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

[bobcat]

I know one thing that's going to have to happen- deer and elk hunting by permit only. Otherwise all the public land is going to be over hunted. No way around it without going to permit only. It really should have gone to that this year. But maybe the WDFW wasn't made aware in time to do away with the general seasons. Let's just hope they get it done by next year.

[idahohuntr]

I know one thing that's going to have to happen- deer and elk hunting by permit only. Otherwise all the public land is going to be over hunted. No way around it without going to permit only. It really should have gone to that this year. But maybe the WDFW wasn't made aware in time to do away with the general seasons. Let's just hope they get it done by next year.

So if WDFW goes to permit only in those areas...heck make those units of mostly timberland trophy units and only give out a few permits  ...does that take away the "supply" for paying those access fees...making it less desirable or not at all profitable for timber companies to charge for access in the first place?  Seems like a bargaining chip for wdfw...tell big timber that if they charge more than a nominal $20-50 fee for access then they are going to give out 1 or 2 elk permits for the whole area...oh, and no depredation help     

[kentrek]

So wait...hunters are gona fight for more access by limiting access ?

[Blacktail Sniper]

Some thoughts to consider:

Take away tax breaks if it were even a remote possibility and what is there to stop timber companies from blocking all access to their property, period.

Or just increase fees, because someone will always be glad to pay for special access.

Or go strictly to large block, highest-bidder leases, again, always someone willing to pay.

As hard as it may seem to take, it doesn't seem like a winning battle for access without permit fees.  Not saying I like it nor support it, but Weyerhaeuser and the other timber companies are a big force with lots of money, political influence and power.

Nothing is getting cheaper and places to just access forest land to hunt, fish, explore are finite and more and more crowded which adds additional limitations as to what activity can be partaken of.

It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow, I have hunted the Weyco land outside of Toutle since 1976, many days spent year around cruising the roads, looking for critters, watching sign, trapping, fishing, etc. 

When the gates started going up, I knew it was only a matter of time before it would get to this point and now it is here. 

Am I going to buy a permit? That is still up in the air.  I don't live in Cowlitz Co. any more, so if I did happen to draw a special permit down there, yes, I would begrudgingly buy a permit, no special draw win means you won't see me hunting grounds that I have 38 years invested in learning and enjoying.

Good luck to all in the draw this year.

The WDFW could require damage culling to be performed by DFW assigned hunters/tag holders. They'd have to allow access if they wanted the elk and bears to be kept in control. Wildlife management is the job of the DFW, not a timber company. And, the wildlife belongs to all of us regardless of on whose land it's standing.

Or they could continue to "manage" the land for timber production and expand the spraying of clearcuts beyond the supposed two years I believe they claim and starve the animals out faster than they are now.  Locked gates and no public access...who is going to know?  No food, no animals, no need for WDFW or hunters.

Like I said, it sucks, but it just seems like it could and probably would get worse.  Is it worth it, will we really win and be better off or end up cutting off our noses to spite our faces?

Maybe a better approach would be to pressure WDFW to make the effected areas OTC and do away with the drawings?

I don't know what the answer is or if there even is an answer, just tossing out some thoughts from a little different perspective to see what feedback is returned.

Always appreciate a good, frank discussion.

[bobcat]

Honestly I think the access permits are a good thing, as long as they remain reasonably priced. But I don't like the leases and I'd like to see them decrease in number or go away entirely. If the WDFW could go to draw only deer and elk hunting for those units, I don't know exactly how it would work, but if people couldn't hunt the lease areas without drawing a permit in the state's draw, then how much would those leases be worth? I'd just like for the state to take back control of our wildlife. Because right now, Weyerhaeuser is holding all the cards.

Now to explain my first statement, that I think access permits are a good thing. Yes, I really I do. Not enough that I'm going to purchase one, but I'd consider it in the future. Just looking at the Vail tree farm as an example. What sort of access did we have before the access permit program started last year? We had three weekends in October for deer season, and we had one weekend in November for the late season. That was it. No access for scouting before the season, no access for bear hunting in August or September, no access for elk hunting.

So four weekends per year was it, as far as I know. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, I realize walk in hunting was allowed when it wasn't closed for fire danger. But how much of the tree farm could really be accessed by someone on foot? I'd guess maybe 1%. So really what good was that?

I think it's much better to have the drive in access that permit holders now have, so hunters can spread out and access the entire tree farm, seven days a week for six months. Now people can hunt bears in August, grouse in September, early and late archery deer, pre-season scouting, etc. none of which could be done before.

It's only a bad deal for those who don't have the time to take advantage of it. If you're only going to hunt one weekend, it sure isn't worth it. But if you can hunt, say, every other weekend from August 1st to December 31st, it ought to be worth the $200.

Of course it's also a bad deal for those who want a permit but can't get one because they're sold out. And that's unfortunate. But then let's think back to the access we had before. Right, there was virtually no access. Unless you liked driving in there on opening day of deer season, along with two thousand other hunters, with no clue where to hunt as no pre season scouting was allowed.

[grundy53]

I know one thing that's going to have to happen- deer and elk hunting by permit only. Otherwise all the public land is going to be over hunted. No way around it without going to permit only. It really should have gone to that this year. But maybe the WDFW wasn't made aware in time to do away with the general seasons. Let's just hope they get it done by next year.

For this to happen the WDFW would have to show a lot more brains and intestinal fortitude then they've shown in the past. Honestly I don't think they care enough about deer and elk to do this. Cougar will probably go permit only though....

sent from my typewriter

[fireweed]

Bobcat, your argument only works for motorized hunting access.  There are other issues that must be considered--walking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, rural economic development, neighborhood children playing in the woods, improving health, fishing access, landlocked public lands, increased public costs of enforcement, current tax breaks...the list goes on.

These areas are so vast (see attached red area as PART of what Weyco. owns in Cowlitz Co.--they just bought another 55,000 acres here last year) hunting access can't be all that is considered.
The eastern "white area" on the map is federal and state land mostly landlocked by Weyerhaeuser!

[bobcat]

Bobcat, your argument only works for motorized hunting access.  There are other issues that must be considered--walking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, rural economic development, neighborhood children playing in the woods, improving health, fishing access, landlocked public lands, increased public costs of enforcement, current tax breaks...the list goes on.

Fireweed, so you agree the opportunity for hunting Weyerhaeuser land will be better with the new access permit system?

As for all your other concerns, I don't know what can be done about that, since after all, it is private property. I guess the best thing would be to work with Weyerhaeuser and try to get another type of access permit for non-hunting use, maybe $75 and non-motorized access only.

[fireweed]

Now matter how many times you say it, for some reason it never sinks in.  Timber company private property is no different than yours or my private property.  You want access to my land or leases and you are going to pay.  None of your business what I pay in taxes, and none of your business who I partner with in order to afford land. It is up to me, the land owner to determine how I use it.  Now did my lawyer work a tax deal for me, you bet, why because he works for me and not you.  You could hire a lawyer and do the same thing.   

Something to think about.  Private property, where by your admission your kids are tresspassing.  Now correct me if I'm wrong but in the past has the land owner had any problem with your kids picking black berries?  Fishing in the pond?  riding their horses on the roads? 

Like any business out there, if you were to make them an offer that was too good to refuse they'd probably sell you a piece of that land.

 Taxes and tax breaks not a citizen's business?   Lawyers working loop holes are not a citizen's concern?  If taxes aren't a citizen's concern, we all might as well stop voting!

PS.  Going on timberland that is unfenced and not posted is NOT trespassing according to Washington state law.  Timberland must be fenced, conspicouously posted, or you must be told personally that the land is closed.  Look it up.  (Most of these permits begin Aug 1)

[fireweed]

Bobcat, your argument only works for motorized hunting access.  There are other issues that must be considered--walking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, rural economic development, neighborhood children playing in the woods, improving health, fishing access, landlocked public lands, increased public costs of enforcement, current tax breaks...the list goes on.

Fireweed, so you agree the opportunity for hunting Weyerhaeuser land will be better with the new access permit system?

As for all your other concerns, I don't know what can be done about that, since after all, it is private property. I guess the best thing would be to work with Weyerhaeuser and try to get another type of access permit for non-hunting use, maybe $75 and non-motorized access only.

Here's what I think a good long-term solution is:

-Acquire Easements or public roads through private land to public land.

-Full timberland tax breaks on industrial (5000 acres) timberland must have at least non-motorized free access (like Minnesota and Wisconsin)

--Companies can still get the full tax break, recreational immunity AND charge for Motorized access permits if the permits are not too expensive, and the numbers not too restricted.  The legislature looked at this a little last year. 

--Companies that lease or have high priced, exclusive permits will have a higher value placed on that land because of a loss of a public benefit.

-Multi-company permits could partner with gov. on enforcement and other items.

-Timber companies pay same taxes as other recreation businesses on income from leases and fees.


As to your question about hunting getting better, yes, hunting access could be better this year than it was last year. But I don't think that is the relavent question.  Instead we should be asking is hunting access the same as it was when the citizens granted the tax breaks for providing public benefits (1970).  The companies have slowly racheted down the recreational access over the last decade, hoping the process has been slow enough, and the tax breakes ingrained enough, that we no longer make that connection, and we jump at the chance to buy a permit to get improved access--that they have intentionally restricted. 

[bobcat]

Good post fireweed, I can agree with all of that. 

[bobcat]

I should say I agree with that but I don't think any of it will ever happen. That's why I'd like to see a separate access permit offered for non motorized use, similar to what Green Diamond is doing.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Good post fireweed, I can agree with all of that. 

 

Now, are you going to follow-up on that theme by presenting that to the law makers and maybe help push it through?

It seems like a very good and balanced solution that, if presented properly and encouraged by others by voicing support with our Representatives as a group with letters and emails it may be something that could fly.

Thank you fireweed for taking the time and effort to prepare a well written and thought out proposal.

[fireweed]

Good post fireweed, I can agree with all of that. 

 

Now, are you going to follow-up on that theme by presenting that to the law makers and maybe help push it through?

It seems like a very good and balanced solution that, if presented properly and encouraged by others by voicing support with our Representatives as a group with letters and emails it may be something that could fly.

Thank you fireweed for taking the time and effort to prepare a well written and thought out proposal.

They all know me!

[pianoman9701]

If I work a deal with the state for a break on my taxes why is it your business? If I choose to file an extension on my property taxes what business is that of anyone's?   That is a busniess deal between me and the state, a private matter just like your taxes are a private matter.  If I choose to hire a lawyer to help with that deal, why is that wrong or anyone's business? 

My point is this, if you want to influence what a private company or land owner does with their property you have a couple of choices.  You either play or you watch.   

Why is it that you made no comment about the land owner not having any problem with your kids picking berries?    Why no comment about your own legal right to buy land for recreational purposes?   Sorry but you'll get very little sympathy for your cause here.  If you want to change something NOW, then it is going to cost you.  you want to change something in the future then get to work now and set the stage for change.  Elect your representatives, raise money to fight corporate greed, stage a protest march.  That kind of thing goes over great in Seattle. 

Sounds like someone's in the timber business. I'll tell you why it's our business. They're paying taxes at a rate of $240/acre when the land isn't being actively logged. When that tax rate was set, it was understood between legislators and the timber companies that the land would be left open for public recreation. And, it was left open. All good. Now recently, timber companies have seen that they can make money charging for access fees. I have no problems with that. BUT, that changes the outlook for the public and we should no longer be giving away tax revenues for land we don't get to use for free. Either open up the land, or open up your pockets. The decision is still up to the landowner what to do with his own land.

My land is taxed at full value and I don't get extensions. When it's due, it's due. Time for big timber to pony up.