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

[washelkhunter]

Weyerhauser is not a timber company, its corporate identity is now a REIT.

[buckhorn2]

Last year a friend and I each bought a pell or willipa hills permit for 200 each. We bought them because we have hunted there for 40 years and just wanted to go there if we wanted. After buying the permits we hunted some where else and did;nt even go there. I guess we felt that we just did;nt want to say good bye to a place that we had hunted and camped for years.

[headshot5]

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.

Is this documented somewhere?

[oneshot12]

  looks like  only the hunters and campers that are the only one getting up set about this issue  .Haven't heard one thing for our legislators  .  Seems  like they Don't care what the timber business dose  any longer  .if it don't  effect them then why should they bother to get involved .just goes to show   people who voted  them in and there problems  just dont matter to our so called legislators and haven't for some time now . Petty Sad

[washelkhunter]

Letter: Alter tax breaks on timberland





Published: June 3, 2014, 6:00 AM



Share on yahoomail

Share on facebook

Share on twitter

Share on email

More Sharing Services

1






The Columbian editorial “In Our View: From Free to Fee,” of May 23, completely missed the point. The opinion piece insinuates that rural residents, like myself, feel “entitled” to use private land free of charge because we always have. They state in that “if people are accustomed to receiving something for free, they come to view it as a birthright.”

But access hasn’t been free for decades. Each citizen pays more in property taxes so timberland can pay less. This tax structure compensates timberland owners for the public benefits of forests, including recreation.

Nobody has claimed that private companies don’t have the right to charge. And The Columbian is correct on one account: Companies do not owe the public free access because it has provided access in the past. They owe the public recreational access because of the spirit and intent of our tax law.

Yet, the editorial chooses to completely ignore this fact. If times are changing, the tax structure can change, too. After all, in the same logic of the editorial, the suggestion that the public somehow owes Weyerhaeuser full tax breaks simply because it has provided them in the past is an argument without merit.

Darcy Mitchem

TOUTLE


I agree with this POV.

[pianoman9701]

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.

You would be wrong in making that assumption.  My point is that you should have no more to say about me and my personal taxes than you do any other private company or person. Weyerhauser is a big company, how big do you have to be to get the "special" treatment you advocate?  You are ranting at that all encompassing bad guy 'big business".  Make "them" do the right thing.  Do you own any stock in Weyerhauser?  How about a public worker pension program or Education pension program?  If so "them" is you, just another stock holder.  You guys don't need lessons in business, you know how the reality of this and how these things work.  Weyerhauser gets a few bennies from the government for the thousands of jobs they provide and the huge investment in the state's forests.  If they made 5 million a year off of this program, and I doubt they will make anywhere near that, it wouldn't cover the cost of administoring and manageing this program.  I just don't see where all the outrage comes from.  No one is getting rich off of this and in a company the size of Weyerhauser a few million here or there is a hiccup.

So, I disagree. Your real estate tax doesn't fluctuate depending on the current use. You and I pay full rate all the time for our property. This is not true for the timber companies. They get taxed at a lower rate for land not being actively logged. This rate was developed in the 1970s for land which is left open and available for public use. I have no problem with a private landowner doing what they wish with their land but I do have a problem with a landowner getting special rates for things they don't do. If they want to charge for access, that's just great. They can pay the same rates I pay if there's no value-added benefit to our society. That's money out of my pocket and yours, and because it's a public use issue and decreases the amount of taxes going into all of our state services, it is very much my business.

[fireweed]

I have worked in the timber industry, I do own timberland and timber stock, I strongly support forestry,  and I think the whole idea of charging for access (especially non-motorized) is BAD for the industry as a whole:

Here's why--
1) Bad PR.  These companies have spent Millions to improve their images, and they are throwing that all away.  Even our state rep who is a FORESTER, said it is a PR nightmare.

2) puts their multiple layers of tax breaks in jeopardy.  This is where the real $$ is. Citizens gave them, they can take them away. It is already under discussion.

3) Puts industry under a microscope for more regulations.  If the public doesn't see a benefit for them, they are more likely to add regulations around spraying or slides, two hot topics.  Mad rural citizens are less willing to defend timber companies against more regulations. Instead, they might start asking how much spray gets in their drinking water.

4) More likely for public to support government acquisition of timberland--like Wild Olympics idea.  If people can't use it when its private, why not support more land purchases for the public domain? This could lead to overall loss of productive timberlands.
 
5) Alienates the local elected officials.  You never know when you need a favor or local support to stop an unfavorable law or regulations.  Why would they help you now?  Constituents still vote, not business.

6) Negative brand association.  If given a choice of lumber, one from a company that charges, like Weyerhaeuser and one from one that doesn't charge, like Sierra Pacific, which piece of lumber would the public most likely buy.
 
7) Less "eyes in the woods".  Less people willing to report crimes on timberland, or go out of their way to keep an eye on timberland.  These tree farms are so huge a company simply cannot afford to hire enough security to patrol it properly.  They have always relied on neighbors turning in bad guys.  Now that the neighbor walking his dog is the "bad guy", why would he report anything?

8. Loss of key "grass roots" supporters.  In the past rural residents, sportsmen and timber industry employees/retirees have defended forest practices like clearcutting against environmental extremists.   I doubt those key groups would go out of their way to express support in the future. How many "this family supports the timber industry" signs have you seen lately?

[pianoman9701]

I have worked in the timber industry, I do own timberland and timber stock, I strongly support forestry,  and I think the whole idea of charging for access (especially non-motorized) is BAD for the industry as a whole:

Here's why--
1) Bad PR.  These companies have spent Millions to improve their images, and they are throwing that all away.  Even our state rep who is a FORESTER, said it is a PR nightmare.

2) puts their multiple layers of tax breaks in jeopardy.  This is where the real $$ is. Citizens gave them, they can take them away. It is already under discussion.

3) Puts industry under a microscope for more regulations.  If the public doesn't see a benefit for them, they are more likely to add regulations around spraying or slides, two hot topics.  Mad rural citizens are less willing to defend timber companies against more regulations. Instead, they might start asking how much spray gets in their drinking water.

4) More likely for public to support government acquisition of timberland--like Wild Olympics idea.  If people can't use it when its private, why not support more land purchases for the public domain? This could lead to overall loss of productive timberlands.
 
5) Alienates the local elected officials.  You never know when you need a favor or local support to stop an unfavorable law or regulations.  Why would they help you now?  Constituents still vote, not business.

6) Negative brand association.  If given a choice of lumber, one from a company that charges, like Weyerhaeuser and one from one that doesn't charge, like Sierra Pacific, which piece of lumber would the public most likely buy.
 
7) Less "eyes in the woods".  Less people willing to report crimes on timberland, or go out of their way to keep an eye on timberland.  These tree farms are so huge a company simply cannot afford to hire enough security to patrol it properly.  They have always relied on neighbors turning in bad guys.  Now that the neighbor walking his dog is the "bad guy", why would he report anything?

8. Loss of key "grass roots" supporters.  In the past rural residents, sportsmen and timber industry employees/retirees have defended forest practices like clearcutting against environmental extremists.   I doubt those key groups would go out of their way to express support in the future. How many "this family supports the timber industry" signs have you seen lately?

I've performed clean-ups on their land. I supported timber companies back when clear-cutting on NF land was eliminated. I was married into a family with strong timber ties - loggers and timber mills. Big timber companies have changed the face of what timber used to mean to people. With the recent move to paid access and animals on WEYCO land being diseased, I don't feel that the companies are any longer concerned for the communities in which they operate or the wildlife which lives on their land.

[bowbuild]

I have worked in the timber industry, I do own timberland and timber stock, I strongly support forestry,  and I think the whole idea of charging for access (especially non-motorized) is BAD for the industry as a whole:

Here's why--
1) Bad PR.  These companies have spent Millions to improve their images, and they are throwing that all away.  Even our state rep who is a FORESTER, said it is a PR nightmare.

2) puts their multiple layers of tax breaks in jeopardy.  This is where the real $$ is. Citizens gave them, they can take them away. It is already under discussion.

3) Puts industry under a microscope for more regulations.  If the public doesn't see a benefit for them, they are more likely to add regulations around spraying or slides, two hot topics.  Mad rural citizens are less willing to defend timber companies against more regulations. Instead, they might start asking how much spray gets in their drinking water.

4) More likely for public to support government acquisition of timberland--like Wild Olympics idea.  If people can't use it when its private, why not support more land purchases for the public domain? This could lead to overall loss of productive timberlands.
 
5) Alienates the local elected officials.  You never know when you need a favor or local support to stop an unfavorable law or regulations.  Why would they help you now?  Constituents still vote, not business.

6) Negative brand association.  If given a choice of lumber, one from a company that charges, like Weyerhaeuser and one from one that doesn't charge, like Sierra Pacific, which piece of lumber would the public most likely buy.
 
7) Less "eyes in the woods".  Less people willing to report crimes on timberland, or go out of their way to keep an eye on timberland.  These tree farms are so huge a company simply cannot afford to hire enough security to patrol it properly.  They have always relied on neighbors turning in bad guys.  Now that the neighbor walking his dog is the "bad guy", why would he report anything?

8. Loss of key "grass roots" supporters.  In the past rural residents, sportsmen and timber industry employees/retirees have defended forest practices like clearcutting against environmental extremists.   I doubt those key groups would go out of their way to express support in the future. How many "this family supports the timber industry" signs have you seen lately?

You should send this to every timber company, because you are spot on! I know several employees that are dead set against this new policy.

[ouchfoss]

I have worked in the timber industry, I do own timberland and timber stock, I strongly support forestry,  and I think the whole idea of charging for access (especially non-motorized) is BAD for the industry as a whole:

Here's why--
1) Bad PR.  These companies have spent Millions to improve their images, and they are throwing that all away.  Even our state rep who is a FORESTER, said it is a PR nightmare.

2) puts their multiple layers of tax breaks in jeopardy.  This is where the real $$ is. Citizens gave them, they can take them away. It is already under discussion.

3) Puts industry under a microscope for more regulations.  If the public doesn't see a benefit for them, they are more likely to add regulations around spraying or slides, two hot topics.  Mad rural citizens are less willing to defend timber companies against more regulations. Instead, they might start asking how much spray gets in their drinking water.

4) More likely for public to support government acquisition of timberland--like Wild Olympics idea.  If people can't use it when its private, why not support more land purchases for the public domain? This could lead to overall loss of productive timberlands.
 
5) Alienates the local elected officials.  You never know when you need a favor or local support to stop an unfavorable law or regulations.  Why would they help you now?  Constituents still vote, not business.

6) Negative brand association.  If given a choice of lumber, one from a company that charges, like Weyerhaeuser and one from one that doesn't charge, like Sierra Pacific, which piece of lumber would the public most likely buy.
 
7) Less "eyes in the woods".  Less people willing to report crimes on timberland, or go out of their way to keep an eye on timberland.  These tree farms are so huge a company simply cannot afford to hire enough security to patrol it properly.  They have always relied on neighbors turning in bad guys.  Now that the neighbor walking his dog is the "bad guy", why would he report anything?

8. Loss of key "grass roots" supporters.  In the past rural residents, sportsmen and timber industry employees/retirees have defended forest practices like clearcutting against environmental extremists.   I doubt those key groups would go out of their way to express support in the future. How many "this family supports the timber industry" signs have you seen lately?

  Im sure Wild Olympics has probably gained a few supporters in the last few years because of all the fee access areas, which is not a good thing at all.

[The Big Game Hunter]

I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.

http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/

[bowbuild]

I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.

http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/

"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."


This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.

They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."

Bowbuild

[motg9_6]

i agree with almost all of your statements except one it being their fault.

I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.

http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/

"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."


This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.

They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."

Bowbuild

say someone trespasses on your place, pees on your porch tips over your garbage can and steals something from your house then your are responsible for not preventing them from doing it???
how about the criminals get held responsible with punishments for breaking the law that will keep them from doing it again.
just my

[bowbuild]

i agree with almost all of your statements except one it being their fault.

I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.

http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/

"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."


This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.

They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."

Bowbuild

say someone trespasses on your place, pees on your porch tips over your garbage can and steals something from your house then your are responsible for not preventing them from doing it???
how about the criminals get held responsible with punishments for breaking the law that will keep them from doing it again.
just my

All I can say is you must not believe in being proactive?? Sure they could still have damage, but prevention is the key for the pieces of crap that damage their property. I think any cop (and there are a few on here) will tell you to lock your doors for your safety, why not leave access to areas that are not being worked, and lock down areas that are?. Leaving BLATANT opportunity, is NOT being proactive...

[The Big Game Hunter]

i agree with almost all of your statements except one it being their fault.

I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.

http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/

"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."


This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.

They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."

Bowbuild

say someone trespasses on your place, pees on your porch tips over your garbage can and steals something from your house then your are responsible for not preventing them from doing it???
how about the criminals get held responsible with punishments for breaking the law that will keep them from doing it again.
just my

Nowhere do I say that it is their fault things are happening on their land and nowhere do I suggest that criminals shouldn't be prosecuted and held accountable for their actions. In fact, I state exactly the opposite: pursuing legal action against miscreants is a key component of solving with the problems Weyerhaeuser is dealing with. I've quoted my article below, and as you can see, I merely state that locking the gates will make things easier for Weyerhaeuser to police their land and make it more difficult for those inclined to cause trouble.

Locking the gates will also prevent most unauthorized motorized access, which will also limit the extent of most banned activities to areas closer to the edges of the tree farms. By reducing the area where the banned activities are most likely to occur, this will help make the land easier to police for existing Weyerhaeuser security.

Pursuing legal action against trespassers and vandals may seem like it costs more money than it is worth in the short term. However, if Weyerhaeuser aggressively takes action against those violating the rules, it will not take too long for word to get out and for people to start taking the new rules seriously. After a few people get slapped with fines, or possibly even jail time for serious offences, Weyerhaeuser will very likely see a sharp decline on the number of incidents that they have to deal with as people realize that it is not worth it to mess around on their land.