is not open, or access has a fee.  our state could do the same thing with INDUSTRIAL TIMBERLAND (5000 or more acres).  The little guy would not be affected.

4) Advocate that damage permits (especially for bear) only are allowed on land open to the public for free during general seasons for the "damaging" animal.

5) Complain on Weyerhaeusers "sustainability" survey.  Ruining rural quality of life, and kicking out traditional users doesn't seem like sustainable forestry practices to me.   There is space for comments.
http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Extras/Feedback


6) complain to SFI, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, where they are promoting traditional uses, "sustainable communities".  Have these companies even thought about the impact on communities?
Also, because of the rules of SFI, companies cannot cut off all recreation.  http://www.sfiprogram.org/about-us/

[bigtex]

Here's a few ideas-

1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests.  That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.

Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?

There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.

People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.

If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.

[snowpack]

Here's a few ideas-

1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests.  That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.

Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?

There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.

People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.

If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.

I think that was the case before the Discover Pass.  Now they charge for recreation, so they are to provide (at least some).

[bigtex]

Here's a few ideas-

1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests.  That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.

Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?

There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.

People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.

If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.

I think that was the case before the Discover Pass.  Now they charge for recreation, so they are to provide (at least some).

There is nothing in state law that says DNR must provide recreation. All the Discover Pass basically did was to say if you are going to be recreating on those lands you need the pass.

Per DNR's website, their mission is: "In partnership with citizens and governments, the Washington State DNR provides innovative leadership and expertise to ensure environmental protection, public safety, perpetual funding for schools and communities, and a rich quality of life." I don't see anything about recreation, access, hunting, fishing, etc.

[motg9_6]

Here's a few ideas-

1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests.  That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.

Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?

There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.

People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.

If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.

DNR already has right of ways throuh these lands. They just are not public right of ways. They are for access for logging and other resources. Its not meant to be public land they just let the public access it.

[snowpack]

Here's a few ideas-

1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests.  That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.

Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?

There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.

People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.

If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.

I think that was the case before the Discover Pass.  Now they charge for recreation, so they are to provide (at least some).

There is nothing in state law that says DNR must provide recreation. All the Discover Pass basically did was to say if you are going to be recreating on those lands you need the pass.

Per DNR's website, their mission is: "In partnership with citizens and governments, the Washington State DNR provides innovative leadership and expertise to ensure environmental protection, public safety, perpetual funding for schools and communities, and a rich quality of life." I don't see anything about recreation, access, hunting, fishing, etc.

When I go to the DNR website I find two pages all about recreation and their pitch to get people to come recreate on DNR land.  They even have a cheesy commercial about how "Even Sasquatch has a Discover Pass".  It might not be their government mandate, but they are advertising and selling recreation.