Post by: Goshawk on June 26, 2013, 04:47:37 PM
Thanks.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 26, 2013, 05:06:00 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on June 26, 2013, 05:12:36 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 26, 2013, 05:16:11 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 26, 2013, 05:43:05 PM
tax the hell out of cooperate timber companies if they don't allow public access :tup:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 26, 2013, 05:51:05 PM
This could be good as long as it doesn't mess with unincorperated private land owners under "xxx" acres and live on the property.
tax the hell out of cooperate timber companies if they don't allow public access :tup:
Sound good to me also :tup:
Post by: mpetersen on June 26, 2013, 09:08:01 PM
Post by: Annette on June 26, 2013, 09:14:09 PM
Post by: snowpack on June 26, 2013, 09:16:37 PM
Post by: Mudman on June 26, 2013, 09:32:26 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on June 26, 2013, 09:42:51 PM
Post by: Goshawk on June 27, 2013, 09:39:37 AM
IF WYCO does proceed with the sale of permission to access their lands, then that would create an “affected class of people” that would then start the initiative process. If they do not, then there are no “damaged parties” to proceed from.
I’m sure that besides hunters, just about everyone in the Puget Sound basin cities will happily pile onto something that gives open access for the tax breaks they enjoy. Not too much sympathy for WYCO and timber companies in Seattle these days.
And to answer a question about how it would be written, I don’t know. Haven’t seen anything yet, that’s why I’m looking. Companies like Manke Lumber Co. should be unaffected since they have an open to hunting policy. Others will have to figure out if it’s worth the public relations nightmare to fight it.
Post by: bobcat on June 27, 2013, 09:56:16 AM
Post by: fireweed on June 27, 2013, 11:24:11 AM
What I heard is this.
IF WYCO does proceed with the sale of permission to access their lands, then that would create an “affected class of people” that would then start the initiative process. If they do not, then there are no “damaged parties” to proceed from.
I’m sure that besides hunters, just about everyone in the Puget Sound basin cities will happily pile onto something that gives open access for the tax breaks they enjoy. Not too much sympathy for WYCO and timber companies in Seattle these days.
And to answer a question about how it would be written, I don’t know. Haven’t seen anything yet, that’s why I’m looking. Companies like Manke Lumber Co. should be unaffected since they have an open to hunting policy. Others will have to figure out if it’s worth the public relations nightmare to fight it.
Hancock already does it so the affected class is already there. I'm all in for an initiative (well written) or a proposed bill, or a series of bills that look at either the property tax value, or roll any income from leases and fees into the current timber excise tax.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 22, 2013, 12:41:02 PM
I hate how much I have to pay to get in there. I REALLY hate it.... but man people are complete pricks when it comes to dumping in the forest.
Curtis
Post by: grundy53 on July 22, 2013, 02:15:07 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Special T on July 26, 2013, 01:01:17 PM
RCW Chapter 84.34 provides special consideration to property owners wishing to have land assessed for taxation purposes on the basis of its current use rather than its fair market value. The Open Space Act provides for current use appraisal of farm and agricultural land, timberland and open space land. Applications for classification are made to the Assessor for farm and agricultural land and to the county legislative authority for open space and timberland. Once land is classified, taxes are based on the current-use value rather than highest and best use. The Assessor must maintain the current use value for as long as the property remains classified. At the same time, a record of the fair market value of the property is kept. The difference between the current-use value and the fair market value becomes the basis for computing the amount of additional taxes, penalties and interest that may become payable upon a change of use or removal from classification.
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf (http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf)
Open space land is defined
as any of the following:
2. 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.
Timber land is defined
as the following:
Any parcel of land five or more acres
or multiple parcels of land that are
contiguous and total five or more
acres which is or are devoted primarily
to the growth and harvest of timber
for commercial purposes. Timber land
means the land only and does not
include a residential homesite. The
term includes land used for incidental
uses that are compatible with the
growing and harvesting of timber but
no more than 10 percent of the land
may be used for such incidental uses.
It also includes the land which
appurtenances necessary for the
production, preparation, or sale
of the timber products exist in
conjunction with land producing
these products.
How does a public benefit
rating system work?
If the county legislative authority has
established a public benefit rating
system (PBRS) for the open space
classification, the criteria contained
within the rating system govern the
eligibility of the lands described in
each application filed for that
classification and the current use
valuation of that land.
When a county creates or amends
a PBRS, all classified open space land
will be rated under the new system.
A parcel that no longer qualifies for
classification will not be removed
from classification, but will be rated
according to the PBRS. Within 30 days
after receiving notification of the new
value established by the PBRS, the
owner may request removal of
classification of the parcel without
imposition of additional tax, interest,
and penalty
Post by: Special T on July 26, 2013, 01:02:51 PM
Post by: headshot5 on July 26, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
Quote
I hope they do, I'll get people to sign it!! Timber land giants have been walking on us for years!!
Quote
How have they been walking on us?
Haha, yeah don't you mean we have been walking (walk-in) on them for years... :dunno:
Post by: Goshawk on July 27, 2013, 08:01:54 PM
Anyone on the board wanting to help who is a lawyer?
Post by: SCRUBS on July 27, 2013, 08:23:32 PM
Well, I can't find any more information on this, so it looks like if we want this to go forward it will be up to us. I'll be talking to an attorney to get an educated direction on writing a citizens initiative.
Anyone on the board wanting to help who is a lawyer?
Contact Tim Eyman :tup:
Post by: Goshawk on July 28, 2013, 03:52:03 PM
Maintaining the current tax rate for timber lands open to public access.
Post by: shrek on July 28, 2013, 07:56:35 PM
Post by: Goshawk on July 28, 2013, 08:18:04 PM
Correction.
Maintaining the current tax rate for timber lands open to public access.
What's next, your going to want my taxes to go up if I don't let you hunt on my property it because it's in agriculture? There are many different property tax rates for properties with different uses, but you single out the land owners you want something from :dunno: I wish they would leave it all open, but I am 100% against trying to go through the back door and try to get their taxes raised because they are exercising their property rights.
This "hey they have something we want so lets tax them more if they won't give it to us" line of thinking is just plain un-American. >:(
Well, I guess that depends.
Did you negotiate your existing tax rate in part by promising to the citizens of Washington State open access for legal recreational activities but now decided to sell that privilege to the highest bidder?
Bring the questions on. If this is going to happen, we need to get the issue bucked out here before going to the polls. If there is no support here, then it's a dead horse and we just lost our public access.
Post by: shrek on July 28, 2013, 08:22:55 PM
Post by: 280ackley on July 28, 2013, 08:44:35 PM
Correction.
Maintaining the current tax rate for timber lands open to public access.
Our State lands aren't even open to public access without a fee. I think that is where I would be a little more upset about.
Post by: Goshawk on July 28, 2013, 08:51:58 PM
Post by: Goshawk on July 28, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Correction.
Maintaining the current tax rate for timber lands open to public access.
Our State lands aren't even open to public access without a fee. I think that is where I would be a little more upset about.
Then that's a worthy fight too.
What should we do about it?
:yeah:
Post by: grundy53 on July 29, 2013, 06:51:29 AM
Correction.
Maintaining the current tax rate for timber lands open to public access.
What's next, your going to want my taxes to go up if I don't let you hunt on my property it because it's in agriculture? There are many different property tax rates for properties with different uses, but you single out the land owners you want something from :dunno: I wish they would leave it all open, but I am 100% against trying to go through the back door and try to get their taxes raised because they are exercising their property rights.
This "hey they have something we want so lets tax them more if they won't give it to us" line of thinking is just plain un-American. >:(
Hell, let's go to all the western states and raise there taxes, for the guys that won't let ya on their place or have leased it too outfitters!!! I'm sure they get some agriculture tax break. I can't believe the way some people think on here... Times are changing boys, I've been told this for years and its here, and its not going away.
:yeah:
Post by: Special T on July 29, 2013, 07:18:26 AM
Here is another problem... Much of our state land IS behind a gate there is a lot of checkerboard property of mixed DNR and private. we are told we are locked out BECAUSE of the concerns of the private timber owners, yet we loose access to what is ours. If you have hunted the south, you know how common land leases are for hunting/recreation. I fear that is where we are headed.
Has WYCO "blocked up" most of its holdings? Or are there still significant checkerboards within their holdings?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 29, 2013, 07:38:00 AM
Correction.
Maintaining the current tax rate for timber lands open to public access.
Our State lands aren't even open to public access without a fee. I think that is where I would be a little more upset about.
One problem is not mutually exclusive of the other. We pissed about both. In addition, the timber companies are asking for a lot more than $30.
Look CBoom and Goshawk, trying to convince the people who pay the new fees, or especially those who now can't afford to pay the fees that this is justified cost and that the logging companies shouldn't pay higher taxes as a result isn't going to work. No one likes paying for something that used to be free. I'm sure your argument is that yes, we got it free and should be thankful for all of those years that it was. But we aren't. We're pissed because the land is now unavailable to us without putting up what is for some, a too big chunk of cash. In addition, Rayonier decided last week that regardless of permit and adult supervision, those under 18 will no longer be allowed to hunt their land. So even if you can afford it, the family experience is gone for many. You're not going to dispel the image that the timber companies are getting away with our tax dollars.
I would suggest that the next time you two go to one of your logging association meetings that you mention to all who attend that the perception of the general hunting public (maybe the camping public, as well), is that they're getting a free ride and it's not going to last forever. The tide will change for them. The present tax rate may stand this year and next, maybe for another 5 years. But, I guarantee that if the timber companies continue to make access to public hunting on their land a thing of the past, they're going to end up paying for it with a higher tax rate. Fair or not, that's the situation you'll be faced with.
Post by: grundy53 on July 29, 2013, 08:11:19 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Special T on July 29, 2013, 09:46:50 AM
Anyway this club had an open space type tax exception. It was however reevaluated that it was more of a recreational piece of property than open space and the taxes were changed accordingly.
If you want to keep access to the public, you must be/seem reasonable.... Paying for access and making age limitations sounds more like managing recreation than safety of property from theft and garbage. I would make the argument that controlling vehicle traffic on private property would be reasonable with existing use however regulating non motorized traffic would not. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 29, 2013, 09:50:27 AM
I cant remember the name of the duck hunting club, but it has been hunted by many president's and such. it employs ONLY row boats and old cork decoys....
Anyway this club had an open space type tax exception. It was however reevaluated that it was more of a recreational piece of property than open space and the taxes were changed accordingly.
If you want to keep access to the public, you must be/seem reasonable.... Paying for access and making age limitations sounds more like managing recreation than safety of property from theft and garbage. I would make the argument that controlling vehicle traffic on private property would be reasonable with existing use however regulating non motorized traffic would not. :twocents:
:yeah: x2. I have no problem walking in. I have a problem with not getting in at all.
Post by: headshot5 on July 29, 2013, 10:04:57 AM
Quote
I would suggest that the next time you two go to one of your logging association meetings that you mention to all who attend that the perception of the general hunting public (maybe the camping public, as well), is that they're getting a free ride and it's not going to last forever. The tide will change for them. The present tax rate may stand this year and next, maybe for another 5 years. But, I guarantee that if the timber companies continue to make access to public hunting on their land a thing of the past, they're going to end up paying for it with a higher tax rate. Fair or not, that's the situation you'll be faced with.
I'd like to know when hunting (a privilege in Washington), became more important than private property rights?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 29, 2013, 10:07:44 AM
QuoteI would suggest that the next time you two go to one of your logging association meetings that you mention to all who attend that the perception of the general hunting public (maybe the camping public, as well), is that they're getting a free ride and it's not going to last forever. The tide will change for them. The present tax rate may stand this year and next, maybe for another 5 years. But, I guarantee that if the timber companies continue to make access to public hunting on their land a thing of the past, they're going to end up paying for it with a higher tax rate. Fair or not, that's the situation you'll be faced with.
I'd like to know when hunting (a privilege in Washington), became more important than private property rights?
It didn't and won't. You can do what you want with your own property. That includes, but is not limited to allowing the general public to recreate on it. It's absolutely up to you. I would never seek to take that away.
Post by: fireweed on July 29, 2013, 10:25:28 AM
1) in 1968 the voters changed the state constitution to allow "current use" values instead of full fair market value taxation on farms, open space, and timberland. This was done to slow the loss of open space, and make if affordable to keep open land in rapidly developing areas. At the time, critics called it a "giveaway" to big timber with no guarantees that the land would remain in timber or farm. Supporters said it would stop sprawl. The initiative passed and legislature then implemented this policy in 1970.
2) Over time the legislature has re-examined the "current use" program. Today there are several categories based on how the land is used and parcel size. One is called Open Space. This is mostly for smaller parcels of Farm/ag or timber. Additionally open space/open space is for conservation or recreation lands. Designated farm or "designated timber" is for larger parcels over 20 acres. Farm land must show income. Many counties require a management plan for open space/timberland. Most of our discussions are around "designated timber" belonging to "industrial timberland" over 5,000 acres.
3) Open space/open space property values are calculated completely different than other types of lands in the program. It is hard and expensive to get land in this category. The value is based on a "weighted benefit" system--the more public benefits the land has, the more the taxable value is reduced. Public access is worth a 10% reduction in value. This is the only type of land assessed this way. Golf courses or private parks or conservation areas can use this category.
4) Taxable timberland values are no longer based on selling value of pure timberland at all. Designated timberland value is based only on the value of logs harvested in the state, and how good the land is for growing trees. A chart is published for assessors to use. Currently the value tops out at about $240 per acre. In addition if the land is logged, the state collects a 5% excise tax on the value of logs minus certain expenses. This covers the value of the trees (vs. the land). It is possible to never log the land, never pay the excise tax, and continue to reap the benefits of land supposed to be used "primarily" for growing and harvesting trees.
5) Public access is not required for any of these programs. In fact, for designated timberland, nothing is really required except that land must be stocked with trees. The are few checks and balances to the program. HOWEVER, the legislature currently justifies the designated timberland program this way:
RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings.
(1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.
There are many public benefits listed here but no "guarantees" for any of them. The state's Forest Practice Rules cover some, but not scenic and recreational spaces, or jobs, or a logging requirement. You could never log, never provide a job, hit the WDFW up for wildlife damage, and never allow public access to millions of acres, and still qualify for the full tax break under the current system.
Post by: snowpack on July 29, 2013, 10:28:02 AM
Here is another problem... Much of our state land IS behind a gate there is a lot of checkerboard property of mixed DNR and private. we are told we are locked out BECAUSE of the concerns of the private timber owners, yet we loose access to what is ours. If you have hunted the south, you know how common land leases are for hunting/recreation. I fear that is where we are headed.
Has WYCO "blocked up" most of its holdings? Or are there still significant checkerboards within their holdings?
This is one of my main concerns. The hidden sections of state land. I think it is fine if they block access to their own private land, but not when they block off state land. DNR does land swaps at times, and I think they should be looking in to swaps or providing some kind of access easement. Otherwise, they are benefiting by a de facto increase in the size of their tree farms and can control the animals in the DNR sections.
Post by: Special T on July 29, 2013, 10:50:27 AM
Post by: fireweed on July 29, 2013, 11:09:07 AM
Here is another problem... Much of our state land IS behind a gate there is a lot of checkerboard property of mixed DNR and private. we are told we are locked out BECAUSE of the concerns of the private timber owners, yet we loose access to what is ours. If you have hunted the south, you know how common land leases are for hunting/recreation. I fear that is where we are headed.
Has WYCO "blocked up" most of its holdings? Or are there still significant checkerboards within their holdings?
This is one of my main concerns. The hidden sections of state land. I think it is fine if they block access to their own private land, but not when they block off state land. DNR does land swaps at times, and I think they should be looking in to swaps or providing some kind of access easement. Otherwise, they are benefiting by a de facto increase in the size of their tree farms and can control the animals in the DNR sections.
In SW Washington an entire 35,000-acre state DNR Forest, about 40,000 acres of USFS land, and a 7,000-acre WDFW Wildlife area is landlocked by Weyerhaeuser. None of this is checkerboarded--these are contiguous parcels! They could charge fees to go to this public land, and currently they have much of the access here gated--including public trailheads. This "issue" is perhaps why they haven't added fees to the St. Helens Tree Farm--yet.
Post by: SCRUBS on July 29, 2013, 05:01:53 PM
Well, I can't find any more information on this, so it looks like if we want this to go forward it will be up to us. I'll be talking to an attorney to get an educated direction on writing a citizens initiative.
Anyone on the board wanting to help who is a lawyer?
Contact Tim Eyman :tup:
Eyman is about lowering taxes, not raising them like these guys want :tung:
I know, what I figured was Tim would be able to help him out with how the whole process works. :tup:
Post by: Goshawk on July 30, 2013, 04:30:34 PM
I'm surprised how quickly this has been bent into a don't raise my taxes or tell me what to do with my land argument.
The intent is to keep open timberlands which have been open without raising anything. Lands that go under lease and thus bringing in an income other than timberland revenue would be taxed differently. Each of us from multinational corporate to Bob and Ann's Place pay according to what we do with it.
Why is providing a finical incentive to keep timberlands open to the public so bad?
Keep the conversation going. I'm learning!
Post by: fireweed on July 30, 2013, 06:50:17 PM
Our state gives a tax break to a certain company or industry for doing A-B-C&D. For years this was a win-win. The public gets something, and the industry gets something. In this case the public even is willing to pay more in property taxes, so the industry can pay less.
Then the industry stops doing "A" or charges for "A". It's only responsible and reasonable for citizens to insist the state re-visit the tax break. No business is "entitled" to a tax break--forever--without question--without changes, no matter what they do. The entitlement mentality works both ends of the political spectrum, it seems.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 30, 2013, 07:02:41 PM
The issue is simple.
Our state gives a tax break to a certain company or industry for doing A-B-C&D. For years this was a win-win. The public gets something, and the industry gets something. In this case the public even is willing to pay more in property taxes, so the industry can pay less.
Then the industry stops doing "A" or charges for "A". It's only responsible and reasonable for citizens to insist the state re-visit the tax break. No business is "entitled" to a tax break--forever--without question--without changes, no matter what they do. The entitlement mentality works both ends of the political spectrum, it seems.
I have read thru your posts, and I agree with you. This would not be a taking (something that concerns me ) but would be a revisiting of what we (the State and citizens) agreed to.
Post by: Bigshooter on July 30, 2013, 07:34:48 PM
The issue is simple.
Our state gives a tax break to a certain company or industry for doing A-B-C&D. For years this was a win-win. The public gets something, and the industry gets something. In this case the public even is willing to pay more in property taxes, so the industry can pay less.
Then the industry stops doing "A" or charges for "A". It's only responsible and reasonable for citizens to insist the state re-visit the tax break. No business is "entitled" to a tax break--forever--without question--without changes, no matter what they do. The entitlement mentality works both ends of the political spectrum, it seems.
They are not getting a tax break. They are paying the specified rate for the type of land they have. If they are getting a tax break so are you, there are people that pay a higher income tax rate than you. Maybe its time you quit getting those subsidies and pay the highest rate? At the end of the day this has nothing to do with taxes, it is all about some of you thinking you should be able to use something of somebody else's.
Yes they are. They agreed with the state of WA years ago to keep there land open to the PUBLIC in exchange for lower taxes.
Post by: Goshawk on July 30, 2013, 09:27:29 PM
Post by: Goshawk on July 30, 2013, 10:08:45 PM
Post by: 509 on July 31, 2013, 08:38:38 AM
Why not farms??
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 31, 2013, 08:48:23 AM
Fireweed did explain that pretty well
Post by: Curly on July 31, 2013, 09:33:52 AM
Oh, and it is now time to go in and write some laws to back-up the intent of what they did back in '68.
Post by: alecvg on July 31, 2013, 09:41:51 AM
Post by: bobcat on July 31, 2013, 09:51:40 AM
Post by: Northway on July 31, 2013, 09:57:53 AM
Lonview Fiber just sold all its holdings to WYCO in the skagit valley area. :twocents:
Link?
Post by: Northway on July 31, 2013, 10:47:52 AM
I think the long-term solution is to purchase some sort of easement from the timber companies on these lands.
My question for hunters who only look at private property rights as a black and white issue, no matter what other factors are in play: How could you flatly reject the idea of trying to use an existing public tax-break to leverage reasonable public access from a corporate interest and also support the North American Wildlife Model? Aren't they both influencing the behavior of private property owners?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 31, 2013, 11:50:36 AM
I'm for it as long as it doesn't effect smaller property owners and isn't punitive to the extent that it would promote accelerated development of timberlands.
I think the long-term solution is to purchase some sort of easement from the timber companies on these lands.
My question for hunters who only look at private property rights as a black and white issue, no matter what other factors are in play: How could you flatly reject the idea of trying to use an existing public tax-break to leverage reasonable public access from a corporate interest and also support the North American Wildlife Model? Aren't they both influencing the behavior of private property owners?
We already know that most of the people on this thread who would oppose it are connected to the timber industry. That's just an observation, not an indictment.
The North American Wildlife Model only influences the behavior of private property owners to the extent to which they feel obliged to participate. As stated earlier, I don't think anyone on here is proposing to tell private land owners what to do with their property. I do agree though that the laws written in the 60s were written with a lot of assumptions about the willingness of the timber companies to provide hunting, hiking, and camping opportunities to the general public as a fair trade in getting the reduced tax rate. The opinion of many, including myself, is that the laws need to be rewritten to specifically require access to outdoor activities in order to qualify for this rate. I also have no problem exempting smaller, individually owned tree farms (like Grundy has). These changes in the law should be aimed at large tracts of land that which are owned by large timber companies.
Post by: Curly on July 31, 2013, 12:31:18 PM
These changes in the law should be aimed at large tracts of land that which are owned by large timber companies.
Exactly. 5,000 acres or more...........or something along those lines. :tup:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 31, 2013, 12:43:39 PM
Look - I am REALLY frustrated by the fact that I have to pay $225 and I may not even get to hunt. Let's just start with that. If they shut our season down, they have to pro-rate some money back to us.
The reality though is this is a lot more complicated than what post people are laying out here. I don't want to change their tax rates at all - but I do want them to give me some of my money back when I'm not able to use my expensive permit.
Curtis
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 31, 2013, 12:51:13 PM
You guys understand EVERYTHING is connected to timber right? Your desk, your printer paper, your house, your hardwood floors, etc? Your cabinets at home? Your rifle stocks? Your game calls that are custom turned?
Look - I am REALLY frustrated by the fact that I have to pay $225 and I may not even get to hunt. Let's just start with that. If they shut our season down, they have to pro-rate some money back to us.
The reality though is this is a lot more complicated than what post people are laying out here. I don't want to change their tax rates at all - but I do want them to give me some of my money back when I'm not able to use my expensive permit.
Curtis
Good luck with that. I bet there's a stipulation that there are no refunds for closed areas.
I can afford 1-2% increase on my paper and wood. I can't afford an additional $300 to hunt each year.
Post by: Curly on July 31, 2013, 01:01:24 PM
Now, if the tax codes get re-written and timber companies don't want to pay higher taxes, then they simply can provide access like they have in the past. Then there would be no reason for them to have to increase lumber prices to cover increased taxes because the taxes wouldn't increase if they allowed access.
Hell, they can even charge permit fees to allow a certain number of people to drive-in, but just allow everyone else to access by foot, horse, or bike and I think most would be happy with that. I also wouldn't have a problem with them charging a small fee for non-motorized access permits. Say $30 for a permit like that. Look at Inland Empire Paper in the NE corner of the state; they charge a small yearly fee for access..........I don't have a problem with that and I've never heard anyone complain about that.
I just can see the end of hunting for a lot of folks with these permit and lease requirements. And it is sad that hunting is becoming a rich man's sport. Maybe if the forest circus would log in Western WA then there might be more animals to hunt on USFS land, but the way it is in western WA, most of the good hunting is on timber company lands, so it's not like people can just switch to public land hunting......... and DNR lands do get logged, but what is the crowding going to be like there now that most of the hunters can't access timber company land? :twocents:
Post by: headshot5 on July 31, 2013, 01:25:24 PM
Quote
Now, if the tax codes get re-written and timber companies don't want to pay higher taxes, then they simply can provide access like they have in the past. Then there would be no reason for them to have to increase lumber prices to cover increased taxes because the taxes wouldn't increase if they allowed access.
Right, taxes wouldn't increase, but if they go back to traditonal drive in free reign access to everybody, who pays for road maintenance, and cleaning up garbage? Who is getting the shaft in that situation.
I'm not an advocate for the timber industry, I don't like what they are doing, but I believe in fair play. I agree the timber company would be smart to allow walk in access and sell drive in permits. This would probably make most people happy, and allow the timber company to charge those that cause wear and tear on the road systems. Regardless of whether they charge for access or not, I actually like all the gates on the road systems. It keeps people from dumping garbage all over.
Also, I don't think anybodys going to get anywhere with intent of the law from 1968. If it was the intent why isn't it explicitly spelled out? Is it the timber company's fault that they follow the letter of the law vs the intent? Sounds like bad legislation to me.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 31, 2013, 01:50:19 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 31, 2013, 02:51:41 PM
Quote
Also, I don't think anybodys going to get anywhere with intent of the law from 1968. If it was the intent why isn't it explicitly spelled out? Is it the timber company's fault that they follow the letter of the law vs the intent? Sounds like bad legislation to me.
Probably because in 1968 they assumed the lands would always be open to the public. Even up into the mid 80's I never thought all the land open for hunting back then would be closed today. There were virtually no gates on Weyerhaeuser land. At least not on the Vail tree farm. Also there was state land and National Forest that if there was a logging road, you could drive on the road and hunt it. Gates were simply unheard of back then.
Post by: grundy53 on July 31, 2013, 04:19:54 PM
Weyco bought Longview fiber. The whole company. It was in the Seattle Times.Lonview Fiber just sold all its holdings to WYCO in the skagit valley area. :twocents:
Link?
sent from my typewriter
Post by: fireweed on July 31, 2013, 05:17:11 PM
Again, there are no guarantees or requirements in the laws but the written legislative intent of the current law for designated timberland explicitly states: RCW 84.33.10
The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.
The legislature is laying out the PUBLIC BENEFITS of forestry, and justifying the low property tax rate. If it did not benefit the citizens, everyone, future generations, or the public welfare (all these words they use) there would be no justification for such a tax break. One of the benefits is scenic and recreational spaces. There are no checks and balances to this tax break, nor is their a sliding scale of benefits like there is in open space/open space.
I'm 5th generation timber. I own forestland and I am very pro-forestry--but I also live amongst it, and seen rural quality of life suffer. The industry used to be a good neighbor. We citizens actually started a garbage pick-up group to benefit Weyco. the year before they closed the gates at St. Helens. Wholesale land closure isn't just about hunting. When the gates closed our small town suffered as hunters stopped buying, and hikers couldn't get to USFS trails. More restrictions will hurt rural communities economically, as well as socially. When walking in the woods becomes illegal, our town might as well be on an island. And all this we home owners are subsidizing (don't take my word for it ASK YOUR ASSESSOR).
Yes, it is their "right" to keep people off their land. But they have no right and are not entitled to pay $2 or less per acre in property taxes forever--regardless of changes. In the past we CITIZENS decided such a break was fair, and that the tax balanced with public benefits. Not anymore. Any state legislator who doesn't look into this isn't working for constituents.
Post by: snowpack on July 31, 2013, 05:36:08 PM
Post by: snarkybull on July 31, 2013, 06:56:43 PM
You guys understand EVERYTHING is connected to timber right? Your desk, your printer paper, your house, your hardwood floors, etc? Your cabinets at home? Your rifle stocks? Your game calls that are custom turned?
actually, no. everything is connected to oil. timber is reliant on oil and diesel fuel.
I am in full agreement that the legislature gave them tax breaks in exchange for public access (among other things). but the aforementioned public access does not require allowing vehicles. gate everything, most of us here would be thrilled by that. and it would solve most of the timber companies problems, i believe. except they wouldn't get to double dip in the public coin.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 31, 2013, 08:42:30 PM
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021205925_weycolongviewxml.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021205925_weycolongviewxml.html)Lonview Fiber just sold all its holdings to WYCO in the skagit valley area. :twocents:
Link?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on July 31, 2013, 08:50:34 PM
QuoteAlso, I don't think anybodys going to get anywhere with intent of the law from 1968. If it was the intent why isn't it explicitly spelled out? Is it the timber company's fault that they follow the letter of the law vs the intent? Sounds like bad legislation to me.
Probably because in 1968 they assumed the lands would always be open to the public. Even up into the mid 80's I never thought all the land open for hunting back then would be closed today. There were virtually no gates on Weyerhaeuser land. At least not on the Vail tree farm. Also there was state land and National Forest that if there was a logging road, you could drive on the road and hunt it. Gates were simply unheard of back then.
Sure was great wasn't it!!
But then we get snarky.............
You guys understand EVERYTHING is connected to timber right? Your desk, your printer paper, your house, your hardwood floors, etc? Your cabinets at home? Your rifle stocks? Your game calls that are custom turned?
actually, no. everything is connected to oil. timber is reliant on oil and diesel fuel.
I am in full agreement that the legislature gave them tax breaks in exchange for public access (among other things). but the aforementioned public access does not require allowing vehicles. gate everything, most of us here would be thrilled by that. and it would solve most of the timber companies problems, i believe. except they wouldn't get to double dip in the public coin.
But not all, and was it written specifically to NOT allow motorized?
Post by: snarkybull on July 31, 2013, 09:19:27 PM
But then we get snarky.............
thank you!! that's how i roll... :tung:
i was merely attempting to stipulate that the timber companies should remain free to gate everything they choose to and deny access to vehicles as long as public access was allowed. i do not believe that public access equals vehicular access. i did not intend to imply that any person or company should be required to do so.
this is still based on my conclusion that they are getting a reduced tax rate partly inspired by their allowance of public recreational access.
Post by: Goshawk on July 31, 2013, 09:28:33 PM
What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.
Post by: grundy53 on July 31, 2013, 09:31:48 PM
My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.
What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.
I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.
Post by: Goshawk on July 31, 2013, 09:35:59 PM
"timberlands in excess of 5,000 acres who have 99% or better in public access will be taxed at "-x" rather than x".
Oversimplified I know, but it serves to make the point.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 07:23:04 AM
I personally feel we should all be focusing our energy on something we can all agree upon at this point in time. If we don't get the wolf problem under control, that will end hunting as we know it in the western states before to long. Land access won't be an issue when there is nothing left to hunt.
One is not mutually exclusive of the other.
Post by: bobcat on August 01, 2013, 07:31:04 AM
To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.
Post by: fireweed on August 01, 2013, 07:34:12 AM
Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry. So now we are going to subsidize them more? I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.
What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.
I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.
Post by: grundy53 on August 01, 2013, 08:04:44 AM
Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry. So now we are going to subsidize them more? I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.
What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.
I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.
How are we subsidizing them? We aren't giving them money. We just aren't charging them as much for their land. By the way an acre of land that only has trees on it is worth a lot less then an acre of land with a house or improvements...
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Goshawk on August 01, 2013, 08:05:18 AM
I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.
To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.
Agreed...
Post by: Goshawk on August 01, 2013, 08:10:23 AM
Either way, the question remains.
Do you support a tax structure that encourages open public access for outdoor recreation on timber lands?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 01, 2013, 08:14:59 AM
But then we get snarky.............
thank you!! that's how i roll... :tung:
i was merely attempting to stipulate that the timber companies should remain free to gate everything they choose to and deny access to vehicles as long as public access was allowed. i do not believe that public access equals vehicular access. i did not intend to imply that any person or company should be required to do so.
this is still based on my conclusion that they are getting a reduced tax rate partly inspired by their allowance of public recreational access.
A.D.A. ?
Post by: bobcat on August 01, 2013, 08:41:01 AM
I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.
To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.
Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.
Federal land isn't much good for hunting anymore, due to the lack of logging (and fires.)
State land in general does have good habitat for big game animals, but is often crowded, and only getting worse as private lands are being shut down.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 08:51:19 AM
I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.
To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.
Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.
Federal land isn't much good for hunting anymore, due to the lack of logging (and fires.)
State land in general does have good habitat for big game animals, but is often crowded, and only getting worse as private lands are being shut down.
True dat! We need a couple of really good fires to clean it all up in Gifford Pinchot. Or some logging.
Post by: fireweed on August 01, 2013, 09:14:04 AM
Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry. So now we are going to subsidize them more? I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.
What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.
I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.
How are we subsidizing them? We aren't giving them money. We just aren't charging them as much for their land. By the way an acre of land that only has trees on it is worth a lot less then an acre of land with a house or improvements...
sent from my typewriter
Don't take my word for it. Here is what my county says about the subsidy:
If land is approved for classification in the Current Use Open Space
Program, it is then taxed according to its current use rather than its highest
and best use. The Assessor’s Office keeps a dual roll for these properties—
one indicating the true market value of the property and one for the
taxable (or Current Use) value. This reduction in taxable value causes a tax
shift when applying the levy formula:
Total District Levy ÷ Total Value in the District = Levy Rate
Taxing Districts still collect their full levy, but since it is collected on a
reduced taxable value, a portion of the tax obligation for the district is
shifted to the other taxpayers within the district. In other words, the same
total tax is collected, but the rate is a little higher for everyone because of
the reduction in value. These charts demonstrate the amount of tax dollars
that has been shifted in the county and what impact this shift has on an
average taxpayer.
The charts they have showed about $12 per 100,000 shifted. And reading carefully, it seems they are only explaining the affect on "special levies" aka. school, fire and not the general county tax.
And FYI for everyone "current use" is not the selling value of pure timber or ag land. For timber it is only based on the price of logs sold in the state. Other income (like leases and fees) is not used in the "current use" calculation--yet.
Post by: fireweed on August 01, 2013, 09:25:17 AM
I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.
To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.
Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.
You are lucky to have access to public land. In SW Washington nearly (50,000+ acres in addition to official USFS trailheads) are locked behind private industry gates!!
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 09:43:40 AM
I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.
To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.
Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.
You are lucky to have access to public land. In SW Washington nearly (50,000+ acres in addition to official USFS trailheads) are locked behind private industry gates!!
:yeah: x2
Post by: snowpack on August 01, 2013, 09:47:45 AM
Have you guys been in contact with your local forest regarding forest management? There are actually some projects being planned out and they are usually looking for comments. Sometimes it will be coordinated with RMEF and local tribes. Rarely will USFS entertain clearcuts, but when sold as calving meadows they occasionally let a few acres get opened up. Mostly what they allow these days are thinnings designed for forest improvement/wildlife habitat. I think typically they try to keep projects 49 acres or less because the money from the sale goes to the local FS district. 50 or above and it usually goes to a general account in the Treasury and they have to lobby to get money back. One of the bigger projects is proposing to thin 5,000 acres to simulate a late seral forest. They haven't said it, but I suspect it is being prepped for wilderness conversion. Last year they did 200 acres specifically to improve food for elk. Just kind of have to be nosy with the FS sometimes to see all the stuff they have planned. Sorry for thread drift. :sry:I think I would rather have wolves and a place to hunt, than no wolves and nowhere to hunt.
To me, 90% of the west side of the state being shut down to hunting is a bigger problem than the wolf issue.
Must be a lot different where you live. I'm on the west side and there is a ton of state and federal land to hunt around me.
Federal land isn't much good for hunting anymore, due to the lack of logging (and fires.)
State land in general does have good habitat for big game animals, but is often crowded, and only getting worse as private lands are being shut down.
True dat! We need a couple of really good fires to clean it all up in Gifford Pinchot. Or some logging.
Post by: grundy53 on August 01, 2013, 09:51:29 AM
Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry. So now we are going to subsidize them more? I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.
What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.
I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.
How are we subsidizing them? We aren't giving them money. We just aren't charging them as much for their land. By the way an acre of land that only has trees on it is worth a lot less then an acre of land with a house or improvements...
sent from my typewriter
Don't take my word for it. Here is what my county says about the subsidy:
If land is approved for classification in the Current Use Open Space
Program, it is then taxed according to its current use rather than its highest
and best use. The Assessor’s Office keeps a dual roll for these properties—
one indicating the true market value of the property and one for the
taxable (or Current Use) value. This reduction in taxable value causes a tax
shift when applying the levy formula:
Total District Levy ÷ Total Value in the District = Levy Rate
Taxing Districts still collect their full levy, but since it is collected on a
reduced taxable value, a portion of the tax obligation for the district is
shifted to the other taxpayers within the district. In other words, the same
total tax is collected, but the rate is a little higher for everyone because of
the reduction in value. These charts demonstrate the amount of tax dollars
that has been shifted in the county and what impact this shift has on an
average taxpayer.
The charts they have showed about $12 per 100,000 shifted. And reading carefully, it seems they are only explaining the affect on "special levies" aka. school, fire and not the general county tax.
And FYI for everyone "current use" is not the selling value of pure timber or ag land. For timber it is only based on the price of logs sold in the state. Other income (like leases and fees) is not used in the "current use" calculation--yet.
Sounds like we have more of a problem with our government rather then timber companies.... problem
sent from my typewriter
Post by: headshot5 on August 01, 2013, 10:06:32 AM
Quote
Sounds like we have more of a problem with our government rather then timber companies.... problem
Yep, timber companies are just following the rules (laws). Bad legislation is where we are at today. Like I mentioned before intent of laws does nobody any good. Timber companies are currently not breaking the law by locking up their land and charging.
What I don't like is the idea that we need to get something pushed through (as fast as possible) to protect our right. Where do you think bad legislation comes from? The same quick-fix legislation that everybody wants on the books right now, is probably what they passed in 1968. As soon as it gets passed, the gray area not spelled out (or not considered) in the legislation is fair game for exploitation, and if the law is written poorly the side effects (unforeseen complicated situations) are worse than the original sickness (no access).
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 10:49:33 AM
QuoteSounds like we have more of a problem with our government rather then timber companies.... problem
Yep, timber companies are just following the rules (laws). Bad legislation is where we are at today. Like I mentioned before intent of laws does nobody any good. Timber companies are currently not breaking the law by locking up their land and charging.
What I don't like is the idea that we need to get something pushed through (as fast as possible) to protect our right. Where do you think bad legislation comes from? The same quick-fix legislation that everybody wants on the books right now, is probably what they passed in 1968. As soon as it gets passed, the gray area not spelled out (or not considered) in the legislation is fair game for exploitation, and if the law is written poorly the side effects (unforeseen complicated situations) are worse than the original sickness (no access).
Hunting on private property isn't a right. It's a privilege, both because it's hunting, and because it's private property. Pushing through faulty legislation is a problem, I agree. As well, ignoring the shortcomings of existing faulty legislation is also a problem. When you see a problem, fix it, as Ross Perot used to say.
Post by: fireweed on August 01, 2013, 11:03:25 AM
Post by: Goshawk on August 01, 2013, 01:54:57 PM
How to phrase something specific enough to get the needed results without creating a negative ripple.
Oh, and I have a buddy who works for Weyerhaeuser. According to him, we're already being watched by corporate here at this website.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 02:13:48 PM
There needs to be something added to give this thing its' proper direction otherwise we'll pass it and the state will send a letter out saying "sure wish you would open your gates" and that will be it.
How to phrase something specific enough to get the needed results without creating a negative ripple.
Oh, and I have a buddy who works for Weyerhaeuser. According to him, we're already being watched by corporate here at this website.
Good. I hope they change their tune before they lose money. Opening their lands back up to all would be a good move that would squash this immediately.
Post by: Curly on August 01, 2013, 02:42:24 PM
Just wait until WEYCO implements the fee program and locks out most people from St. Helens. That is when the ___ will really hit the fan. :twocents:
Post by: fireweed on August 02, 2013, 05:24:12 PM
How are we subsidizing them?Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry. So now we are going to subsidize them more? I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.
What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.
I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.
From my County:
If land is approved for classification in the Current Use Open Space Program, it is then taxed according to its current use rather than its highestand best use. The Assessor’s Office keeps a dual roll for these properties—
one indicating the true market value of the property and one for the
taxable (or Current Use) value. This reduction in taxable value causes a tax
shift when applying the levy formula:
Total District Levy ÷ Total Value in the District = Levy Rate
Taxing Districts still collect their full levy, but since it is collected on a
reduced taxable value, a portion of the tax obligation for the district is
shifted to the other taxpayers within the district. In other words, the same
total tax is collected, but the rate is a little higher for everyone because of
the reduction in value.
It's gets worse if you think about it. Timberland is now an "investment" with many groups not interested in trees, so much as the selling value of "flipping timberland".If timberland "fair market values" increase based on recent sales, then the difference between "fair marked value" and "current use value" gets bigger, thus increasing timberlands tax break. The tax generated on this value difference is then shifted to other taxpayers like homeowners and businesses. The distance between the current use and the FMV increase, thus increasing the shift. It's ironic--timberland flipping gets more profitable due to the interest of TIMO's, REITS and foreign investors, which raises the true overall values in a county, but the current use value on timberland stays the same, so the tax break gets larger and is then shifted homeowners! EEEEKKKK. What a system!
Post by: steelhead on August 14, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Post by: Special T on August 14, 2013, 09:13:01 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 14, 2013, 09:39:47 PM
It's gets worse if you think about it. Timberland is now an "investment" with many groups not interested in trees, so much as the selling value of "flipping timberland".If timberland "fair market values" increase based on recent sales, then the county's pot gets bigger, and they can collect more tax--most of which is then shifted to other taxpayers like homeowners and businesses. The distance between the current use and the FMV increase, thus increasing the shift. It's ironic--timberland flipping gets more profitable due to the interest of TIMO's, REITS and foreign investors, which raises the overall values in a county, allowing the collection of more tax, which is then shifted homeowners! EEEEKKKK. What a system!
I think Weyco, Hancock, Plum Creek and just about everybody else are now REIT's
Post by: Northway on August 15, 2013, 10:06:08 AM
It's gets worse if you think about it. Timberland is now an "investment" with many groups not interested in trees, so much as the selling value of "flipping timberland".If timberland "fair market values" increase based on recent sales, then the county's pot gets bigger, and they can collect more tax--most of which is then shifted to other taxpayers like homeowners and businesses. The distance between the current use and the FMV increase, thus increasing the shift. It's ironic--timberland flipping gets more profitable due to the interest of TIMO's, REITS and foreign investors, which raises the overall values in a county, allowing the collection of more tax, which is then shifted homeowners! EEEEKKKK. What a system!
I think Weyco, Hancock, Plum Creek and just about everybody else are now REIT's
REIT's have to distribute 90% of income to shareholders. It's maximizing shareholder value in its purest form, with a greater emphasis on short-term profits. They would ditch most of their existing employees in a heartbeat if there was even a slightly more profitable short-term use for their timberlands, IMO.
Post by: fireweed on August 16, 2013, 08:55:55 AM
"If landowners want the maximum tax break, they must open the land to hunting, fishing, hiking, cross-country skiing and sightseeing. If they do, they pay 67 cents per acre each year on land enrolled before 2005 or $1.67 per acre of land enrolled that year and thereafter.
Landowners can avoid the public access requirement by paying a higher rate of $8.34 per acre, shrinking their tax break."
(Wisconsin's situation isn't parallel to what we are proposing since even very small parcels in Wisconsin are enrolled, and we are only targeting industrial 5000 acre plus landowners, but directly tying full tax break to public access has been done. This article talks about how it's hard to find these small parcels enrolled. Keep in mind the current property tax paid on timberland in Washington is less than $2 per acre per year as you read this article).
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/state-programs-open-hunting-land-tough-to-find-io6kuag-169914196.html (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/state-programs-open-hunting-land-tough-to-find-io6kuag-169914196.html)
Post by: Goshawk on October 20, 2013, 08:50:56 AM
One of the side effects that has occurred, is Weyerhaeuser has effectively land locked MANY privately held and other corporate lands from hunters who had permission to hunt, but did not purchase permission.
Lots of folks just went from "Not my problem, I hunt X Lumber Co. Lands, or Old Man George's Place" to standing outside a locked gate being told they can't even walk into their old non Weyerhaeuser stomping grounds.
Post by: Goshawk on November 09, 2015, 09:29:06 PM
If progress is going to be made, it will only occure at the "boots level" not out of a movement in Olympia.
Anyone here young enough and educated enough to know how to get this rolling online?
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 10, 2015, 06:15:58 AM
Post by: fireweed on November 10, 2015, 01:01:30 PM
Been a long time since I updated this, but my efforts in Olympia fell on deaf ears. Nobody, and I mean Nobody wants to take on Weyerhaeuser.
If progress is going to be made, it will only occure at the "boots level" not out of a movement in Olympia.
Anyone here young enough and educated enough to know how to get this rolling online?
Ran into the same thing with my state reps from SW Washington. I am going to try the governor--if we are going to have a democrat might as well see if he is willing to take on corporate welfare. All we need is a legislative review of the current system--to see if it is still working for the people. There are a few other states that could work as models: Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine. In these states the lowest current use values are tied to public access, with a 20-25% additional reduction in the value (that the tax is then calculated on) if the land is open to public access.