Post by: AKBowman on January 05, 2014, 06:52:42 AM
Would you be willing to forego one season for the greater good of Elk hunting in Wa State?
If we can organize an effective boycott on here my vote is YES
Post by: MADMAX on January 05, 2014, 07:13:53 AM
no camping,no driving, walk- in only, fire danger,vandalism,trash dumping, meth labs, lets fix it with patrols, gates, eyes in the woods, etc.
if it were truly managed correctly like a national forest I guess it would be better.
it just seems like it sure has gone downhill
Post by: RClare1223 on January 05, 2014, 07:33:03 AM
Post by: washelkhunter on January 05, 2014, 07:53:15 AM
Post by: fireweed on January 05, 2014, 09:03:11 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 05, 2014, 10:45:52 AM
Without a statement from Weyerhauser which outlines their reasons for implementing pay-to-play, we're putting the cart in front of the horse. If the reason they're doing this is because of current vandalism and littering, the concerned hunting community may have to take an active part in helping the timber companies with policing and clean-up. A cooperative effort may convince them to back off. However, if we find that they're unwilling to work with a concerned hunting community and that the pay-to-play is set in stone, it would be appropriate at that time to seek legislative satisfaction through a change in how timberlands are currently being taxed, especially those lands not being actively logged. The current taxation system has been in place for over 40 years and may well need to be changed.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 05, 2014, 10:58:40 AM
Weyerhauser is working up the details of the new St. Helens tree farm permit system right now. This is confirmed information. I did vote "yes" but I don't think the WDFW legally take a position on a property tax change. That is the job of our state representatives. Everyone needs to contact their reps before the legislative session starts in January and demand that the property tax shift be adjusted: timber companies that charge access pay on a higher "current use value" than those that have free and unlimited non-motorized access. Other states do it this way, why can't we?:yeah:
Post by: scout/sniper on January 05, 2014, 11:02:33 AM
I haven't seen you at a single meeting, or contributing to any workgroups.
Knee-jerk reactions and rash proposals are not the answer.
Finding the real motivation behind their actions and working towards mutually beneficial solutions is the right approach.
Post by: dartondude on January 05, 2014, 11:06:24 AM
Post by: Don Fischer on January 05, 2014, 11:25:28 AM
Post by: Biggerhammer on January 05, 2014, 11:35:14 AM
Let's see if I get this. Either Weyerhaeuser accommodate us or we boycott to get their tax's raised? Is this a joke? Not funny. Let's see, if anti hunter's say we either operate by their rules or they boycott to get firearms tax's raised, that alright with you? Weyeerhaeuser own's their land. Why not pull the same crap on all the farmers/rancher's that don't let you hunt?
This is great. How about we all don't buy Elk tags until every No Tresspassing sign in the state is removed and we all get free run of the place? Some peoples children.
Almost has the same stench as the current administration ramming health care down our throats.
Post by: bigtex on January 05, 2014, 11:39:33 AM
I would not forgo purchasing my elk tag for this purpose. The WDFW has nothing to do with setting taxation laws. As a matter of fact, they would not take a stance of whether or not we should change the tax structure if asked to testify in a congressional hearing to do so. If you want to take real action about this issue, Join WFW and start getting involved in Region 5, where we're currently developing plans to 1. approach Weyerhauser regarding their reasons for implementing pay-to-play policies on their land, and 2. If necessary, convince a group of legislators to sponsor legislation to change the current tax structure for companies who don't offer their timber lands for open general public recreation use.
:yeah:
WDFW has NOTHING to do with taxes. If you have a problem with taxes contact your state legislator.
Post by: Ice Cap on January 05, 2014, 11:44:08 AM
If their tax rate is raised because they charge for access, they will not quit charging. They will completely eliminate public access!
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on January 05, 2014, 11:48:23 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 05, 2014, 11:54:59 AM
Be careful what you wish for.
If their tax rate is raised because they charge for access, they will not quit charging. They will completely eliminate public access!
So that would be different from now how? They're going completely to pay-to-play. We've lost public access to their lands. Either we convince them to change their policies or we convince the legislators to change their tax structure.
Post by: Hunterman on January 05, 2014, 11:57:03 AM
The timber companies have been warning us YEARS they would have to do something ( charge, or even close land) if the misuse didn't stop.
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: scout/sniper on January 05, 2014, 11:57:44 AM
Be careful what you wish for.
If their tax rate is raised because they charge for access, they will not quit charging. They will completely eliminate public access!
So that would be different from now how? They're going completely to pay-to-play. We've lost public access to their lands. Either we convince them to change their policies or we convince the legislators to change their tax structure.
Exactly.
One step at a time.
Post by: ellensburgpo on January 05, 2014, 12:01:34 PM
Seems like a low odds of success dealing with the problem. :bdid: and I'm not saying the lack of access isn't a problem but trying to raise tax rates on a for profit business seems like danged near the business world equivalent of holding a gun to their head.
And what in the world does WDFW have to do with tax law?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 05, 2014, 12:23:07 PM
So we don't like what a group is doing with their private property, so let's tax the heck out of them...sounds like anti-hunting plans I've heard of....can't get rid of the guns so let's tax the heck out of ammo...
Seems like a low odds of success dealing with the problem. :bdid: and I'm not saying the lack of access isn't a problem but trying to raise tax rates on a for profit business seems like danged near the business world equivalent of holding a gun to their head.
And what in the world does WDFW have to do with tax law?
I have no problem with a landowner doing exactly what they want with their own land as long as it doesn't negatively affect others surrounding them. However, the current tax laws for timber lands were set up decades ago while the timber companies were allowing recreational use of their land. The rate at which these lands are taxed was lowered for those lands not currently being logged under the assumption that they would continue to allow the public to recreate on their property. The timber companies' attitudes about public recreation have changed and so should the tax rate which was developed under different circumstances. They're no longer allowing public recreational use so the public should no longer allow a lower tax liability. This doesn't force them to do anything with their private land, but it does require a more equitable taxation, more in line with what other private land owners pay.
Post by: _TONY_ on January 05, 2014, 12:29:56 PM
What I do have a problem with is tax discounts for allowing FREE public access, when no FREE access is given.
We pay for that access in forgone tax dollars. To charge $ for access on top of the tax discounts is double dipping and is incredibly wrong IMO.
Tony
Post by: Big6bull on January 05, 2014, 12:37:40 PM
Post by: ellensburgpo on January 05, 2014, 12:45:29 PM
Honestly I can imagine why they don't want hunting on their land, the same reasons we don't allow the public on ours. Way to many issues.
Post by: ellensburgpo on January 05, 2014, 12:48:04 PM
Post by: scout/sniper on January 05, 2014, 12:56:15 PM
I have posted notices for opinions and solutions on this site for months.
The response has been dismal at best.
We are working on this diligently and this is what will happen:
We will be seen as a small group of disgruntled people and not be taken seriously.
Or, we will confront weyco as a strong united front intent on preserving open access.
The best scenario is for weyco to realize that we have options that they will find undesirable and change their policies.
If not, we need all of your help to show that many people stand ready to get involved.
You can either stand back and accept what happens, or do something about it.
The choice is yours.
Post by: fireweed on January 05, 2014, 01:12:30 PM
Be careful what you wish for.
If their tax rate is raised because they charge for access, they will not quit charging. They will completely eliminate public access!
They cannot eliminate all public access because all major timber companies are signed on and certified with SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative) standards which require public recreation component.
The worse they can do is charge and limit....which is what they are ALREADY DOING. It simply cannot get worse, and they can't hurt us anymore than they already are.
Post by: fireweed on January 05, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
This kind of thought goes right along with "We should boycott the airlines that fly Boeing planes, because of the tax breaks Boeing gets".
The timber companies have been warning us YEARS they would have to do something ( charge, or even close land) if the misuse didn't stop.
Hunterman(Tony)
If Boeing gets a tax break for building planes parts A-B-C-and D here, then stops building A & B here, then YES their tax break should go down. Its only logical for the average taxpayer to get full value for their tax break.
State law justifies the property tax break timberland gets(we pay more so timber can pay less) because of the public benefits timberland provides. One of those is providing recreational spaces, and another is wild game. Now they have stopped providing that recreation for free, and are charging for access to our game. So, logically, their tax break should be reduced. Simple common sense.
There is absolutely no argument about abuse/dumping/garbage/ road maintenance that can be used to justify charging for non-motorized access. I must costs them MORE to enforce a no entry policy than a walk-in only policy.
Maybe.....maybe I could understand a permit for motorized access, but when they require one for non-motorized access then scream garbage dumping, they should lose all credibility with thinking people--including everyone reading this. And this is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 05, 2014, 01:34:41 PM
Be careful what you wish for.
If their tax rate is raised because they charge for access, they will not quit charging. They will completely eliminate public access!
So that would be different from now how? They're going completely to pay-to-play. We've lost public access to their lands. Either we convince them to change their policies or we convince the legislators to change their tax structure.
Vail tree farm is open for walk in right now.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 05, 2014, 02:00:35 PM
Be careful what you wish for.
If their tax rate is raised because they charge for access, they will not quit charging. They will completely eliminate public access!
So that would be different from now how? They're going completely to pay-to-play. We've lost public access to their lands. Either we convince them to change their policies or we convince the legislators to change their tax structure.
Vail tree farm is open for walk in right now.
Right now is correct. Not during hunting season.
Post by: rtspring on January 05, 2014, 02:00:45 PM
Hunt somewhere else!! No one is going to boycott the buying of tags. These antler hungry people will dang near cut your throat for ten points let alone a better chance at a tag...
Rtspring
Post by: scout/sniper on January 05, 2014, 02:12:33 PM
Simple solution...
Hunt somewhere else!! No one is going to boycott the buying of tags. These antler hungry people will dang near cut your throat for ten points let alone a better chance at a tag...
Rtspring
Western WA is mostly weyco, to the tune of over 6 million acres.
And yes, people will still buy tags and access permits to post their next hero pic.
Post by: bigtex on January 05, 2014, 02:17:48 PM
Simple solution...
Hunt somewhere else!! No one is going to boycott the buying of tags. These antler hungry people will dang near cut your throat for ten points let alone a better chance at a tag...
Rtspring
Western WA is mostly weyco, to the tune of over 6 million acres.
And yes, people will still buy tags and access permits to post their next hero pic.
Not really, I'd say SW WA and the peninsula are Weyco if it's not public. Once you get into Pierce County and north the main timber company is Hancock.
Post by: Annette on January 05, 2014, 02:19:29 PM
Annette
Post by: Mike450r on January 05, 2014, 02:36:04 PM
Vail had much better utilization by all user groups this year than since the days of all gates open all the time. The best spots can't realistically be reached without vehicle access and it had only been available during modern firearm weekends for a long time.
Scouting, mushrooms, grouse hunting, fishing, the ability to get out there any day was well worth the money to me. If it isn't worth it to you then don't pay it but for those of us that are willing and able we will continue to do so. It is much better than being extremely limited in when you can get out in the woods. Vail in particular, full daytime access for 5 months barring fire closure versus 8 weekend days.
Post by: kentrek on January 05, 2014, 03:56:40 PM
Post by: Ice Cap on January 05, 2014, 04:02:07 PM
This kind of thought goes right along with "We should boycott the airlines that fly Boeing planes, because of the tax breaks Boeing gets".
The timber companies have been warning us YEARS they would have to do something ( charge, or even close land) if the misuse didn't stop.
Hunterman(Tony)
If Boeing gets a tax break for building planes parts A-B-C-and D here, then stops building A & B here, then YES their tax break should go down. Its only logical for the average taxpayer to get full value for their tax break.
State law justifies the property tax break timberland gets(we pay more so timber can pay less) because of the public benefits timberland provides. One of those is providing recreational spaces, and another is wild game. Now they have stopped providing that recreation for free, and are charging for access to our game. So, logically, their tax break should be reduced. Simple common sense.
There is absolutely no argument about abuse/dumping/garbage/ road maintenance that can be used to justify charging for non-motorized access. I must costs them MORE to enforce a no entry policy than a walk-in only policy.
Maybe.....maybe I could understand a permit for motorized access, but when they require one for non-motorized access then scream garbage dumping, they should lose all credibility with thinking people--including everyone reading this. And this is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Can you provide a link to where it states in WA tax law that to receive agricultural or timber tax rates a property owner is required to provide recreational opportunities to the general public?
Post by: biggfish on January 05, 2014, 04:24:14 PM
Post by: fireweed on January 05, 2014, 04:28:15 PM
This kind of thought goes right along with "We should boycott the airlines that fly Boeing planes, because of the tax breaks Boeing gets".
The timber companies have been warning us YEARS they would have to do something ( charge, or even close land) if the misuse didn't stop.
Hunterman(Tony)
If Boeing gets a tax break for building planes parts A-B-C-and D here, then stops building A & B here, then YES their tax break should go down. Its only logical for the average taxpayer to get full value for their tax break.
State law justifies the property tax break timberland gets(we pay more so timber can pay less) because of the public benefits timberland provides. One of those is providing recreational spaces, and another is wild game. Now they have stopped providing that recreation for free, and are charging for access to our game. So, logically, their tax break should be reduced. Simple common sense.
There is absolutely no argument about abuse/dumping/garbage/ road maintenance that can be used to justify charging for non-motorized access. I must costs them MORE to enforce a no entry policy than a walk-in only policy.
Maybe.....maybe I could understand a permit for motorized access, but when they require one for non-motorized access then scream garbage dumping, they should lose all credibility with thinking people--including everyone reading this. And this is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Can you provide a link to where it states in WA tax law that to receive agricultural or timber tax rates a property owner is required to provide recreational opportunities to the general public?
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.010 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.010)
Recreation is not currently required (neither is anything else for that matter). Recreational spaces is listed in the "legislative findings" which justifies the reasoning behind the tax break. The law doesn't have required checks and balances for ANY of the public benefits outlined in the findings. Some of the items, like clean water, are covered by the Forest Practice Rules.
Changing and updating laws to better serve citizens is the work of the legislature and they do it all the time. Dozens of changes are already being considered for the next session. Adding some requirements for our tax breaks isn't a huge stretch. Other states have a two-tiered system--One rate for free public access, another for pay or no access.
Post by: SCRUBS on January 05, 2014, 04:38:59 PM
Post by: rasbo on January 05, 2014, 05:02:36 PM
The permit thing sucks, but it`s their land. I don`t agree with using the government to bully people or companies.:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: bobcat on January 05, 2014, 05:04:48 PM
The permit thing sucks, but it`s their land. I don`t agree with using the government to bully people or companies.:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
The government already DOES control, or "bully" people with taxes on different things.
Post by: _TONY_ on January 05, 2014, 05:16:37 PM
It's either recieve your tax break by allowing free public access, or don't, and pay the tax in its entirety and charge whatever you want for access.
If we, the public, are not benefiting (access) from the forgone tax money, then it should be rightfully collected and used on things that will benefit the public. Like using it for schools etc...
Tony
Post by: SCRUBS on January 05, 2014, 05:47:09 PM
The permit thing sucks, but it`s their land. I don`t agree with using the government to bully people or companies.:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
The government already DOES control, or "bully" people with taxes on different things.
So that makes it right or ok? It most certainly isn`t ok with me. IMHO, it`s one of the many things wrong with this country, but that`s for another topic.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 05, 2014, 05:58:33 PM
The permit thing sucks, but it`s their land. I don`t agree with using the government to bully people or companies.:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
:yeah:
Post by: fireweed on January 05, 2014, 06:03:53 PM
No bullying going on IMHO...
It's either recieve your tax break by allowing free public access, or don't, and pay the tax in its entirety and charge whatever you want for access.
If we, the public, are not benefiting (access) from the forgone tax money, then it should be rightfully collected and used on things that will benefit the public. Like using it for schools etc...
Tony
For everyone against adjusting this tax break, the truth is, it is not a real tax break at all. This tax break is actually a tax shift. YOU and ME are already paying more so timberland can pay less. If they paid more share, there would be no more money collected. Property taxes can only raise 1% a year overall. The same amount would come in, just that timber would pay a little more, and everyone else would pay a little less. We are ALREADY subsidizing them...just how it is distributed would change a little. In our county the average $250,000 home pays about $30 more per household for timber to pay $30 less.
Post by: tonymiller7 on January 05, 2014, 06:16:46 PM
Post by: AKBowman on January 05, 2014, 06:18:27 PM
So we don't like what a group is doing with their private property, so let's tax the heck out of them...sounds like anti-hunting plans I've heard of....can't get rid of the guns so let's tax the heck out of ammo...
Seems like a low odds of success dealing with the problem. :bdid: and I'm not saying the lack of access isn't a problem but trying to raise tax rates on a for profit business seems like danged near the business world equivalent of holding a gun to their head.
And what in the world does WDFW have to do with tax law?
I have no problem with a landowner doing exactly what they want with their own land as long as it doesn't negatively affect others surrounding them. However, the current tax laws for timber lands were set up decades ago while the timber companies were allowing recreational use of their land. The rate at which these lands are taxed was lowered for those lands not currently being logged under the assumption that they would continue to allow the public to recreate on their property. The timber companies' attitudes about public recreation have changed and so should the tax rate which was developed under different circumstances. They're no longer allowing public recreational use so the public should no longer allow a lower tax liability. This doesn't force them to do anything with their private land, but it does require a more equitable taxation, more in line with what other private land owners pay.
Very we'll said.
Scout/Sniper I am a member of WFW.
Post by: dreamunelk on January 05, 2014, 06:19:43 PM
No bullying going on IMHO...
It's either recieve your tax break by allowing free public access, or don't, and pay the tax in its entirety and charge whatever you want for access.
If we, the public, are not benefiting (access) from the forgone tax money, then it should be rightfully collected and used on things that will benefit the public. Like using it for schools etc...
Tony
For everyone against adjusting this tax break, the truth is, it is not a real tax break at all. This tax break is actually a tax shift. YOU and ME are already paying more so timberland can pay less. If they paid more share, there would be no more money collected. Property taxes can only raise 1% a year overall. The same amount would come in, just that timber would pay a little more, and everyone else would pay a little less. We are ALREADY subsidizing them...just how it is distributed would change a little. In our county the average $250,000 home pays about $30 more per household for timber to pay $30 less.
Bongo! :yeah:
Bottom line is we pay more so they can pay less. If I am not getting anything in return for paying more taxes then we need to shift it back.
As for WDFW stance. Boycott does not make sense. They have no say. It is your elected officials who have the say and can reverse this. So call them and let them no where you next vote will go if they fail to represent your opinions on this.
Post by: _TONY_ on January 05, 2014, 06:22:59 PM
Sorry I have to vote no, I hunt National Forrest for both deer and elk so timberlands do not affect me.
Yet.
You ever seen how busy DNR, NF, or any other state land gets when the timber lands get closed down for fire dangers?
Kinda like that, but worst.
Post by: bobcat on January 05, 2014, 06:28:23 PM
Sorry I have to vote no, I hunt National Forrest for both deer and elk so timberlands do not affect me.
Yet.
You ever seen how busy DNR, NF, or any other state land gets when the timber lands get closed down for fire dangers?
Kinda like that, but worst.
:yeah:
Every hunter in the state will be affected by timberlands being shut down to public access.
Post by: Bob33 on January 05, 2014, 06:41:28 PM
We've all seen it.
Post by: ellensburgpo on January 05, 2014, 06:54:10 PM
What bothers me most is the suspicion that hunters brought this on themselves by disgraceful behavior on private lands.
We've all seen it.
:yeah: yup
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 05, 2014, 06:54:46 PM
What bothers me most is the suspicion that hunters brought this on themselves by disgraceful behavior on private lands.
We've all seen it.
Yes, and everyone should be prepared for the timber companies to give examples to the media and the legislature.
Post by: kirkl on January 05, 2014, 07:30:31 PM
Post by: Ingwe on January 05, 2014, 07:44:12 PM
I have some friends who's family own over 1000 acres of timber land. They have had nothing but trouble last few years with people dumping garbage by their gates, and running around on ATV. Their land is now posted and I would do the same thing. I know a lot of the problems are not caused by hunters. But hunters get blamed. Their is no easy answer but if timber companies were forced to let anyone on their land, then I guess my friends would also have to let anyone on their land and also I would have to let anyone hunt on my 20 acres.
Post by: AKBowman on January 05, 2014, 07:49:53 PM
Yep, boycott the eastside draws :) dont hunt the westside so dont care.
Where do you think all of Therese west side elk hunters are going to go if they can't afford to buy access passes? East. Do you care now?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 06, 2014, 05:07:15 AM
I am probably in the minority but I prefer the fee access. The amount they make off of it is peanuts so it's not about the money that they take in, it's about being able to have more control over their resources and the money they can save by knowing who is in there along with the lower chances that they have to clean up large amounts of trash and lower user caused damages.
Vail had much better utilization by all user groups this year than since the days of all gates open all the time. The best spots can't realistically be reached without vehicle access and it had only been available during modern firearm weekends for a long time.
Scouting, mushrooms, grouse hunting, fishing, the ability to get out there any day was well worth the money to me. If it isn't worth it to you then don't pay it but for those of us that are willing and able we will continue to do so. It is much better than being extremely limited in when you can get out in the woods. Vail in particular, full daytime access for 5 months barring fire closure versus 8 weekend days.
So they guys and families who aren't able to pay are just out of luck then? This is a sport that people already pay hundreds of dollars to just get their tags. Add a couple of kids, camo, boots, transportation and a $1000/year is the minimum. Adding another $200-300 for some families puts this out of reach. I'm glad you're able to pay it, as am I. There are a lot of people who can't shoulder the additional burden.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 06, 2014, 05:33:57 AM
Yep, boycott the eastside draws :) dont hunt the westside so dont care.
Where do you think all of Therese west side elk hunters are going to go if they can't afford to buy access passes? East. Do you care now?
If someone can't afford the couple hundred for a pass, they probably can't afford to drive to the east side either.
Post by: tonymiller7 on January 06, 2014, 07:07:14 AM
Sorry I have to vote no, I hunt National Forrest for both deer and elk so timberlands do not affect me.
Yet.
You ever seen how busy DNR, NF, or any other state land gets when the timber lands get closed down for fire dangers?
Kinda like that, but worst.
:yeah:
Every hunter in the state will be affected by timberlands being shut down to public access.
And yet you want to boycott getting an elk tag when I harvested an elk this year and saw 0 other hunters in the woods (on managed trails doesn't count) while hunting. As long as you get off of the main road extra people doesn't seem to be an issue. I understand the frustration, as I used to hunt timberlands but as it stands now I will not be boycotting anytime soon.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 06, 2014, 07:33:29 AM
I don't think boycotting an elk tag sold by an agency that is aware of the timberlands access issues will do much. I think going after the tax breaks is probably a more effective idea (i.e., contact your legislators). Although I don't hunt private timberlands, I do understand how critical access is and even though I may not directly hunt it I agree it can still effect me and other hunters. Access to hunting land continues to be a critical component to the future of hunting. Any loss of access should concern every sportsmen.
Post by: fireweed on January 06, 2014, 07:49:38 AM
I have lived in western lewis county most of my life. I remember when I could drive around Weyerhaueser land at PeEll year round. I remember when they started putting up a few gates in areas they did not want people driving in. People just drove their four wheelers around the gates. No respect for land owner. I bought a pass for the PeEll unit last year. I really enjoyed. I hated to pay for access but that is the way it is going to be. There was still a lot of people in some areas but at least most everyone was following the rules. Hardly any garbage or beer cans along the roads. I don't blame them for wanting to control who and how many get access to their land.
I have some friends who's family own over 1000 acres of timber land. They have had nothing but trouble last few years with people dumping garbage by their gates, and running around on ATV. Their land is now posted and I would do the same thing. I know a lot of the problems are not caused by hunters. But hunters get blamed. Their is no easy answer but if timber companies were forced to let anyone on their land, then I guess my friends would also have to let anyone on their land and also I would have to let anyone hunt on my 20 acres.
I too have lived smack dab in the middle of industrial timber for my whole life, and grew up driving and roaming Weyco lands. Our family also has timberland, and yes, along roads, we have had garbage dumped--by tweekers. Every tax reform idea to improve access has been directed at industrial (5,000-acres plus) timberland and only requiring non-motorized access for a full tax break. All the problems stem from motorized access--not walk-in, horse, bicycle.
For rural folks like us who live within to these huge "kingdoms" it's not just about hunting, and it is shortsighted to just focus on hunting. For example, next year my kids may be trespassing when they ride their bikes to Grandmas, train for track on a safe logging road, play in the neighboring creek, or pick blackberries. These simple quality-of-life items my family has been doing here alongside Weyerhaeuser for over 100 years. Now they want to charge us....all the while I still subsidize them in property taxes. Its just plain wrong.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 06, 2014, 08:43:01 AM
Sorry I have to vote no, I hunt National Forrest for both deer and elk so timberlands do not affect me.
Yet.
You ever seen how busy DNR, NF, or any other state land gets when the timber lands get closed down for fire dangers?
Kinda like that, but worst.
:yeah:
Every hunter in the state will be affected by timberlands being shut down to public access.
And yet you want to boycott getting an elk tag when I harvested an elk this year and saw 0 other hunters in the woods (on managed trails doesn't count) while hunting. As long as you get off of the main road extra people doesn't seem to be an issue. I understand the frustration, as I used to hunt timberlands but as it stands now I will not be boycotting anytime soon.
I agree that boycotting will do nothing. However, I can't remember the last time I saw zero hunters in the woods. I hunt NF and it seems the numbers there are increasing, and I would bet some of that has to do with paid access on timber property.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 06, 2014, 11:01:07 AM
Scout/Sniper I am a member of WFW.
I cordially invite you to join the discussion in CH-5 and put your frustration to work. :tup:
Post by: AKBowman on January 06, 2014, 04:52:40 PM
Scout/Sniper I am a member of WFW.
I cordially invite you to join the discussion in CH-5 and put your frustration to work. :tup:
When/where is the next Ch-5 meeting? I am in Ch-4 area but would gladly like to join in on a Ch-5 meeting.
Post by: bobcat on January 06, 2014, 05:15:34 PM
Honestly I think I'd rather have the access permits for a couple hundred dollars, and the ability to drive in and hunt from. August 1 to December 31. Vail has never appealed to me since scouting before the season was not possible. I don't like going into areas totally blind, especially when there's two thousand other hunters all crowded into the same area on the same day.
I don't know what the solution is but I don't really want 100% of the Weyerhaeuser roads gated off and closed to all motor vehicles, even if they did allow non motorized access. All that will do is concentrate most hunters within one or two miles of the gates, myself included. I think I would rather have a $50 pass and all mainline gates open. Otherwise, I will just quit hunting the west side of the state.
Post by: Jonathan_S on January 06, 2014, 05:37:11 PM
Weyco is a privately owned company for crying out loud. That would be no different than lobbying for increased taxes on Dayton or Prescott unit farmers for not opening up their land to hunting.
I would support a boycott on the pass and Spring Bear tags for those areas.
Post by: Bunny Thumper on January 06, 2014, 08:44:40 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2014, 05:16:35 AM
Scout/Sniper I am a member of WFW.
I cordially invite you to join the discussion in CH-5 and put your frustration to work. :tup:
When/where is the next Ch-5 meeting? I am in Ch-4 area but would gladly like to join in on a Ch-5 meeting.
Tomorrow Night, 7 PM at Guliano's Pizza in Woodland. Hope to see you there. :tup:
Post by: AKBowman on January 07, 2014, 08:38:36 AM
I voted no.
Weyco is a privately owned company for crying out loud. That would be no different than lobbying for increased taxes on Dayton or Prescott unit farmers for not opening up their land to hunting.
I would support a boycott on the pass and Spring Bear tags for those areas.
I think the point many are stating on here is that it is not the same as what you have described above. From what I am now understanding Originally the timber lands were purchased under an agreement for public access in exchange for diversified tax breaks. Meaning the public pays a share of the timber co's taxes for the exchange of access to the land.
Yes, Weyco is a private company but the land in which they generate their profit from is taxed differently than the land of the private farmer you described above. It's no different than many of the other states that give farmers tax breaks for segmenting all or a portion of their land for Walk-in only public access. In exchange for the access they get a break in taxes or some sort of subsidization for allowing the public to access their lands. They are not forced to do this it is by choice and it seems to work out great in those areas. From what I understand this same type of agreement was made with Weyco and they have been reaping the benefits of the tax break but are now also charging access fees and still reaping the benefits of here tax break? Timber co's should absolutely be allowed to do what they want with their giant mega chunks of land but if we are paying a portion of their taxes to utilize it than how does it make any sense that we have to stroke them another check for an access pass? It's either one or the other it's BS that they are getting both and I for one won't support it.
Like others have said its hard to understand how allowing non motorized access is going to cost them money in property damage. I don't see a tweaker biking or hiking in their washer and dryer to shoot it full of holes and dump it on timber land.
Post by: fireweed on January 07, 2014, 09:01:41 AM
I've been pondering this for a while now, and really, what good is it if we only have walk in access to Weyerhaeuser's tree farms? This talk about doing something so we can regain the access that has been lost, to me we need open gates and drive in access, and not just 2 or 3 weekends per year.
Honestly I think I'd rather have the access permits for a couple hundred dollars, and the ability to drive in and hunt from. August 1 to December 31. Vail has never appealed to me since scouting before the season was not possible. I don't like going into areas totally blind, especially when there's two thousand other hunters all crowded into the same area on the same day.
I don't know what the solution is but I don't really want 100% of the Weyerhaeuser roads gated off and closed to all motor vehicles, even if they did allow non motorized access. All that will do is concentrate most hunters within one or two miles of the gates, myself included. I think I would rather have a $50 pass and all mainline gates open. Otherwise, I will just quit hunting the west side of the state.
That's reasonable, but I think to get the full tax break (that we already pay for) they also need to allow unlimited non-motorized access year round. They can charge for motorized without a change in tax breaks, IF coupled with free non-motorized.
Post by: Peregrine on January 07, 2014, 09:10:45 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 07, 2014, 09:53:36 AM
Quote
That's reasonable, but I think to get the full tax break (that we already pay for) they also need to allow unlimited non-motorized access year round. They can charge for motorized without a change in tax breaks, IF coupled with free non-motorized.
Agreed!
Post by: b0bbyg on January 07, 2014, 01:07:14 PM
I might be thinking too simple but it seems that the timber companies want less animals, If you could organize a boycott of hunting their lands and buying there access permits you might have a better shot. If nobody is getting Elk/deer/bear off Timber lands they might have incentive to open up more access.
If you want to influence the legislature then either lots of people need to contact their reps or you get a lobbyist ( like the big timber companies have )
Again I might be thinking too simple but it just my :twocents: and cost you very little to read :chuckle:
Post by: scout/sniper on January 07, 2014, 01:50:22 PM
As many have said I don't think this approach would accomplish what many really want, which is free access to Timber lands.
I might be thinking too simple but it seems that the timber companies want less animals, If you could organize a boycott of hunting their lands and buying there access permits you might have a better shot. If nobody is getting Elk/deer/bear off Timber lands they might have incentive to open up more access.
If you want to influence the legislature then either lots of people need to contact their reps or you get a lobbyist ( like the big timber companies have )
Again I might be thinking too simple but it just my :twocents: and cost you very little to read :chuckle:
I don't think it's too simple.
I have quietly contemplated something along the lines of working with WDFW and closing weyco lands to all hunting if they restrict access.
I don't know, it seems pretty extreme to me.
Voluntarily boycotting hunting won't work because even those people that say they will support you will stab you in the back and buy passes and hunt anyway.
I don't understand why everyone isn't helping WFW on this issue.
Post by: AKBowman on January 07, 2014, 05:13:33 PM
As many have said I don't think this approach would accomplish what many really want, which is free access to Timber lands.
I might be thinking too simple but it seems that the timber companies want less animals, If you could organize a boycott of hunting their lands and buying there access permits you might have a better shot. If nobody is getting Elk/deer/bear off Timber lands they might have incentive to open up more access.
If you want to influence the legislature then either lots of people need to contact their reps or you get a lobbyist ( like the big timber companies have )
Again I might be thinking too simple but it just my :twocents: and cost you very little to read :chuckle:
I don't think it's too simple.
I have quietly contemplated something along the lines of working with WDFW and closing weyco lands to all hunting if they restrict access.
I don't know, it seems pretty extreme to me.
Voluntarily boycotting hunting won't work because even those people that say they will support you will stab you in the back and buy passes and hunt anyway.
I don't understand why everyone isn't helping WFW on this issue.
I can see now that boycotting purchasing an elk tag probably isn't the most effective measure to take. I sure as hell won't be purchasing an access pass to a private timber lands. Instead, I donated $100 to WFW. Even though I don't think we should have to depend on WFW it has become apparent it will be the most effective avenue to take. A unified voice for all hunters of WA State.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 07, 2014, 05:26:56 PM
I can see now that boycotting purchasing an elk tag probably isn't the most effective measure to take. I sure as hell won't be purchasing an access pass to a private timber lands. Instead, I donated $100 to WFW. Even though I don't think we should have to depend on WFW it has become apparent it will be the most effective avenue to take. A unified voice for all hunters of WA State.
That is really something. Good on you! :tup:
Post by: stuckalot on January 07, 2014, 05:36:15 PM
This kind of thought goes right along with "We should boycott the airlines that fly Boeing planes, because of the tax breaks Boeing gets".
The timber companies have been warning us YEARS they would have to do something ( charge, or even close land) if the misuse didn't stop.
Hunterman(Tony)
If Boeing gets a tax break for building planes parts A-B-C-and D here, then stops building A & B here, then YES their tax break should go down. Its only logical for the average taxpayer to get full value for their tax break.
State law justifies the property tax break timberland gets(we pay more so timber can pay less) because of the public benefits timberland provides. One of those is providing recreational spaces, and another is wild game. Now they have stopped providing that recreation for free, and are charging for access to our game. So, logically, their tax break should be reduced. Simple common sense.
There is absolutely no argument about abuse/dumping/garbage/ road maintenance that can be used to justify charging for non-motorized access. I must costs them MORE to enforce a no entry policy than a walk-in only policy.
Maybe.....maybe I could understand a permit for motorized access, but when they require one for non-motorized access then scream garbage dumping, they should lose all credibility with thinking people--including everyone reading this. And this is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Can you provide a link to where it states in WA tax law that to receive agricultural or timber tax rates a property owner is required to provide recreational opportunities to the general public?
:yeah:
I think there is a whole lot of misconception about tax rates on here.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 07, 2014, 05:41:51 PM
I think there is a whole lot of misconception about tax rates on here.
This is why we have meetings to figure out all of our options.
Post by: ScottyG on January 07, 2014, 11:22:28 PM
I have no problem with a landowner doing exactly what they want with their own land as long as it doesn't negatively affect others surrounding them. However, the current tax laws for timber lands were set up decades ago while the timber companies were allowing recreational use of their land. The rate at which these lands are taxed was lowered for those lands not currently being logged under the assumption that they would continue to allow the public to recreate on their property. The timber companies' attitudes about public recreation have changed and so should the tax rate which was developed under different circumstances. They're no longer allowing public recreational use so the public should no longer allow a lower tax liability. This doesn't force them to do anything with their private land, but it does require a more equitable taxation, more in line with what other private land owners pay.
[/quote]
I think this idea has merit, but could backfire. I don't know the history of tax rates on timber land, but one could certainly look at the long history of public access to these huge tracts of land as a defacto tax that was being levied on the timber companies. It seems that they are no longer paying that tax, so I see little issue with increasing their monetary tax rate and reducing any benefit ever given to them for the public access element of their property.
I would suggest that we find a way to help the timber companies with the vandalism costs that they incur because of the public access. Then we'd get a better feel for the real motivation that is behind these moves. If vandalism is truly the reason for the shutout of the public, it seems that paying for that damage would be a natural solution but I think there is more going on here than just a concern over vandalism.
Economics tells me that what is really happening here is a maximization of the value of those lands to those that own them. Keep the costs down (the vandalism) and increase the income being generated by each acre of property. If public access had value, this is an effort to monetize that value and convert it to shareholder wealth. It only makes sense to reduce the taxes paid in any legal way possible and public access may be seen as a tax... its the corporate way to reduce taxes. Unless there is a profit motive that says otherwise, why would they let people onto their land. Goodness of their hearts?... please, we are talking about major corporations with shareholders, boards of directors, and whole departments of lawyers and accountants. Throw "goodness of their hearts" out the window. Unless someone can find a way that a company that gives public access can charge more for their wood, I see little to motivate them to give public access.
I suppose you could give a tax break to the guys that gave public access... but that seem unlikely in these fiscal times.
Until there is a reason... like higher property tax rates for not granting public access or tax credits for granting public access... there is little incentive for corporations to change course. The nice thing is that the timber companies can't just pick up and move their property like Boeing might move a factory and unless zoning changes they really can't use the property for anything but growing trees so they won't likely be converting these huge tracts of land to anything else. The threat of higher taxes might work to increase access to the public. They could just pass on the cost of the higher taxes to the consumer through the products that they sell, but that seems unlikely if the tax is local and they are competing to sell their globally against suppliers from areas that aren't taxed in this way... so maybe it would work.
But, the law of unintended consequences might bite us. What if the timber companies gave public access but don't allow hunting. Wouldn't that be a bitch. Unfortunately, to raise the taxes you are probably going to have to get the general public's support to get the groundswell of political momentum you would need. Its not a stretch for me to see the anti hunters jumping into this mess and convincing the city dwellers that its the access that is important, not the hunting. Then, we'd really be up a creek.
Enjoy what's left and keep fighting to slow the process.
Post by: Bob33 on January 07, 2014, 11:28:58 PM
The whole point of this thread is that they already are getting a tax break to allow public access, but are charging it for it now.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 05:13:42 AM
If you're interested in getting involved in this, we have a WFW meeting in Woodland tonight, 7 PM at Gilliano's Pizza 1147 N Goerig St
Woodland, WA 98674
(360) 225-4664
Post by: fireweed on January 08, 2014, 10:01:07 AM
ScottyG is right. I also strongly suggest broadening the support beyond hunting. The Rock Climbers are mad too since Weyco. has closed Fossil Rock, the geocachers are locked out, anglers can't get to the steelhead, hiker can't get to trailheads, horseback riders can't ride from home, simply going for a walk, bicycle ride or run is affected. This needs to be about "Recreational access" not hunting access. For me, living within a Weyco tree farm, this aspect is even more important that hunting access. I want my kids to be able to play in the creek, ride their bikes, walk to the neighbors, or simply enjoy nature near home like I did without a pass, permit, or threat. Making childhood a crime should be a crime.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 08, 2014, 10:09:07 AM
All of this is being discussed and considered.
There is too much material for me to explain it all on this forum.
And I will not show my hand until I need to.
Some things need to be kept close to the vest.
You are more than welcome to contribute if you like.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 10:27:45 AM
I applaud what WFW is trying to do....However, its been done: SW Wash. Land Access Coalition, Eyes in the Woods, St. Helens Preservation Society, even the WDFW all tried this approach--be nice, patrol, pick up garbage--and then still get shut out. Don't miss this legislative session to at least introduce strong tax reform. They won't take us seriously until legislators talk taxes.
ScottyG is right. I also strongly suggest broadening the support beyond hunting. The Rock Climbers are mad too since Weyco. has closed Fossil Rock, the geocachers are locked out, anglers can't get to the steelhead, hiker can't get to trailheads, horseback riders can't ride from home, simply going for a walk, bicycle ride or run is affected. This needs to be about "Recreational access" not hunting access. For me, living within a Weyco tree farm, this aspect is even more important that hunting access. I want my kids to be able to play in the creek, ride their bikes, walk to the neighbors, or simply enjoy nature near home like I did without a pass, permit, or threat. Making childhood a crime should be a crime.
I agree completely. I've been on the trash cleanups. We still need to make sure we get an answer from them before go after it. And, you're right about this being an important issue to many groups of outdoors people. It'll make for some strange bedfellows for sure. :chuckle: But once we get some momentum in WFW, we can approach other groups to join us. We're already meeting with another hunting group next week on Monday. You should join WFW, Fireweed. We could use you. They have beer and pizza at Gilliano's, so there's that!
Post by: scout/sniper on January 08, 2014, 10:29:48 AM
You should join WFW, Fireweed. We could use you. They have beer and pizza at Gilliano's, so there's that!
I agree with your entire statement pman, but :tup: on the quote!
Post by: b0bbyg on January 08, 2014, 12:10:14 PM
What exactly does WFW stand for? Washingtonians for Wildlife? or Worse for wear :chuckle:
Does WFW have a website for more info about them?
Post by: scout/sniper on January 08, 2014, 12:11:33 PM
Follow the link. Membership is free.
http://www.washingtonforwildlife.com/join.html (http://www.washingtonforwildlife.com/join.html)
Post by: scout/sniper on January 08, 2014, 12:14:40 PM
"To protect Washington's hunting, fishing, and outdoor heritage;
to foster local programs enhancing habitat, wildlife, and outdoor activities in WashingtonState;
to hold regulating agencies accountable as the stewards of our wildlife;
to ensure that science used in wildlife management is both valid and reliable;
to work with other organizations in the furtherance of stated goals;
and to fight legal and legislative efforts to take our rights and freedoms provided
under the Washington State Constitution and the United States Constitution."
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 08, 2014, 12:15:28 PM
I am not on the site as much or involved as many of you so for the sake of others in my shoes.
What exactly does WFW stand for? Washingtonians for Wildlife? or Worse for wear :chuckle:
Does WFW have a website for more info about them?
Bobby, most of the work is done on the HuntWA website. Once you sign up for WFW, you'll have access to the WFW boards.
Post by: b0bbyg on January 08, 2014, 12:27:07 PM
Washington For Wildlife Mission Statement:
"To protect Washington's hunting, fishing, and outdoor heritage;
to foster local programs enhancing habitat, wildlife, and outdoor activities in WashingtonState;
to hold regulating agencies accountable as the stewards of our wildlife;
to ensure that science used in wildlife management is both valid and reliable;
to work with other organizations in the furtherance of stated goals;
and to fight legal and legislative efforts to take our rights and freedoms provided
under the Washington State Constitution and the United States Constitution."
Thanks, I'll check it out
Post by: scout/sniper on January 08, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
Thanks, I'll check it out
:tup: If you decide to join, please let me know so I can add you to our list. You are in Region 5.
Post by: fireweed on January 09, 2014, 01:17:41 PM
HB2150
This link has a comment form.
This bill allows property owners to charge $25 per person, and still get liability protection.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2150 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2150)
My Issues: As written I think this bill will make access WORSE. How? It tweeks the signage requirements and allows "written notification" instead of posted signs for hazards. Every single landowner will now be pushed to prove they provided written notice, which means every single person who steps on timberland will have to have this written piece of paper for the timber company to get liability immunity. Meanwhile, They also can charge up to $25 per person. All the landlowners now will be compelled to charge and then provide the written proof of "warnings" (aka permit). The law also lets landowners set up their own safety rules that have to be followed. So we will see more of things like no person under 18 allowed, firearm restrictions, etc. that can then be considered trespassing. Good try to Blake, but BAD IDEA.
Post by: Opportunist on January 10, 2014, 03:42:05 PM
If Weyco charges an access permit for the St. Helens tree there will a waiting list of hunters to buy them. Just like down in the willipa hills the first couple of years the permit was around a hundred bucks, this season it was $375, WITH A WAITING LIST.
I will be buying an elk tag in Washington this season and I will not purchase an access permit from weyco, that is my personal boycott.
Post by: Bob33 on January 10, 2014, 03:48:35 PM
It was 6-7 years ago that timber company's lobbied to have the public access clause taken out of the tax code and was able to get it through and none of the hunting/conservation groups knew about it until it was a done deal. Weyco and other large timber companies kept it quiet. They do not have to allow public access to receive their favorable taxation.That's my suspicion. The timber companies aren't stupid. They thought this out long before making the change to charge for access.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 10, 2014, 04:58:27 PM
I will be buying an elk tag in Washington this season and I will not purchase an access permit from weyco, that is my personal boycott.
I will be doing the same.
Hopefully we will have some success and this won't need to happen.
Post by: sakoshooter on January 11, 2014, 09:39:30 PM
if the national forest in managed correctly then why do we feel the need to hunt weyco lands? if you really want to boycott elk hunting to make it work you would need to get everyone to boycott permit sales to. hit them both in the wallet and they will listen. I have been saying this for years that we all need to band together and stick with it and boycott all hunting to get license fees down. but to do it we have to get the whole state together.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2014, 09:25:43 AM
:yeah:if the national forest in managed correctly then why do we feel the need to hunt weyco lands? if you really want to boycott elk hunting to make it work you would need to get everyone to boycott permit sales to. hit them both in the wallet and they will listen. I have been saying this for years that we all need to band together and stick with it and boycott all hunting to get license fees down. but to do it we have to get the whole state together.
The entire rest of the thread answers the first question you asked. Boycotting elk sales will have zero effect on WEYCO. The cost of elk tags is not in question. Our license fees in WA are not out of line with those of other states. This is all about tax laws that were passed under the assumption big timber companies would continue to allow public use of their lands. Since the public use has changed to permit only, so should the tax structure.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 12, 2014, 09:28:49 AM
:yeah:if the national forest in managed correctly then why do we feel the need to hunt weyco lands? if you really want to boycott elk hunting to make it work you would need to get everyone to boycott permit sales to. hit them both in the wallet and they will listen. I have been saying this for years that we all need to band together and stick with it and boycott all hunting to get license fees down. but to do it we have to get the whole state together.
The entire rest of the thread answers the first question you asked. Boycotting elk sales will have zero effect on WEYCO. The cost of elk tags is not in question. Our license fees in WA are not out of line with those of other states. This is all about tax laws that were passed under the assumption big timber companies would continue to allow public use of their lands. Since the public use has changed to permit only, so should the tax structure.
It has not changed to permit only...... you can go use most WEYCO land right now.
Post by: huntinguy on January 12, 2014, 09:37:00 AM
The damage done by hunters .. ya,, some big messes .. doubt it. I have never seen a hunter with a junk freezer or spare car body in the back of the truck.
But if they charge access fees .. are they still a tree farm or just a pay for access private park those don't get tax breaks do they ?
Post by: scout/sniper on January 12, 2014, 09:51:38 AM
:yeah:if the national forest in managed correctly then why do we feel the need to hunt weyco lands? if you really want to boycott elk hunting to make it work you would need to get everyone to boycott permit sales to. hit them both in the wallet and they will listen. I have been saying this for years that we all need to band together and stick with it and boycott all hunting to get license fees down. but to do it we have to get the whole state together.
The entire rest of the thread answers the first question you asked. Boycotting elk sales will have zero effect on WEYCO. The cost of elk tags is not in question. Our license fees in WA are not out of line with those of other states. This is all about tax laws that were passed under the assumption big timber companies would continue to allow public use of their lands. Since the public use has changed to permit only, so should the tax structure.
It has not changed to permit only...... you can go use most WEYCO land right now.
Right now, yes.
Last deer season every access road in my area was either gated to vehicle traffic or had a sign that said no entry at all. This included main access roads.
It appeared that weyco was conditioning us to what is coming.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 12, 2014, 10:04:08 AM
:yeah:if the national forest in managed correctly then why do we feel the need to hunt weyco lands? if you really want to boycott elk hunting to make it work you would need to get everyone to boycott permit sales to. hit them both in the wallet and they will listen. I have been saying this for years that we all need to band together and stick with it and boycott all hunting to get license fees down. but to do it we have to get the whole state together.
The entire rest of the thread answers the first question you asked. Boycotting elk sales will have zero effect on WEYCO. The cost of elk tags is not in question. Our license fees in WA are not out of line with those of other states. This is all about tax laws that were passed under the assumption big timber companies would continue to allow public use of their lands. Since the public use has changed to permit only, so should the tax structure.
It has not changed to permit only...... you can go use most WEYCO land right now.
Right now, yes.
Last deer season every access road in my area was either gated to vehicle traffic or had a sign that said no entry at all. This included main access roads.
It appeared that weyco was conditioning us to what is coming.
Same thing in my area.
Does WEYCO have to provide year round access? It seems odd to me that folks are so upset over a 150.00 fee. I doubt WEYCO makes any money off this as the additional insurance the fee provides each permit holder can't be cheap. Add that to the cost of additional security and wear and tear on the roads and I'm really sure the Evil Empire isn't getting rich on this.
If people are so pinched up about permits and fees maybe focus on DFW and the license fees they charge.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 12, 2014, 12:42:51 PM
Post by: xxlx7 on January 12, 2014, 01:59:13 PM
Lets say you guys get your way, and timber companies will have to pay a higher tax instead of the "lower" tax they pay.
Solution A: Money wins.. The Guide with the most money gets the most land. They won't give it back to the common folk, they will give it to the person who offers to pay the difference in taxes for restricted access on the company land, walk in and drive in only for them.
Solution B: They open the land back up, and have to deal with all the trash and garbage and crud that people dump, and I'm sorry, but I would put a million dollars that there are people on this forum that think "its only one beer can, its only one candy wrapper." OR the money excuse, obviously the timberland company can afford road crews, so dumping my bag of trash, my broken dishwasher, ect.
Solution C: More likely than solution B, they shut it down completely to everyone and pay the higher tax, and in return, when you go to home depot to buy your $40 sheet of plywood, its now $65.
Timber companies have the right to charge for access to their land, if it were your land, you would to, they charge to control the access, to be able to control the sloppy pigs that go onto their property and cut wood, dump garbage, drive quads down the roads, people flying around corners rutting them up. I don't blame timber companies at all, and I don't blame the meth heads for it all either, its everyone.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 12, 2014, 02:06:51 PM
Post by: xxlx7 on January 12, 2014, 02:13:08 PM
Post by: scout/sniper on January 12, 2014, 02:14:25 PM
Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.
:tup: I would say yes to this.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 12, 2014, 02:19:04 PM
If solution D goes through I hope to see more legal enforcement due to trash, driving crazy, dumping yard waste ect.
Or get people off their azz and organize a group that would commit to cleanup, patrolling and reporting crimes.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 12, 2014, 02:23:02 PM
Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.
:tup: I would say yes to this.
So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?
Post by: scout/sniper on January 12, 2014, 02:26:50 PM
Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.
:tup: I would say yes to this.
So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?
It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 12, 2014, 02:29:35 PM
Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.
:tup: I would say yes to this.
So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?
It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.
It covers the timber companies liability, but does it cover the permit holder? How much is a couple thousand acres of timber worth?
Post by: scout/sniper on January 12, 2014, 02:32:26 PM
Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.
:tup: I would say yes to this.
So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?
It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.
It covers the timber companies liability, but does it cover the permit holder? How much is a couple thousand acres of timber worth?
I see your point.
Post by: sakoshooter on January 13, 2014, 12:19:33 AM
Post by: fireweed on January 13, 2014, 09:06:10 AM
Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.
:tup: I would say yes to this.
This is ALMOST what is proposed in the legislature right now. HB 2150 allows them to charge $25 per person. The big problem is it includes non-motorized access too. Which under every circumstance should be free and without permits. Absolutely none of the "excuses" ie garbage, wear/tear on roads, ruts, safety have anything at all to do with non-motorized access. I could understand a $25 per vehicle fee (not-person) with free non-motorized and keep liability immunity.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 09:55:24 AM
Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.
:tup: I would say yes to this.
So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?
It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.
It covers the timber companies liability, but does it cover the permit holder? How much is a couple thousand acres of timber worth?
I see your point.
Why would the permit holder be carried for anything? It's your job to have the proper insurance when you go hunting. If this is the cost to the timber companies to cover them against lawsuits, I'd be OK with that.
Have we heard back from the Yacolt Burn Club president on the meeting tonight?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 13, 2014, 10:16:38 AM
Solution D- You pay the 25.00 access but must provide liability insurance for motorized access.
:tup: I would say yes to this.
So how much coverage do you think would be necessary?
It appears that HB2150 would take care of it.
It covers the timber companies liability, but does it cover the permit holder? How much is a couple thousand acres of timber worth?
I see your point.
Why would the permit holder be carried for anything? It's your job to have the proper insurance when you go hunting. If this is the cost to the timber companies to cover them against lawsuits, I'd be OK with that.
Have we heard back from the Yacolt Burn Club president on the meeting tonight?
Pianoman,
That was one of the good things about the WEYCO permits last year. The 150.00 included supplemental insurance to cover the permit holders liability after the permit holders insurance was exhausted.
I have pretty good coverage, but I doubt it would be enough to cover me if I accidently caused a large fire.
Post by: REHJWA on January 15, 2014, 12:04:31 AM
WDFW could be allotted 10% of the access to private lands when fees are charged to access private lands to hunt public game. (kind of a "tax")
WDFW could then raffle the access to private lands. Private land owners would still be in control, WDFW could increase revenue, and hunters could gain access to private lands for the cost of the raffle vs the full price of a access permit. :twocents:
Post by: Legacy on January 16, 2014, 06:53:55 AM
As hunters, we grudgingly pay money to the state for licenses fees and permits so the WDFW can manage wildlife; we pay money for guns, ammo, bows and arrows; we pay money for specialized clothing and footwear; we pay money for specialized camping and cooking gear; we pay money for tents, cots and sleeping bags; we pay money for specialized motor vehicles (4-wheelers, pick-ups, SUV's) and even trailers; we pay money for food and fuel; we pay money for processing and packaging meat if we are lucky enough to kill and elk or deer; we pay money for taxidermy; we even may pay money for guides, pack horses and the like; and yet, we somehow come up with the notion that if we have to pay a landowner or timber company a fee to access their private land that helps offset costs they incur to take care of that land, well that is just off limits, way out of line and patently unfair and un-American. If you look at it, do annual or season long access fees and permits like Weyco's or Hancock's really cost most hunters more than a good pair of hunting boots? Probably not, so why all the angst and anger?
And back to Weyco, according to their 2012 annual report and 10K filing (yes, its on line for all to read), they actually lost $27mm in 2012 for various land management initiatives, including recreational activities, land and hunting permits, grazing rights, firewood sales and other misc. related activities. So much for the notion that hunting and access fees are a gold mine for timber companies and private land owners and a way to stick it to hunters. With assets of $12 billion and annual US revenues of $5 billion, Weyco's idea to charge for hunting and access fees to the Vail, Pe Ell and St. Helens tree farms won't generate enough for tip money, let alone lunch money.
And lastly, why the push and plea for increased property taxes? Timberland owners, large and small, are really farmers...its just that it takes 40 - 50 years for their crops to rotate and generate revenues, rather than most dirt farmers whose crops can be rotated and sold to generate revenues every year. Timberland owners pay lower annual property taxes to offset the fact that their land set aside for growing trees generates no cash flow for a long period of time and then at the time of harvest 40 - 50 years later, they pay an extra excise tax to help make up for this property tax deferment.
Think about it...do we really want to prohibit any private landowner's right to restrict or limit the public's access to their lands for hunting and other recreational purposes ? If we own 6 acres, 60 acres, 600 acres or 6 million acres, none of us wants unfettered and unrestricted public access to our private property, even to those hunters who feel they have a "right" to hunt wildlife wherever they want and wherever it is...for free!
Post by: boomstick on January 16, 2014, 09:55:41 AM
Post by: fireweed on January 16, 2014, 10:11:33 AM
And back to Weyco, according to their 2012 annual report and 10K filing (yes, its on line for all to read), they actually lost $27mm in 2012 for various land management initiatives, including recreational activities, land and hunting permits, grazing rights, firewood sales and other misc. related activities. So much for the notion that hunting and access fees are a gold mine for timber companies and private land owners and a way to stick it to hunters. With assets of $12 billion and annual US revenues of $5 billion, Weyco's idea to charge for hunting and access fees to the Vail, Pe Ell and St. Helens tree farms won't generate enough for tip money, let alone lunch money.
And lastly, why the push and plea for increased property taxes? Timberland owners, large and small, are really farmers...its just that it takes 40 - 50 years for their crops to rotate and generate revenues, rather than most dirt farmers whose crops can be rotated and sold to generate revenues every year. Timberland owners pay lower annual property taxes to offset the fact that their land set aside for growing trees generates no cash flow for a long period of time and then at the time of harvest 40 - 50 years later, they pay an extra excise tax to help make up for this property tax deferment.
Think about it...do we really want to prohibit any private landowner's right to restrict or limit the public's access to their lands for hunting and other recreational purposes ? If we own 6 acres, 60 acres, 600 acres or 6 million acres, none of us wants unfettered and unrestricted public access to our private property, even to those hunters who feel they have a "right" to hunt wildlife wherever they want and wherever it is...for free!
According to the legislative findings of RCW84.33.010 the tax shift (we pay more so timber can pay less) has nothing to do with the length of time to grow trees. That consideration is incorporated into the one-time excise tax on the trees when logged. The reduced rate on the land, according to the legislature, is "so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide" then it lists those benefits including "providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces" It's spelled out pretty clearly--you are getting this tax shift because of the public benefits of forests, not the time or investment it takes to operate a profitable forestry business. Charging for recreational spaces is double-dipping, the same as charging the state for each elk on the property, or charging for clean water or clean air. Other laws (forest practices) ensure clean water, but no other law covers recreational spaces.
I agree that the fees are peanuts to them now, but I highly doubt they put much $$ into access, "land management initiatives" obviously is broader that anything related to public access. Their own presentation to investors touted 19 Million income from southern recreational hunting leases in 2012. And their policy is to increase income per acre. What better way than charging or leasing while still keeping the publicly funded tax breaks?
We need property tax system like Wisconsin. One rate for free non-motorized public access and a higher rate for no access or charge for access. Sure, they could charge something small for motorized, but for non-motorized if they don't allow the public on for free, then they pay property taxes on a higher value. Simple. Fair. And what voters intended back in 1969 when they gave them the tax shift in the first place.
Post by: fireweed on January 16, 2014, 12:04:13 PM
QuoteWe need property tax system like Wisconsin. One rate for free non-motorized public access and a higher rate for no access or charge for access. Sure, they could charge something small for motorized, but for non-motorized if they don't allow the public on for free, then they pay property taxes on a higher value. Simple. Fair. And what voters intended back in 1969 when they gave them the tax shift in the first place.
Would your property fall into the motorized access or non motorized access category? Or does this only apply to big timber corporations? I personally don't allow the public on my property without some kind of agreement being worked out between myself and the hunter. I don't see how anyone can determine who has the "right" to access our private property other than the property holder.
This state and the people that live here have a very strange outlook on private property and land owner rights. An example that comes to mind is the "neighbor" informing me that they will leave me a deer or two on my land. When questioned what that meant they seemed to think that since they had trespassed there before they could do so still, it was "their right, and the family's favorite place to hunt". Strange stuff if you ask me.
Of course, Landowners have the right to close their land, and nobody is suggesting they don't or can't. The issue is closing their land while still being subsidized by the public at the full discount. In Wisconsin you sign up in the "managed forest" if your land is open to non-motorized and you want the lowest taxes. Here, where half the land is public, I would think a similar program would focus only on industrial timberland owners (5,000 acres or more). The state already has different rules for different sized landowners. Smaller landowners provide a different set of public benefits, like keeping open space in neighborhoods or more developed areas, with the large timberland providing the meaningful outdoor recreational spaces.
I do have timberland, and if I lived in Wisconsin, for my more isolated parcels I would probably sign up allow public access and get the lowest rates, but for small pieces close to homes I would be willing to pay more in taxes ( I am not proposing small parcels or small landowners be included in any change in Washington)
Post by: frostman on January 16, 2014, 03:13:13 PM
I don't think there is an unlimited amount of permits available. They will most likely be sold out immediately upon release in June or July.
And, if that is the case, I would speculate that this is NOT a revenue thing. It just doesn't add up to any significant $$$$.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 16, 2014, 03:21:42 PM
We've also been saying for some time that boycotting elk tags or licenses would have no effect on WEYCO or anyone else, with the small possibility of the DFW being affected. That would only happen if the boycott were big and statewide. I think a boycott for this is looking dumber and dumber.
Post by: frostman on January 16, 2014, 03:45:02 PM
The biggest challenge facing the hunting community is not having a STRONG AND UNIFIED voice. I hope that your efforts can be focused and productive. Make sure to stay on point here.
My point is that I have noticed a lot of guys who think they can just pay up $150 and get a permit. Also, how many guys in eastside areas or guys that hunt NF areas that think this will not have an impact on them. Think again, fellas.
Another item to consider - How much private timberland that is gated that ultimately accesses either NF or DNR lands? These should be public access corridors.
Post by: AKBowman on January 24, 2014, 08:46:41 PM
Am still surprised that some hunters would want this boycott because private land owners charge access fees to hunt their lands and even more surprised that a proposed solution is to punish those timberland companies and owners that do so by demanding the legislature be approached to have their property taxes increased.
As hunters, we grudgingly pay money to the state for licenses fees and permits so the WDFW can manage wildlife; we pay money for guns, ammo, bows and arrows; we pay money for specialized clothing and footwear; we pay money for specialized camping and cooking gear; we pay money for tents, cots and sleeping bags; we pay money for specialized motor vehicles (4-wheelers, pick-ups, SUV's) and even trailers; we pay money for food and fuel; we pay money for processing and packaging meat if we are lucky enough to kill and elk or deer; we pay money for taxidermy; we even may pay money for guides, pack horses and the like; and yet, we somehow come up with the notion that if we have to pay a landowner or timber company a fee to access their private land that helps offset costs they incur to take care of that land, well that is just off limits, way out of line and patently unfair and un-American. If you look at it, do annual or season long access fees and permits like Weyco's or Hancock's really cost most hunters more than a good pair of hunting boots? Probably not, so why all the angst and anger?
And back to Weyco, according to their 2012 annual report and 10K filing (yes, its on line for all to read), they actually lost $27mm in 2012 for various land management initiatives, including recreational activities, land and hunting permits, grazing rights, firewood sales and other misc. related activities. So much for the notion that hunting and access fees are a gold mine for timber companies and private land owners and a way to stick it to hunters. With assets of $12 billion and annual US revenues of $5 billion, Weyco's idea to charge for hunting and access fees to the Vail, Pe Ell and St. Helens tree farms won't generate enough for tip money, let alone lunch money.
And lastly, why the push and plea for increased property taxes? Timberland owners, large and small, are really farmers...its just that it takes 40 - 50 years for their crops to rotate and generate revenues, rather than most dirt farmers whose crops can be rotated and sold to generate revenues every year. Timberland owners pay lower annual property taxes to offset the fact that their land set aside for growing trees generates no cash flow for a long period of time and then at the time of harvest 40 - 50 years later, they pay an extra excise tax to help make up for this property tax deferment.
Think about it...do we really want to prohibit any private landowner's right to restrict or limit the public's access to their lands for hunting and other recreational purposes ? If we own 6 acres, 60 acres, 600 acres or 6 million acres, none of us wants unfettered and unrestricted public access to our private property, even to those hunters who feel they have a "right" to hunt wildlife wherever they want and wherever it is...for free!
No offense intended but I think you should go back and re read the thread. The problem that a lot of us have with the current situation is that the timber companies take advantage of a public tax subsidy and are now charging for access. Private company double dipping at the expense of the public (not just hunters but all of the public). It's not OK. No one is arguing that every private landowner has to provide free public access but every private land owner who has part of their taxes subsidized to provide public access should provide access or not be able to benefit from the tax break.
I agree with Pianoman a boycott against WDFW is not looking smart at this point but don't let Weyco pull the wool over your eyes,doubling dipping at the expense of the public is not OK. Cutting off access to public lands is not OK.
Pianoman - have you guys had a chance to meet with Weyco to ask them what their intentions or goals are behind the access fees?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 25, 2014, 06:41:36 AM
Am still surprised that some hunters would want this boycott because private land owners charge access fees to hunt their lands and even more surprised that a proposed solution is to punish those timberland companies and owners that do so by demanding the legislature be approached to have their property taxes increased.
As hunters, we grudgingly pay money to the state for licenses fees and permits so the WDFW can manage wildlife; we pay money for guns, ammo, bows and arrows; we pay money for specialized clothing and footwear; we pay money for specialized camping and cooking gear; we pay money for tents, cots and sleeping bags; we pay money for specialized motor vehicles (4-wheelers, pick-ups, SUV's) and even trailers; we pay money for food and fuel; we pay money for processing and packaging meat if we are lucky enough to kill and elk or deer; we pay money for taxidermy; we even may pay money for guides, pack horses and the like; and yet, we somehow come up with the notion that if we have to pay a landowner or timber company a fee to access their private land that helps offset costs they incur to take care of that land, well that is just off limits, way out of line and patently unfair and un-American. If you look at it, do annual or season long access fees and permits like Weyco's or Hancock's really cost most hunters more than a good pair of hunting boots? Probably not, so why all the angst and anger?
And back to Weyco, according to their 2012 annual report and 10K filing (yes, its on line for all to read), they actually lost $27mm in 2012 for various land management initiatives, including recreational activities, land and hunting permits, grazing rights, firewood sales and other misc. related activities. So much for the notion that hunting and access fees are a gold mine for timber companies and private land owners and a way to stick it to hunters. With assets of $12 billion and annual US revenues of $5 billion, Weyco's idea to charge for hunting and access fees to the Vail, Pe Ell and St. Helens tree farms won't generate enough for tip money, let alone lunch money.
And lastly, why the push and plea for increased property taxes? Timberland owners, large and small, are really farmers...its just that it takes 40 - 50 years for their crops to rotate and generate revenues, rather than most dirt farmers whose crops can be rotated and sold to generate revenues every year. Timberland owners pay lower annual property taxes to offset the fact that their land set aside for growing trees generates no cash flow for a long period of time and then at the time of harvest 40 - 50 years later, they pay an extra excise tax to help make up for this property tax deferment.
Think about it...do we really want to prohibit any private landowner's right to restrict or limit the public's access to their lands for hunting and other recreational purposes ? If we own 6 acres, 60 acres, 600 acres or 6 million acres, none of us wants unfettered and unrestricted public access to our private property, even to those hunters who feel they have a "right" to hunt wildlife wherever they want and wherever it is...for free!
No offense intended but I think you should go back and re read the thread. The problem that a lot of us have with the current situation is that the timber companies take advantage of a public tax subsidy and are now charging for access. Private company double dipping at the expense of the public (not just hunters but all of the public). It's not OK. No one is arguing that every private landowner has to provide free public access but every private land owner who has part of their taxes subsidized to provide public access should provide access or not be able to benefit from the tax break.
I agree with Pianoman a boycott against WDFW is not looking smart at this point but don't let Weyco pull the wool over your eyes,doubling dipping at the expense of the public is not OK. Cutting off access to public lands is not OK.
Pianoman - have you guys had a chance to meet with Weyco to ask them what their intentions or goals are behind the access fees?
Our chapter President has scheduled one meeting already. We've had very positive response from WEYCO regarding their land and access to it. Indeed, vandalism and littering/dumping are two major reasons they've decided to go pay-to-play. We've contacted a local sportsman's group (in fact, a couple of us have joined the group) who already has a relationship with WEYCO and helps them steward their land. In return for the cooperation, people who volunteer their time have unlimited access. Our emphasis in Reg 5 WFW is to find out other areas where WEYCO is having problems where we have members, and possibly set up similar programs of stewardship and cooperation. This could well become a statewide effort for WFW if it works locally in Reg 5.
I would encourage any of you who don't currently belong to WFW to sign up. It's free if you don't want to cough up $30. The link is at the top of the page on the right side. The stronger WFW becomes, the more effective we'll be on having an influence with and gaining the trust of private landowners who are afraid to allow unfettered access to their valuable property and assets.
Post by: AKBowman on January 25, 2014, 11:42:52 AM
It would be nice to hear them admit it is for improvement of their bottom line.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 25, 2014, 11:50:43 AM
Littering and garbage dumping doesn't sound like a legit excuse when the gates are closed and have been closed to motorized public access. It make much more sense that they are trying to get the most money out of each acre of land they have like any good business would. Providing free unlimited access to those that volunteer is a nice gesture but IMO it's a small part of the bigger picture, it's OK for now but not a permanent solution. As others have stated no one is packing or biking in their garbage to dump it on private timber lands so I can't see the reason for pay to play being garbage dumping.
It would be nice to hear them admit it is for improvement of their bottom line.
Given that I have personal experience with a group that's been granted full access to their property because of the volunteer work they perform for WEYCO, I'd have to disagree with your assessment somewhat. Although there may be a financial motivator in there, there is also room for discussion with them to allow free access to volunteers who help protect their assets. Gates and locks are broken all the time. Someone on a dirt bike can also easily get around gates. There are people who've actually staged public races and events on their land without their permission. Their machinery gets shot up. I've seen dumping sites behind broken locked gates. Some of this is from hunters, some from environmental wackos, some from tweekers, some from jerks who don't want to pay the $25 to dump their fridge at the local transfer station.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 25, 2014, 12:00:05 PM
As far as the original idea of this thread, I can see no benefit to anyone by boycotting license or tag sales.
Post by: AKBowman on January 26, 2014, 10:22:00 AM
AKB, Although the end result may be a positive number for their bottom line, I now believe it's the vandalism and destruction of assets which prompted them to start restricting access in the first place. This is an important point and the volunteerism from those who use the property shows WEYCO that people want to invest in the company's success to share in the benefits. So, you can oppose the company for charging, or you can choose to try and partner with them to achieve common goals. To me, it's a no-brainer. It's going to be a lot easier to work within the system for mutual benefit than it is to try and force them to your will through legislative process.
As far as the original idea of this thread, I can see no benefit to anyone by boycotting license or tag sales.
As far as the original idea of this thread I would agree that there is no benefit to boycotting license or tag sales, a lot of good points have been made since this thread started.
I want to make one thing clear, I don't oppose them for charging access fees, I oppose them for doubling dipping or taking advantage of the system as it is set up. I am under the belief that we should work with them and help patrol and clean the lands. That being said I am also under the belief that they will continue to take advantage of the system and free dollars out of the publics taxes until the system changes.
Acceptable Options;
1. Don't take the tax subsidy but charge fees for access
2. Take advantage of the tax subsidy but don't charge fees for access
Unacceptable Options;
1. Accept tax subsidy in lieu of public access AND charge fees for public access
No matter the result I do agree we need to work with them but accepting free access for those who volunteer is not a final solution IMO.
Post by: Prohunter270 on January 26, 2014, 10:10:15 PM
Post by: _TONY_ on January 26, 2014, 10:45:58 PM
AKBowman, your a fool!!! I have a 5,000 acre ranch I charge an access fee on, go you want to raise my taxes also!!! Plenty of elk on public land and if not pay for access!!! It's there land and can do what they want with it!!!
Do you get a tax discount for allowing public access to your ranch?
Post by: Prohunter270 on January 27, 2014, 09:04:50 PM