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

[skidynastar33]

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/

Thank you for some ideas! this topic is full of people that want to only complain and and argue but not do anything. (already someone has taken you comments and started argueing about it)

5/6 we should all do right now.
Also i really think we should look into the (4) damage hunts and see what we can learn.
And i really like the idea of (3). that seems to offer enough reward to the companies to not just lock us out completely.

Ok so my question now as someone who really has never got into politics or anything. who do we contact to go forward?

[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.

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.

You are right,  the DNR must have a willing partner in Weyco.   After two letters from Two boards of county commissioners (Cowlitz and Lewis) Weyco agreed to participate in easement talks to the Toutle block (wonder of wonders a little pressure worked!)  But the DNR needs some funding. 

So here's another idea for a  fix: It's a goofy quirk of law.  A public use easement acquired by the DNR must have a willing seller--but the WDFW can use eminent domain for a right of way IF the legislature directly funds it.  change the law so both the DNR and WDFW can use eminent domain to get public access, if the legislature funds the right of way.  That also solves the issue of the DNR spending $ on a public use easement. 

Counties also need to get in the game.  County roads budget is always fatter than other departments.  If a county has an easement, then no Discover Pass/NW Forest pass or timber co. pass would be needed to get to landlocked public lands.  Then cost share on the road maintenance.

Solutions are out there!

[Humptulips]

I'll just make a few comments on the damage permits given out to timber companies. That may seem a little different then the bear damge permits but it all ties together. Private WCOs and APHIS do not need a permit to remove furbearers or unprotected wildlife. That would be beavers, mountain beavers, porcupines in this case. The WCOs do need a permit to set a "body gripping trap" That includes conibears, foot traps and bear snares. Aphis does not. WEYCO calls me up I do not need to even contact WDFW to trap out of season for WEYCO.
WDFW does have to issue permits for WCOs to remove bears but not if APHIS does it.

The important part is there is not anyplace on the permit that allows them to deny the permit if the land is closed to the public. If you fill the permit application out correctly you will get it.
I think WDFW would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they denied the permits based on public access.
That would need to be changed, probably by the legislature.

[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.

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.

You are missing what I am saying here. Yes DNR does have a recreation program. But for DNR, timber value and selling resources off of state lands will always be #1, not recreation. I have never said that DNR doesn't care about recreation, I am saying recreation falls well below making $ when it comes to their management of the agency.

[motg9_6]

Im with bigtex on this one.

[fireweed]

Here are some details from todays Longview Daily News

http://tdn.com/news/local/weyerhaeuser-co-expanding-forest-fee-access-program/article_bd2dc312-caad-11e3-883a-001a4bcf887a.html

[motg9_6]

or charging someone to work on their vehicle in your garage or even selling a car out of your house
we all do business from our private land im not seeing why they should be able to

i wonder how the outfitters/landowners would feel about this

[fireweed]

And multinational REITS claiming that they must be treated exactly like grandma and grandpa with 40 acres of trees is just as silly.

[skidynastar33]

I'll just make a few comments on the damage permits given out to timber companies. That may seem a little different then the bear damge permits but it all ties together. Private WCOs and APHIS do not need a permit to remove furbearers or unprotected wildlife. That would be beavers, mountain beavers, porcupines in this case. The WCOs do need a permit to set a "body gripping trap" That includes conibears, foot traps and bear snares. Aphis does not. WEYCO calls me up I do not need to even contact WDFW to trap out of season for WEYCO.
WDFW does have to issue permits for WCOs to remove bears but not if APHIS does it.

The important part is there is not anyplace on the permit that allows them to deny the permit if the land is closed to the public. If you fill the permit application out correctly you will get it.
I think WDFW would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they denied the permits based on public access.
That would need to be changed, probably by the legislature.

Thanks for clearing this up to me. Sounds like that's not the right route to take.

[skidynastar33]

And multinational REITS claiming that they must be treated exactly like grandma and grandpa with 40 acres of trees is just as silly.

Exactly!
I really like the idea of trying to copy what Wisconsin did. Have a 4 tiered tax plan depending on the PUBLIC BENIFIT
1. Lowest tax  for free unlimited motorized access
2. Middle tax for free unlimited non moterized access
3 higher tax for limited or charged access
4 highest tax for no access

Only for commercial timber company min 5000 acres or something like that.

[t6]

Not sure why people keep trying to compare Weyco to small family tree farms.     How many small family tree farms do you see trying to sell permits to their property.  It's not Grandma and Grandpa's 40 acre homestead. 

Grandma and Grandpa were not given special privilege when acquiring massive tracts of land from the Government.  They are not setting up to lease or sell permits to hunt that can net them 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS. 

Comparing a six year old selling lemonade to an international corporation is like simply retarded. 
 

[bowbuild]

Then shut it down entirely.  Keep the tax break for having timberland. 

If they turn it into Recreational Property and charge fees, they should be taxed as such.  No one is saying they have to allow trespassers on their property.  We are just saying that it its being profited by use as Recreational Property, it should be taxed as such. 

We also need to look into the poisons they are distributing with complete disregard to the animals owned by the State and therefore the public. 

http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/

The primary reason for these companies own this land is for harvesting timber. They have a timber harvest plan put together that qualifies them for being taxed at the timber rate. To say they should be taxed differently because the are selling some permits for access would be like saying the property your house is on should be changed from residential to light commercial because your kids put a lemonade stand.

So you are saying running a "for profit" stand from your property with no business license is ok then? What about food handler licenses, and under age workers?? Shame on you.

[t6]

Yeah!  Dang it... shut the kids down if they wont follow the rules..... POLICE STATE - Children's Lemonade Stand Shut Down & Fined $500 By County Officials       (SARCASM!!!!!!!)   

[RifleRidge]

Like I just posted in another thread, I don't really have a problem with Weyerhaeuser charging for access. Other timber companies have been doing it for years. I just wish they would continue to allow free non-motorized access.

I do believe if  they're charging for access to hunt, they should let their paying customers take care of the excessive bear problem, rather than contract hunters.

They should also take more care in preserving, and even creating, better wildlife habitat. What if they stopped spraying herbicides on their clearcuts and this resulted in an increase in deer, elk, grouse, and other wildlife? I'd be much more willing to pay a fee to hunt if there were more animals to hunt. Maybe the fact that they will now be making millions of dollars by selling access permits to hunters, will give them an incentive to actually work to increase wildlife numbers on their tree farms.

 

[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

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.