Post by: The Gobble-stopper on April 29, 2013, 12:26:13 PM
Thats all fine and dandy, but it was my understanding that the WDFW took part of my license fees and gave it to Weyerhaueser to keep their land open to hunting. If so than we arnt getting our moneys worth. So as I see it, somebody needs to talk to Weyerhaueser, open there lands without fees, or demand all our money back given to them, cut all money going out to them from WDFW, and lower our license fees to reflect the lack of hunting to reflect our loss. Someone tell me what they know, and am I right or am I wrong???? The other thought was, that Weyerhauser opened their land to eliminate some of the damage to their equipment from disgruntled people. Now what will happen when the population finds out about this??
Post by: Huntboy on April 29, 2013, 01:02:28 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,123979.msg1642792/topicseen.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,123979.msg1642792/topicseen.html#new)
Post by: bbarnes on April 29, 2013, 09:27:58 PM
Post by: blackdog on April 29, 2013, 10:02:54 PM
Post by: bbarnes on April 30, 2013, 09:58:37 AM
Post by: Dirty Mike on April 30, 2013, 10:04:47 AM
WDFW WILDLIFE PROGRAM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
Dear Permit Applicant,
Some timber companies in western Washington have recently announced plans to begin requiring permits and charging fees to hunt on private forestlands where these access restrictions were not previously in place. We are notifying you to make sure you are aware of these changes, which may be a consideration in applying for special hunting permits this year.
The five game management units currently affected by new access requirements are GMUs 501, 506, 530, 672 and 667. Your special permit application history shows that you have previously applied for a special hunting permit in one or more of these areas.
If you plan to submit hunt choices for deer or elk in any of these areas this year, we advise that you check timber company websites or hotlines for more information on the new requirements before you submit your special permit application. The deadline for submitting a special permit application this year is May 22.
In recent years, WDFW has made a concerted effort to work with private timber companies throughout the state to expand hunter access to commercial timberlands. However, while we've been successful in a number of areas, WDFW does not have the legal authority to regulate private landowners' decisions about restricting access or charging fees to hunt on their land.
Sincerely,
WDFW
Wildlife Program
Post by: Goshawk on April 30, 2013, 12:31:34 PM
Present rates for timber companies allowing open access.
Higher rates for timber companies that have pay to hunt, based on what a golf course is taxed at.
Start calling your state reps or stand back and loose it! :yike:
Post by: blackdog on April 30, 2013, 05:08:39 PM
Post by: Humptulips on April 30, 2013, 05:56:41 PM
Again Bruce what is the illegal part? Can you cite an RCW?
Not illegal but it would seem there is a pretty big stick to make them rethink this. Damage control permits and the whole tax break they get on their land.
Do you think $150/acre valuation on timberland is fair? That's what they pay taxes on in most of GH county. Some tracts less, down to $5/acre.
Seems like an implied threat from the right people could get them to rethink things.
Post by: blackdog on April 30, 2013, 06:24:47 PM
Post by: Alan K on April 30, 2013, 06:32:15 PM
The threat needs to be credible. I would be surprised if the majority on this site believe landowners both small and large who recieve property tax rates based on current use and not highest and best use should be compelled to allow the general public access to their land for free. :twocents:
:yeah:
Anyone have any credible reading that explains how timber companies receive tax breaks in exchange for public access? I thought that was a debunked myth. . . As far as I know it's taxed as timberland, the same as yours and I's would be with the same age class etc. timber. :dunno:
Post by: Goshawk on April 30, 2013, 09:55:10 PM
What there is, is years of advertising by WyCo boasting how they have earned their standing as a good citizen and neighbor by being environmentally sensitive to wildlife, the environment, salmon, clean water and by providing recreational opportunities all across the Pacific Northwest.
My gripe is this. The major holders of timberlands, some acquired through DNR land swaps (thanks a bunch Washington state DNR for screwing Chehalis out of all that public hunting ground!) have over the years negotiated a super low tax rate in order to grow timber at a profitable rate. Part of the Timber land tax argument was based on several positive aspects of timber lands that are deserving of that low tax rate, including PUBLIC ACCESS!
An example for those of you not familiar with the timber tax rate. In Lewis County, WA. there was a DNR land holding that was swapped out to Manke Lumber Co. Parcel #021898002003. It's 238 acres of excellent ground with a small year around creek through it. The taxes for that little slice of once public ground, now closed to you and I, is $165.97. Just next to this is a little 8 acre slice of forest, also in timber land. It's tax rate is $241.64.
No there is no law being broken here by taking advantage of corporate tax rates for timber lands. What I'm talking about is going back on the public trust that kept you and I in the forest for generations. Now that WyCo's profits are up 19% (according to a press release) and they are going to start charging for access it's time to reconsider who deserves that low timber tax rate. I am in favor of a tax rate as is for public access ground but a higher tax rate for timber lands that are pay to use only. If revenue is collected for recreational use on timber lands, then it needs to be taxed differently than closed timber lands.
We need to push hard for a change now, or watch public access slip through the fingers of our children and into the hands of those rich enough to form private hunting clubs. Get Loud, or get ready to pay. It's entirely YOUR CHOICE!
Goshawk
Post by: Humptulips on April 30, 2013, 10:27:28 PM
The threat needs to be credible. I would be surprised if the majority on this site believe landowners both small and large who recieve property tax rates based on current use and not highest and best use should be compelled to allow the general public access to their land for free. :twocents:
They aren't based on current use or highest and best use. Their valuation is pegged on a sliding scale from $234/acre to $1/acre http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140)
Does anyone think any land in WA has an actual value that low. You can bet when they sell it, it goes for more then that.
When tree farm land is sold a price is set. That is what the valuation should be based on. I'm not talking about timberland that is being taken out of a tree farm for development. I'm talking timberland that is staying timberland.
Ok, so the valuation is set through RCW. A credible threat is look Mr timberland owner, you're not keeping your land open to the public anymore and making money off allowing a few on your land maybe that valuation set in RCW should go up. How much is up to you depending on how public spirited you are.
You can't tell me there aren't a good deal of Legislators that wouldn't jump at a chance to raise someones taxes and I doubt you would get a groundswell of public sentiment against sticking it to timber companies. They know it would be a battle and I think they might cave. Could be wrong but that's how I see it.
Post by: Goshawk on April 30, 2013, 10:47:35 PM
START HERE http://www.leg.wa.gov/pages/home.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/pages/home.aspx)
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 30, 2013, 11:29:32 PM
I actually find this more taxes part of this kind of strange conversation around here. :chuckle:
Bruce, you would like to see timberland sold as timberland be assessed on a sale for example, and that's what you say it should be taxed at?
That would equate to the same as your property being taxed at it's sales rate, or fair market value (appraised value).
You, like me, could not file a tax appeal fast enough to have your land value at it's assessed value vs. appraised value. Look at your own property tax statement.
Now, you want Weyco's timberland (or it's buyer) for example to be taxed at a higher rate?
Guess who ultimately would pay the price for this tax increase? You and I the consumer. The board foot price of a 2x4 would increase relative to the tax increase. Weyco and other timber companies will just spin the cost off to the consumer. That's what happens in the economy. Government raises taxes, manufacturers carry their costs thru to the consumer.
Boom, we now have another housing tailspin.....
If you think that timber companies are going to use the revenue generated from use fees to offset the higher cost of board foot lumber courtesy of a higher tax rate, you are crazy. They would certainly pull the higher tax rate card and cram it down the consumers throat at the checkstand.
As an employee of a developer, I know full well that every single price increase we incur gets spun off to the consumer. The only thing that changes our margin is what the market will bear. We don't provide housing and commercial space for the good of the community.
If I did produce a no profit project for my boss, Inslee would be my employer and Obama would be my cell phone provider. And that would suck! :chuckle:
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 09:15:16 AM
I actually don't want to see their taxes go up. I do think it is our only wedge to reopen the pay to hunt timberlands. I for one am all for using whatever it takes.
Will this raise the price of their product? I don't think so. Competition determines what they can charge and there is more timberland outside of WA then in. The amount they are going to take in from pay to hunt is pretty small potatoes anyway. If they are smart they would back off and we would keep the status quo. No price increases there.
The only question is could something along those lines be passed? If it can you beat them over the head with it 'till they cave.
I'd like to add I am a retired logger and in the past I was pretty pro-timber and saw the good in allowing timberlands a tax break. As the years have went by however the big companies have become less and less community friendly. Seen too many gypos screwed by them and an end to community involvement. All they are interested in now is the bottom line. Fair enough, let's take the same attitude. If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
P.S.
You wrote this: "That would equate to the same as your property being taxed at it's sales rate, or fair market value "
I'm not sure I see the inequity in this. It seems those are the rules everyone else has to play by.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 01, 2013, 09:49:55 AM
That places WeyCo in a higher position of taxable value than other property owners across the State.
So no, it is not the same rules everyone else has to play by. WeyCo, and other timberland holders, would be held to a higher effective tax rate then the average Joe.
Yes, I agree, that they are only interested in the bottom line. This is why they would pocket the fee entry/lease monies and not apply them to the higher tax rate they have incurred. This is where the the prices would jump and the consumer would swallow the increases.
WeyCo likes money just like you an I do. If they can cut a better margin, of course they are.
I don't like the whole pay to play issue at hand either. It sucks!!! Apparently WeyCo has found a tax loophole (or decided this is a windfall opportunity without tax implications) and is going to use it. But taxing them higher is only going to cause those user fees to go up further, cause the raw materials that they produce to the consumer to elevate and sit back and cut a fat hog on the whole deal. It's business. Screw thy neighbor is the name of the game now days. Screwing thy neighbor in this instance is a cash cow.
It just blows and I have no clue what the answer is but higher taxes is a disaster in the making. :(
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 09:52:39 AM
Quote
It just blows and I have no clue what the answer is but higher taxes is a disaster in the making.
But isn't Humptulips saying that as long as they allow public access to their lands the tax rate would not go up?
Post by: fireweed on May 01, 2013, 09:56:02 AM
6x6in6,
I actually don't want to see their taxes go up. I do think it is our only wedge to reopen the pay to hunt timberlands. I for one am all for using whatever it takes.
Will this raise the price of their product? I don't think so. Competition determines what they can charge and there is more timberland outside of WA then in. The amount they are going to take in from pay to hunt is pretty small potatoes anyway. If they are smart they would back off and we would keep the status quo. No price increases there.
The only question is could something along those lines be passed? If it can you beat them over the head with it 'till they cave.
I'd like to add I am a retired logger and in the past I was pretty pro-timber and saw the good in allowing timberlands a tax break. As the years have went by however the big companies have become less and less community friendly. Seen too many gypos screwed by them and an end to community involvement. All they are interested in now is the bottom line. Fair enough, let's take the same attitude. If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
P.S.
You wrote this: "That would equate to the same as your property being taxed at it's sales rate, or fair market value "
I'm not sure I see the inequity in this. It seems those are the rules everyone else has to play by.
RIGHT ON!!!!! The property tax breaks they enjoy are our best leverage. I don't think it is a coincidence that the fee-to-enter was announced just as the state legislature was quitting for the year. They hope we will all forget and calm down by the time it is in session again.
Post by: grundy53 on May 01, 2013, 10:11:06 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 01, 2013, 10:12:04 AM
Yes he is.QuoteIt just blows and I have no clue what the answer is but higher taxes is a disaster in the making.
But isn't Humptulips saying that as long as they allow public access to their lands the tax rate would not go up?
But what I am saying is that WeyCo has apparently found a way to implement the public access fees without property tax implications.
WeyCo isn't interested in allowing free public access anymore. They are interested in revenue generation to improve their bottom line.
They may very well understand that the State cannot reinvent the timberland tax wheel due to what the economic impact would be. <------ Pure speculation by me!!
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 10:14:23 AM
Quote
If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 10:17:23 AM
Post by: grundy53 on May 01, 2013, 10:20:48 AM
Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?QuoteIf they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next 40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 10:22:35 AM
The inequity would be that you said that the timberland should be taxed at the sales price once it was conveyed to a new buyer and remained timberland.
That places WeyCo in a higher position of taxable value than other property owners across the State.
So no, it is not the same rules everyone else has to play by. WeyCo, and other timberland holders, would be held to a higher effective tax rate then the average Joe.
So where do you live in the state that you buy some property and the Assessor doesn't look at the sales price and use it to put a valuation on your new property?
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 10:27:24 AM
I might be able to use my retirement to buy 1 EA 2X6.
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 10:31:39 AM
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf (http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf)
Edit: Any private owner can have his land classified as such (if you meet requirements). If you try to increase taxes for the large timber companies the smaller private owners will also be hit.
Also note: Timber is not taxed at its assessed value until it is cut (excise tax)http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx (http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx).
Otherwise, owners would lose more money to taxes than you would get out of harvest (read 30-50 year production cycle on most timber), so large timber companies would no longer want to raise timber (net loss of money).
They call it private land for a reason. :dunno:
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 10:33:47 AM
Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?QuoteIf they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next 40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).
sent from my typewriter
You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber.
Post by: grundy53 on May 01, 2013, 10:38:35 AM
Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?QuoteIf they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next 40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).
sent from my typewriter
You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber.
I bet 90 percent of timber comes off of timber lands. Your example is the exception not the rule. You aren't tying up thousands of acres making them basically worthless for 40 years at a time. 7 acres is not even a drop in the hat....
sent from my typewriter
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 10:40:15 AM
Please read them and notice that public access is not required for tax breaks although it helps to qualify. Other things like scenery, protecting a watershed etc, providing wildlife habitat etc are all things that fit in.
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 10:45:19 AM
Quote
You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber.
Read up on open space designated timberlands (my above post) for tax rates...
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 10:52:39 AM
Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?QuoteIf they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next 40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).
sent from my typewriter
You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber.
I bet 90 percent of timber comes off of timber lands. Your example is the exception not the rule. You aren't tying up thousands of acres making them basically worthless for 40 years at a time. 7 acres is not even a drop in the hat....
sent from my typewriter
So basically you're saying it's Ok to tax me more because I am the little guy? My land is growing trees. How is it any more usable then WEYCOs growing trees?
OK, you're right. I can walk out, hunt, pick mushrooms and smell fir trees on it. IF WEYCO, Hancock, etc let me do the same I say give them their tax break.
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 10:58:51 AM
Quote
So basically you're saying it's Ok to tax me more because I am the little guy? My land is growing trees. How is it any more usable then WEYCOs growing trees?
OK, you're right. I can walk out, hunt, pick mushrooms and smell fir trees on it. IF WEYCO, Hancock, etc let me do the same I say give them their tax break.
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf (ftp://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf)
Read through this and settle down. If your property meets the requirements for open space designation, then apply if not then realize that the private timber lands get their tax breaks by following the rules.
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 11:04:13 AM
Yep updated my above post with links to tax information, and open space tax breaks.
Please read them and notice that public access is not required for tax breaks although it helps to qualify. Other things like scenery, protecting a watershed etc, providing wildlife habitat etc are all things that fit in.
If you read your own links you will see the timber excise tax is not specific to industrial forest land owners.
Here's a link that shows the property tax rates for timberland http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140)
Usually in our society when you give someone something it is because you expect something in return. I see nothing wrong in asking for something in return for this tax break.
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 11:07:59 AM
QuoteSo basically you're saying it's Ok to tax me more because I am the little guy? My land is growing trees. How is it any more usable then WEYCOs growing trees?
OK, you're right. I can walk out, hunt, pick mushrooms and smell fir trees on it. IF WEYCO, Hancock, etc let me do the same I say give them their tax break.
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf (ftp://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf)
Read through this and settle down. If your property meets the requirements for open space designation, then apply if not then realize that the private timber lands get their tax breaks by following the rules.
You're not following me. This is stick and carrot. It's either that or bend over.
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 11:18:42 AM
Quote
Usually in our society when you give someone something it is because you expect something in return. I see nothing wrong in asking for something in return for this tax break.
Here is the benefits the public would see, in order for timberland to be designated as open space land getting tax breaks. I do not make the rules.
a. Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources.
b. Protect streams or water supply.
c. Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes. (As a condition of granting open space classification, the legislative body may not require public access on land classified for the purpose of promoting conservation of wetlands.)
d. Enhance the value to the public of neighbouring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space.
e. Enhance recreation opportunities.
f. Preserve historic sites.
g. Preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas.
h. Retain in its natural state tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as may be reasonably required by the legislative authority granting the open space classification.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 11:29:03 AM
Quote
e. Enhance recreation opportunities.
So how does locking the public out provide for the above?
It's not just hunters who are affected by this. In fact, hunters are now the only users who will have access to the Vail and Pe Ell tree farms.
Even someone who lives adjacent to the tree farm will not be allowed to step across the property line,for any reason.
Post by: fireweed on May 01, 2013, 11:36:53 AM
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.
Post by: grundy53 on May 01, 2013, 11:38:15 AM
Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?QuoteIf they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next 40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).
sent from my typewriter
You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber.
I bet 90 percent of timber comes off of timber lands. Your example is the exception not the rule. You aren't tying up thousands of acres making them basically worthless for 40 years at a time. 7 acres is not even a drop in the hat....
sent from my typewriter
So basically you're saying it's Ok to tax me more because I am the little guy? My land is growing trees. How is it any more usable then WEYCOs growing trees?
OK, you're right. I can walk out, hunt, pick mushrooms and smell fir trees on it. IF WEYCO, Hancock, etc let me do the same I say give them their tax break.
That's not what I'm saying at all. My point is FEASIBILITY. If you have 1000 acres of land and you are going to pay taxes based on a $4500/acre assessment. Are you A) going to choose to grow timber, which will tie that land up for 40 years while you are paying thousands a year per acre while it sits idle. Only to also pay an excise tax on the timber when you log it? Which means you probably will lose money in the invesment. Or B) sell it to a developer/ sell parcels, in which case you could probably turn a profit? That's my point. It would not be feasible to run a timber operation. Also, I'm not just talking about the big guys.
By the way, of your 7 acres were for timber only the land would qualify as "timberland" and be eligible for the tax break...
sent from my typewriter
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 11:46:50 AM
Quote
You are arguing over the wrong tax law. Open space taxation (Open space farm/ag, open space timber, and open space/open space) are for small parcels. Weyco land is "designated timberland" ie. parcels over 20 acres. I own both--open space timber that requires a timber plan and is approved by the county, and designated timber over 20 acres. BOTH get tax breaks due to the public benefits forests provide. These are the items the public gets in return for low property taxes--no they just want to take the full tax break AND charge too: It's double dipping. They either charge OR get a tax break--not both.
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.
Perfect.
Thanks for the update on parcel sizes. Now everyone should read the quoted post, so we don't have the same threads come up over and over, about some mystical law giving timber owners a tax break to allow public access.
I see nothing saying that the property has to be free of charge. Heck even the state land requires fee's (Discover Pass) for vehicles.
Private lands require maitenance also, (picking up garbage etc.)
If everyone wants to raise taxes on timber owners unless they let the public in maybe they should purchase their own timber property, pay taxes on it, and allow the public in for free. Then go out and pick up the residual garbage, and fix the roads etc.
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 06:05:45 PM
Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?QuoteIf they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next 40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).
sent from my typewriter
You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber.
I bet 90 percent of timber comes off of timber lands. Your example is the exception not the rule. You aren't tying up thousands of acres making them basically worthless for 40 years at a time. 7 acres is not even a drop in the hat....
sent from my typewriter
So basically you're saying it's Ok to tax me more because I am the little guy? My land is growing trees. How is it any more usable then WEYCOs growing trees?
OK, you're right. I can walk out, hunt, pick mushrooms and smell fir trees on it. IF WEYCO, Hancock, etc let me do the same I say give them their tax break.
That's not what I'm saying at all. My point is FEASIBILITY. If you have 1000 acres of land and you are going to pay taxes based on a $4500/acre assessment. Are you A) going to choose to grow timber, which will tie that land up for 40 years while you are paying thousands a year per acre while it sits idle. Only to also pay an excise tax on the timber when you log it? Which means you probably will lose money in the invesment. Or B) sell it to a developer/ sell parcels, in which case you could probably turn a profit? That's my point. It would not be feasible to run a timber operation. Also, I'm not just talking about the big guys.
By the way, of your 7 acres were for timber only the land would qualify as "timberland" and be eligible for the tax break...
sent from my typewriter
Geez, it is like talking to a stump. Nobody said anything about a $4500/acre valuation for timberland. I'm talking about using the threat to get something in return for this tax break. No timberland is worth that much but it sure is worth more then $150/acre. Maybe it stays at $150/acre if the public can enjoy it and $500/acre if it is closed. Still a heck of a deal for the land owner.
I think you are missing the boat on developing this land. They are doing that right now and have been for a long time. They probably would sell every last acre but it would flood the market.
That said I don't want to tax them out of business. I just expect something in return for them paying less tax then other landowners. Look at it this way, if they were paying on the full value of the land your tax would be less. State would get more money from them and need less from you. There are other ramifications to that scenario so I'm not advocating that but maybe a two tiered land valuation. Timberland; you get a good tax break. Timberland open to the public; you get an even better break.
And no our 7 acres doesn't qualify. Needs to be 20 acres I understand plus we live on 1 acre of the parcel so that disqualifies it too.
Post by: kentrek on May 01, 2013, 06:25:23 PM
just get rich an buy thousands of acres so you wont need to go on their land..this is america anyone can put in the effort an make millions..right ??
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 06:28:36 PM
Post by: kentrek on May 01, 2013, 06:36:41 PM
It will be a sad day when it gets to the point where it takes millions of dollars just to have a place to hunt.
not millions but look at the road this state/country is going down.. access will be a supply in demand game (look how much people will pay to hunt) which is not good news for the lower class folks
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 07:22:45 PM
It will be a sad day when it gets to the point where it takes millions of dollars just to have a place to hunt.
not millions but look at the road this state/country is going down.. access will be a supply in demand game (look how much people will pay to hunt) which is not good news for the lower class folks
So true! We may be witnessing the beginning of the end.
Post by: grundy53 on May 01, 2013, 07:23:55 PM
Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?QuoteIf they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.
It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next 40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).
sent from my typewriter
You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber.
I bet 90 percent of timber comes off of timber lands. Your example is the exception not the rule. You aren't tying up thousands of acres making them basically worthless for 40 years at a time. 7 acres is not even a drop in the hat....
sent from my typewriter
So basically you're saying it's Ok to tax me more because I am the little guy? My land is growing trees. How is it any more usable then WEYCOs growing trees?
OK, you're right. I can walk out, hunt, pick mushrooms and smell fir trees on it. IF WEYCO, Hancock, etc let me do the same I say give them their tax break.
That's not what I'm saying at all. My point is FEASIBILITY. If you have 1000 acres of land and you are going to pay taxes based on a $4500/acre assessment. Are you A) going to choose to grow timber, which will tie that land up for 40 years while you are paying thousands a year per acre while it sits idle. Only to also pay an excise tax on the timber when you log it? Which means you probably will lose money in the invesment. Or B) sell it to a developer/ sell parcels, in which case you could probably turn a profit? That's my point. It would not be feasible to run a timber operation. Also, I'm not just talking about the big guys.
By the way, of your 7 acres were for timber only the land would qualify as "timberland" and be eligible for the tax break...
sent from my typewriter
Geez, it is like talking to a stump. Nobody said anything about a $4500/acre valuation for timberland. I'm talking about using the threat to get something in return for this tax break. No timberland is worth that much but it sure is worth more then $150/acre. Maybe it stays at $150/acre if the public can enjoy it and $500/acre if it is closed. Still a heck of a deal for the land owner.
I think you are missing the boat on developing this land. They are doing that right now and have been for a long time. They probably would sell every last acre but it would flood the market.
That said I don't want to tax them out of business. I just expect something in return for them paying less tax then other landowners. Look at it this way, if they were paying on the full value of the land your tax would be less. State would get more money from them and need less from you. There are other ramifications to that scenario so I'm not advocating that but maybe a two tiered land valuation. Timberland; you get a good tax break. Timberland open to the public; you get an even better break.
And no our 7 acres doesn't qualify. Needs to be 20 acres I understand plus we live on 1 acre of the parcel so that disqualifies it too.
Well, we must be 2 stumps having a conversation then... First off I was using the $4500/acre as an example... obviously. 2) you are making my point by saying they are already selling land off to developers. As soon as it makes more profit selling the land then the timber they will sell the land. How many people on here can drive through a neighborhood and say "I used to hunt here before it was houses". Hence why it would be bad to raise their taxes. As far as using it as a threat... I wouldn't be too confident in threatening a large corporation look how that has turned out in this state. They leave. Taking jobs with them. I would vaguely agree with your 2 tiered tax scenario. However, instead of tax penalties it should be incentives. Just my 2 cents.
Post by: Humptulips on May 01, 2013, 08:28:19 PM
Post by: grundy53 on May 01, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Yea, they'll leave and take all their land with them.
Obviously they won't take it with them. They will sell it to developers or other entities and you will have ZERO access.
Post by: grundy53 on May 01, 2013, 09:07:17 PM
Post by: Basket Rack on May 02, 2013, 08:10:56 PM
Yea, they'll leave and take all their land with them.
Obviously they won't take it with them. They will sell it to developers or other entities and you will have ZERO access.
Exactly, it will be sold, yeah some to developers but the even bigger threat is to conservation groups and there are many of them with lots of money that would like nothing more than to not allow you or I any hunting access. Do not think that these groups are not in constant contact with timber companies looking for land investment opportunities.
There are plenty of small woodlot owners in my area of Lewis county that have some nice hunting ground that do not allow access, should there taxes be raised too?? There are also many farmers in my area with lots of elk in their fields every fall that do not allow any public hunting, should we also look at changing there tax structure as well. I am by no means in favor of paying for access. Weyco's Vail tree farm butts up against my property, I now can not walk out my back door to hunt without a permit, I am not happy about it at all. However, I am even less in favor of more taxes on timber companies or anyone else who has the right to do what they want access wise with the property they own.
Post by: The Gobble-stopper on May 03, 2013, 10:55:55 AM
Post by: Alan K on May 03, 2013, 08:03:56 PM
How bout all of us going to our lumber yards and demanding that we will only buy non-weyerhauser lumber?
Good luck with that. Even all of the SFI and FSC certification hasn't added one cent to the value people are willing to pay for those boards versus non-certified boards.
Post by: fireweed on May 05, 2013, 09:53:44 AM
I understand all the taxes talk, but isnt it our right to play their game right back. They sock it to us to hunt on their land. How bout all of us going to our lumber yards and demanding that we will only buy non-weyerhauser lumber? Seems like if they want to hurt our pocket book, then that must be what they want back. So maybe we should do the same to them. A few months of that and they will lose more than the $125,000 they will make off the hunters. Somewhere I heard we were suppose to do unto others as they do unto us....
Great Idea. Home Depot buys a lot of Weyco. lumber. We can vote with our dollars. Make sure you write to the CEO of Home Depot, and explain why you now buy Sierra Pacific Lumber (they don't charge yet) vs. Weyco. Unfortunately lots of companies don't have mills anymore, just land and sell their logs to Weyco., Hampton, or Sierra Pacific.
Also the mentioned SFI and SFC certification programs are an avenue of pressure. Weyco. is part of SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative) Every third party certification has a section dealing with cultural resources and recreation. SFI is pretty wishy-washy and companies get by with some statement like "we will consider cultural resources and recreation in our management decisions". I would argue they have not considered the cultural/historic/economic impacts on rural communities. If enough people contact and complain to SFI especially reps and community leaders, it may lead to an SFI review and put additional pressure on them to reconsider. They have a complaint and public inquiry section on their website. Make sure reps. know about this process.
http://www.sfiprogram.org/ (http://www.sfiprogram.org/)
Weyco. has a "sustainable forestry" executive, too. Go to their website to get HER name-contact. She's in Vancouver, Wa.
Post by: blackhorn on May 05, 2013, 10:40:30 AM
Post by: fireweed on May 06, 2013, 07:57:05 AM
The industry is constantly scouring the press for items of interest. Even one or two letters will get their attention. On a similar issue I was dealing with Weyco and got the typical firm "NO". I got two Counties to send Weyco. an official letter asking them to cooperate on the project. Next thing I know, got a phone call. The no had become a YES. But they also blacklisted me, and told me to "lay off the pressure" so the more people that speak up the better.
Post by: Goshawk on May 06, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Crush it hard now, or sit back and watch it happen!
Post by: headshot5 on May 07, 2013, 11:38:08 AM
Quote
And no our 7 acres doesn't qualify. Needs to be 20 acres I understand plus we live on 1 acre of the parcel so that disqualifies it too
If it is not already filed as "open space," do so. Needs to be minimum of 5 acres, you should qualify. 1 Acre will be for your house etc, and 6 for open space.
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf (http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf)
My family has had zero problems changing property over to open space in Pacific County.
edit: sent you a PM with additional information.
Post by: Northway on May 07, 2013, 12:06:14 PM
Yea, they'll leave and take all their land with them.
Obviously they won't take it with them. They will sell it to developers or other entities and you will have ZERO access.
Exactly, it will be sold, yeah some to developers but the even bigger threat is to conservation groups and there are many of them with lots of money that would like nothing more than to not allow you or I any hunting access. Do not think that these groups are not in constant contact with timber companies looking for land investment opportunities.
There are plenty of small woodlot owners in my area of Lewis county that have some nice hunting ground that do not allow access, should there taxes be raised too?? There are also many farmers in my area with lots of elk in their fields every fall that do not allow any public hunting, should we also look at changing there tax structure as well. I am by no means in favor of paying for access. Weyco's Vail tree farm butts up against my property, I now can not walk out my back door to hunt without a permit, I am not happy about it at all. However, I am even less in favor of more taxes on timber companies or anyone else who has the right to do what they want access wise with the property they own.
Conservation groups with the kind of pull to purchase or put thousands of acres of timberland under easement are not anti-hunting. How many acres of land has DOW or CBD put under easement? Not much.........
Groups like The Land Conservancy or Forterrra don't even have a political platform regarding hunting. The Rocky Mountain Elk foundation has put 30,000 acres under easement in Oregon (only a few acres in WA, however). I can't think of a single anti-hunting organization that owns or has put more than a couple hundred acres under easement.
Post by: PolarBear on May 07, 2013, 12:10:10 PM
Post by: fireweed on May 07, 2013, 01:10:42 PM