It's Official--Timber sues county

[pianoman9701]

I suspect you're correct, but we won't know until the law suit is finished. I guarantee there's going to be legislation to change that tax law. If not, a public referendum.

[Goshawk]

Tax codes are there to accomplish two goals:
1. Generate Revenue for the State and Local Governments (like rural school districts).
2. Encourage responsible Corporate behavior to the benefit of the Citizens where they do business. That's what led up to this in the first place.  When the current tax codes went into effect you could walk, ride or drive from the Hwy 702, south to Hwy 508 and never even see a gate all 12 months of the year. That was the standard for open public access that the Timber Tax Rates were based on, not highest bidder.

It's companies like Weyerhaeuser who's screwed this up, not the hunters, so lets go back and see how to best encourage them to go back to being responsible neighbors.  Grays Harbor County has only done what the Washington State Legislature were too cowardly to do; represent the citizens and not the profits of a few rogue timber CEO's.

If this practice is allowed to continue, it will do more to kill off Hunting license and tag sales in Washington State than the anti-hunting movement could ever have accomplished.  WSDFW might as well start laying off folks now, or loaning them out to Idaho.

And, yes I own some land that I do allow hunting on.  There are several kids who took their first deer on my grounds with their youth tags. No fees, just them with their parents. Of course they would have gone on the clearcut next door, but Gary of Manke Lumber posted it closed. I'm guessing it's either for an outfitter, or he just want's an exclusive to a small band of elk there.  Either way, it's no longer public access and that's too bad.  I once had the pleasure of a conversation with the late Virgil Manke while working on a common fence line.  Seemed like a great guy who got a kick out of my small kids trying to carry my tool bucket in the underbrush.  I'm betting he would not be too pleased with the idea those same kids who now have kids of their own can no longer walk, fish or hunt on his old timber lands.

[fireweed]

What really matters isn't the minutia of the law--but what the people believe to be true.
It seems the intent and wording of the law encourages and rewards but does not guarantee public recreational access.  But that doesn't really matter.  What matters is that tax payers believe they have granted this tax break in part for compensation for recreational access.  When they voted back in 1969 this is what everyone believed.  Even the ads supported by the timber companies themselves showed a father and son out hunting. 

We still believe it 45 years later, and the legislature believed it because they added it in their findings for the law:part of the property tax shift is because of recreational access to forests.
It's pretty clear if that 1969 initiative would never pass today.  If citizens no longer support the law, it is clearly broken.   Time to change the law back to what we thought it was all along--lowest property taxes for public access.  Not just a suggestion, but a requirement.

[whacker1]

What really matters in a court room is exactly the details of the written law, when it was signed and made a law.  Nothing else.  Public opinion and ad campaigns from 45 years ago are not even admissable in matters such as these.  Opinion of the people is absolutely worthless in a court of law. 

If your goal is to use higher property taxes as leverage against timber companies in order to force them to allow open access to their private lands, you'll need to rewrite the law to state that specifically.  Ultimately no more of a task than changing an existing law.  Of course like all matters open to debate and input, a new or changed law is just as negotiable from Timber's perspective as it is from the publics'.  Which means they have just as much of a right to influence the wording of the law as you do.  Not to mention the resources, lobbiest, and legal staffes of multinational corporations.  I can see the timber company's ad campaign now:  "Who can protect the forest better than us", "why should we be forced to let mean ole hunters kill all the deer", "WA forests are for recreation not killing". 

I bet the Seattle voting block will have a ball with this one if it ever comes to a ballot initiative.

I see the higher property taxes equating to a couple of potential outcomes:
1. more access
2. Weyco and others lobbying for reduced taxes in other areas, such as: B & O, excise tax, etc.  Fees will go higher and gates will remain closed.
3. Less community support from Weyco (which has been drying up over time)

I am sure there are other options, but I would be on #2 & #3 being more probable than #1.  I think the increased property taxes will be a wash or close to a wash with what they can raise in access fees.  Weyco still gets to keep the gates closed and restrict access.  I think every other timber company out there is watching this to see how it shakes out, and seeing how the case is made.  I think this has the potential to have more timber companies follow Weyco in other parts of the state and possibly into other states depending on the outcome and how polarizing each side gets on the subject. 

I fear that the outcome of this case is going to bleed into unintended consequences in a much larger geography.  i hope for the best, but fear the worst.

[whacker1]

http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Communities/CommunityInvestment

Here is the link that Weyerhaueuser suggest that they gave back to $5.2 million to communities in 2013.  I am not hear to dispute whether that actually happened or not, but rather to say that I think it is a significant potential outcome that if the suit holds true and Grays Harbor County wins.  Weyerhaueser will absorb the increased taxes and this number will go down in addition to the fee access costs going up to help offset increased taxes if it comes to that. 

If Grays Harbor County loses and Weyco prevails I think that the situation stays the course and Weyco monitors more closely the local communities.

My two cents 

[fireweed]

http://thevidette.com/sections/news/local/why-timber-industry-taking-grays-harbor-county.html

More detailed article where timber industry admits access was part of the tax deal

"Although the timber industry had said it would keep access open to the public when the tax breaks were put in place in the 1970s, Doumit argues that charging fees for access is still keeping the access open"

[Special T]

I Love our ability to research and bring together information pretty quickly for sharing! 

[Special T]

The DP is NOT about covering costs of using DNR or WDFW land... it IS about funding state parks. That justification will hold very little water under scrutiny.

[blackveltbowhunter]

IF Weyco was using a DP type model, then we would have a real argument. However they are not. although I will admit that GHC has the second most liberal application of the permit, and the cheapest. They still have no option to hunt other than buying the pass.

[fireweed]

Grays Harbor's actions aside, the main timber industry lobbyist in the state just admitted that tax breaks were tied to public access.  I bet his phone is ringing off the hook from Weyco and company...."DON'T SAY THAT--NEVER ADMIT THAT".  These companies, especially Weyco are charging WAY more that "recovering the costs of access" and with all their restrictions it simply can't be considered "open access". 

[pianoman9701]

That's sure an interesting development and should answer the questions from all those who say the assumptions are wrong. Have a nice day, WEYCO. 

[bmccalister]

Here is my two cents. I can understand and agree with the timber companies charging an access to their land to help cover the cost associated with the public using their land for recreation (just like the state Discovery Pass and the federal Northwest Forest Pass). All I ask is they keep in mind that the public is not solely made up of rich people with lots of disposable income, but rather middle class people who are struggling to stay above water in the current economy. As one of these individuals I would be willing to pay for a permit up to $75.00 to access all their land (like the discovery pass and Northwest forest pass).

I agree that even by charging an access fee they are meeting the letter of the law by allowing the public to access their land. Where I see a problem is the timber companies are going against the intent of the tax break/law by not allowing access to all of the public. By limiting the number of permits, charging more for one area than the next or requiring permits for different areas (which cannot be used in other locations) is not fair to the general public and goes against the intent of what the voters wanted. Also, I believe the new permit access fees are not fair to our disabled or senior hunters. I know a few disabled hunters who will not be able to hunt this year because not only do they have to have a permit but the person hunting with them has to have a permit. This additional cost to them is not fair because these hunters are on fixed incomes and cannot afford the increased cost to hunt. I believe if the timber companies want to cry foul and claim property owner rights then they need to give up their tax cut (voted on by the same people they are know screwing over). If they want the same property owner rights as everyone else then they should pay the same property tax rate as everyone else. Then they can close off all their land and charge what every they want to allow the public to access their land.

Finally, I do agree the timber companies should be compensated for the public to access their land so they can maintain their roads. Again, all I ask is that they be reasonable and keep the fees affordable for all of the general public and not just the rich. The timber companies should get together and create the Washington Timber Pass available for $75.00 which allows access to all the land of all the timber companies in Washington.

Question: Are the timber company employees and subcontractors along with their families and friends required to purchase these permits or do they get a fee pass?

[Coastal_native]

I agree with that.  I would also want free non vehicle access and that vehicle access be specific to vehicles and not individuals.  Also year round access...except during fire closures and any other routine closures.  Keep the tax structure the same. Boom, done.

[grousetracker]

I dont care if weyco closes there land to all public access as long as they pay the same taxes as all of us do! my buddy owns 660acres of timber and pays more in taxes than 2400 acres of land owned by weyco right behind his,thats wrong and i hope all counties go after the higher tax dollars.