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

[PolarBear]

I keep hearing the same thing from friends of mine who work for Weyco and Port Blakely.  Weyco is very close to turning Vail into a permit, limited access only area.  I don't blame them one bit.

[rasbo]

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

[Buckmark]

So for the people that are upset about this, is it because they are charging a fee or limiting the vehicle access to only people with permits.
If the permits were like 5 bucks or free to the first 175 applicants would that be ok?
Are you more upset that the lands will be closed to motorvehicle access if you dont have a permit compared to the alls welcome of the past, which led to tons of vandalisum, dumping and stealing?
I for one was kinda glad way back in the day when the snoqualmie (hankock) lands went to a vehicle access permit, alot less vehicles, trash and i worried less about being away from my rig all day knowing that the methheads could not be cruising the roads..

[pianoman9701]

I don't think the government should get involved either. However, if they are getting tax breaks for land use, those should stop.

[jackmaster]

i am with everyone that is ok with this i am happy to hear that timber companies are getn fed up with people destroying THEIR lands, i would be tired of it to if it was mine, way to go rayonier

[fireweed]

RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings. 

As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:

     (1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.


THE ABOVE ARE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT THE LEGISLATURE FOUND JUSTIFY THE SIGNIFICANT TAX BREAK OUTLINED IN WA. STATE LAW. If the "recreational spaces" talked about above were meant "pay for play" how is this benefitting the public??  And even if it isn't laid out precisely that they are getting a tax break partly for providing recreation, this is something that can be changed by the people with a tweek to this law. Remeber, the people are ultimately in charge.

[grundy53]

I keep hearing the same thing from friends of mine who work for Weyco and Port Blakely.  Weyco is very close to turning Vail into a permit, limited access only area.  I don't blame them one bit.

They already did this for the area behind the Pe Ell camp. From the camp to the Pe Ell-Mcdonald rd to Stillman creek all the way up and around to Rock creek then down to Highway 6 and back to the camp. They just added the Rock creek area this year. They are talking about adding the Forks creek area next year. The kicker is that pretty much the only people that can get permits for this area is Weyco employee's that work in the Pe Ell camp. They won't even give permits to Weyco employees who work in other camps.

[Curly]

RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings. 

As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:

     (1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.


THE ABOVE ARE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT THE LEGISLATURE FOUND JUSTIFY THE SIGNIFICANT TAX BREAK OUTLINED IN WA. STATE LAW. If the "recreational spaces" talked about above were meant "pay for play" how is this benefitting the public??  And even if it isn't laid out precisely that they are getting a tax break partly for providing recreation, this is something that can be changed by the people with a tweek to this law. Remeber, the people are ultimately in charge.

I see your points.  But if we start taxing timber properties more if they aren't allowing free access, then what happens if they just turn their land into subdivisions and sell it off?  What happens when they can't make a profit logging any longer?  And what would the minimum size of timber land be to be required to allow access to be eligible for lower taxes?

I'm sure timber companies are hurting pretty bad right now with this crappy economy and they are just trying to get some revenue wherever they can while waiting out the recession.  I can't fault them for charging for access; they must spend a ton of money cleaning up all the junk that get left by a-holes, and fixing vandalized equipment, maintaining roads, etc.  With the crappy economy, they aren't making much if anything on logs right now.

Hell, the State is requiring fees for access now, why shouldn't private companies charge as well? 

[rtspring]

Take a look around and we as HUNTERS can all see which direction we are headed. This is turning into being a richmans sport. Little by little it is going ot cost each of us a small fortune to go hunt anywhere in this state. I have never hunted this land. But I would never pay for an access to hunt private land. That to me is not the type of hunting i want to be involved in. Sure the landowners have the right to do it, but they wont get one red cent from me. 

[bearpaw]

I think trying to control what a private landowner can do with their property is a direct move against property rights. Let the market drive what they do, if government starts controlling timber property rights it will not know at what point to stop.

For me this is real simple, who owns the property? If you owned it would you like someone telling you what you can and cannot do?

Public lands are basically free to hunt and a large portion of this state is public. 

[fireweed]

Private property or not, the timber industry has made a deal with the tax man.  In exchange for providing a set of public benefits they get a low property tax valuation compared to their neighbors.  The way these property tax breaks work on the county level (just sat in on an auditor/assesor presentation) the reduced tax income from designated timberland etc. does not lead to a net loss of revenue because the difference is picked up by homowners and businesses.  In our county the average homeowner already pays about $20 per year to support what is mostly designated timberland owned by big industry.  That's fine and dandy as long as the public is getting their full public benefit from this tax break.    I own timberland pay an obscenely low rate on my timberland vs. my home so I can see it both ways.  PS. Here, most land that could be developed was chopped up and filled with McMansions during the housing boom, leaving off the grid timberland that would be difficult to develop (or outsource to China). 

[Sumpnneedskillin]

Kind of hard to jump up and down and scream about a private company charging to use private land when the state is making you pay to use State lands.

[pianoman9701]

Kind of hard to jump up and down and scream about a private company charging to use private land when the state is making you pay to use State lands.

The state is charging what it must and so is the timber company. The state land is ours. But, the timber company gets tax breaks of millions of dollars for opening up their land to sport and recreation uses. As long as they lose their tax breaks once they start charging for use, I'm good with that.

[Sumpnneedskillin]

Kind of hard to jump up and down and scream about a private company charging to use private land when the state is making you pay to use State lands.

The state is charging what it must and so is the timber company. The state land is ours. But, the timber company gets tax breaks of millions of dollars for opening up their land to sport and recreation uses. As long as they lose their tax breaks once they start charging for use, I'm good with that.

Then you will wind up with a system like Texas or the East coast where you have to be a member of a club or pay for a lease.  You're lucky if you pay 700-1000 bucks a year.  Plus depending on the lease you may be told when you can and cannot hunt during the season or where on the property you can hunt.

[Buckhunter24]

Timber companies are using this as a secondary income to secure investors/ reduce short term losses until the timber market comes back (although even when the market comes back the entry fees won't go away). Same reason Potlatch sells passes over in Idaho now. Got to run it like a business if you plan on being successful. Look at how many times the Kapowsin land has changed hands. St. Regis, Champion, Campbell Group, Hancock. Probably Forgetting a few in between. Managing a block of land that large is hard to keep maintained and profitable, especially when demand is low 

They make some money, reduce garbage/damage, keeps investors happy.