Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 01, 2013, 01:15:29 AM
I am surprised the State is laying down on this one though. In the long run, it will cost the State a lot in lost fees. Especially if the timber companies limit the # of permits they sell. Hunters that won't or can't buy a permit to hunt in their favorite local spot will either give up hunting eventually and quit introducing future hunters to the joys of hunting, or they'll start hunting out of State as it's almost cost effective.
If something isn't done about this situation, this will be my last year of hunting here.
Got this e-mail today..........
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: Skyvalhunter on May 01, 2013, 05:23:51 AM
Post by: rtspring on May 01, 2013, 06:43:05 AM
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 07:08:22 AM
Post by: mpetersen on May 01, 2013, 07:17:16 AM
Post by: snowpack on May 01, 2013, 10:41:24 AM
Post by: Hermannr on May 01, 2013, 10:51:09 AM
This did not mean that you had top allow the public to use your roads, but you must allow access for recreation. The only time you could restrict access was when you were actively operation, and then only in the area you were operating in.
When did this change?
Same goes for "open spaces" classification. If you put your property into open spaces you got a tax break, but you could not restrict access to the public (that is post "no trespassing")
Post by: blackdog on May 01, 2013, 10:54:28 AM
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 11:07:21 AM
Look this over. To be able to be classified as open space you meet a set of requirments. Public access is not one of them.
Here is a list of the requirments.
Any land area in which the preservation in its present use would:
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.
Nothing says you have to allow hunters on you property, or that access needs to be free.
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2013, 11:16:27 AM
Washington is 42% public land (although I think non-huntable national/state parks are included). I think nearly every region has substantial USFS land, some have BLM, and then disco passes can access some large tracts of DNR.
Isn't the majority of USFS land (at least on the west side) pretty much void of deer and elk? Forest Circus hasn't cut timber for years, so there is little browse left for deer and elk since there are very little clear cuts anymore. :dunno: Tree farm lands have had the better deer and elk populations.
Post by: EyeTooth on May 01, 2013, 11:42:03 AM
Good info, and I agree with you.
We can all see it coming.
All we can do is have as much fun hunting in Washington as we can while it lasts while being able to adapt.
For many of us these are the good old days! Make the most of them.
I also appreciate the WDFW sending the notice.
Post by: snowpack on May 01, 2013, 12:27:30 PM
I agree Curly that tree farms have better game populations. But what I was saying is that, regardless of how great hunting is....you still have places to go. Even if you're just taking a rifle for a walk. Now compare that to some people I know of in a state like Texas. That state is over 95% private, and when all the private areas are maxed out on number of hunters allowed, then you really don't get to hunt. In Washington, there might not be game rich areas but at least there are places to go.Washington is 42% public land (although I think non-huntable national/state parks are included). I think nearly every region has substantial USFS land, some have BLM, and then disco passes can access some large tracts of DNR.
Isn't the majority of USFS land (at least on the west side) pretty much void of deer and elk? Forest Circus hasn't cut timber for years, so there is little browse left for deer and elk since there are very little clear cuts anymore. :dunno: Tree farm lands have had the better deer and elk populations.
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2013, 01:21:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 01:45:54 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 01:49:31 PM
What about private property rights? Have you all opened your acreage or back yards up to public use? :dunno:
That's different. This is land owned by a large corporation, not a person or persons.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 02:00:12 PM
Those are privately owned lands, they can charge if they want as far as I am concerned. Probably half this state is public land for anyone to hunt on, I just don't understand this attitude where people think they can control someone's land.
Post by: snowpack on May 01, 2013, 02:02:19 PM
private shareholders. Still private property, not owned by all taxpayers. As long as there aren't any pre-existing contracts, like the low taxes for allowing hunting like a few have mentioned, they are free to restrict access imo.What about private property rights? Have you all opened your acreage or back yards up to public use? :dunno:
That's different. This is land owned by a large corporation, not a person or persons.
Post by: Hermannr on May 01, 2013, 02:10:15 PM
What about private property rights? Have you all opened your acreage or back yards up to public use? :dunno:
The idea was, you get a property tax break...basically you are being compensated for not excluding the public by not having to pay full and fair use property tax.
There was a time that the forest was taxed on it's value, but then there was no special harvest tax on the timber cut. (back in the 50's, don't remember exactly when the law changed.) Sometime in the 60's the timber companies lobbied for a change in the property tax law to apply the major portion of the property tax at harvest, as an extra harvest revenue tax. The reasoning was, it was very expensive to hold timber land for 70 to 100 years when having to pay property tax on the value of the land and timber, but if taxed at harvest, the revenue would be available to pay the harvest tax.
If I remember properly another part of this was to keep the timber companies from selling stump ranch for development, or just abandoning it rather than managing it for sustained harvest. I am old, and my memory is not what it used to be so if you really want to know you will have to go back to the LAW (the RCW) and look at the revisions, and when they happened. It wasn't that long ago (at least to me) Maybe 50 years? Open space law came into exsistance at the same time.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 02:14:13 PM
Quote
Those are privately owned lands, they can charge if they want as far as I am concerned. Probably half this state is public land for anyone to hunt on, I just don't understand this attitude where people think they can control someone's land.
I think the "attitude" comes from the fact that OUR wildlife is on their land. We just want access to our wildlife.
Timber companies benefit from ridiculously low property taxes. In exchange, the public should have access to these lands.
Otherwise, why are they given the benefit of a low tax rate while the general public gets no benefit at all?
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
I had thought my investment in land would be my retirement, I had no idea that other hunters would feel this way. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: rtspring on May 01, 2013, 02:34:16 PM
Post by: 92xj on May 01, 2013, 02:35:39 PM
QuoteThose are privately owned lands, they can charge if they want as far as I am concerned. Probably half this state is public land for anyone to hunt on, I just don't understand this attitude where people think they can control someone's land.
I think the "attitude" comes from the fact that . We just want access to our wildlife. OUR wildlife is on their land
Timber companies benefit from ridiculously low property taxes. In exchange, the public should have access to these lands.
Otherwise, why are they given the benefit of a low tax rate while the general public gets no benefit at all?
really? You really think that about private lands? All private lands or just private lands you feel you need access to?
The greater portion of my land is classified as forest land. If I can afford to pay property taxes for another 10 years I am hoping I will be able to take a few logging truck loads of trees off of it. I have never heard that because it is forested that I should have to open it up to the public. Why don't you just take it from me so you can do as you please with it. I guess that's where we are headed anyway. :bash:
I had thought my investment in land would be my retirement, I had no idea that other hunters would feel this way. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Dibs on the "hole", garden area and right behind it!
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 02:38:55 PM
Quote
really? You really think that about private lands? All private lands or just private lands you feel you need access to?
I think what? That the state's wildlife is on private land? Yes of course I think that. It's a fact. What part of it do you disagree with? :dunno:
Post by: 92xj on May 01, 2013, 02:39:45 PM
Quotereally? You really think that about private lands? All private lands or just private lands you feel you need access to?
I think what? That the state's wildlife is on private land? Yes of course I think that. It's a fact. What part of it do you disagree with? :dunno:
That you deserve access to private lands to go hunt OUR animals.
Post by: Spuddieselwwu on May 01, 2013, 02:41:17 PM
I mean how much were your tags and special permits this year? It's a sign of the times, hunting is expensive all around. It sucks, but it's a reality we have to face.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
Quotereally? You really think that about private lands? All private lands or just private lands you feel you need access to?
I think what? That the state's wildlife is on private land? Yes of course I think that. It's a fact. What part of it do you disagree with? :dunno:
That you deserve access to private lands to go hunt OUR animals.
No, I never said that. But, maybe you don't understand because you don't live over here, but a very large part of the hunting in SW Washington has historically been on Weyerhaeuser lands.
Funny how those who aren't affected by this don't seem to care. You know how wolves are a big issue in the NE? Well, this closure of Weyerhaeuser lands I consider to be even more of a detriment to hunting than wolves are over there. Does that give you an idea of the significance of the problem?
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 02:48:50 PM
I'm probably going to get bashed here... But if any of these timber companies want to start charging people to hunt their land, that's their deal. You can either choose to hunt it or not. It's their land, not mine. We've had the privilege of using their land, it's never been a right. Just my :twocents:
I mean how much were your tags and special permits this year? It's a sign of the times, hunting is expensive all around. It sucks, but it's a reality we have to face.
:yeah:
I own about 32 acres of timberland and these guys think they should be able to use it like it's theirs. :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 02:50:29 PM
Quotereally? You really think that about private lands? All private lands or just private lands you feel you need access to?
I think what? That the state's wildlife is on private land? Yes of course I think that. It's a fact. What part of it do you disagree with? :dunno:
That you deserve access to private lands to go hunt OUR animals.
No, I never said that. But, maybe you don't understand because you don't live over here, but a very large part of the hunting in SW Washington has historically been on Weyerhaeuser lands.
Funny how those who aren't affected by this don't seem to care. You know how wolves are a big issue in the NE? Well, this closure of Weyerhaeuser lands I consider to be even more of a detriment to hunting than wolves are over there. Does that give you an idea of the significance of the problem?
Who's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2013, 02:50:57 PM
I'm probably going to get bashed here... But if any of these timber companies want to start charging people to hunt their land, that's their deal. You can either choose to hunt it or not. It's their land, not mine. We've had the privilege of using their land, it's never been a right. Just my :twocents:
I mean how much were your tags and special permits this year? It's a sign of the times, hunting is expensive all around. It sucks, but it's a reality we have to face.
:yeah:
I own about 32 acres of timberland and these guys think they should be able to use it like it's theirs. :bash:
There's a difference, Dale. You don't get a tax break for recreational use.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 02:52:31 PM
I'm probably going to get bashed here... But if any of these timber companies want to start charging people to hunt their land, that's their deal. You can either choose to hunt it or not. It's their land, not mine. We've had the privilege of using their land, it's never been a right. Just my :twocents:
I mean how much were your tags and special permits this year? It's a sign of the times, hunting is expensive all around. It sucks, but it's a reality we have to face.
:yeah:
I own about 32 acres of timberland and these guys think they should be able to use it like it's theirs. :bash:
Funny, I agree with that too. So I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. :dunno:
Post by: Skillet on May 01, 2013, 02:55:26 PM
If we want to hunt on private property, we need to be prepared to compensate the landowners for it by paying a trespass fee, fixing fences, bucking bales, whatever that landowner values in lieu of access. The landowners have an investment in the property, and if it is their perogative to manage access to their property to maximize the benefits of owning it, that is entirely ok by me.
:yeah:
I own about 32 acres of timberland and these guys think they should be able to use it like it's theirs. :bash:
I really don't think they're thinking that they can log your property like you could. It is more about having access to cross the imaginary, man-made property line to pursue the animals that don't care or understand what a property line is. Sure, some guys just want to dump refrigerators on your land, and that's why you'd have to restrict access if you didn't care about hunting one way or the other - timber classification or not. Don't think most guys on here are refrigerator dumpers, though - they're just anguished over the lack of access to previously accessible lands.a
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 02:56:46 PM
Quote
Who's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?
You seriously want an answer to that question?
Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.
Post by: Atroxus on May 01, 2013, 03:00:54 PM
Now if there is a tax break that was given in exchange for timber companies allowing public access, then I absolutely agree that the timber companies should not be charging for access, and if they do that tax break should be revoked retroactively to the date the timber company began charging for access. :twocents:
Post by: Spuddieselwwu on May 01, 2013, 03:01:58 PM
QuoteWho's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?
You seriously want an answer to that question?
Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.
Wouldn't they rather pay the timber companies for access to the land they've been accustomed to hunting rather than pay for a guided hunt with bearpaw? I don't see those two being directly related. One is $200, one is $5,000+...
Post by: Spuddieselwwu on May 01, 2013, 03:03:58 PM
It sounds to me like the tax break everyone keeps referring to, was actually a tax deferral and had nothing to do with allowing access.
Now if there is a tax break that was given in exchange for timber companies allowing public access, then I absolutely agree that the timber companies should not be charging for access, and if they do that tax break should be revoked retroactively to the date the timber company began charging for access. :twocents:
Do we even know that they get a tax break or deferral? I've seen a lot of hypotheticals and assumptions - but no concrete proof that they get a tax break because they allow public hunters to have access to their land.
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2013, 03:08:14 PM
QuoteWho's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?
You seriously want an answer to that question?
Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.
Wouldn't they rather pay the timber companies for access to the land they've been accustomed to hunting rather than pay for a guided hunt with bearpaw? I don't see those two being directly related. One is $200, one is $5,000+...
All the access permits will likely be bought up by Weyco employees before the general public even gets a chance at them. Plus they are only giving 750 permits for Vail when there are usually 3,000 or so hunters in there.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 03:08:45 PM
QuoteWho's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?
You seriously want an answer to that question?
Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.
Wouldn't they rather pay the timber companies for access to the land they've been accustomed to hunting rather than pay for a guided hunt with bearpaw? I don't see those two being directly related. One is $200, one is $5,000+...
No, because everyone who wants a permit to access Weyerhaeuser, will not be able to get one! That seems to be the part that many are missing. The permits are extremely limited in number. So those people who aren't lucky enough to get a permit, will more than likely be traveling to eastern Washington to hunt on our public lands over there. As deer and elk populations plummet due to the increased hunting pressure (and wolves) I could definitely see more hunters paying trespass fees to hunt on private land, or paying to hunt with an outfitter.
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2013, 03:10:05 PM
Post by: Spuddieselwwu on May 01, 2013, 03:10:21 PM
QuoteWho's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?
You seriously want an answer to that question?
Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.
Wouldn't they rather pay the timber companies for access to the land they've been accustomed to hunting rather than pay for a guided hunt with bearpaw? I don't see those two being directly related. One is $200, one is $5,000+...
No, because everyone who wants a permit to access Weyerhaeuser, will not be able to get one! That seems to be the part that many are missing. The permits are extremely limited in number. So those people who aren't lucky enough to get a permit, will more than likely be traveling to eastern Washington to hunt on our public lands over there. As deer and elk populations plummet due to the increased hunting pressure (and wolves) I could definitely see more hunters paying trespass fees to hunt on private land, or paying to hunt with an outfitter.
Touche' Sir.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 01, 2013, 03:10:31 PM
I'll take a swing at the answer for ya bobcat.QuoteWho's paying the taxes, you or weyerhauser?
You seriously want an answer to that question?
Probably someone in the AP department at WeyCo who probably follows a written procedure in the AP department manual that says pay property taxes on the due date. This so they can maximize the interest on their funds and not the State.
Just like I do. I pay on the due date.
My employer pays it's property taxes after 12:01PM the date due. I know, I sign the checks. The AP lady then spends the afternoon driving around the County and hand delivering checks.
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2013, 03:11:38 PM
As deer and elk populations plummet due to the increased hunting pressure (and wolves) I could definitely see more hunters paying trespass fees to hunt on private land, or paying to hunt with an outfitter.
Or giving up hunting altogether (most likely scenario) for most, I think.
Post by: snowpack on May 01, 2013, 03:14:05 PM
My guess is that a major company like Weyco probably has really good team of accountants and attorneys and already looked into this. If they do get a break, they probably found some kind of legal loophole to do this. I can't imagine they'd risk jumping a tax bracket due to an oversight.It sounds to me like the tax break everyone keeps referring to, was actually a tax deferral and had nothing to do with allowing access.
Now if there is a tax break that was given in exchange for timber companies allowing public access, then I absolutely agree that the timber companies should not be charging for access, and if they do that tax break should be revoked retroactively to the date the timber company began charging for access. :twocents:
Do we even know that they get a tax break or deferral? I've seen a lot of hypotheticals and assumptions - but no concrete proof that they get a tax break because they allow public hunters to have access to their land.
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2013, 03:25:13 PM
Post by: Northway on May 01, 2013, 03:35:15 PM
Quotereally? You really think that about private lands? All private lands or just private lands you feel you need access to?
I think what? That the state's wildlife is on private land? Yes of course I think that. It's a fact. What part of it do you disagree with? :dunno:
That you deserve access to private lands to go hunt OUR animals.
No, I never said that. But, maybe you don't understand because you don't live over here, but a very large part of the hunting in SW Washington has historically been on Weyerhaeuser lands.
Funny how those who aren't affected by this don't seem to care. You know how wolves are a big issue in the NE? Well, this closure of Weyerhaeuser lands I consider to be even more of a detriment to hunting than wolves are over there. Does that give you an idea of the significance of the problem?
Weyerhauser has received more than enough sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers over the last 120 years to owe several generations to come reasonable access.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 04:31:25 PM
Quote
Weyerhauser has received more than enough sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers over the last 120 years to owe several generations to come reasonable access.
Maybe we could tax Weyerhauser heavier and cause them to move out of the state just like what is happening with Boeing? They could probably sell their lands in Washington to developers and buy more land in another state and pocket some money. But I doubt the developers would offer access permits.
Quote
Honestly I'm not surprised that this closure doesn't bother you. As an outfitter, you stand to benefit, as more and more people will be forced into paying for a guided hunt.
I'm very, very, sorry you think I am that shallow. Perpetuating hunting for the average Joe is one of my top priorities in life, I just don't think the way to accomplish that is by punishing landowners or by taking away their property rights or charging them more taxes.
Also, hatred toward me because I am an outfitter is nothing new as I have been ridiculed by many who have a hatred for outfitters, so no harm done that way.
FYI - As an outfitter I could benefit by agreeing with adopting more wilderness areas in NE Washington, that would exclude many people from using the land who cannot afford horses or people who are not physically able or too old to hike in, then I would have more people needing horse pack trips. But, I am steadfastly opposed to more wilderness. That is public land that should be available for use by the entire spectrum of public users. I find it reprehensible that some people want to limit access to many other people.
It seems to me that most anyone can get to National Forest or State Land within 1 hour from most places in Washington, Vancouver, Seattle, Bellingham, Aberdeen, etc, so I don't see why anyone has to quit hunting, half this state is public land. In fact, I have seen bobcat mention hunting in Capitol Forest himself, isn't that state land? :twocents:
In my area some companies let you hunt free, some charge access, and some do not allow any public hunting. I figure that is their right to do as they please, but I respect the companies who allow hunting whether for free or for a fee. At least they allow hunting.
I pay fees to operate on the National Forest and BLM, you guys get to go there for free, I have no complaints. I am also happy to pay landowners to use their land for hunting. I have penciled it out many times, generally it is cheaper for me to lease land than buy land and pay the property taxes, that is why I do not own more acreage than I do.
Any of you can lease private land just like I do. Go door knocking and offer to pay them to hunt, sooner or later you will have a lease of your own, with the timber companies all you have to do is logon their website, pick your parcel, and pay. If you don't want to pay then jump in your rig and drive to public land, that's what it is for, free public use, except you will have to get a Discover Pass for state land now. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
This same discussion was had 2 years ago when Rayonier started charging for access. Fireweed changed my mind on the subject with his posts. Check out the thread here: Link (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79272.25.html)
After reading that link and post I can see why you may think you are cheated. The law does say "in providing scenic and recreational spaces", however, it does not say "in providing access to scenic and recreational spaces", unless I am lacking in my english comprehension, there is a difference. I would think someone with a law degree could elaborate more, because maybe I am wrong. :dunno:
Post by: Northway on May 01, 2013, 04:53:03 PM
QuoteWeyerhauser has received more than enough sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers over the last 120 years to owe several generations to come reasonable access.
Maybe we could tax Weyerhauser heavier and cause them to move out of the state just like what is happening with Boeing? They could probably sell their lands in Washington to developers and buy more land in another state and pocket some money. But I doubt the developers would offer access permits.
As a real-estate investment trust, Weyerhauser would sell their lands to developers if that was the most profitable course of action for them. Currently it is most profitable to shave off small portions of land-holdings for development, and either log, or enter into conservation eastments & continue to log (Snoqualmie Tree Farm, etc.) everything else.
Certainly if taxpayer funds go towards conversation easements covering hundreds or thousands of acres, those should include hunting rights. Large conservations easements haven't come up in SW Washington to a great extent that I'm aware of, but they will in the future, IMO.
I'm not sure what your statement about raising taxes on Weyerhauser is in reference to?
As far as the reference to Boeing, I think that oversimplifies a complicated situation. You have a free for all of states offering subsidies, union issues, and an over-emphasis on global supply chains by a Jack Welch disciple that are all contributing to jobs leaving this state. There is no doubt that trying to outsource too many functions has caused serious financial damage to Boeing to tune of billions of dollars.
Post by: C-Money on May 01, 2013, 04:56:48 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 05:01:27 PM
Quote
How much is the access fee? Seems like I have bought access permits from timber companys in N Idaho to hunt their land. Lots of acres to hunt for a small fee
Again, that is not the issue. The issue is thousands of hunters being displaced, and having to hunt elsewhere. They aren't offering enough permits for everyone who will want one.
Post by: KFhunter on May 01, 2013, 05:04:14 PM
What about private property rights? Have you all opened your acreage or back yards up to public use? :dunno:
That's different. This is land owned by a large corporation, not a person or persons.
I am very mixed on cooperate land ownership - especially where the owner is no longer alive and and the company is publically traded.
Also to toss a wrench in the works how about wholly owned Chinese cooperations?
Post by: C-Money on May 01, 2013, 05:05:44 PM
QuoteHow much is the access fee? Seems like I have bought access permits from timber companys in N Idaho to hunt their land. Lots of acres to hunt for a small fee
Again, that is not the issue. The issue is thousands of hunters being displaced, and having to hunt elsewhere. They aren't offering enough permits for everyone who will want one.
I see. :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 05:11:23 PM
QuoteWeyerhauser has received more than enough sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers over the last 120 years to owe several generations to come reasonable access.
Maybe we could tax Weyerhauser heavier and cause them to move out of the state just like what is happening with Boeing? They could probably sell their lands in Washington to developers and buy more land in another state and pocket some money. But I doubt the developers would offer access permits.
As a real-estate investment trust, Weyerhauser would sell their lands to developers if that was the most profitable course of action for them. Currently it is most profitable to shave off small portions of land-holdings for development, and either log, or enter into conservation eastments & continue to log (Snoqualmie Tree Farm, etc.) everything else.
Certainly if taxpayer funds go towards conversation easements covering hundreds or thousands of acres, those should include hunting rights. Large conservations easements haven't come up in SW Washington to a great extent that I'm aware of, but they will in the future, IMO.
I don't disagree at all, if Weyerhauser has accepted public funds for public recreational easements that is certainly a much different story. Obviously they would be breaking their contract by charging for hunting access if that was the case. So the question that really matters: Has Weyerhauser been paid by public funds for a conservation easement specifying recreational access?
Perhaps this falls on the legal interpretation I referenced in my last post.
Post by: KFhunter on May 01, 2013, 05:19:35 PM
I'm probably going to get bashed here... But if any of these timber companies want to start charging people to hunt their land, that's their deal. You can either choose to hunt it or not. It's their land, not mine. We've had the privilege of using their land, it's never been a right. Just my :twocents:
I mean how much were your tags and special permits this year? It's a sign of the times, hunting is expensive all around. It sucks, but it's a reality we have to face.
:yeah:
I own about 32 acres of timberland and these guys think they should be able to use it like it's theirs. :bash:
No; but if you were to LLC it then then get share holders buying into it because you had financial hardships, until you got so many share holders you had do an IPO and list "your" 32 acres on the stock market and trade stocks publically, then supercomputers calculated trades on it by the nano second then the bulk of the shares are sold foreign (China) and the Chinese government became the de-facto owner and gated you and everyone else out and raped that 32 acres for timber then found a big vein of gold and started an open pit mine then maybe we got a problem?
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 05:21:28 PM
I am very mixed on cooperate land ownership - especially where the owner is no longer alive and and the company is publically traded.
Also to toss a wrench in the works how about wholly owned Chinese cooperations?
These are the most valid points I have seen and certainly deserve additional consideration. These are much different points than saying you own land I don't, I should be able to go on your land.
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2013, 05:21:41 PM
It seems to me that most anyone can get to National Forest or State Land within 1 hour from most places in Washington, Vancouver, Seattle, Bellingham, Aberdeen, etc, so I don't see why anyone has to quit hunting, half this state is public land. In fact, I have seen bobcat mention hunting in Capitol Forest himself, isn't that state land? :twocents:
Capital Forest is DNR land. It is already overcrowded. Add 2,000 displaced hunters to Capital Forest and it is going to be crazy. There is USFS land up on the Peninsula. Not many deer or elk left up there to hunt.
In my area some companies let you hunt free, some charge access, and some do not allow any public hunting. I figure that is their right to do as they please, but I respect the companies who allow hunting whether for free or for a fee. At least they allow hunting. but do they severely limit the number of people they let have access? I paid IEP for access into the Mica Peak area several years ago and I was happy to pay and glad to have access.
I pay fees to operate on the National Forest and BLM, you guys get to go there for free, I have no complaints. I am also happy to pay landowners to use their land for hunting. I have penciled it out many times, generally it is cheaper for me to lease land than buy land and pay the property taxes, that is why I do not own more acreage than I do.
Any of you can lease private land just like I do. Go door knocking and offer to pay them to hunt, sooner or later you will have a lease of your own, with the timber companies all you have to do is logon their website, pick your parcel, and pay. If you don't want to pay then jump in your rig and drive to public land, that's what it is for, free public use, except you will have to get a Discover Pass for state land now. :twocents: The writing is on the wall. We're going to have to start leasing land
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 05:28:52 PM
I'm probably going to get bashed here... But if any of these timber companies want to start charging people to hunt their land, that's their deal. You can either choose to hunt it or not. It's their land, not mine. We've had the privilege of using their land, it's never been a right. Just my :twocents:
I mean how much were your tags and special permits this year? It's a sign of the times, hunting is expensive all around. It sucks, but it's a reality we have to face.
:yeah:
I own about 32 acres of timberland and these guys think they should be able to use it like it's theirs. :bash:
No; but if you were to LLC it then then get share holders buying into it because you had financial hardships, until you got so many share holders you had do an IPO and list "your" 32 acres on the stock market and trade stocks publically, then supercomputers calculated trades on it by the nano second then the bulk of the shares are sold foreign (China) and the Chinese government became the de-facto owner and gated you and everyone else out and raped that 32 acres for timber then found a big vein of gold and started an open pit mine then maybe we got a problem?
Does China own Weyerhauser? Are the Chinese displacing American hunters?
I have no problem with mining, we need mining, as long as they follow the law let them mine. :twocents:
On the flip side, Americans own companies in many other countries! :twocents:
Post by: Northway on May 01, 2013, 05:32:18 PM
QuoteWeyerhauser has received more than enough sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers over the last 120 years to owe several generations to come reasonable access.
Maybe we could tax Weyerhauser heavier and cause them to move out of the state just like what is happening with Boeing? They could probably sell their lands in Washington to developers and buy more land in another state and pocket some money. But I doubt the developers would offer access permits.
As a real-estate investment trust, Weyerhauser would sell their lands to developers if that was the most profitable course of action for them. Currently it is most profitable to shave off small portions of land-holdings for development, and either log, or enter into conservation eastments & continue to log (Snoqualmie Tree Farm, etc.) everything else.
Certainly if taxpayer funds go towards conversation easements covering hundreds or thousands of acres, those should include hunting rights. Large conservations easements haven't come up in SW Washington to a great extent that I'm aware of, but they will in the future, IMO.
I don't disagree at all, if Weyerhauser has accepted public funds for public recreational easements that is certainly a much different story. Obviously they would be breaking their contract by charging for hunting access if that was the case. So the question that really matters: Has Weyerhauser been paid by public funds for a conservation easement specifying recreational access?
Perhaps this falls on the legal interpretation I referenced in my last post.
I shouldn't have mentioned the conservation easements since they most likely don't have much relevance to this particular issue in SW Washington.
Weyerhaeuser didn't obtain all of the land they own in SW Washington on the up and up. Some of was obtained by the company through deception and manipulation. They were notorious for obtaining lands in some pretty dishonorable, but profitable ways. With Weyerhaeuser in particular, why should they not allow hunting access as a thank you for all the times they cut & run leaving devastated local economies, brushed aside laws, manipulated politicians, and circumvented environmental obstacles?
Post by: KFhunter on May 01, 2013, 05:37:06 PM
Northway - pretty much describes all public companies with a board making decisions for investors.
Profit above all else. If you get big enough you lobby and pad politician bankrolls.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 05:44:19 PM
QuoteThese are the most valid points I have seen and certainly deserve additional consideration. These are much different points than saying you own land I don't, I should be able to go on your land.
I said basically the same thing yet you disagreed with me. :dunno:
I took it that you were saying because Weyerhauser owns a lot of land and you don't, that you should be able to use it. Sorry but I can't agree with that premise.
KF brought in a different aspect, that Weyerhauser is publically traded and possibly not even American owned. In my mind that could change the way Weyerhauser should be treated in regards to property rights.
QuoteWeyerhauser has received more than enough sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers over the last 120 years to owe several generations to come reasonable access.
Maybe we could tax Weyerhauser heavier and cause them to move out of the state just like what is happening with Boeing? They could probably sell their lands in Washington to developers and buy more land in another state and pocket some money. But I doubt the developers would offer access permits.
As a real-estate investment trust, Weyerhauser would sell their lands to developers if that was the most profitable course of action for them. Currently it is most profitable to shave off small portions of land-holdings for development, and either log, or enter into conservation eastments & continue to log (Snoqualmie Tree Farm, etc.) everything else.
Certainly if taxpayer funds go towards conversation easements covering hundreds or thousands of acres, those should include hunting rights. Large conservations easements haven't come up in SW Washington to a great extent that I'm aware of, but they will in the future, IMO.
I don't disagree at all, if Weyerhauser has accepted public funds for public recreational easements that is certainly a much different story. Obviously they would be breaking their contract by charging for hunting access if that was the case. So the question that really matters: Has Weyerhauser been paid by public funds for a conservation easement specifying recreational access?
Perhaps this falls on the legal interpretation I referenced in my last post.
I shouldn't have mentioned the conservation easements since they most likely don't have much relevance to this particular issue in SW Washington.
Weyerhaeuser didn't obtain all of the land they own in SW Washington on the up and up. Some of was obtained by the company through deception and manipulation. They were notorious for obtaining lands in some pretty dishonorable, but profitable ways. With Weyerhaeuser in particular, why should they not allow hunting access as a thank you for all the times they cut & run leaving devastated local economies, brushed aside laws, manipulated politicians, and circumvented environmental obstacles?
So no public easements or public contracts are being violated?
Not sure specifically what you mean by deception, manipulation, devastated economies, etc. Do you or do you not have specific proof they violated any laws or cheated anyone and can you post that proof?
Honestly I know almost nothing about Weyerhauser other than a heck of a lot of people have gotten paychecks from them, that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, my interest in this discussion is protecting property rights.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 01, 2013, 05:44:38 PM
Post by: Northway on May 01, 2013, 05:56:41 PM
Quote
So no public easements or public contracts are being violated?
Not sure specifically what you mean by deception, manipulation, devastated economies, etc. Do you or do you not have specific proof they violated any laws or cheated anyone and can you post that proof?
Honestly I know almost nothing about Weyerhauser other than a heck of a lot of people have gotten paychecks from them, that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, my interest in this discussion is protecting property rights.
I can't answer whether public easements or contracts are being violated in SW Washington.
You could read "Railroads & Clearcuts". It would give you perspective on how the whole land grant process was supposed to work and how it actually worked. Maybe you and I should have more rights on those land grants than we thought?
Post by: snowpack on May 01, 2013, 06:06:02 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WY (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WY)I agree, they are obligated to make money for shareholders.
Northway - pretty much describes all public companies with a board making decisions for investors.
Profit above all else. If you get big enough you lobby and pad politician bankrolls.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 06:21:38 PM
QuoteSo no public easements or public contracts are being violated?
Not sure specifically what you mean by deception, manipulation, devastated economies, etc. Do you or do you not have specific proof they violated any laws or cheated anyone and can you post that proof?
Honestly I know almost nothing about Weyerhauser other than a heck of a lot of people have gotten paychecks from them, that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, my interest in this discussion is protecting property rights.
I can't answer whether public easements or contracts are being violated in SW Washington.
You could read "Railroads & Clearcuts". It would give you perspective on how the whole land grant process was supposed to work and how it actually worked. Maybe you and I should have more rights on those land grants than we thought?
I googled it but only found books for sale. We have railroad granted timber lands in eastern WA too, have never heard that they were acquired illegally. It would be interesting to know the facts on whether the railroad was supposed to maintain public access or not, obviously that would reflect on this discussion.
Totally agree that many politicians will do anything for the right amount of dollars.
Would point out that the job of any company is to make money, I don't fault any company for doing that, this country needs successful companies.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 06:25:22 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 06:54:16 PM
Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.
If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 06:58:38 PM
Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.
If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.
Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.
Post by: Alan K on May 01, 2013, 07:37:56 PM
Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.
If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.
Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.
:yike:
Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of. (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)
Access to private property is a privilege, not a right. I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres. Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision. It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.
Post by: Northway on May 01, 2013, 07:56:55 PM
QuoteSo no public easements or public contracts are being violated?
Not sure specifically what you mean by deception, manipulation, devastated economies, etc. Do you or do you not have specific proof they violated any laws or cheated anyone and can you post that proof?
Honestly I know almost nothing about Weyerhauser other than a heck of a lot of people have gotten paychecks from them, that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, my interest in this discussion is protecting property rights.
I can't answer whether public easements or contracts are being violated in SW Washington.
You could read "Railroads & Clearcuts". It would give you perspective on how the whole land grant process was supposed to work and how it actually worked. Maybe you and I should have more rights on those land grants than we thought?
I googled it but only found books for sale. We have railroad granted timber lands in eastern WA too, have never heard that they were acquired illegally. It would be interesting to know the facts on whether the railroad was supposed to maintain public access or not, obviously that would reflect on this discussion.
Totally agree that many politicians will do anything for the right amount of dollars.
Would point out that the job of any company is to make money, I don't fault any company for doing that, this country needs successful companies.
There's no dispute that the point of a business is to make a profit. My argument is that Weyerhaeuser's historic land dealings at least warrant a discussion on what the public is and isn't entitled to on property that was acquired through land grant.
Lands that they have acquired through other means, no matter how sleazy, do not legally entitle the public to open access (In the absence of other binding agreements). It's more of a moral debate at that point.
Post by: bearpaw on May 01, 2013, 08:08:41 PM
If they have full property rights, instead of trying to trample their property rights and setting a very bad precedent, why not look at other options to keep the land opened up to hunting?
Weyerhauser is doing business for a profit. Why not get WDFW / legislators to work out a deal to purchase a conservation/recreational easement to all Weyerhauser lands. Conservation Northwest is buying conservation easements in Eastern Washington from ranchers. The way I understand it ranchers agree to never break up the property for development and get a nice amount for it. They can still ranch, hunt, and pass it on to their kids, but it must stay in one parcel and not be sub-divided or developed. On Weyerhauser lands this would be a win/win for all users, WH still gets to log, and the public still has access.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 01, 2013, 09:22:01 PM
So if I incorporate my business tomorrow you are saying I have to open my land up to the public? :dunno:
Those are privately owned lands, they can charge if they want as far as I am concerned. Probably half this state is public land for anyone to hunt on, I just don't understand this attitude where people think they can control someone's land.
But they get a PUBLIC tax break. If they don't allow PUBLIC access, then as far as I'm concerned, they can pay property taxes on the assessed value of their land every year, just like all private citizens do. It would help balance the State budget, and maybe help keep the cost of hunting on State and Federal land down.
I really don't feel bad for big timber companies. They aren't good neighbors any more. They've sent a good portion of local jobs overseas. Their logging practices have hurt streams/fish populations not to mention habitat for many important native species. Forest diversity is drying up. And I'm convinced the spraying of chemicals may be a bigger problem than monoculture or erosion.
They can start paying their fair share.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 09:27:00 PM
Quote
Weyerhaeuser tests access fee on Molalla timberland
By Ev Hu, The Oregonian The Oregonian
on July 06, 2008 at 8:21 PM, updated July 07, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Doug Beghtel / The OregonianMerlin Cosada records Jake Naylor's name and license plate number before allowing him access to Weyerhaeuser property near Molalla. The registration is part of a pilot program that charges visitors to the Molalla Tree Farm.
MOLALLA -- The Weyerhaeuser Co., which traditionally opens its vast Western timberlands to public recreation, imposed its first access fee in Oregon this spring on the 57,000-acre Molalla Tree Farm.
Hikers, mountain bikers, hunters, fishers and others must now pay $250 for annual permits to visit the site in southern Clackamas County. Company officials described the arrangement as a pilot program that might spread to more of Weyerhaeuser's 1.1 million acres of Oregon timberlands.
Most visitors treat company property like their own, said Greg Miller, a Weyerhaeuser spokesman. "But a few bad apples kind of spoil it for the rest."
Visitors have dumped old cars and refrigerators, set up meth labs, damaged roads and shot up signs on company property. Although officials don't track how much they spend on upkeep, the cost is significant, Miller said.
Scott Marlega, the company's land-use manager of north valley operations, said Weyerhaeuser wants to keep its private lands open for public access in the Northwest, but that has become increasingly challenging and costly.
Tree farm permits
• For more information about access permits and the Molalla Tree Farm, call 866-437-7778 or click on quality-service-inc.com
Nationwide, Weyerhaeuser owns about 6.4 million acres and has similar fee requirements on several properties outside Oregon, especially in the South, Miller said.
Other timber companies that allow public access to their land in Oregon and southwest Washington say they have no plans to impose fees -- at least for now.
Plum Creek Timber Co., the largest owner of private timberlands in the country, offers free public access, with some restrictions, to its 405,000 acres in Oregon, said spokeswoman Kathy Budinick. "But you never know what the future holds."
Longview Fibre Co. has considered imposing fees to access the 587,000 acres it owns in Oregon and Washington but found the idea impractical. The company's land has several access points and would be hard to monitor, said Blake Rowe, senior vice president. He said his company will monitor how people receive Weyerhaeuser's permit system.
Since Weyerhaeuser started charging for access to the Molalla Tree Farm program in mid-May, about 100 recreation permits have been sold.
People are responding well, said Shelley Tschida, CEO of Quality Services Inc., the contractor hired to patrol the property.
Before Weyerhaeuser established the permit system, visitors could access the Molalla property only on foot, except during hunting season, when vehicle entry was allowed. Now permit-holders can drive into the farm from mid-May to Nov. 30 on weekday evenings after logging operations have stopped and on weekends, she said.
Quality Services will staff the farm's entrance across from the Glen Avon Bridge from 6 p.m. to one hour after sunset on weekdays and from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset on weekends, Miller said. Attendants also will check permits of those using the property.
Tim Dilworth owns Dickey Prairie Store, about three miles from the farm's entrance. He has heard some complaints from folks who think the permits cost too much, but overall, people seem happy, he said.
"It's so beautiful," Dilworth said of the tree farm. "A lot of people like to jump into the holes out there."
Dilworth has not bought a permit, but he was happy to hear that the farm was providing vehicle access for the public again. His family is thinking about pitching in to buy a permit, he said.
"I think it'll be nice," he said. "It's all people who have paid, so they'll take care of it."
-- Olga Munoz; olgamunoz@news.oregonian.com
© OregonLive.com. All rights reserved.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 01, 2013, 10:07:57 PM
WDFW try and work out a better deal ;) I know you are watching....
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 10:50:16 PM
This is the announcement from Weyerhaeuser that they are ending the program:
Quote
To all Permittees,
Weyerhaeuser Company would like to thank you for your participation in the Molalla Recreational Access Program. We contracted with Quality Services Inc. to administer the program and they did an outstanding job over the last two years. We have received numerous compliments on how professional and friendly their staff conducted business.
Due to lower then anticipated interest in the program during 2008-2009, Weyerhaeuser Company has decided not to continue the program into 2010. This decision was not based on any problems associated with permittees, because overall you followed our rules. The main reason for not continuing the program is due to the poor economy.
Starting January 1, 2010, the Molalla Tree Farm will once again be open for non-motorized (walk-in) recreational access. A permit will not be required. We will allow access as long as there is no vandalism, motorcycles, or ATV use. We may also close the area during high fire danger, which typically runs from July through September.
Please continue addressing your questions directly to QSI until December 31, 2009. Starting January 1, 2010, you can obtain the latest recreational access information for this area, please call our toll free hot line at: 1-888-741-5403 or you can send me an e-mail scott.marlega@weyerhaeuser.com.
Regards,
Scott Marlega
Weyerhaeuser Company, North Valley Land Use Manager
Post by: Curly on May 02, 2013, 05:58:56 AM
The pay to hunt program in Oregon lasted for two years. Apparently they weren't bringing in enough money. The first year was $250, which allowed up to two vehicles, with the family and up to 6 guests. The second year they kept the $250 fee but allowed only 3 guests, and only one vehicle.
This is the announcement from Weyerhaeuser that they are ending the program:QuoteTo all Permittees,
Weyerhaeuser Company would like to thank you for your participation in the Molalla Recreational Access Program. We contracted with Quality Services Inc. to administer the program and they did an outstanding job over the last two years. We have received numerous compliments on how professional and friendly their staff conducted business.
Due to lower then anticipated interest in the program during 2008-2009, Weyerhaeuser Company has decided not to continue the program into 2010. This decision was not based on any problems associated with permittees, because overall you followed our rules. The main reason for not continuing the program is due to the poor economy.
Starting January 1, 2010, the Molalla Tree Farm will once again be open for non-motorized (walk-in) recreational access. A permit will not be required. We will allow access as long as there is no vandalism, motorcycles, or ATV use. We may also close the area during high fire danger, which typically runs from July through September.
Please continue addressing your questions directly to QSI until December 31, 2009. Starting January 1, 2010, you can obtain the latest recreational access information for this area, please call our toll free hot line at: 1-888-741-5403 or you can send me an e-mail scott.marlega@weyerhaeuser.com.
Regards,
Scott Marlega
Weyerhaeuser Company, North Valley Land Use Manager
So, in the Molalla instance, they are saying they didn't sell enough permits to make the program worth administering? And they think it was due to the poor economy? Why do I have a hard time believing those reasons? :dunno:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 02, 2013, 06:42:43 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 07:12:24 AM
Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.
If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.
Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.
:yike:
Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of. (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)
Access to private property is a privilege, not a right. I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres. Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision. It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.
Your statement completely misrepresents the sentiment here. No one is advocating increased taxes on anyone. I'm glad you enjoyed using their land previously, but it was far from free of charge. They got tax breaks for it - they didn't have to pay a portion of their tax liability if they let you use their land for free. Like I've said before, people should be able to do whatever they want with their own land. However, when you receive a recreational use tax exemption on your own land and then close it to the general public by selling a limited number of permits, you should lose that exemption. I don't get any exemptions for my land. Do you? They shouldn't, either if they don't want me hunting on it for free.
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 07:53:57 AM
Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.
If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.
Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.
:yike:
Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of. (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)
Access to private property is a privilege, not a right. I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres. Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision. It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.
Your statement completely misrepresents the sentiment here. No one is advocating increased taxes on anyone. I'm glad you enjoyed using their land previously, but it was far from free of charge. They got tax breaks for it - they didn't have to pay a portion of their tax liability if they let you use their land for free. Like I've said before, people should be able to do whatever they want with their own land. However, when you receive a recreational use tax exemption on your own land and then close it to the general public by selling a limited number of permits, you should lose that exemption. I don't get any exemptions for my land. Do you? They shouldn't, either if they don't want me hunting on it for free.
Has anyone gotten a legal decision on the language which some of you seem to think suggests they must provide access? If we can show they are getting a tax break for "free access" I would agree with you. But the way I read the law that was posted, it says they must provide recreational spaces, I'm not sure that means "free access" to those spaces.
If the intent of the law was that they provide free access to the public then certainly they should do that. If that was not the intent then they have no obligation for free access. To know this, you need a legal interpretation from the attorney general's office. I would think if a legally organized group like Washington For Wildlife asked for a legal determination from the AG's office that we might get one.
If it's determined that there is no requirement for legal access to the land with their tax designation then I would strongly suggest starting an effort to organize a conservation/recreational easement between the state and Weyerhauser. They are a "for profit" company, I am sure they would consider a public easement. :twocents:
Post by: mpetersen on May 02, 2013, 07:58:13 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 08:06:01 AM
Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.
If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.
Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.
:yike:
Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of. (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)
Access to private property is a privilege, not a right. I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres. Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision. It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.
Your statement completely misrepresents the sentiment here. No one is advocating increased taxes on anyone. I'm glad you enjoyed using their land previously, but it was far from free of charge. They got tax breaks for it - they didn't have to pay a portion of their tax liability if they let you use their land for free. Like I've said before, people should be able to do whatever they want with their own land. However, when you receive a recreational use tax exemption on your own land and then close it to the general public by selling a limited number of permits, you should lose that exemption. I don't get any exemptions for my land. Do you? They shouldn't, either if they don't want me hunting on it for free.
Has anyone gotten a legal decision on the language which some of you seem to think suggests they must provide access? If we can show they are getting a tax break for "free access" I would agree with you. But the way I read the law that was posted, it says they must provide recreational spaces, I'm not sure that means "free access" to those spaces.
If the intent of the law was that they provide free access to the public then certainly they should do that. If that was not the intent then they have no obligation for free access. To know this, you need a legal interpretation from the attorney general's office. I would think if a legally organized group like Washington For Wildlife asked for a legal determination from the AG's office that we might get one.
If it's determined that there is no requirement for legal access to the land with their tax designation then I would strongly suggest starting an effort to organize a conservation/recreational easement between the state and Weyerhauser. They are a "for profit" company, I am sure they would consider a public easement. :twocents:
I understand what you're saying, Dale, but I think it means free access. Otherwise, companies like ski areas would get tax breaks for it and I don't believe that's the case.
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2013, 08:11:32 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 08:17:50 AM
Don't forget folks, weyco employees will be sucking up a good share of these permits at half price. This will diminish an already small number available to the public. This might not seem like a big deal to someone from the eastside but it's huge for deer and elk hunters on the west side. Weyco land holds the largest elk herds in the state, if you don't believe me check the new harvest report and check Winston unit. We have to make a stand now with the Vail and PeEll tree farms because I gotta believe St. Helens will be next. I guess my deer hunting will have to change a bit with limited access, will have to pick on the eastside mulies.
I don't care where you hunt, you can hunt practically in my back yard in GMU 111 if you want. :dunno:
What matters is whether they have a legal obligation to open their land to the public or if there is no legal obligation in which case the public needs to work out a better access program with them. I completely understand that hunters need access, but you cannot overlook the legalities if you really want to do any good. First you need to know if there is any legal standing for them to open their lands to the public. If not, then an organized effort will be needed to pursue ways to get them open their lands.
If they have serious plans to commercialize hunting on their land this may be an uphill issue, if they are only looking to control access it seems this would be a much easier issue to deal with.
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 08:43:46 AM
If you are trying to say that any private land which falls under timberland tax classification must be open to the public that will also draw great opposition because most timbered land in the state is owned by farmers, other small landowners, and timber companies (some large, some small companies) and is taxed as timberlands. You will not win that battle, there will be great opposition by everyone who owns any timberland, for crying out loud it takes 30 years or more to grow a log to sell. I would be farther ahead to clear my land and sell it off in lots and others will feel the same exact way, that would cause a great loss of habitat if it ever happened.
If Weyerhauser is not required by law to provide public access then some negotiating is going to be needed. I suspect WDFW is already well into this discussion within the dept.
Just trying to bring some realism to this conversation. :tup:
Post by: Curly on May 02, 2013, 08:47:54 AM
Well, in a nutshell Weyerhaeuser is a timber company- if they also want to be involve in the hunting lease business, they should be taxed accordingly.
If they take in money they will be paying taxes on it.
Maybe so, but obviously not enough to discourage them from shutting down their land to the general public.
:yike:
Funny how we so vehemently hate it when we're forced into something via taxes when we're against it, but then turn around and would wish to impose increased taxes on others to force them into something we're in favor of. (Not singling you out Bobcat, many on here are crying for higher taxes and revocation of the mythical (and non-existent) tax break for allowing public access)
Access to private property is a privilege, not a right. I don't view the privilege of accessing Weyerhaeuser land as any different than my neighbor letting me hunt is back 40, or the farmer on the east side letting me hunt is 500 acres. Sure it might have been tradition to access/hunt that ground, but if they decide not to let me on there, it's their decision. It sucks, there is no question about that, but it is what it is and I'm thankful I was able to hunt their property free of charge while I could.
Your statement completely misrepresents the sentiment here. No one is advocating increased taxes on anyone. I'm glad you enjoyed using their land previously, but it was far from free of charge. They got tax breaks for it - they didn't have to pay a portion of their tax liability if they let you use their land for free. Like I've said before, people should be able to do whatever they want with their own land. However, when you receive a recreational use tax exemption on your own land and then close it to the general public by selling a limited number of permits, you should lose that exemption. I don't get any exemptions for my land. Do you? They shouldn't, either if they don't want me hunting on it for free.
Has anyone gotten a legal decision on the language which some of you seem to think suggests they must provide access? If we can show they are getting a tax break for "free access" I would agree with you. But the way I read the law that was posted, it says they must provide recreational spaces, I'm not sure that means "free access" to those spaces.
If the intent of the law was that they provide free access to the public then certainly they should do that. If that was not the intent then they have no obligation for free access. To know this, you need a legal interpretation from the attorney general's office. I would think if a legally organized group like Washington For Wildlife asked for a legal determination from the AG's office that we might get one.
If it's determined that there is no requirement for legal access to the land with their tax designation then I would strongly suggest starting an effort to organize a conservation/recreational easement between the state and Weyerhauser. They are a "for profit" company, I am sure they would consider a public easement. :twocents:
I understand what you're saying, Dale, but I think it means free access. Otherwise, companies like ski areas would get tax breaks for it and I don't believe that's the case.
I don't even think charging a fee for access is the issue (unless they start charging way more than most are willing to pay for access)........it is the really low number of permits available. And if they get taxed at a lower rate for providing recreation, then keeping people out is not providing recreation. (Of course lawyers will have to argue how many people they allow in meets the recreation requirement, but when historically there has been around 3,000 people hunting the area and then all of a sudden it is reduced to 750 that seems to me that they are restricting recreation instead of providing for recreation. And this is just the people that hunt; there are lots of other users: hikers, dog walkers, mtn bikers, fishermen, mushroom pickers, etc.)
This is going to displace hunters or make the hunters give up hunting. Most hunters on this site are very dedicated, but there are a lot of hunters that only go on opening weekend up to Vail every year (for tradition). Those people will likely just give up. If you're not a Weyco employee, you're likely not going to be able to hunt there. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 08:57:48 AM
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2013, 09:10:10 AM
But why limit the number of permits? If Weyerhaeuser is in it to make money, it seems the more permits sold, the better. If deer and elk populations need to be protected by limiting hunting pressure, let the WDFW do that by limiting the number of hunters by GMU.
It's kind of hard to say we should have free access by motorized vehicle when we don't even have that on our state owned public land. (Discover pass)
But why are they not allowing walk in access? They did in the Molalla tree farm in Oregon, even during the two years that the pay to drive in program was in effect.
I guess they must be modeling these new access programs after Hancock's. and if Hancock can do it, why not Weyerhaeuser?
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 09:22:19 AM
Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.
Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 09:27:01 AM
Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.
Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.
I'm not sure how to answer your question other than to say that if that money isn't going into the general fund, it's got to come from somewhere else. Do you think the tax pixies replace it, or do you think that when we start a new tax, like say a tax on soft drinks, that replaces it? It's lost revenue. It's OK if it's going toward something for the people, but when that stops, so should the exemptions.
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on May 02, 2013, 09:28:08 AM
I don't support the change because the closure a few years ago locked me out of our honey hole. And now there is no chance to get into the honey hole as i will not buy a permit.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 09:35:25 AM
Ok, so you can't show me how after you said we were.Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.
Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.
I'm not sure how to answer your question other than to say that if that money isn't going into the general fund, it's got to come from somewhere else. Do you think the tax pixies replace it, or do you think that when we start a new tax, like say a tax on soft drinks, that replaces it? It's lost revenue. It's OK if it's going toward something for the people, but when that stops, so should the exemptions.
I didn't think we were but I just wanted make sure of that cuz I would then be pissed! >:(
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 09:45:05 AM
Ok, so you can't show me how after you said we were.Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.
Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.
I'm not sure how to answer your question other than to say that if that money isn't going into the general fund, it's got to come from somewhere else. Do you think the tax pixies replace it, or do you think that when we start a new tax, like say a tax on soft drinks, that replaces it? It's lost revenue. It's OK if it's going toward something for the people, but when that stops, so should the exemptions.
I didn't think we were but I just wanted make sure of that cuz I would then be pissed! >:(
:yeah: I have 32 acres of timberland, I can assure you no one else is paying any of the tax, we are paying it all. I don't see how anyone is paying WH property taxes, but if we were I would also be concerned.
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2013, 09:53:53 AM
Quote
What some fail to realize is they are still providing access. They are only charging for Vail and Pe ell. So the st helens tree farm is still available (for now). So they are actually proving some access.
I think most people realize that. The Aberdeen tree farm is also still open for access. But what's going to happen next year? I fully expect them to implement the access fee on all their lands. Why would they not? I assume they just aren't quite ready to lock it all up at this point. Maybe they need to get a few more gates installed. Or maybe they just wanted to ease into it and not upset everyone all at once.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 09:55:57 AM
[/quote]
Ok, so you can't show me how after you said we were.
I didn't think we were but I just wanted make sure of that cuz I would then be pissed! >:(
[/quote]
I have no idea what this means. :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2013, 09:59:11 AM
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2013, 10:07:52 AM
Something like what King County just did with Hancock's White River tree farm:
Quote
King County, continuing a decade long drive to protect working forests from urban sprawl, has struck a deal to buy development rights on a 43,000-acre tree farm east of Enumclaw.
County Executive Dow Constantine announced the $11.1 million agreement with Hancock Timber Resources Group on Thursday, saying it would — if approved by the Metropolitan King County Council — expand the county’s “green wall against sprawl.”
One of the largest deals of its type, the transaction would allow the county to reach its goal of protecting 200,000 acres of forestland from development, Constantine said.
“We’ve made steady progress, but there was always one missing piece of the puzzle — the White River Forest in South King County,” he said.
He said the forest is the largest block of privately owned land in the county not already protected from development. It would continue to be operated as a working forest, with the public allowed to use the land for recreation.
Hancock’s board approved the deal Thursday. County Councilmembers Larry Phillips and Reagan Dunn, chairman and vice chairman respectively of the council’s Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee, declared their support Thursday.
Dunn said he would urge the council to approve it “as expeditiously as possible.”
The forest lies mostly north of Highway 410 and the White River, stretching from the Enumclaw city limits to east of Greenwater on the route to Crystal Mountain ski resort and Chinook Pass.
Without the county’s purchase of development rights, Hancock or a future landowner could have built 857 homes on 40- and 80-acre lots. The land is zoned for commercial forestry.
“There aren’t going to be subdivisions and shopping malls and sprawl to the Cascade crest,” Phillips said.
The County Council last fall set aside $3 million from the countywide parks levy and the conservation-futures levy toward a possible purchase of development rights on the White River Forest.
Constantine has asked the council to authorize the sale of bonds backed by conservation futures for the $8.1 million needed to close the purchase.
The county has acquired forestland in the form of either land ownership or, more often, purchase of development rights. Those rights can be sold to developers, who use them to increase the density of their projects in urban areas.
King County paid Hancock Timber $22 million in 2004 for development rights on its 89,000-acre Snoqualmie Forest, which stretches from the Snohomish County line almost to Snoqualmie and North Bend.
In a 2008 deal, the county acquired — at no cost to taxpayers — a conservation easement preventing future development of Plum Creek Timber’s 45,500-acre forest at the headwaters of the Green River. Plum Creek agreed to the deal in exchange for the ability to sell development rights.
Cynthia Welti, executive director of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, said she was “stunned” to learn of the latest deal, calling it “enormous for the region.”
Purchasing development rights instead of buying land makes sense, Welti said. “The county cannot afford to buy this land, and shouldn’t,” she said. “It’s a perfect use of the transfer of development-rights program.”
Dan Christensen, CEO of Boston-based Hancock Timber, said in a statement the deal brings the company’s protection of “sensitive lands” around the globe to 470,000 acres — of which about 132,000 are in King County.
“We are pleased to move one step closer to our common goal of protecting the impressive White River property as a working forest in perpetuity,” he said.
Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 10:16:59 AM
Ok, so you can't show me how after you said we were.
I didn't think we were but I just wanted make sure of that cuz I would then be pissed! >:(
[/quote]
I have no idea what this means. :dunno:
[/quote]
Just like I had no idea why you made the statements that started our dialogue here. :dunno:
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 10:18:45 AM
Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.
OK, then you answer it for me. :chuckle:
I really, really want to know.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 10:20:21 AM
Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.
Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.
Here, made it easy for you bobcat so we don't get confused on what you understand here.
Fire away..........
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 10:22:19 AM
It seems like what we need is to somehow get the funding and pay Weyerhaeser for conservation easements, with the stipulation that the public will always have FREE access.
Something like what King County just did with Hancock's White River tree farm:QuoteKing County, continuing a decade long drive to protect working forests from urban sprawl, has struck a deal to buy development rights on a 43,000-acre tree farm east of Enumclaw.
County Executive Dow Constantine announced the $11.1 million agreement with Hancock Timber Resources Group on Thursday, saying it would — if approved by the Metropolitan King County Council — expand the county’s “green wall against sprawl.”
One of the largest deals of its type, the transaction would allow the county to reach its goal of protecting 200,000 acres of forestland from development, Constantine said.
“We’ve made steady progress, but there was always one missing piece of the puzzle — the White River Forest in South King County,” he said.
He said the forest is the largest block of privately owned land in the county not already protected from development. It would continue to be operated as a working forest, with the public allowed to use the land for recreation.
Hancock’s board approved the deal Thursday. County Councilmembers Larry Phillips and Reagan Dunn, chairman and vice chairman respectively of the council’s Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee, declared their support Thursday.
Dunn said he would urge the council to approve it “as expeditiously as possible.”
The forest lies mostly north of Highway 410 and the White River, stretching from the Enumclaw city limits to east of Greenwater on the route to Crystal Mountain ski resort and Chinook Pass.
Without the county’s purchase of development rights, Hancock or a future landowner could have built 857 homes on 40- and 80-acre lots. The land is zoned for commercial forestry.
“There aren’t going to be subdivisions and shopping malls and sprawl to the Cascade crest,” Phillips said.
The County Council last fall set aside $3 million from the countywide parks levy and the conservation-futures levy toward a possible purchase of development rights on the White River Forest.
Constantine has asked the council to authorize the sale of bonds backed by conservation futures for the $8.1 million needed to close the purchase.
The county has acquired forestland in the form of either land ownership or, more often, purchase of development rights. Those rights can be sold to developers, who use them to increase the density of their projects in urban areas.
King County paid Hancock Timber $22 million in 2004 for development rights on its 89,000-acre Snoqualmie Forest, which stretches from the Snohomish County line almost to Snoqualmie and North Bend.
In a 2008 deal, the county acquired — at no cost to taxpayers — a conservation easement preventing future development of Plum Creek Timber’s 45,500-acre forest at the headwaters of the Green River. Plum Creek agreed to the deal in exchange for the ability to sell development rights.
Cynthia Welti, executive director of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, said she was “stunned” to learn of the latest deal, calling it “enormous for the region.”
Purchasing development rights instead of buying land makes sense, Welti said. “The county cannot afford to buy this land, and shouldn’t,” she said. “It’s a perfect use of the transfer of development-rights program.”
Dan Christensen, CEO of Boston-based Hancock Timber, said in a statement the deal brings the company’s protection of “sensitive lands” around the globe to 470,000 acres — of which about 132,000 are in King County.
“We are pleased to move one step closer to our common goal of protecting the impressive White River property as a working forest in perpetuity,” he said.
Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 10:25:03 AM
Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.
OK, then you answer it for me. :chuckle:
I really, really want to know.
I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.
When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.
But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.
Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)
Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 10:44:54 AM
Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.
OK, then you answer it for me. :chuckle:
I really, really want to know.
I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.
When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.
But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.
Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)
Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.
Piano you seem to be making an assumption that timberland taxes were lowered and yours were raised. They pay a lower rate for undeveloped timber land just as I do or any other timber land owner. If I convert that acreage with improvements or clearing it to farm my tax rate will go up, that is incentive to keep it undeveloped. Remember, logs are the slowest growing crop and provide the slowest rate of return, it is only fair that taxes are less on timber lands. If you make the rate the same as farm ground or developed property you will see a net loss of timber lands in this state. :twocents:
But I can assure you that assessed value of timberland has been increasing just as assessed value on farmed or improved land has been increasing. Taxes are more, not less, for timberland than they were even only 10 years ago.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 10:51:33 AM
Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.
OK, then you answer it for me. :chuckle:
I really, really want to know.
I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.
When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.
But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.
Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)
Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.
Piano you seem to be making an assumption that timberland taxes were lowered and yours were raised. They pay a lower rate for undeveloped timber land just as I do or any other timber land owner. If I convert that acreage with improvements or clearing it to farm my tax rate will go up, that is incentive to keep it undeveloped. Remember, logs are the slowest growing crop and provide the slowest rate of return, it is only fair that taxes are less on timber lands. If you make the rate the same as farm ground or developed property you will see a net loss of timber lands in this state. :twocents:
But I can assure you that assessed value of timberland has been increasing just as assessed value on farmed or improved land has been increasing. Taxes are more, not less, for timberland than they were even only 10 years ago.
I can assure you, Bearpaw, that when we give tax exemptions to corporations, the first thing the elected spenders in Olympia ask is "where and with what can I replace it". This is not a valuation adjustment. It is an exemption form regular timber taxation rates.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 10:53:33 AM
No you didn't piano.Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.
OK, then you answer it for me. :chuckle:
I really, really want to know.
I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.
When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.
But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.
Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)
Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.
Unless of course you can directly show me how the candy, soda, gas tax........heck, I'll even pitch in your etc, was created/raised because of the tax exemptions given to timber companies for the purpose of recreational use. Heck, skip the recreational use part of it. Show me the direct ties of those taxes you referred to as a the result of exemptions on timber taxes!!!!
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 10:55:07 AM
Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.
OK, then you answer it for me. :chuckle:
I really, really want to know.
I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.
When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.
But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.
Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)
Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.
Piano you seem to be making an assumption that timberland taxes were lowered and yours were raised. They pay a lower rate for undeveloped timber land just as I do or any other timber land owner. If I convert that acreage with improvements or clearing it to farm my tax rate will go up, that is incentive to keep it undeveloped. Remember, logs are the slowest growing crop and provide the slowest rate of return, it is only fair that taxes are less on timber lands. If you make the rate the same as farm ground or developed property you will see a net loss of timber lands in this state. :twocents:
But I can assure you that assessed value of timberland has been increasing just as assessed value on farmed or improved land has been increasing. Taxes are more, not less, for timberland than they were even only 10 years ago.
I can assure you, Bearpaw, that when we give tax exemptions to corporations, the first thing the elected spenders in Olympia ask is "where and with what can I replace it". This is not a valuation adjustment. It is an exemption form regular timber taxation rates.
Great, assure both bearpaw and I.
Show us the ties.
That's all I ask.
Your assurances don't me squat piano. With all due respect!!!
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 11:04:26 AM
I care about tax revenues. Maybe you don't, and that's OK for you. I personally like to know that someone who's getting an exemption is earning it. If they aren't, they should pay full taxes like I pay. In this case, we're talking about a mighty big corporation who has just marked two large chunks of land out of public use. If they're getting a deduction for recreational use and they're taking away recreational use, then I want them to lose the deduction. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
As far as proving to you that we pay for their deduction, I can't. But I do know that that money is gone when they take it for a deduction. And next year, my local school district will be asking for a levy or a bond measure because there's not enough money.
Post by: Northway on May 02, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
It seems like what we need is to somehow get the funding and pay Weyerhaeser for conservation easements, with the stipulation that the public will always have FREE access.
Something like what King County just did with Hancock's White River tree farm:QuoteKing County, continuing a decade long drive to protect working forests from urban sprawl, has struck a deal to buy development rights on a 43,000-acre tree farm east of Enumclaw.
County Executive Dow Constantine announced the $11.1 million agreement with Hancock Timber Resources Group on Thursday, saying it would — if approved by the Metropolitan King County Council — expand the county’s “green wall against sprawl.”
One of the largest deals of its type, the transaction would allow the county to reach its goal of protecting 200,000 acres of forestland from development, Constantine said.
“We’ve made steady progress, but there was always one missing piece of the puzzle — the White River Forest in South King County,” he said.
He said the forest is the largest block of privately owned land in the county not already protected from development. It would continue to be operated as a working forest, with the public allowed to use the land for recreation.
Hancock’s board approved the deal Thursday. County Councilmembers Larry Phillips and Reagan Dunn, chairman and vice chairman respectively of the council’s Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee, declared their support Thursday.
Dunn said he would urge the council to approve it “as expeditiously as possible.”
The forest lies mostly north of Highway 410 and the White River, stretching from the Enumclaw city limits to east of Greenwater on the route to Crystal Mountain ski resort and Chinook Pass.
Without the county’s purchase of development rights, Hancock or a future landowner could have built 857 homes on 40- and 80-acre lots. The land is zoned for commercial forestry.
“There aren’t going to be subdivisions and shopping malls and sprawl to the Cascade crest,” Phillips said.
The County Council last fall set aside $3 million from the countywide parks levy and the conservation-futures levy toward a possible purchase of development rights on the White River Forest.
Constantine has asked the council to authorize the sale of bonds backed by conservation futures for the $8.1 million needed to close the purchase.
The county has acquired forestland in the form of either land ownership or, more often, purchase of development rights. Those rights can be sold to developers, who use them to increase the density of their projects in urban areas.
King County paid Hancock Timber $22 million in 2004 for development rights on its 89,000-acre Snoqualmie Forest, which stretches from the Snohomish County line almost to Snoqualmie and North Bend.
In a 2008 deal, the county acquired — at no cost to taxpayers — a conservation easement preventing future development of Plum Creek Timber’s 45,500-acre forest at the headwaters of the Green River. Plum Creek agreed to the deal in exchange for the ability to sell development rights.
Cynthia Welti, executive director of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, said she was “stunned” to learn of the latest deal, calling it “enormous for the region.”
Purchasing development rights instead of buying land makes sense, Welti said. “The county cannot afford to buy this land, and shouldn’t,” she said. “It’s a perfect use of the transfer of development-rights program.”
Dan Christensen, CEO of Boston-based Hancock Timber, said in a statement the deal brings the company’s protection of “sensitive lands” around the globe to 470,000 acres — of which about 132,000 are in King County.
“We are pleased to move one step closer to our common goal of protecting the impressive White River property as a working forest in perpetuity,” he said.
Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com
This is in addition to 90,000 acres of the Snoqualmie Tree farm that was put under conservation easement in a deal between Hancock & King County that was facilitated by Forterra. The price of the easement was over $20 million. The tree farm will remain a working forest.
Post by: Northway on May 02, 2013, 11:14:49 AM
Northway I see what you are saying, maybe that is a good angle to work on. I guess it depends if the land grant gave them ownership of the property. There was land granted to homesteaders that became private land and much is still private today. If the railroads were granted full ownership then they have property rights.
If they have full property rights, instead of trying to trample their property rights and setting a very bad precedent, why not look at other options to keep the land opened up to hunting?
Weyerhauser is doing business for a profit. Why not get WDFW / legislators to work out a deal to purchase a conservation/recreational easement to all Weyerhauser lands. Conservation Northwest is buying conservation easements in Eastern Washington from ranchers. The way I understand it ranchers agree to never break up the property for development and get a nice amount for it. They can still ranch, hunt, and pass it on to their kids, but it must stay in one parcel and not be sub-divided or developed. On Weyerhauser lands this would be a win/win for all users, WH still gets to log, and the public still has access.
Yeah, buying conservation easements will probably be the most effective method. CNW doesn't have deep enough pockets to get into the arena of protecting entire tree farms. Those kind of deals usually involve multiple parties and some sort of participation by government.
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 11:38:05 AM
Northway I see what you are saying, maybe that is a good angle to work on. I guess it depends if the land grant gave them ownership of the property. There was land granted to homesteaders that became private land and much is still private today. If the railroads were granted full ownership then they have property rights.
If they have full property rights, instead of trying to trample their property rights and setting a very bad precedent, why not look at other options to keep the land opened up to hunting?
Weyerhauser is doing business for a profit. Why not get WDFW / legislators to work out a deal to purchase a conservation/recreational easement to all Weyerhauser lands. Conservation Northwest is buying conservation easements in Eastern Washington from ranchers. The way I understand it ranchers agree to never break up the property for development and get a nice amount for it. They can still ranch, hunt, and pass it on to their kids, but it must stay in one parcel and not be sub-divided or developed. On Weyerhauser lands this would be a win/win for all users, WH still gets to log, and the public still has access.
Yeah, buying conservation easements will probably be the most effective method. CNW doesn't have deep enough pockets to get into the arena of protecting entire tree farms. Those kind of deals usually involve multiple parties and some sort of participation by government.
I am thinking we need to convince WDFW to lobby the legislature on this. An unusual partnership could be created because all residents of the state would benefit from a conservation easement with Weyerhauser. There are many ways this could be done if people are willing to be resourceful in their thinking. :twocents:
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 01:55:11 PM
Don't me squat? I'm sorry, but I don't speak Ebonics and can't figure out a lot of what you're saying.
As far as proving to you that we pay for their deduction, I can't.
Ebonics or not, you answered it.
Thanks!
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 02:02:59 PM
Don't me squat? I'm sorry, but I don't speak Ebonics and can't figure out a lot of what you're saying.
As far as proving to you that we pay for their deduction, I can't.
Ebonics or not, you answered it.
Thanks!
I get it now. You're a logger, aren't you?
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 02:05:25 PM
Worse, I work for a developer who is a rather large landholder and who loves to do property tax appeals. :chuckle:Don't me squat? I'm sorry, but I don't speak Ebonics and can't figure out a lot of what you're saying.
As far as proving to you that we pay for their deduction, I can't.
Ebonics or not, you answered it.
Thanks!
I get it now. You're a logger, aren't you?
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 02, 2013, 02:06:36 PM
And just to clarify, all of his LLC's are sole entity corporations.Worse, I work for a developer who is a rather large landholder and who loves to do property tax appeals. :chuckle:Don't me squat? I'm sorry, but I don't speak Ebonics and can't figure out a lot of what you're saying.
As far as proving to you that we pay for their deduction, I can't.
Ebonics or not, you answered it.
Thanks!
I get it now. You're a logger, aren't you?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 02:11:21 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 02, 2013, 02:36:52 PM
The second problem is entitlement. Hunters feel entitled to the land that publicly owned game is on be it private, State, Federal, Native, or Chinese. The landowner sees the game as theirs, and the Government panders to the anti-human crowd while suckering money from the Hunting public and the landowners, all the while pitting them all against each other.
:twocents:
The only final solution is to go vegan.
Post by: Atroxus on May 02, 2013, 02:43:38 PM
Northway I see what you are saying, maybe that is a good angle to work on. I guess it depends if the land grant gave them ownership of the property. There was land granted to homesteaders that became private land and much is still private today. If the railroads were granted full ownership then they have property rights.
If they have full property rights, instead of trying to trample their property rights and setting a very bad precedent, why not look at other options to keep the land opened up to hunting?
Weyerhauser is doing business for a profit. Why not get WDFW / legislators to work out a deal to purchase a conservation/recreational easement to all Weyerhauser lands. Conservation Northwest is buying conservation easements in Eastern Washington from ranchers. The way I understand it ranchers agree to never break up the property for development and get a nice amount for it. They can still ranch, hunt, and pass it on to their kids, but it must stay in one parcel and not be sub-divided or developed. On Weyerhauser lands this would be a win/win for all users, WH still gets to log, and the public still has access.
Yeah, buying conservation easements will probably be the most effective method. CNW doesn't have deep enough pockets to get into the arena of protecting entire tree farms. Those kind of deals usually involve multiple parties and some sort of participation by government.
I am thinking we need to convince WDFW to lobby the legislature on this. An unusual partnership could be created because all residents of the state would benefit from a conservation easement with Weyerhauser. There are many ways this could be done if people are willing to be resourceful in their thinking. :twocents:
I think there is a simple solution that several people have hit on already. See if we can leverage WDFW into making timber co damage permits(for that matter, all damage permits) contingent on allowing public hunting access free of charge. Pretty sure if they had a choice of eating the wildlife damage, or opening up their land for hunting access they would not have to think about it at all. I bet they would lose more money in one year of un-checked bear damage than they would make in access fees. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 02:48:03 PM
I think the problem at large is that the current culture is anti-human. It is pro-self sustaining ecosystem. By self sustaning I mean no access.
The second problem is entitlement. Hunters feel entitled to the land that publicly owned game is on be it private, State, Federal, Native, or Chinese. The landowner sees the game as theirs, and the Government panders to the anti-human crowd while suckering money from the Hunting public and the landowners, all the while pitting them all against each other.
:twocents:
The only final solution is to go vegan.
I disagree completely. I don't feel entitled to any private land which isn't mine. Private landowners should be able to do what they want regardless of my hunting desires, the greenies, or a freakin gopher who happens to be living on it. What I am entitled to is fair laws and their application. When I take a deduction for something on my tax returns, I'd better damned well have earned it. The same goes for others, be they businesses or individuals. If Weyerhaeuser wants the recreational tax exemption, they need to offer recreational use - it's very plain and simple.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 02, 2013, 02:56:13 PM
I think the problem at large is that the current culture is anti-human. It is pro-self sustaining ecosystem. By self sustaning I mean no access.
The second problem is entitlement. Hunters feel entitled to the land that publicly owned game is on be it private, State, Federal, Native, or Chinese. The landowner sees the game as theirs, and the Government panders to the anti-human crowd while suckering money from the Hunting public and the landowners, all the while pitting them all against each other.
:twocents:
The only final solution is to go vegan.
I disagree completely. I don't feel entitled to any private land which isn't mine. Private landowners should be able to do what they want regardless of my hunting desires, the greenies, or a freakin gopher who happens to be living on it. What I am entitled to is fair laws and their application. When I take a deduction for something on my tax returns, I'd better damned well have earned it. The same goes for others, be they businesses or individuals. If Weyerhaeuser wants the recreational tax exemption, they need to offer recreational use - it's very plain and simple.
But, you have morals & ethics.
The world is selfish, and vegans should be hunted.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 02:58:39 PM
I think the problem at large is that the current culture is anti-human. It is pro-self sustaining ecosystem. By self sustaning I mean no access.
The second problem is entitlement. Hunters feel entitled to the land that publicly owned game is on be it private, State, Federal, Native, or Chinese. The landowner sees the game as theirs, and the Government panders to the anti-human crowd while suckering money from the Hunting public and the landowners, all the while pitting them all against each other.
:twocents:
The only final solution is to go vegan.
I disagree completely. I don't feel entitled to any private land which isn't mine. Private landowners should be able to do what they want regardless of my hunting desires, the greenies, or a freakin gopher who happens to be living on it. What I am entitled to is fair laws and their application. When I take a deduction for something on my tax returns, I'd better damned well have earned it. The same goes for others, be they businesses or individuals. If Weyerhaeuser wants the recreational tax exemption, they need to offer recreational use - it's very plain and simple.
But, you have morals & ethics.
The world is selfish, and vegans should be hunted.
They're not worthy of my skills to kill. I hunt nothing that whines incessantly.
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 03:04:46 PM
I think the problem at large is that the current culture is anti-human. It is pro-self sustaining ecosystem. By self sustaning I mean no access.
The second problem is entitlement. Hunters feel entitled to the land that publicly owned game is on be it private, State, Federal, Native, or Chinese. The landowner sees the game as theirs, and the Government panders to the anti-human crowd while suckering money from the Hunting public and the landowners, all the while pitting them all against each other.
:twocents:
The only final solution is to go vegan.
I disagree completely. I don't feel entitled to any private land which isn't mine. Private landowners should be able to do what they want regardless of my hunting desires, the greenies, or a freakin gopher who happens to be living on it. What I am entitled to is fair laws and their application. When I take a deduction for something on my tax returns, I'd better damned well have earned it. The same goes for others, be they businesses or individuals. If Weyerhaeuser wants the recreational tax exemption, they need to offer recreational use - it's very plain and simple.
Recreational tax exemption, exactly what are you talking about?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 03:44:30 PM
I think the problem at large is that the current culture is anti-human. It is pro-self sustaining ecosystem. By self sustaning I mean no access.
The second problem is entitlement. Hunters feel entitled to the land that publicly owned game is on be it private, State, Federal, Native, or Chinese. The landowner sees the game as theirs, and the Government panders to the anti-human crowd while suckering money from the Hunting public and the landowners, all the while pitting them all against each other.
:twocents:
The only final solution is to go vegan.
I disagree completely. I don't feel entitled to any private land which isn't mine. Private landowners should be able to do what they want regardless of my hunting desires, the greenies, or a freakin gopher who happens to be living on it. What I am entitled to is fair laws and their application. When I take a deduction for something on my tax returns, I'd better damned well have earned it. The same goes for others, be they businesses or individuals. If Weyerhaeuser wants the recreational tax exemption, they need to offer recreational use - it's very plain and simple.
Recreational tax exemption, exactly what are you talking about?
Recreational use. C'mon BP, you've been in the discussion for a while.
Post by: M_ray on May 02, 2013, 04:20:19 PM
What people are missing here is that Weyerhauser isn't doing this to punish you or create revenue (so sorry Bob your not going to get more permits) what they are trying to do is limit the access so they can monitor the damage to their land. Believe it or not they pay Millions a year to fix graders, machinery and trucks that are shot up by guns. They haul hundreds of thousands pounds of garbage out of the woods at their expense, then there are those who steel firewood cutting down potential future profit from the tree taken and the cost of stolen tolls and equipment and fuel. Limiting the access is also a revenue stream of savings that they wont have to spend on clean up and new equipment as well as elevated insurance premiums.
It's been over ten years probably closer to 20 since they closed Grass Mountain road out of Enumclaw so Bob don't worry I don't think they are on a fast track to shut you out of every area. My bet is they do it to the areas most affected and that cost them the most to maintain. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2013, 05:03:20 PM
I do have to wonder if this is due to damage to their land, why is walk in access being shut down?
And by the way, the closure of the Pe Ell and Vail tree farms doesn't affect me, as I don't hunt either of those areas and had no plans to do so in the future.
This change is actually providing MORE acceess, just to fewer people.
Post by: mpetersen on May 02, 2013, 05:20:03 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 02, 2013, 05:24:49 PM
It seems a better solution might be non-motorized access for more people. I can't believe all this property damage and tons of garbage is being done by hunters. Sounds like tweekers and the like are raising hell by driving through unlocked gates.
I'm sure you are right, but hunters are being affected. I certainly hope a solution can be found to allow more hunters access.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 05:42:54 PM
Pianoman as Bearpaw pointed out you can do the same ... Buy a bunch of land and do not develop it ... you will pay less taxes than my developed land with buildings and improvements. No where does it say cause you pay less I'm entitled to hunt on your place ... It's really not that hard to understand??? :rolleyes:Their motivation is of no consequence. I hunt public land, so I'm not bothered by what they do with their own land. I just don't want to subsidize them with deductions they're no longer qualified for.
What people are missing here is that Weyerhauser isn't doing this to punish you or create revenue (so sorry Bob your not going to get more permits) what they are trying to do is limit the access so they can monitor the damage to their land. Believe it or not they pay Millions a year to fix graders, machinery and trucks that are shot up by guns. They haul hundreds of thousands pounds of garbage out of the woods at their expense, then there are those who steel firewood cutting down potential future profit from the tree taken and the cost of stolen tolls and equipment and fuel. Limiting the access is also a revenue stream of savings that they wont have to spend on clean up and new equipment as well as elevated insurance premiums.
It's been over ten years probably closer to 20 since they closed Grass Mountain road out of Enumclaw so Bob don't worry I don't think they are on a fast track to shut you out of every area. My bet is they do it to the areas most affected and that cost them the most to maintain. :twocents:
Post by: M_ray on May 02, 2013, 06:15:36 PM
Quote
Their motivation is of no consequence. I hunt public land, so I'm not bothered by what they do with their own land. I just don't want to subsidize them with deductions they're no longer qualified for.
First you have to prove they are getting subsidized ... I'm not sure they are and I'm certain its all relative to the amount of land they own. They are paying a ton more than most, Your argument is putting the cart before the horse. :hello:
Post by: splitshot on May 02, 2013, 06:47:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2013, 06:54:59 PM
the inland empire paper company around spokane has been charging for a long time. good hunting at $10 per day or so much for a season. they charge hikers,mushroomers, skiers, hunters,birders,etc . mike w
Right, but it's a more reasonable fee, and they don't set a limit on the number of passes available.
Post by: splitshot on May 02, 2013, 08:01:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2013, 08:09:10 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 03, 2013, 06:18:22 AM
QuoteTheir motivation is of no consequence. I hunt public land, so I'm not bothered by what they do with their own land. I just don't want to subsidize them with deductions they're no longer qualified for.
First you have to prove they are getting subsidized ... I'm not sure they are and I'm certain its all relative to the amount of land they own. They are paying a ton more than most, Your argument is putting the cart before the horse. :hello:
You're absolutely right. I don't know if they're getting the exemption, although if they aren't, they should have fired their tax attorney years ago. Obviously, I don't have any problem if they aren't. That's why I've asked my senator to take a look into it. As far as them paying "a ton more than most", that's a completely unsupportable statement. Are you trying to tell me that they pay a different rate from other timber companies? That would be illegal. If you mean they pay a ton more than me or you, you comment is way out of context and perspective. We're talking about timber companies and their exemptions with regards to the recreational opportunities they offer to the citizens of WA.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 03, 2013, 06:28:14 AM
Post by: elkoholicmike on May 03, 2013, 07:02:18 AM
I live on a dead end dirt road surrounded by thousands of acres of tree farm. They have gated every access to that land and posted it. In the hunting seasons I have a constant parade of road hunters going up and down my road because there is no gate. Now is that not stupid or what? Yes it is turning to crap in this state. It is going to a lot of work for it be corrected to. Personally I don't see correction but I'm seeing a lot more gates.
Good luck out there folks.
Post by: M_ray on May 03, 2013, 10:15:54 AM
Quote
As far as them paying "a ton more than most", that's a completely unsupportable statement.
It's not unsupported when you are the largest or one of them ... it means you have more land
http://commodityhq.com/2012/top-3-timber-stocks-by-market-cap/ (http://commodityhq.com/2012/top-3-timber-stocks-by-market-cap/)
Again not that hard to understand :dunno: But I'll break it down for you perhaps in more simple terms for you.
Me: I own a acre of land with a custom home and outbuildings on it in Black Diamond as well as a home in Leschi and own a business in Downtown Seattle.
You: Own a single wide in trailer park and are a seasonal worker laid off each winter.
Who do you think pays more taxes?
They do 5 times the volume than Rayonier so it's fair to say they pay more.
I didn't say they pay a ton more per acre than all other timber company's as you suggest.
Back to the Topic ... It's their land and when you own land you wouldn't want the Government telling you that you have to let people on it. This is not the first time a timber company has locked a gate and charged a fee so I'm not sure why it is a surprise to you and you think there is a conspiracy it seems the precedent has been set long ago. It sounds as if you are saying you think they are going to double dip (still receive tax breaks and charge for access) without the State finding out? LOL :chuckle: I'm pretty sure it would be hard to hide that one.