Hancock 2019-2020 NEW rules

[brineal]

Alan K...I get your points and they make sense for the private timber company "logic" but not to the WA taxpayer/hunter/outdoor recreation user...here's my "opinion"...I don't care about operation costs of the timber company...if they receive ANY kind of tax break, even a deferment because of providing "public access" and still allowed to charge then it's wrong, and it's obvious that they are trying to reduce the amount of passes sold, out pricing the average buyer...just like I don't care about the guy who spends $100,000 on an auction tag (fyi, that comparison is stupid as that money goes 100% to the foundations and wildlife division, not into some East Coast shareholders portfolio). My point is that they are making it a private hunt club anyway and still getting the tax breaks/deferments. If anything, they should be allowing FREE access (with rules and waivers in place...I have no problem with knowing who is on the land, when/where they are and holding them accountable). This whole "roads, security, garbage, etc" is part of their business...either they are a timber company or they are a hunt club, right now they are trying to be both and exploiting both ends of it. You can throw out all the numbers you want, again, I don't care, as they are making money off of the permit sales and getting tax breaks/deferments. My analogy of the wheat farmer in the Palouse shows that there are FREE programs out there for large private land owners.

Again, not trying to pick a fight, just replying that your "justifications" are falling on deaf ears, especially when they are taking away family permits, selling lands to the Muckleshoots, and as you stated Hancock isn't the only land owner in Kapowsin, but they are running the access program, so by your own admittance they are literally making the access program into a "for profit" business...do you really thing all of the permit fees are going towards road maintenance, garbage collection and security? Pretty sure those other land owners/timber companies pay to do that too, as part of their costs of doing business.

They already shut down the elk hunting in there, the deer hunting sucks...so if this is how the "access program" is going, then WDFW and the state needs to step in and call it as it is, a hunt club and take away any tax breaks/deferments they get and treat it as any other property taxed business...

Grade

Before I say anything, I have been buying Hancock permits for a few years now and I disagree with this rule change.

That being said, no land owning timber company is compelled or has some responsibility to allow anyone on it. It's their land, not yours.  Selling those permits doesn't mean chit to their bottom line or to their taxes, its a drop in the bucket, permit sales mean virtually nothing financially or in terms of gained revenue to these companies.  They allow permit sales to keep hunters and the public happy and appeased that there is at least some form of access and that is it , that is all.  Trust me, most of them would gladly gate everything and shut everyone out..it is easier that way. 

For those who don't believe illegal dumping and vandalism is a major factor you are kidding yourself.  There is way too big a population with far too close a proximity to these timberlands and they would absolutely get trashed out without controlled access.  Same goes for walk in access in some of these places.. I can walk in for free on all these companies land over by Spokane but not here by Seattle.  Too much risk.  Less population, less risk, more allowed access, cheaper access; that's the way of the world on timberlands. 

[MAVsled]

and the huge Federal Tax credits the timber companies receive are the real target for them...
open access to public free or for a fee , get Fed Tax Credit.

this is far more than total of all access permit fees.

[idaho guy]

I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.

I agree  that's the best post I have ever seen on this issue. Thanks Alan 

[idaho guy]

Alan K...I get your points and they make sense for the private timber company "logic" but not to the WA taxpayer/hunter/outdoor recreation user...here's my "opinion"...I don't care about operation costs of the timber company...if they receive ANY kind of tax break, even a deferment because of providing "public access" and still allowed to charge then it's wrong, and it's obvious that they are trying to reduce the amount of passes sold, out pricing the average buyer...just like I don't care about the guy who spends $100,000 on an auction tag (fyi, that comparison is stupid as that money goes 100% to the foundations and wildlife division, not into some East Coast shareholders portfolio). My point is that they are making it a private hunt club anyway and still getting the tax breaks/deferments. If anything, they should be allowing FREE access (with rules and waivers in place...I have no problem with knowing who is on the land, when/where they are and holding them accountable). This whole "roads, security, garbage, etc" is part of their business...either they are a timber company or they are a hunt club, right now they are trying to be both and exploiting both ends of it. You can throw out all the numbers you want, again, I don't care, as they are making money off of the permit sales and getting tax breaks/deferments. My analogy of the wheat farmer in the Palouse shows that there are FREE programs out there for large private land owners.

Again, not trying to pick a fight, just replying that your "justifications" are falling on deaf ears, especially when they are taking away family permits, selling lands to the Muckleshoots, and as you stated Hancock isn't the only land owner in Kapowsin, but they are running the access program, so by your own admittance they are literally making the access program into a "for profit" business...do you really thing all of the permit fees are going towards road maintenance, garbage collection and security? Pretty sure those other land owners/timber companies pay to do that too, as part of their costs of doing business.

They already shut down the elk hunting in there, the deer hunting sucks...so if this is how the "access program" is going, then WDFW and the state needs to step in and call it as it is, a hunt club and take away any tax breaks/deferments they get and treat it as any other property taxed business...

Grade

ranchers and farmers also get a huge property tax break with the AG exemption. The agriculture tax break  is for a lot of the same reasons as the timber exemption. Yet farmers and ranchers charge thousands of dollars for trespass fee hunts? How is a timber land owner different its all still private ground. I hate the timber permit system and almost never buy the timber permits in Idaho(I think I have bought 2 in 25 years) I was hoping no one would buy one and they would decide it was a bad idea With that said the timber exemption provides a lot of value to everyone by preserving habitat and open space that would otherwise be split up. The point is its private property and they have a right to charge whatever someone will pay.         

[Buckhunter24]

and the huge Federal Tax credits the timber companies receive are the real target for them...
open access to public free or for a fee , get Fed Tax Credit.

this is far more than total of all access permit fees.

What is the tax credit?

Im familiar with breaks for conservation easements, but I doubt their farms are enrolled in one.

[Humptulips]

Alan,
I cannot believe you are not aware of the huge property tax break on Forestland. The tax break is because of ridiculously low Property valuations written into the law favoring Forestland. How many of us get a valuation of $100/acre which is about average for Forestland. If I own 10 acres the assessor says my land is worth $7500/acre so I pay on $75,000. The Timber company land next door pays on $1000 for the 10 acres adjacent to me. Guess who pays more property tax plus they don't have to pay any special assessments like school levies. Oh, they get their tax break and don't tell me they pay timber excise tax in lieu of property tax because everyone who harvests logs has to pay timber excise tax even if they pay taxes on the full valuation of their land.
The tax break was sold to the people as a way to keep the land open for recreation. I fail to understand why we, the public, should continue this tax break when we get nothing for it.

Also don't tell me the permit fees are about road maintenance, garbage dumping or patrolling. If that was really the case they could allow free walk ins.
Nope it is a smokescreen to get everybody used to paying (which it looks like they have succeeded in.) and then jack the fees to the roof like they have done in other States. That is certainly within their rights but don't ask me to subsidize them through property tax shifting and then  pay out of wallet too. 

[Buckhunter24]

Anyone with more than 5 acres of timber can elect to be taxed as designated forest.

Neither ag or designated forest has any obligation to provide access to the public because of their tax designation.

[Stein]

Alan,
I cannot believe you are not aware of the huge property tax break on Forestland. The tax break is because of ridiculously low Property valuations written into the law favoring Forestland. How many of us get a valuation of $100/acre which is about average for Forestland. If I own 10 acres the assessor says my land is worth $7500/acre so I pay on $75,000. The Timber company land next door pays on $1000 for the 10 acres adjacent to me. Guess who pays more property tax plus they don't have to pay any special assessments like school levies. Oh, they get their tax break and don't tell me they pay timber excise tax in lieu of property tax because everyone who harvests logs has to pay timber excise tax even if they pay taxes on the full valuation of their land.
The tax break was sold to the people as a way to keep the land open for recreation. I fail to understand why we, the public, should continue this tax break when we get nothing for it.

Also don't tell me the permit fees are about road maintenance, garbage dumping or patrolling. If that was really the case they could allow free walk ins.
Nope it is a smokescreen to get everybody used to paying (which it looks like they have succeeded in.) and then jack the fees to the roof like they have done in other States. That is certainly within their rights but don't ask me to subsidize them through property tax shifting and then  pay out of wallet too.

On the other hand, you don't have to write a big check to the state every time you cut a tree down.  They pay, just in a different way.  They also don't have the ability to do certain things with the land that you do.  It is the same for state and federal timber land, they all pay a 5% stumpage fee in lieu of property tax.  4% goes to the county where the timber is harvested and 1% goes to the general fund.

That law has nothing to do with public access, it's a completely separate issue whether the company wants to allow public access or no and under what conditions.  It is treated the same as any other private property in the state, the landowner decides who has access.

[Humptulips]

Alan,
I cannot believe you are not aware of the huge property tax break on Forestland. The tax break is because of ridiculously low Property valuations written into the law favoring Forestland. How many of us get a valuation of $100/acre which is about average for Forestland. If I own 10 acres the assessor says my land is worth $7500/acre so I pay on $75,000. The Timber company land next door pays on $1000 for the 10 acres adjacent to me. Guess who pays more property tax plus they don't have to pay any special assessments like school levies. Oh, they get their tax break and don't tell me they pay timber excise tax in lieu of property tax because everyone who harvests logs has to pay timber excise tax even if they pay taxes on the full valuation of their land.
The tax break was sold to the people as a way to keep the land open for recreation. I fail to understand why we, the public, should continue this tax break when we get nothing for it.

Also don't tell me the permit fees are about road maintenance, garbage dumping or patrolling. If that was really the case they could allow free walk ins.
Nope it is a smokescreen to get everybody used to paying (which it looks like they have succeeded in.) and then jack the fees to the roof like they have done in other States. That is certainly within their rights but don't ask me to subsidize them through property tax shifting and then  pay out of wallet too.

On the other hand, you don't have to write a big check to the state every time you cut a tree down.  They pay, just in a different way.  They also don't have the ability to do certain things with the land that you do.  It is the same for state and federal timber land, they all pay a 5% stumpage fee in lieu of property tax.  4% goes to the county where the timber is harvested and 1% goes to the general fund.

That law has nothing to do with public access, it's a completely separate issue whether the company wants to allow public access or no and under what conditions.  It is treated the same as any other private property in the state, the landowner decides who has access.

That is not true. If you own say 3 acres and have it logged you do not get the tax break on assessed valuation but you pay 100% of the timber excise tax.
All laws apply equally to use of land except development. If you wish to develop forestland you can but you must pay 7 years back taxes on what the real valuation of the land is to pull it out of  Forestland status. That in its self is a pretty good break for a crop with a 40+year rotation.

You are correct the law does not guarantee public access but it was sold to the voters that way back when it was passed.
So voters were easily fooled back then. Not a lot has changed.

[Stein]

The timber excise tax didn't exist before the timber tax break did it?  My understanding is that one tax was lowered (property) and a new tax was added (forest) and the idea was the net would be the same, it would just be tied to cutting which would match tax payments to timber revenue which is much easier for companies to manage. 

To me, it doesn't look much different than the tax breaks for farmland other than timber companies have historically allowed public access while farmers (in general) have not.  Same story for non-profit organizations that have sizeable land ownerships, the taxes are not tied at all to access.

I wasn't around in 1971, so I can't comment on all the reasons why it was enacted or what the pitch was.  If public access were to be legislatively tied to property tax breaks, there would be a bunch of interesting happenings in the large ranches and farms in most western states.

[Humptulips]

The timber excise tax didn't exist before the timber tax break did it?  My understanding is that one tax was lowered (property) and a new tax was added (forest) and the idea was the net would be the same, it would just be tied to cutting which would match tax payments to timber revenue which is much easier for companies to manage. 

Prior to adoption of the current system of taxation on forestland, trees on the land were taxed like property so the value of forestland varied as to maturity of that timber. The two were separated but beyond that the assessed valuation was pegged artificially low by statute. The reason for doing that was  to promote keeping the land undeveloped as a way to preserve scenic and recreational values. At least that is how it was sold.
The timber excise tax is paid at the same rate by anyone harvesting timber but owners of less then 5 acres of timber are not eligible for the artificially low land valuation . It originally was 20 acres minimum.
The way it works a timber company is taxed at most 1/20th of what a non-forestland owner would be on the same land.
I have no problem with that if we, the public, received something for our money.

[Stein]

So, prior to 71 the timber companies would pay some type of sales tax on the lumber they cut?  I don't understand if the forest tax was new in 71 or not.  It's hard to understand what really happened, did their tax bill go down significantly or was it just restructured?

[Humptulips]

Sales tax did not enter into it. There was and is no special treatment of lumber but timber is exempt from sales tax.
The trees them selves were prior to 1971 considered along with the value of the land when the land was valued by the assessor.  So two 10 acre parcels side by side but one logged and one with timber would have different valuations. The value of the timbered parcel would be increased by the value of the timber and so would pay more property tax.
Now property tax is only paid on the land. The big difference is back then the assessor set a valuation on the fair value of the land. Now the assessor cannot do that. By law the Assessor has to go by the valuations set in RCW 84.33.140 which can vary but top out at $234/acre.

[Alan K]

Alan,

I cannot believe you are not aware of the huge property tax break on Forestland. The tax break is because of ridiculously low Property valuations written into the law favoring Forestland. How many of us get a valuation of $100/acre which is about average for Forestland. If I own 10 acres the assessor says my land is worth $7500/acre so I pay on $75,000. The Timber company land next door pays on $1000 for the 10 acres adjacent to me. Guess who pays more property tax plus they don't have to pay any special assessments like school levies. Oh, they get their tax break and don't tell me they pay timber excise tax in lieu of property tax because everyone who harvests logs has to pay timber excise tax even if they pay taxes on the full valuation of their land.

The tax break was sold to the people as a way to keep the land open for recreation. I fail to understand why we, the public, should continue this tax break when we get nothing for it.

Also don't tell me the permit fees are about road maintenance, garbage dumping or patrolling. If that was really the case they could allow free walk ins.

Nope it is a smokescreen to get everybody used to paying (which it looks like they have succeeded in.) and then jack the fees to the roof like they have done in other States. That is certainly within their rights but don't ask me to subsidize them through property tax shifting and then  pay out of wallet too.

The difference is your land is completely developable, while the neighboring timberlands cannot be.  There is a huge valuation difference there!  And I certainly don’t call the forestland designation a tax break.  Landowners are essentially selling their development rights for the reduction.  If the landowner reneges, they’re on the hook for the back taxes.  If there were a tax reduction for doing nothing, like what Amazon was being offered in New York just for showing up, that’s what I call a tax break.  I guess our definitions vary.  It’s all about curbing urban sprawl and keeping forest lands forests, which maintain habitat and maintain quality water sources.  If you think we, the public, ‘get nothing for it’ I don’t know what to tell you. 

Nobody in their right mind would pay full boat developable land taxes on timberlands.  Literally nobody would grow a forest.  It just doesn’t pencil to hold lands in timber when the income generated by holding it for 45 years when you look at the taxes you would pay.  If there was no timberland designation, the annual taxes per acre might be in the $75/acre range today (bare, undeveloped land).  Assuming that taxes increase 1% per year, the cumulative cost of the years of taxes would total $4,236/acre by the time the timber hits 45 years old.  Go back to my previous example of the value of a 45 year old run of the mill stand, which would have a timber value of $8,250.  If the dirt cost you $750/acre, and you paid $4,236 in taxes, you’d have paid out a total of $4,936 per acre and 45 years of your life to make a net of $3,314, or 67% for 45 years of investment.  Basically a straight 1.48%, even worse if you looked at it as compounding.  Heck, you’d be far better off buying a bond than investing in a forest! 

Maybe the huge industrial timberland owners would hang on to their land knowing that all of the smalls would have to develop their timberlands, waiting for an increase in stumpage when demand climbs and the supply basket shrinks.  A developable clearcut though would have a greater net return by developing it the day the forestland designation went away than after a 45 year investment period. Nobody but the largest of owners would keep their lands as timber. It just doesn’t make sense.

You're obviously familiar with the RCW that fireweed mentioned.  There is not, and never was, a requirement for free access to private property when the designation was brought about.  If it were, it would have been a deal breaker.  Nobody would sign their property up for free and uncontrolled access to every member of the public.  Not a chance.  And I think you’ll be hard pressed to convince the public that a lack of free unlimited access to private property justifies removing the one major incentive for private property being maintained as forest.

The demise of our access to private lands has come about because of the degradation of our society.  Back in the day we didn't have the tweakers, vandals, thieves, etc. that we do today.  There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of folks on here would respect any private property they're granted access to, but it's the 10% of lowlifes out there (I used to say 1%, but these days it's unfortunately probably closer to 10%...) that have ruined it for us.  Again, requiring a person to pay for access again, makes them invested and unlikely to risk what they paid for by breaking the landowners rules. It allows the landowners to keep the bad apples out, and those on the fence from even thinking about it. Whether you want to believe me or not, the income is absolutely an offset of the costs associated with managing the access programs, and might even net a dollar or two per acre depending on the permit numbers and costs.  If it were all about the money, they would close everything down to save the costs of allowing the public in and simply sell a handful of leases to the high roller types that spend $50,000 for an auction tag.

I’m sure I’m starting to sound like a broken record on this, but we should be more concerned about getting OUR (public) lands managed to provide good hunting opportunity than worrying about private land owners charging for access to THEIR property.  Say there are 15 tree farms all of around 100,000 acres charging for access here on the west side.  It might not even be that many acres, but it would total 1.5 million.  OUR lands here on the west side total about 5.6 million acres (1.3 in the Gifford, 1.7 Mt Baker Snoqualmie, 0.6 Olympic, and 2.0 DNR (assuming 2m of the 3m acres are on the west side).  There are PLENTY of acres out there that could be managed to provide our game species with quality habitat like private timberlands do.  We should be putting our energy into pushing for more active management of our lands that will not only generate additional income for our schools (DNR), but also revitalize our rural communities that have dried up since active management came to a standstill (USFS).

[Humptulips]

You are being disingenuous when you say timberland is not developable. It happens all the time. WEYCO has developed and parceled off thousands of acres of their timberland. All they have to do is pay 7 years back taxes.
And nobody that I know is saying they should pay taxes on  the value of highest and best use. They could be paying on what timberland sells for though which is nearer $3000/acre instead of $234/acre and truth be told all our taxes would go down. The tax bill is divided amongst all property owners so we pay to make up for their lower rate. Anytime one group gets special tax treatment to lower their tax bill I will continue to call that a tax break.
 No doubt if they were paying taxes on the fair use value of their land it would force the price of land down. It simply would not be as valuable if there were more cost associated with owning it.

And I think you are wrong about free access being a deal breaker back then. Big timber would have jumped at that if it was all they could get. It was all free to access anyway at that time by their choice so it would not have been perceived as much of a cost.

I actually am very much in favor of a tax break for forestland owners. I just think if the public is going to subsidize them would should get something in return.