WEYCO Permits for St. Helens & Longview Going Up To $300 This Year

[pianoman9701]

It's political corruption at its worst. Our politicians are being paid to look the other way and they do.

[fireweed]

One problem that Wisconsin is having is that the larger companies are using the 240 acre "exemption" to landlock the rest of their holdings.  They are addressing that.

[cboom]

You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.

Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.

I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.

This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?

[Bullkllr]

I have some trees as wildlife habitat. Can I get a tax break?  +/- 1 acre.

[headshot5]

I have some trees as wildlife habitat. Can I get a tax break?  +/- 1 acre.

Pretty sure 5 acre minimum per Washington Law. 

[fireweed]

You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.

Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.

I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.

This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?

Not at all--and actually treating businesses based on size is common and logical.
Is Boeing treated the same as a guy who makes an airplane in his garage?
Do ma and pa farmer's marketers follow the same exact rules and pay the same exact taxes as ADM or Monsanto?
Same goes with the timber industry--should the family tree farm with 50 acres be treated exactly the same as Weyco with 50% of a county?  Of course not.   You must know the state already set the precedent,   The DNR classifies landowners with 5,000 acres  as "industrial timberland" and they already follow stricter rules on road maintenance and buffers etc.  On the timber tax side, the smaller landowners have an exemption amount before they pay up.  Nothing new here--It's already done this way.

Other states beside Wisconsin have figured this out:  Minnesota has a public access requirement for timberland over 1900 acres, and Michigan Commercial Forest Program has an access requirement for large properties.  (Keep in mind none of these other states require any motorized access--only non-motorized. ) 

[pianoman9701]

You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.

Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.

I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.

This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?

No, and you're completely misrepresenting what I said. I pay higher taxes because WEYCO property in my county isn't taxed at anywhere near the same rate - I pay for their services. I pay those extra taxes to get recreational use of forest land. By charging a $300 fee, I'm getting bilked by WEYCO out of those extra taxes I pay. As far as less than 5K and more than 5K Acres being discriminatory is concerned, it is fair because when the huge landowners like WEYCO and Hancock close up their land, it affects the recreational privileges of entire populations of people. In addition, they're far more likely to be letting a majority of their land sit unlogged than a smaller timber owner. They're the ones who lobbied (paid the politicians), for these tax changes back in the 70s. They're the ones who should lose them.

[Magnum_Willys]

 [/quote]

"I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it".
[/quote]

I agree this is wrong, however I think the Wisconsin method of reducing taxes by 20% for allowing public access is a good idea - apply it to every size property to encourage more access. 

[cboom]

You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.

Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.

I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.

This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?

No, and you're completely misrepresenting what I said. I pay higher taxes because WEYCO property in my county isn't taxed at anywhere near the same rate - I pay for their services. I pay those extra taxes to get recreational use of forest land. By charging a $300 fee, I'm getting bilked by WEYCO out of those extra taxes I pay. As far as less than 5K and more than 5K Acres being discriminatory is concerned, it is fair because when the huge landowners like WEYCO and Hancock close up their land, it affects the recreational privileges of entire populations of people. In addition, they're far more likely to be letting a majority of their land sit unlogged than a smaller timber owner. They're the ones who lobbied (paid the politicians), for these tax changes back in the 70s. They're the ones who should lose them.

This is absolutely false and has been shown on this board many times. The law regarding that tax in no way requires recreational use of the forest to the public. Those of you that keep saying this really need to take a look at the law.

[Bullkllr]

Looking at some of the official documentation behind our timberland laws (it's been a while and I don't have it handy), there was at least discussion of recreation as one of the primary benefits.

If it wasn't written into the law, it was most likely because no one foresaw the evolution we are seeing now. Public access simply "was" for generations, and little else was imagined, most likely.

Laws change all the time. It's why states have legislatures. It sounds like other states have recognized the trend ahead of WA/OR, and are changing accordingly. My hope is not great for Washington (where big contributions seem to rule public policy) to change anytime soon.

[bobcat]

I think $300 for a year of access, including camping on the property and 2 cords of firewood is a fair price to pay. But it sure doesn't make sense for everyone.   It makes a lot of sense for someone with two or more kids under the age of 18, and especially if the spouse is a hunter as well. For five people, a $300 permit is only $60 per person. When you can take the entire family, and all can hunt and camp, that's a pretty good deal.

But for someone like me, with two kids who don't yet hunt, and a wife who doesn't hunt, it's a tougher decision for me to pay $300 just for myself to hunt. I can't take my brother with me, or my dad, unless they both buy permits as well. That's the really disappointing aspect of these Weyerhaeuser permits. My dad is 73 and doesn't really hunt anymore, but it would be nice to just take him for a drive and maybe shoot a grouse. Why can't they just allow a permit holder to have one guest?

The other thing that really disappoints me is that again, just like last year, the access permits go up for sale, and sell out before the WDFW posts the results of the special permit drawing. That really makes it difficult for people to know if they really want to buy an access permit or not. Why can't Weyerhaeuser wait a few more weeks to put them up for sale? Or, do it before the application period for special permits. But instead they have Vail selling on May 24th, Pe Ell South May 25th, and Pe Ell North May 26th. 

However, I do understand from Weyerhaeuser's perspective that it really doesn't matter because regardless of what we may think of their system, all the permits will sell out, most areas in a matter of minutes.

[fireweed]

cboom is right--in our current property tax law there is no requirement for providing recreational spaces.  But there are no requirements for providing jobs, clean air, wildlife habitat, products, clean water, and all the other public benefits mentioned in the forest tax law either.  There are simply no requirements to get the whole tax break other than the land must have trees.  Everything else was just assumed or a handshake wink-and-nod agreement, but not a clear codified requirement.

Since the law was written, other laws like the forest practice laws and clean air laws now require landowners to act in ways that provide clean air, water, wildlife habitat, landslide considerations.

Providing full tax break with some level of free public access is just addressing a missing link in the law of the state.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The primary basis of the tax breaks are to discourage subdivision and development of rural lands and encourage continuation of timber production on those lands.  Keeping land in undeveloped forest production is better for the animals and environment.  Get rid of the tax breaks and you will see a lot more sales like the chunks weyco has already sold that are now posted against any use.

Zoning laws could take care of that.

[Jonathan_S]

For $1.75 more you could buy an Idaho Deer Tag

[bobcat]

For $1.75 more you could buy an Idaho Deer Tag

Maybe, but how much would a westside guy who wants to hunt weekends, spend on fuel if he drove to Idaho every weekend for 3 months?