Are we losing elk and deer permits to big timber companies in SE Washington??

[Gringo31]

It's a sticky issue....


I don't know the area but am a big fan of private property rights.  I hate it when folks get credit for hunting by written permission from the state but have no intention of allowing the public to hunt.  It seems that would be easy to audit. 

On the other side of things, if I owned 100,000 acres of timber, it wouldn't take long to shut the gates due to garbage, vandalism etc.

[Humptulips]

First I'd like to say I don't know the area in question.
I will say though the State has a very big stick and is not really using it. That is depredation hunts and special trapping permits. I know most if not all of the timber companies get them. They do this because of some type of animal damage. If WDFW would make them all conditional on public access, real access not just open to family and friends or limited pay to hunt then maybe we would get somewhere.
Just bear, mountain beaver and beaver damage would be a major issue for them if they had to live with it. They would have to choose between opening their land to the public or help with damage.

[fireweed]

Just to muddy the waters...

Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.

This is basically true.  The tags are "general" but access is strictly limited, and some access is dedicated to employees.  And a retiree got access a few years ago.    . This year 12 hunters allowed on land--7 fee access, 5 employee.  Really shows you that access is the same as a "tag" and selling access is selling wildlife
Weyerhaeuser wanted to give out cow tags as "safety" awards at the St. Helens a few years back, but (thankfully) the WDFW nixed that.  The WDFW still controlled the tags, in that case.

[grundy53]

Just to muddy the waters...

Hancock get something like 8 elk tags to hunt their property which the executives get.

This is basically true.  The tags are "general" but access is strictly limited, and some access is dedicated to employees.  And a retiree got access a few years ago.    . This year 12 hunters allowed on land--7 fee access, 5 employee.  Really shows you that access is the same as a "tag" and selling access is selling wildlife
Weyerhaeuser wanted to give out cow tags as "safety" awards at the St. Helens a few years back, but (thankfully) the WDFW nixed that.  The WDFW still controlled the tags, in that case.

The big difference between this and the actual topic of this thread is this has nothing to do with the WDFW.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Woodchuck]

I haven't heard about any of this latest "signs" issue.  And I'm right smack in the middle of the Blues.  Interesting.

I saw one on some property out of Prescott.

[Landowner]

I haven't heard about any of this latest "signs" issue.  And I'm right smack in the middle of the Blues.  Interesting.

I saw one on some property out of Prescott.

I did see a few of them this past week.  Sounds like a few landowners, but a lot of acres. 

[Mr Mykiss]

Wrong sign

[blackmouther]

First off Unsworth has proved himself less than capable.  2nd off, I personally think that that timber company should pay taxes in the full amount vs their interpretation of open space.  That would allow the WDFW to tell them to get bent on quality tags and if their friends and family want to hunt they can follow the same rules we all have to.  It may open their eyes a bit when their special privaledges are revoked and they pay thru the nose. They want exclusive rights to their own property they can pay for it.

[JLS]

First off Unsworth has proved himself less than capable.  2nd off, I personally think that that timber company should pay taxes in the full amount vs their interpretation of open space.  That would allow the WDFW to tell them to get bent on quality tags and if their friends and family want to hunt they can follow the same rules we all have to.  It may open their eyes a bit when their special privaledges are revoked and they pay thru the nose. They want exclusive rights to their own property they can pay for it.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with being a timber company.  It's an LHP, no different than the Buckrun, the 4-0, or any of the others.  It wouldn't matter if they grew timber, cattle, llamas, or homing pigeons.  It has nothing to do with tax structure, open space, or anything else of the sort.  It's the LHP process and special permit preference for landowners who allow public access that needs addressed.

[SemperFidelis97]

First off Unsworth has proved himself less than capable.  2nd off, I personally think that that timber company should pay taxes in the full amount vs their interpretation of open space.  That would allow the WDFW to tell them to get bent on quality tags and if their friends and family want to hunt they can follow the same rules we all have to.  It may open their eyes a bit when their special privaledges are revoked and they pay thru the nose. They want exclusive rights to their own property they can pay for it.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with being a timber company.  It's an LHP, no different than the Buckrun, the 4-0, or any of the others.  It wouldn't matter if they grew timber, cattle, llamas, or homing pigeons.  It has nothing to do with tax structure, open space, or anything else of the sort.  It's the LHP process and special permit preference for landowners who allow public access that needs addressed.

Your exactly correct JLS, the system needs to be revamped to have a set policy to incentivize landowners to allow access.  As it sits now LHP program is doing more harm than good as some landowners get huge benefits, and others are given virtually nothing.  It is creating dissention, and many landowners are becoming increasingly frustrated, and locking up their land in turn.

[grundy53]

First off Unsworth has proved himself less than capable.  2nd off, I personally think that that timber company should pay taxes in the full amount vs their interpretation of open space.  That would allow the WDFW to tell them to get bent on quality tags and if their friends and family want to hunt they can follow the same rules we all have to.  It may open their eyes a bit when their special privaledges are revoked and they pay thru the nose. They want exclusive rights to their own property they can pay for it.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with being a timber company.  It's an LHP, no different than the Buckrun, the 4-0, or any of the others.  It wouldn't matter if they grew timber, cattle, llamas, or homing pigeons.  It has nothing to do with tax structure, open space, or anything else of the sort.  It's the LHP process and special permit preference for landowners who allow public access that needs addressed.

[motg9_6]

It's a sticky issue....


I don't know the area but am a big fan of private property rights.  I hate it when folks get credit for hunting by written permission from the state but have no intention of allowing the public to hunt.  It seems that would be easy to audit. 

On the other side of things, if I owned 100,000 acres of timber, it wouldn't take long to shut the gates due to garbage, vandalism etc.

i agree with Gringo

so i have a question what or where can the information about tax incentives for keeping land open to public be found? i keeping hearing all this talk but havent seen documents. heres why i ask, i plan on talking to representatives about this issue and pushing pretty hard to get some of these "incentivised" (if thats a word) land owners to either loose there incentive (not allowing access) or have it reduced/pro rated (partial closures fire danger etc.). i hate telling private land owners (timber companies ranchers, farmers or residential) what they can do with their property but when they are receiving tax breaks (thats all our money) it changes things. if this is off topic sorry disregard if this info has already been produced elsewhere please point me in the right direction as my search function doesnt bring my an quality info reguarding the issue

[fireweed]

It's a sticky issue....


I don't know the area but am a big fan of private property rights.  I hate it when folks get credit for hunting by written permission from the state but have no intention of allowing the public to hunt.  It seems that would be easy to audit. 

On the other side of things, if I owned 100,000 acres of timber, it wouldn't take long to shut the gates due to garbage, vandalism etc.

i agree with Gringo

so i have a question what or where can the information about tax incentives for keeping land open to public be found? i keeping hearing all this talk but havent seen documents. heres why i ask, i plan on talking to representatives about this issue and pushing pretty hard to get some of these "incentivised" (if thats a word) land owners to either loose there incentive (not allowing access) or have it reduced/pro rated (partial closures fire danger etc.). i hate telling private land owners (timber companies ranchers, farmers or residential) what they can do with their property but when they are receiving tax breaks (thats all our money) it changes things. if this is off topic sorry disregard if this info has already been produced elsewhere please point me in the right direction as my search function doesnt bring my an quality info reguarding the issue

It's been covered on other threads, but here's a good place to start your research: the legislative findings for timber tax. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.010
 The problem with our tax break is it is "all or nothing" with no requirement for recreational spaces (or much of anything else for that matter)...look up what Wisconsin does for comparison where a timberland owner decides to allow public access and in return gets larger tax break, or close access and gets a smaller tax break.

[Mr Mykiss]

Vaguely on topic: Did I just read correctly that WDFW bought 2,061 acres from 4-O cattle company in Asotin for 3.7 million dollars??
Link: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/nov1615a/

[Bob33]

Vaguely on topic: Did I just read correctly that WDFW bought 2,061 acres from 4-O cattle company in Asotin for 3.7 million dollars??
Link: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/nov1615a/

Yes. That's some valuable property.