Lawsuit against the WDFW

[Stein]

I hear you on that.  My point is that if we "punish" them by not providing WDFW support, they will either manage the animals themselves or completely not manage them, both of which are actually punishment for the rest of us.  Timber companies could effectively wipe out nearly all the bears under the current rules either by hunting, operations or habitat destruction, all totally legal.  They could also not do anything and end up with a ton of bears.  Both situations are bad for hunters anywhere near that land.  I would prefer WDFW were involved as much as possible whether they allow access or not.

There are a bunch of acres of timber land that hold tons of animals, is critical habitat for winter range, calving range or other critical aspects.

[bearpaw]

When a bear comes to a back yard and attacks the pet goat or rabbits are the people going to want help? I see topics here on this forum every year to that effect. When people are out camping at the lake and a family member is attacked by a cougar are people going to want the cat caught? Myself and my hunting partners have acted on behalf of the state in the past to catch bear and cougar that have attacked livestock, pets, and humans, we were acting as agents of the state under the same language of the legislation that was pushed by the anti-hunting groups and voted in by the voters. I would expect the right judge to throw this out of court, but I guess it depends on the personal beliefs of the judge that gets the case. 

I think once there's a board of trustee's involved, they have a CEO, or the company is publicly traded, then access should be a much bigger deal. 


I don't believe in cooperate person-hood and I don't think rights granted to the individual by the bill of rights or constitution should apply to a cooperation.

So if I decide to incorporate my business for tax or liability benefits I should lose all my property rights?

[KFhunter]

I'm not talking about small businesses or LLC's (limited liability Company) no one can vote you off the island and if you need a loan for your business, even as an LLC, it's you who must personally guarantee it. An LLC it cannot survive with out a single person at the head, and that person cannot be voted out by a group of share holders who can and do sell their stock at the click of a button.   

No, I'm talking about big S corporate who's members come and go yet the corporation carries on, there's no longer a single person who must be present to guide the company, thus any since of morality is no longer guaranteed from one board member elected CEO to the next, only the bottom line matters. 

And even then I'd advocate for a certain size S corp who regularly acquisitions land for commercial purposes. IE: big timber, big AG etc.

[Stein]

The Supreme Court has already settled this one, corporations are people and money is speech.  It would take a change to the US constitution to fix that mess.

[KFhunter]

yup yup, just pontificating 

[Stein]

Funny thing is that I think it would be possible to drum up over 50% support if you took a national poll.  Of course, congress wouldn't go for it unless their back was truly up against the wall.

[JimmyHoffa]

I'd be more concerned with C corps, at least S corp members have to at least be US residents.

[bearpaw]

Thanks for the clarification! 

[dscubame]

Lets remember who owns the land.  I would not want people trespassing on my land especially the way people leave it and what they do on it.  It's called private by correct definition.

Do you pay real estate taxes at a rate of 1/50th that everyone else pays?

I would love a debate but just cannot on a black and white issue of privately owned property.  The timber tax breaks are no different than the farm land use breaks.  No issues with the wheat Farmers that some years they struggle to break even.

[dscubame]

And believe me I pay my fair share of taxes way more than the average.

[CarbonHunter]

I would be far more worried about the tribes getting the land and not paying any taxes if they get it into the trust. Keep in mind that if corporations didn’t get these tax breaks the only groups on the planet that could afford these vast tracts of land would be the feds, states or tribes because they won’t pay any tax on the land which in turns means all our taxes would increase.

Everyone thinks there is too many predators but when an effort is made to reduce them all of a sudden we have a problem with timber companies not allowing everyone in without paying?  I say the corporate  timber companies are doing a far better job managing their land than the  state and feds are and we should stand behind them against the liberals.

[KFhunter]

Obviously I'm not a business owner but I think the message intent is clear.

[dscubame]

  carbonhunter agree.  If the timber companies were not managing and working the land where would this land be?  What condition would it be in without the exercise of Forrest management the timber companies implement?  What other incentive would exist to manage the forests as they do?  For one I am grateful for the timber companies and the limited access they do provide.  Back when the northwest was less populated indeed a better time but change does happen with the times and not too long ago the NW was the emerging frontier, well that time in the rear view mirror has passed.

[dscubame]

A bit off topic but a good read and a good reminder that not too long ago we (NW) was the verge of the last frontier....  Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey.  EPIC

[j_h_nimrod]

The one thing that aggravates me about the timber company lands is that “as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong” most of these lands were originally US public lands that were granted to certain entities (railroads primarily)as compensation for the rails they installed and they had very generous tax incentives with certain public uses accepted. Otherwise they were granted or purchased  at obscenely low rates for economic development through county and state programs that specified public access as a requisite for their tax incentives. Other portions were set aside for public economic benefits to schools and mental health with general public access as part of the agreement.

Long story short, many of these lands were government owned and given away for certain uses, with certain public uses excepted in their management. Again, this is how I have been lead to understand some of the issue, correct me if this is not the case.