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

[Jonathan_S]

It was just food for thought.  Not saying it's necessarily a better deal.  I'm an Eastside Guy who has hunted timber land on the Westside in the past and that is just where my mind went.

Also, nobody would have to hunt Idaho for 3 months 

[bobcat]

Yes I know, and I totally understand that perspective as well. That's why I'm planning to spend more of my time and money in Wyoming this year, and in the future. But I'm a guy who likes to be in the woods every weekend throughout the entire hunting season. I don't want to just hunt one week, kill a deer, and call it a season. There's always plenty more to hunt, if nothing else coyotes and bobcats, or grouse. That's tough for me to do when I have to drive to the east side of the state, at a minimum.

[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.

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.

You're correct that public use isn't written into the law. However, when the law was written consideration was given to the timber companies because at the time, full and free public us was being given. Things have changed. The big timber companies have now decided they don't want to give full and free public access. We should also change how they're taxed. I don't give full and free public access to my land and I'm taxed at the full rate. They should be, too.

[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.

You're correct that public use isn't written into the law. However, when the law was written consideration was given to the timber companies because at the time, full and free public us was being given. Things have changed. The big timber companies have now decided they don't want to give full and free public access. We should also change how they're taxed. I don't give full and free public access to my land and I'm taxed at the full rate. They should be, too.

From the things you posted in the past I thought you moved here from the east coast long after that law was put in place? I could be wrong on that, if so I apologize. It does rub me a bit wrong when outsiders move in and claim things were a given in a clearly written code when they didn't live anywhere close to here when the law was written. I did live here at the time. The law was written to protect the future of timberland, and responsible timber practices. Sure there was some more fluff added, of which at this time the timber companies have operated within the law. Public access was never a priority in writing that code. It was nice it was available for as long at it was, many of us that were here when it was put in place knew it would come to an end at some point. When the problems letting the public have free access became to costly we knew it would end. Most timber companies actually let it go on way longer than we figured it would.

[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.

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.

You're correct that public use isn't written into the law. However, when the law was written consideration was given to the timber companies because at the time, full and free public us was being given. Things have changed. The big timber companies have now decided they don't want to give full and free public access. We should also change how they're taxed. I don't give full and free public access to my land and I'm taxed at the full rate. They should be, too.

From the things you posted in the past I thought you moved here from the east coast long after that law was put in place? I could be wrong on that, if so I apologize. It does rub me a bit wrong when outsiders move in and claim things were a given in a clearly written code when they didn't live anywhere close to here when the law was written. I did live here at the time. The law was written to protect the future of timberland, and responsible timber practices. Sure there was some more fluff added, of which at this time the timber companies have operated within the law. Public access was never a priority in writing that code. It was nice it was available for as long at it was, many of us that were here when it was put in place knew it would come to an end at some point. When the problems letting the public have free access became to costly we knew it would end. Most timber companies actually let it go on way longer than we figured it would.

I moved here almost 30 years ago, not that it matters. I'm a full resident of this state and have as much right to lobby my politicians on injustice as you. If you don't like my living here, that's your problem not mine. As long as big timber pays lower taxes on their land, continues to poison our wildlife, all the while refusing to allow unfettered public access, I will continue to lobby for changes which reflect fair taxation and good land and wildlife stewardship.

[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.

You're correct that public use isn't written into the law. However, when the law was written consideration was given to the timber companies because at the time, full and free public us was being given. Things have changed. The big timber companies have now decided they don't want to give full and free public access. We should also change how they're taxed. I don't give full and free public access to my land and I'm taxed at the full rate. They should be, too.

From the things you posted in the past I thought you moved here from the east coast long after that law was put in place? I could be wrong on that, if so I apologize. It does rub me a bit wrong when outsiders move in and claim things were a given in a clearly written code when they didn't live anywhere close to here when the law was written. I did live here at the time. The law was written to protect the future of timberland, and responsible timber practices. Sure there was some more fluff added, of which at this time the timber companies have operated within the law. Public access was never a priority in writing that code. It was nice it was available for as long at it was, many of us that were here when it was put in place knew it would come to an end at some point. When the problems letting the public have free access became to costly we knew it would end. Most timber companies actually let it go on way longer than we figured it would.

I moved here almost 30 years ago, not that it matters. I'm a full resident of this state and have as much right to lobby my politicians on injustice as you. If you don't like my living here, that's your problem not mine. As long as big timber pays lower taxes on their land, continues to poison our wildlife, all the while refusing to allow unfettered public access, I will continue to lobby for changes which reflect fair taxation and good land and wildlife stewardship.

Read what I said. It didn't say anything about me not wanting you to live here. I did say you were not here when this law was put in place, yet you pretend to know some inside details about its intent that were not written into the law? You have every right to lobby for whatever you want, as I will continue to lobby for property owners rights.

[pianoman9701]

I strongly believe in property owners' rights. They should be able to do what they want with their land as long as it doesn't hurt their neighbors, or the environment and wildlife which belong to all of us. With rights com responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to pay their fair share of taxes. Thank you for the respectful dialogue, Cboom. 

[Branden]

Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.

Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.

And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens  overtime to patrol their property.

So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?

Regards, Branden

[pianoman9701]

Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.

Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.

And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens  overtime to patrol their property.

So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?

Regards, Branden

How about taxing everyone equally instead of giving the 1% the biggest break? I don't want them to pay more than me, just the same amount.

[cboom]

Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.

Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.

And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens  overtime to patrol their property.

So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?

Regards, Branden

How about taxing everyone equally instead of giving the 1% the biggest break? I don't want them to pay more than me, just the same amount.

Go buy some timberland and you will pay the same rate they do 

[pianoman9701]

My taxes are too high. I can't afford to buy any more land. 

[Skyvalhunter]

If I had your money I would own a section!!

[pianoman9701]

If I had your money I would own a section!!

For the last four years, we've been investing all of our money in the healthcare system.

[Branden]

Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.

Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.

And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens  overtime to patrol their property.

So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?

Regards, Branden

How about taxing everyone equally instead of giving the 1% the biggest break? I don't want them to pay more than me, just the same amount.

So if you own timberland you don't get a tax break on it? I did not know there was language written into the law that says only the top 1% get a tax break. Could you please bring that part of the law up and show me where it states that? Thanks.

And again could somebody please answer this question? For those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?

Regards, Branden

[Curly]

I was born and raised in WA, I'm old (48) but not so old to remember when legislation was passed in the early 70's regarding property tax breaks.  So, while I was alive when legislation was passed, I wqas too young to be paying attention.  But I have read the stuff posted on this site explaining the breaks.  Mostly thanks to Fireweed, going back several years.  I was actually on the other side of the issue before, and now I'm in agreement with fireweed, pianoman, and others. 

I do think the language isn't clear enough in the law to easily win any court cases, (maybe though with a really sharp lawyer) but I do believe the intent was there some 40 odd years ago that one of the benefits to the public was recreational access and thus it was one of the reasons given to support lowering taxes on timberland.  I see no reason why the legislature should not reevaluate the tax breaks; they probably should look to other states like Wisconsin to pattern new legislation after.

Sure some timber companies have been not allowing access over the years, and even early on, but now that almost all of them are doing it the issue will be getting more and more contentious.  The law should have been rewritten 20 years ago..........