Rayonier selling permits to hunt it's land for $225: The Longview Daily News

[predatorpro]

what do you guys think about allowing people to hunt on private land that is set aside? alot of farmers out here have thousands of acres that the government payes them to not farm....thats being done with our tax money one way or another....just a thought?

[bobcat]

It's still private property. They're only being paid to not farm it, not to allow the public to hunt on it.

[fireweed]

This debate isn't about property rights, it's about property taxes. 

Nobody is suggesting that anyone-even big companies-be "forced" to allow the public on their land.   But when you enroll property for these tax breaks, the government does tell you what to do.  If it's a farm, you must show income and farm.  If you stop farming, they yank you from the program and send you a bill for 7 years back taxes.  If it's timberland and you don't replant, or let brush take over, they might do the work for you and send you a bill, or yank you from the program.  Afterall, you've made a deal with the tax man.  Shouldn't a company that does allow free public access pay slightly lower tax rate than one with "keep out" signs or a pay-for-entry system?   Right now, in Washington state, there is a property tax option that works exactly this way.  Its called open space/open space.  If you have land that isn't farm and isn't commercial forest, you can enroll it in openspace/openspace.  You get percent in taxable value reductions for the different public benefits, like wildlife habitat, critical areas, and public access.  If you allow public access you pay a lower tax rate than if you do not,everything else being equal.  (One eastern Wa county counts "public access" if your land is enrolled in WDFW's "feel free to hunt" program.)

Remember, there is no right to lower taxes than you neighbor, unless the neighbor says it's ok and worth it for them.  In this case, your neighbors are the citizens of the state.

[Goldeneye]

Just looked at the Rayonier site.  They have 1 permit remaining out of the 175 that were availiable for Fossil creek...

[Special T]

And that tells you right there you where we are headed... A race for the space...

[TheHunt]

4 days left to bid on the elk permits

[Goldeneye]

Salmon Creek has 4 days left and one of the auctions on EBAY is up to $455 now.

[foambeetle]

people access these lands get hurt and sue the timber companies...sorry folks there's a whole need breed of cats out there and they suck,or should I say vacume,we will see if the censor's kick in

 

Good point to bring up Rasbo.
Those of you who do get permits from timberlands (such as Hancock) usually have to sign a document basically saying you are entering at your own risk and if you get injured/die it is your fault. Obviously landowners who let people enter their lands freely don't have this "contract".

I know of a coal company who for many years would let people enter their lands as long as they got permission from the company. Basically all you had to do was go to their office give them your info and they gave you a card about twice the size of a business card with some basic regulations on it. About 6/7 years ago they went from permission only to no trespassing and there were two reasons, vandalism (dumping, etc) and liability issues.

You guys may be interested in RCW 4.24.210 . . . "[a]ny public or private landowners or others in lawful possession and control of any lands . . . who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to . . . hunting, fishing . . . without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users."

[SemperFidelis97]

I see allot of complaining on here about a private company looking to capitalize on private property they own.  The reality is 250 bucks is better than no trespassing signs.  As for the price it has already been said I will gladly fork out a few hundred bucks if I can go somewhere, and have a quality hunting experience.  Trash, vandalism, theft are very real concerns for these companies as well as myself.  I spent a little time here last season on the west side looking over public land while scouting its sickening, and sad to see how people treat our open spaces.  Judging by what I have seen on privately managed timberlands as compared to public lands I really wouldnt blame these companies at all for trying to manage who uses their resources.

[SuperDutyHunter]

This debate isn't about property rights, it's about property taxes. 

Nobody is suggesting that anyone-even big companies-be "forced" to allow the public on their land.   But when you enroll property for these tax breaks, the government does tell you what to do.  If it's a farm, you must show income and farm.  If you stop farming, they yank you from the program and send you a bill for 7 years back taxes.  If it's timberland and you don't replant, or let brush take over, they might do the work for you and send you a bill, or yank you from the program.  Afterall, you've made a deal with the tax man.  Shouldn't a company that does allow free public access pay slightly lower tax rate than one with "keep out" signs or a pay-for-entry system?   Right now, in Washington state, there is a property tax option that works exactly this way.  Its called open space/open space.  If you have land that isn't farm and isn't commercial forest, you can enroll it in openspace/openspace.  You get percent in taxable value reductions for the different public benefits, like wildlife habitat, critical areas, and public access.  If you allow public access you pay a lower tax rate than if you do not,everything else being equal.  (One eastern Wa county counts "public access" if your land is enrolled in WDFW's "feel free to hunt" program.)

Remember, there is no right to lower taxes than you neighbor, unless the neighbor says it's ok and worth it for them.  In this case, your neighbors are the citizens of the state.

Maybe you ought to really think about what you're saying here for a minute.  If you truly believe what you're saying...then there are an awful lot of "citizens of the state" (mind you I'm not talking about timber companies here) that will be owing a lot of back taxes or seeing increased property taxes because they have their private property in forestland tax classification and have been REFUSING public access to their property much longer than any timber company has!  These are members of the voting public and you really think they will support raising their own taxes just to "stick it" to the timber companies?

Before going off on some things, maybe people need to look at the big picture and maybe even do a little research first.

Table 3. Forest Land (Acres) by Ownership in Washington State: A Current Estimate excerpted from: http://www.cfr.washington.edu/nwef/documents/SciencePapers/tp1.pdf
     Total Forest land: 22,000,000
           Public: 12,600,000
           Private:  9,400,000
                Industrial: 2,900,000
                Non-industrial:  6,500,000
                      Large: 3,300,000
                      Small: 3,200,000

Small non-industrial landowners are primarily family forests and an example of a large non-industrial landowner would be Rayonier as seen in figure 2 (page seven) of http://www.cfr.washington.edu/nwef/documents/SciencePapers/tp1.pdf (numbers above in table 3 are also from this document on page eight).

As you can see, if you had your way and those with forestland were taxed at a higher rate if they chose to close their property to public access, you'll be hurting those citizens of the state as you referred to them (3.2 million acres of family forests OR 49% of all non-industrial timberland)  To be honest with you, that tax increase is probably a lot easier to swallow for a large successful company than all of those small fixed income families.

  Everyone back up fireweed and maybe we can bring down the state's economy together!

If you stir the pot, make sure it's a stick with some facts behind it.  If it doesn't pass the sniff test, it's probably not a good idea.

[kckrawler]

Salmon Creek has 4 days left and one of the auctions on EBAY is up to $455 now.

This right here is what scares me the most...once the rest of the timber companies see that, I'll bet the days of the $225 permit are over.

For those who aren't following, the rifle hunts are all over $1000 and ones at $1500 now...

[fireweed]

 "Everyone back up fireweed and maybe we can bring down the state's economy together!"

 I simply do not see how being informed about the in's and out's of something that affects all of us in one way or another--property taxes-- is bad for the state or the economy.  Stirring the pot is good because an informed debate is part of our system.   Ignorant citizens who never question the status quo do benefit some, however.  This debate IS valuable.   Right now timberland owners may be reading these posts.  Perhaps it's a company, like Rayonier, with out of state investors.    They could be pressuring local managers to charge for access.  Afterall they charge "back home" in Alabama, or Georgia or Texas--why not here.  The local managers haven't had a good answer to "Why don't you charge for access?!"   Now, perhaps, they do have an answer.  "We don't charge because the benefits aren't that much, we lose our liability immunity, and could put our property tax rate in jeopardy.  It's just not worth it."

[SuperDutyHunter]

"Everyone back up fireweed and maybe we can bring down the state's economy together!"

 I simply do not see how being informed about the in's and out's of something that affects all of us in one way or another--property taxes-- is bad for the state or the economy.  Stirring the pot is good because an informed debate is part of our system.   Ignorant citizens who never question the status quo do benefit some, however.  This debate IS valuable.   Right now timberland owners may be reading these posts.  Perhaps it's a company, like Rayonier, with out of state investors.    They could be pressuring local managers to charge for access.  Afterall they charge "back home" in Alabama, or Georgia or Texas--why not here.  The local managers haven't had a good answer to "Why don't you charge for access?!"   Now, perhaps, they do have an answer.  "We don't charge because the benefits aren't that much, we lose our liability immunity, and could put our property tax rate in jeopardy.  It's just not worth it."

If you had taken the time to read the terms and conditions agreement on the website, it states:

"3. Upon execution of this Access Permit, PERMITTEE shall pay RAYONIER for the rights and privileges herein granted and for RAYONIER’s purchase of a liability insurance policy. The insurance coverage therein purchased shall include $1,000,000 Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability and a $250 deductible per claim."

So I don't think they are too worried about losing their liability immunity.

As stated in my previous post, I highly doubt that their property tax rate will change because with 49% of non-industrial timberland being owned by private individuals/families.  I don't know of a single person who owns timberland in designated forestland (including myself) that would vote for legislation that would increase their own property tax rate.  I also don't know anyone who owns timberland that also freely allows the public on their private property for hunting or any other reason.

[tman24]

Did anyone purchase this permit and for what season are you looking forward for using this permit?

[TheHunt]

It would be interested to see the opinions.  But if they had a great hunt I can tell you they will not say one word.  I know I wouldn't because that would cause the price of my next ebay auction to be more costly.