Post by: skidynastar33 on April 20, 2014, 11:30:29 AM
So the question is what can we do? Who can we contact? What can we change?
Here are my thoughts but need help from others putting together an action list and going about it in the best way.
1. Wdfw - who an we email? Call? Ect? We need names and numbers and thousands of people calling and complaining.
2. Weyco- who can we email? Call? Ect? They also need thousand of peopling calling and complaining.
3. Legislation - same thing who are people we can contact.
4 . One thought I had but don't know how to go about it is if we contact Wdfw and try to get something in motion that states that Wdfw will not help or give out any landowners permits/ damage hunts to those commercial company's or and owner for that matter that does not give out free public access. It pisses me of when they have to go out and do these things and help landowner get elk out of the fields ect that don't allow public hunting. That's why there there in the first place! It's safe!
5. Another thought is changing tax breaks for these company's that we are paying for! As a tax paying I am paying for Weyco to get these tax breaks only to turn around and charge us for access.
6. One other thing is to put more pressure on Weyco about spraying and hoof rot, if they are no longer a friend of the sportsman / hunter they are now considered an enemy and should put legal pressure on them to expose them.
We can produce change if a lot of us take action! I don't know how to take the ness necessary action but I know there are people on here that do and I want your ideas and let's start making a list of things we can do!
Post by: snowpack on April 20, 2014, 11:41:25 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
I do believe if they're charging for access to hunt, they should let their paying customers take care of the excessive bear problem, rather than contract hunters.
They should also take more care in preserving, and even creating, better wildlife habitat. What if they stopped spraying herbicides on their clearcuts and this resulted in an increase in deer, elk, grouse, and other wildlife? I'd be much more willing to pay a fee to hunt if there were more animals to hunt. Maybe the fact that they will now be making millions of dollars by selling access permits to hunters, will give them an incentive to actually work to increase wildlife numbers on their tree farms.
Post by: buckfvr on April 20, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
They spray to rid the forest floor of everything that competes with the seedlings they plant some time after they spray...........
Post by: washelkhunter on April 20, 2014, 12:41:41 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 20, 2014, 12:53:32 PM
Maybe the fact that they will now be making millions of dollars by selling access permits to hunters, will give them an incentive to actually work to increase wildlife numbers on their tree farms.Millions? Not in one year.
I don't hunt WeyCo because they have no land in my area, my area the WeyCo lands are now Hancock and I know their operation pretty well.
Lets look at the math. The Snoqualmie Tree Farm puts out a max of 1,000 permits per year at I believe $250, maybe $275. Since they upped the permit # to 1,000 they have yet to sell out and I believe least year they only sold about 800. But for the sake of argument let's say they sell out all 1,000 at $250. That's $250,000 per year for just the Snoqualmie Farm. Now there is at least one Hancock Security person working the Snoqualmie Farm, lets say he's making $15 an hour, that's $28,800 in just salary, not including benefits, the truck he must use to drive around and fuel/maintenance for the vehicle. Now, Hancock also pays WDFW for patrols on Hancock lands for about 600 hours of patrol time between I believe May-December on the Kapowsin, Eatonville, and Snoqualmie Forests, WDFW can go there anytime, but Hancock funds the 600 hours of patrols in that time. I don't know the charging rate WDFW uses for such contracts but it usually consists of a combined rate of officer hours, benefits, and fuel, but lets just say it's $50 an hour which may be low. 600 x $50 = $30,000. So just one Hancock security person's wages and a WDFW LE contract takes away at least 23% of the money Hancock made.
My point is, from the outside I think it looks like a big money grab for these timber companies, but in my opinion at the costs we are seeing, it's not. These companies aren't getting rich selling 800 permits at $250 a pop when you consider the staffing numbers they spend on it. For all those years they weren't charging access they had to pay for all of those things out of their company coffers.
Are they making some money off of it? Sure, but I don't think it's to the extent that some people think it is.
Post by: bigtex on April 20, 2014, 12:55:47 PM
We could stage a massive protest up headquarters road. Close the gate and chain ourselves to it. Big media show.Maybe get Bundy's militiamen to come up?
We had access to it for free for decades, it should always be that way right? This is AMERICA!
:chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2014, 12:57:31 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on April 20, 2014, 12:59:35 PM
15,000 St Helens permits at $150 each. Isn't that over 2 million dollars?:sry:
Had no idea they were putting out 15,000 permits :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2014, 01:03:42 PM
We could stage a massive protest up headquarters road. Close the gate and chain ourselves to it. Big media show. If you are'nt aware of it Weyerhauser is a publicly traded REIT. I say screw em. A thousand rigs should pour into the St. Helens farm on opening day. What are they going to do?
I guess they would have to call the sheriff out to charge everyone with trespassing. :dunno:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 20, 2014, 03:31:15 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on April 20, 2014, 03:51:20 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2014, 04:10:07 PM
Oh, and Weyerhaeuser is allowing a couple cords of firewood with the Pe Ell permit this year.
But either way, if the fee is too high, that should be obvious if permits don't sell out.
Post by: Disturbed1 on April 20, 2014, 04:20:08 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on April 20, 2014, 04:24:45 PM
IEP is in the Spokane area.
Oh, and Weyerhaeuser is allowing a couple cords of firewood with the Pe Ell permit this year.
But either way, if the fee is too high, that should be obvious if permits don't sell out.
Thanks :tup:
Post by: bowbuild on April 20, 2014, 06:22:02 PM
Bowbuild
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 20, 2014, 07:00:35 PM
15,000 St Helens permits at $150 each. Isn't that over 2 million dollars?:sry:
Had no idea they were putting out 15,000 permits :dunno:
Where are you guys getting this 15,000 number?
Post by: washelkhunter on April 20, 2014, 07:03:49 PM
I have repeatedly said this....Weyerhauser leaves a lot of their gates open all year. Although it is the "publics" fault for the dumping, vandlism and general disrespect for the property.....If they would shut the damn gates in the off season (not hunting season) they would end the MAJORITY of their problems in my opinion. We as hunters are taking the brunt of all the bad, and they are having "us" pay for when the forest is empty of eyes. :bash:
Bowbuild
Probably true.
Post by: Humptulips on April 20, 2014, 07:29:30 PM
Looks to me like Legislators aren't going to touch it.
WDFW won't do anything. Mostly their hands are tied but they could do something with damage permits but likely worried about a lawsuit.
Talking to the companies involved is a waste of time. They have one motive only and that is money. Why should they take a step back from this and lose some money.
I do think Big Tex is right. They aren't making much money now. They are looking to the future though. Once they get you used to paying the price will start climbing.
A carefully worded Initiative attacking their favored tax status for land being used for recreational pay for access would stand a good chance of passage but it would cost money. I know when we fought and lost I-713 we were told we needed at least a half million $ to stand a chance. That figure has likely gone up.
Post by: t6 on April 20, 2014, 08:00:56 PM
Weyco only leaves gates open because of the access to DNR or other State lands. Not because they want to.
If Weyco sells out all their permits, they stand to make 2.5 mil. Its just a matter of time before the cost to hunt causes a reduction in hunters in WA. In time there will be a loss of sales in hunting licenses, permits, and even rented campsites or motels. Do you think that Weyco is going to share their profit with WDFW or those businesses that rely on hunters during the usual off season of camper?
NO.... Everyone in WA has something to loose. Loss in revenue to WDFW will result in higher licensing fees. Loss in revenue to the camps or motels will result in higher costs during their other seasons. How many of us take our families on vacation in the summer?
Even the State will loose money in time. Loss in sales.....loss in sales taxes.
Post by: longwalker on April 20, 2014, 08:24:42 PM
We could stage a massive protest up headquarters road. Close the gate and chain ourselves to it. Big media show. If you are'nt aware of it Weyerhauser is a publicly traded REIT. I say screw em. A thousand rigs should pour into the St. Helens farm on opening day. What are they going to do?
cracks me up the issue people take with how people manage there PRIVATE property. if a bunch of guys wanted unlimited access to your living room you think they should chain themselves to your toilet to get it? what a joke. be careful of the slippery slopes you guy are so eager to step out on :twocents:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 20, 2014, 08:46:41 PM
Post by: skidynastar33 on April 20, 2014, 09:03:42 PM
My opinion, If you want things to change back more like they were probably the only way is the Initiative process. Probably never get back drive in access but maybe walk in.
Looks to me like Legislators aren't going to touch it.
WDFW won't do anything. Mostly their hands are tied but they could do something with damage permits but likely worried about a lawsuit.
Talking to the companies involved is a waste of time. They have one motive only and that is money. Why should they take a step back from this and lose some money.
I do think Big Tex is right. They aren't making much money now. They are looking to the future though. Once they get you used to paying the price will start climbing.
A carefully worded Initiative attacking their favored tax status for land being used for recreational pay for access would stand a good chance of passage but it would cost money. I know when we fought and lost I-713 we were told we needed at least a half million $ to stand a chance. That figure has likely gone up.
Thank you finally a comment about something we can do. We got to get past the bickering stage and do something. Just wish I knew the right actions to take. That's why I'm asking it on here.
As far as contacting certain people in Weyco or Wdfw as being a waste of time I would disagree. If so and so rolled up some Monday morning and had hundreds of angry we'll written email in there box and got new ones everyday it would do something.
And for those who think that this doesn't affect them is wrong. One if u hunt on the eastside, you going to have thousands more this year. Just look at the forum a lot are saying there switching to eastside. Or if your backup spots are on the westside you are going to have a lot more new company. Also if you hunt any other timber lands in the state if this works for Weyco it will work for any of them! It does matter
Post by: skidynastar33 on April 20, 2014, 09:04:52 PM
Bowbuild,
Weyco only leaves gates open because of the access to DNR or other State lands. Not because they want to.
If Weyco sells out all their permits, they stand to make 2.5 mil. Its just a matter of time before the cost to hunt causes a reduction in hunters in WA. In time there will be a loss of sales in hunting licenses, permits, and even rented campsites or motels. Do you think that Weyco is going to share their profit with WDFW or those businesses that rely on hunters during the usual off season of camper?
NO.... Everyone in WA has something to loose. Loss in revenue to WDFW will result in higher licensing fees. Loss in revenue to the camps or motels will result in higher costs during their other seasons. How many of us take our families on vacation in the summer?
Even the State will loose money in time. Loss in sales.....loss in sales taxes.
Your right on with this ! Everyone loses
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2014, 09:09:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on April 20, 2014, 09:17:34 PM
Private is private is private. It's too bad people get hooked on 1 hunting spot or camping. Always have a backup......
The water gets muddied up a little when it's cooperate, no single person owns it but rather stake holders who come and go with the push of a computer button as they sell or buy stock in the company.
The water gets thick and murky when you keep in mind that many of these stake holders are foreign, and many coorperations are wholly foreign...keeping US Citizens off US soil owned by Chinese/other.
"Private is private is private" reaffirms cooperate "personhood". The water gets further muddied up when said cooperation gets tax benefits, subsidies and deferrals.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 20, 2014, 09:22:50 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2014, 09:29:19 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 20, 2014, 09:32:57 PM
IEP is in the Spokane area.good on weyco for allowing firewood collection! That is a perk that will help peoe see value in the access permit. And put some waste to use. As of now weyco wont see my money to hunt therethis year future years I cant say . But you are correct in that the market will set the value at the end of the day. I have bought iep permits the last 15 years and agree the landowner can set the rules but 150 is more than its worth to me right now...
Oh, and Weyerhaeuser is allowing a couple cords of firewood with the Pe Ell permit this year.
But either way, if the fee is too high, that should be obvious if permits don't sell out.
btw iep is inland empire paper company.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 20, 2014, 09:37:35 PM
Post by: ELKBURGER on April 21, 2014, 06:51:19 AM
I'm going to bed................ :tup::yeah:
Post by: jackmaster on April 21, 2014, 06:59:49 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 21, 2014, 07:20:31 AM
Post by: snowpack on April 21, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
this wont make me a very popular guy but oh well, if i owned a big timber compant and tons of land, i would be shutting it down 100% i would give access permits and they would cost accordingly, and if you wanted to get a permit, you would have to go through a class on how to keep your hands off of stuff that doesnt belong to you, you would have to learn to clean up after yourself, you would learn that if a road is closed that it doesnt give you the right to make your own road around the closed gate to the closed road.... all spur rds would be walk in only, there would be a one main access point with a full time around the clock guard and a couple of roving tackleberrys for those that want t do illegal crap..... i know it sucks, but a few bad apples are messing it up for eveyone, if you dont beleive me drive up the state land that takes in the elbe orv jeep trail system :tup: i would shut the state land down to and make it all walk in only unless you are disabled, then you would have to have a permit :tup:I probably would too. But would you let people in for a significant tax break? Or shut them out and risk losing an existing tax break?
Post by: baldopepper on April 21, 2014, 09:33:24 AM
Post by: Bookworm007 on April 21, 2014, 09:37:08 AM
I probably would too. But would you let people in for a significant tax break? Or shut them out and risk losing an existing tax break?
There tax break is not directly related to letting the public in for free, its the use of the property as timber.
But this problem is actually the state and national forest's fault. I have old maps of St. Helens and other popular hunting areas that show past ownership and the map more or less looked like a checkerboard with squares of private and public land. This helped because no timber company could cut off access to public property and you didn't end up with large tracks of land which no one could access because there was a gate in the way. Also you could actually camp where you wanted to hunt........ But over the years companies like Weyco have traded/bought land from public entities creating these great reserves of private land. Once you mix that with some bad apples making bad examples of hunters this is what you get............
Post by: Pacific on April 21, 2014, 11:24:39 AM
Ultimately for the timber companies it is about money....and they make their money on timber! All the rest of this is just a distraction to them....well, maybe a little more than just a distraction, but in the overall scheme of things they just want to keep their stock price up and investors happy....and they do that with trees......
Now, wildlife can impact that....by damaging those trees and sportsman help the timber companies keep the wildlife population in check....the timber companies would just as soon wipe out the wildlife completely and then this whole problem would go away for them......
So, what do we as sportsman to counter this.....I don't have the answer to that.....maybe if more logging was done on our national forests, creating more areas with more and better feed...would cause higher densities of game animals in these national forests.....and more people would forgo paying for the access permits....
Or we boycott buying the permits....I can't afford them anyway.....and the game population goes up on timber company land causing more damage to their young trees....they won't want more access by sportsmen but they will want something done....the big question is then what will our state do...let them slaughter all of the game? or demand that they let sportsmen help "thin the herd".....It used to be I would have said WDFW would have had our backs.....I'm not too sure anymore :bash:
Post by: Pacific on April 21, 2014, 12:34:32 PM
Now I'm not sure of all the legal mumbo jumbo with the timber companies and access...but I think that they pay taxes on their "timber land" just like say...my brother-in -law who owns 40 acres here and 20 there, etc....I would hate to see something happen that he either has to allow trespassing on to his land or pay higher taxes...
The argument that the timber companies charge for recreational access somehow changes the use and therefore the taxes, well if it comes to that, then they will just deny all access for recreation.....
Sadly, we can't have it both ways and like I said....a few bad apples have ruined the whole barrel for the rest of us..... :(
Post by: ELKBURGER on April 21, 2014, 01:14:56 PM
Post by: Pacific on April 21, 2014, 01:38:54 PM
I also notice I don't see as many grouse as I used to.....started way back with the helicopter fertilization back in the late 70's and early 80's.....man that's a whole 'nuther discussion....sorry :sry: not trying to jack the thread....
Post by: Rainstorm Hunter on April 21, 2014, 02:46:05 PM
Post by: motg9_6 on April 21, 2014, 05:14:30 PM
In most cases there is no requirement for Weyerhaeuser to leave gates open for the public to access state land. If they do that, it's entirely voluntary.Why can't they do whatever they want with there own property. If you want access to something somebody else has, pay for it!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As for the cost pushing us out of hunting we better start with the state of which we have some say as opposed to private land owners corporation or not.
I can tell you Hancock gets several calls a year from people chewing them out for not allowing access or keeping a gate closed etc. Every time one of these calls comes in they get closer to shutting it down entirely.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: t6 on April 21, 2014, 06:49:42 PM
If they turn it into Recreational Property and charge fees, they should be taxed as such. No one is saying they have to allow trespassers on their property. We are just saying that it its being profited by use as Recreational Property, it should be taxed as such.
We also need to look into the poisons they are distributing with complete disregard to the animals owned by the State and therefore the public.
http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/ (http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/)
Post by: bigtex on April 21, 2014, 10:54:08 PM
I think it's a good thing they are still allowing any public access at all. If you think being charged an access fee is bad, check out Utah's CWMU (Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit). system. I think it's just a matter of time until they go to that system here for the private landowners and you'll see thousands of acres of previously accessible properties become one or two public permit areas with the landowner allowed to issue more on a major pay to play deal. Check out how it works there and then thank them for only charging an access fee.:yeah:
I've been saying for a very long time that we are lucky the "system" we have here in WA. We are lucky we are in the west, which states are known as "federal public land states" aka there's a ton of federal land that is open to access and do what we want on. But to go even further, we are lucky to live in a state that has a ton of state land (DNR and WDFW) as well. Many of the western state's don't have the large blocked up state land areas such as the Naneum Ridge Forest, Capitol Forest, etc, they simply have a couple hundred acres here, a couple thousand there, etc.
And then to top it off we have huge amounts of timberland that for decades has been open to public access. Has access been restricted in the past 20 years or so? Yes, but the issues on those lands have increased in the past twenty years as well.
We could live in Texas where less than 2% of the state is federal land and a large chunk of that is a huge national park you can't hunt. In Texas, you better secure private land access or you probably won't be hunting. There is no BLM land east of Colorado, national forests are smaller and further apart as you get past Colorado.
People seem to link "public access" with "public land"/"publicly owned land."
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 22, 2014, 04:48:55 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 22, 2014, 06:18:00 AM
Can anyone point me to where it says that Weyco is issuing 15,000 permits?
Weyerhaeuser hasn't given us that number yet. It was Pianoman and someone else on here who were told there would be 15,000 permits.
Post by: jackmaster on April 22, 2014, 06:49:29 AM
that has to be a total of 15,000 for all of their property, right? i couldnt see, say the vail area handling 15,000 people :dunno: so i assume it means for all property, atleast i hope :chuckle:Can anyone point me to where it says that Weyco is issuing 15,000 permits?
Weyerhaeuser hasn't given us that number yet. It was Pianoman and someone else on here who were told there would be 15,000 permits.
Post by: bobcat on April 22, 2014, 06:51:57 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: snowpack on April 22, 2014, 08:09:57 AM
We could live in Texas where less than 2% of the state is federal land and a large chunk of that is a huge national park you can't hunt. In Texas, you better secure private land access or you probably won't be hunting. There is no BLM land east of Colorado, national forests are smaller and further apart as you get past Colorado.Those states that are private, might actually cost less for hunting than the public lands here (per day and animal-not acre). Discover Pass/NW Forest Pass are both around $30, but deer season here is roughly three weeks and generally only allowed one deer. Lots of acres to spread out on, but all shared with other pass holders. Those private states seem to have generous bag limits 5 deer a year in some, some it's two deer a day. And they don't have limits on exotics. In some, the deer seasons run around five months. But acreage is limited, but also not shared.
Seems like when considering days available to hunt and animals allowed, those states aren't really that much more expensive. :dunno:
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 22, 2014, 12:16:12 PM
Can anyone point me to where it says that Weyco is issuing 15,000 permits?
Weyerhaeuser hasn't given us that number yet. It was Pianoman and someone else on here who were told there would be 15,000 permits.
You guys really need better sources before going off like this.
Post by: bobcat on April 22, 2014, 12:18:56 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 22, 2014, 12:21:01 PM
Well, the Aberdeen tree farm will have 8,000 permits, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if St Helens will have 15,000, considering it's got to be twice the size.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then why would Vail have less than a thousand? The thousand number (actually 800) is just a WAG. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on April 22, 2014, 12:26:23 PM
Well, the Aberdeen tree farm will have 8,000 permits, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if St Helens will have 15,000, considering it's got to be twice the size.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then why would Vail have less than a thousand? The thousand number (actually 800) is just a WAG. :chuckle:
How do you know?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 22, 2014, 12:29:03 PM
Well, the Aberdeen tree farm will have 8,000 permits, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if St Helens will have 15,000, considering it's got to be twice the size.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then why would Vail have less than a thousand? The thousand number (actually 800) is just a WAG. :chuckle:
How do you know?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the internet........some info is credible some isn't :chuckle:
Post by: fireweed on April 22, 2014, 02:25:39 PM
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
2) They are not getting a tax break for growing trees or providing jobs. They are getting a tax break because timberland provides public benefits (one of which is recreation). The whole system started from a citizen initiative to help preserve open space by making it cheaper to own farms and forests. The legislature has modified this law over time, but the low tax rates are still only justified because of the public benefits of timberland including providing "recreational spaces and wildlife habitat". Remove (or charge for) a public benefit, the tax break should be reduced. Simple math. PS. WE made this law, we can change it.
3) Copy Wisconsin's Managed forest law: they have a two-tiered system of property taxes. One rate for land that is open to non-motorized public access, a higher rate if it is not open, or access has a fee. our state could do the same thing with INDUSTRIAL TIMBERLAND (5000 or more acres). The little guy would not be affected.
4) Advocate that damage permits (especially for bear) only are allowed on land open to the public for free during general seasons for the "damaging" animal.
5) Complain on Weyerhaeusers "sustainability" survey. Ruining rural quality of life, and kicking out traditional users doesn't seem like sustainable forestry practices to me. There is space for comments.
http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Extras/Feedback (http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Extras/Feedback)
6) complain to SFI, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, where they are promoting traditional uses, "sustainable communities". Have these companies even thought about the impact on communities????
Also, because of the rules of SFI, companies cannot cut off all recreation. http://www.sfiprogram.org/about-us/ (http://www.sfiprogram.org/about-us/)
Post by: bigtex on April 22, 2014, 02:34:32 PM
Here's a few ideas-Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.
People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.
If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.
Post by: snowpack on April 22, 2014, 02:45:55 PM
I think that was the case before the Discover Pass. Now they charge for recreation, so they are to provide (at least some).Here's a few ideas-Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.
People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.
If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.
Post by: bigtex on April 22, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
There is nothing in state law that says DNR must provide recreation. All the Discover Pass basically did was to say if you are going to be recreating on those lands you need the pass.I think that was the case before the Discover Pass. Now they charge for recreation, so they are to provide (at least some).Here's a few ideas-Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.
People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.
If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.
Per DNR's website, their mission is: "In partnership with citizens and governments, the Washington State DNR provides innovative leadership and expertise to ensure environmental protection, public safety, perpetual funding for schools and communities, and a rich quality of life." I don't see anything about recreation, access, hunting, fishing, etc.
Post by: motg9_6 on April 22, 2014, 04:58:51 PM
DNR already has right of ways throuh these lands. They just are not public right of ways. They are for access for logging and other resources. Its not meant to be public land they just let the public access it.Here's a few ideas-Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.
People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.
If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.
Post by: snowpack on April 22, 2014, 06:26:40 PM
When I go to the DNR website I find two pages all about recreation and their pitch to get people to come recreate on DNR land. They even have a cheesy commercial about how "Even Sasquatch has a Discover Pass". It might not be their government mandate, but they are advertising and selling recreation.There is nothing in state law that says DNR must provide recreation. All the Discover Pass basically did was to say if you are going to be recreating on those lands you need the pass.I think that was the case before the Discover Pass. Now they charge for recreation, so they are to provide (at least some).Here's a few ideas-Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.
People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.
If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.
Per DNR's website, their mission is: "In partnership with citizens and governments, the Washington State DNR provides innovative leadership and expertise to ensure environmental protection, public safety, perpetual funding for schools and communities, and a rich quality of life." I don't see anything about recreation, access, hunting, fishing, etc.
Post by: skidynastar33 on April 22, 2014, 07:00:39 PM
Here's a few ideas-
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
2) They are not getting a tax break for growing trees or providing jobs. They are getting a tax break because timberland provides public benefits (one of which is recreation). The whole system started from a citizen initiative to help preserve open space by making it cheaper to own farms and forests. The legislature has modified this law over time, but the low tax rates are still only justified because of the public benefits of timberland including providing "recreational spaces and wildlife habitat". Remove (or charge for) a public benefit, the tax break should be reduced. Simple math. PS. WE made this law, we can change it.
3) Copy Wisconsin's Managed forest law: they have a two-tiered system of property taxes. One rate for land that is open to non-motorized public access, a higher rate if it is not open, or access has a fee. our state could do the same thing with INDUSTRIAL TIMBERLAND (5000 or more acres). The little guy would not be affected.
4) Advocate that damage permits (especially for bear) only are allowed on land open to the public for free during general seasons for the "damaging" animal.
5) Complain on Weyerhaeusers "sustainability" survey. Ruining rural quality of life, and kicking out traditional users doesn't seem like sustainable forestry practices to me. There is space for comments.
http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Extras/Feedback (http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Extras/Feedback)
6) complain to SFI, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, where they are promoting traditional uses, "sustainable communities". Have these companies even thought about the impact on communities????
Also, because of the rules of SFI, companies cannot cut off all recreation. http://www.sfiprogram.org/about-us/ (http://www.sfiprogram.org/about-us/)
Thank you for some ideas! this topic is full of people that want to only complain and and argue but not do anything. (already someone has taken you comments and started argueing about it)
5/6 we should all do right now.
Also i really think we should look into the (4) damage hunts and see what we can learn.
And i really like the idea of (3). that seems to offer enough reward to the companies to not just lock us out completely.
Ok so my question now as someone who really has never got into politics or anything. who do we contact to go forward?
Post by: fireweed on April 23, 2014, 09:16:37 AM
Here's a few ideas-Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.
People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.
If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.
You are right, the DNR must have a willing partner in Weyco. After two letters from Two boards of county commissioners (Cowlitz and Lewis) Weyco agreed to participate in easement talks to the Toutle block (wonder of wonders a little pressure worked!) But the DNR needs some funding.
So here's another idea for a fix: It's a goofy quirk of law. A public use easement acquired by the DNR must have a willing seller--but the WDFW can use eminent domain for a right of way IF the legislature directly funds it. change the law so both the DNR and WDFW can use eminent domain to get public access, if the legislature funds the right of way. That also solves the issue of the DNR spending $ on a public use easement.
Counties also need to get in the game. County roads budget is always fatter than other departments. If a county has an easement, then no Discover Pass/NW Forest pass or timber co. pass would be needed to get to landlocked public lands. Then cost share on the road maintenance.
Solutions are out there!
Post by: Humptulips on April 23, 2014, 09:53:39 AM
WDFW does have to issue permits for WCOs to remove bears but not if APHIS does it.
The important part is there is not anyplace on the permit that allows them to deny the permit if the land is closed to the public. If you fill the permit application out correctly you will get it.
I think WDFW would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they denied the permits based on public access.
That would need to be changed, probably by the legislature.
Post by: bigtex on April 23, 2014, 10:04:05 AM
You are missing what I am saying here. Yes DNR does have a recreation program. But for DNR, timber value and selling resources off of state lands will always be #1, not recreation. I have never said that DNR doesn't care about recreation, I am saying recreation falls well below making $ when it comes to their management of the agency.When I go to the DNR website I find two pages all about recreation and their pitch to get people to come recreate on DNR land. They even have a cheesy commercial about how "Even Sasquatch has a Discover Pass". It might not be their government mandate, but they are advertising and selling recreation.There is nothing in state law that says DNR must provide recreation. All the Discover Pass basically did was to say if you are going to be recreating on those lands you need the pass.I think that was the case before the Discover Pass. Now they charge for recreation, so they are to provide (at least some).Here's a few ideas-Okay lets say I am DNR and I go to WeyCo and I say "I demand an easement!" WeyCo says no. Ok now what?
1) Demand legal easements to public land like DNR and WDFW land and National Forests. That DNR land up in the Toutle can be locked up by Weyerhaeuser, with an easement it can't.
There's no law that says you must have access to all public lands.
People need to remember for DNR their mission is not to provide you a recreation spot, it's to generate revenue (mainly by logging) to fund schools. If recreation can occur, then so be it, but if it can't, well then so be it.
If DNR today went out about 10,000 acres that were completely inaccessible but had great timber value, well guess what, that's a great move for DNR because it'll bring in a lot of revenue for schools.
Per DNR's website, their mission is: "In partnership with citizens and governments, the Washington State DNR provides innovative leadership and expertise to ensure environmental protection, public safety, perpetual funding for schools and communities, and a rich quality of life." I don't see anything about recreation, access, hunting, fishing, etc.
Post by: motg9_6 on April 23, 2014, 11:13:55 AM
Post by: fireweed on April 23, 2014, 11:35:27 AM
http://tdn.com/news/local/weyerhaeuser-co-expanding-forest-fee-access-program/article_bd2dc312-caad-11e3-883a-001a4bcf887a.html (http://tdn.com/news/local/weyerhaeuser-co-expanding-forest-fee-access-program/article_bd2dc312-caad-11e3-883a-001a4bcf887a.html)
Post by: motg9_6 on April 23, 2014, 02:15:49 PM
we all do business from our private land im not seeing why they should be able to
i wonder how the outfitters/landowners would feel about this
Post by: fireweed on April 23, 2014, 02:27:40 PM
Post by: skidynastar33 on April 23, 2014, 06:49:24 PM
I'll just make a few comments on the damage permits given out to timber companies. That may seem a little different then the bear damge permits but it all ties together. Private WCOs and APHIS do not need a permit to remove furbearers or unprotected wildlife. That would be beavers, mountain beavers, porcupines in this case. The WCOs do need a permit to set a "body gripping trap" That includes conibears, foot traps and bear snares. Aphis does not. WEYCO calls me up I do not need to even contact WDFW to trap out of season for WEYCO.
WDFW does have to issue permits for WCOs to remove bears but not if APHIS does it.
The important part is there is not anyplace on the permit that allows them to deny the permit if the land is closed to the public. If you fill the permit application out correctly you will get it.
I think WDFW would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they denied the permits based on public access.
That would need to be changed, probably by the legislature.
Thanks for clearing this up to me. Sounds like that's not the right route to take.
Post by: skidynastar33 on April 23, 2014, 06:58:13 PM
And multinational REITS claiming that they must be treated exactly like grandma and grandpa with 40 acres of trees is just as silly.
Exactly!
I really like the idea of trying to copy what Wisconsin did. Have a 4 tiered tax plan depending on the PUBLIC BENIFIT
1. Lowest tax for free unlimited motorized access
2. Middle tax for free unlimited non moterized access
3 higher tax for limited or charged access
4 highest tax for no access
Only for commercial timber company min 5000 acres or something like that.
Post by: t6 on April 23, 2014, 07:44:18 PM
Grandma and Grandpa were not given special privilege when acquiring massive tracts of land from the Government. They are not setting up to lease or sell permits to hunt that can net them 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS.
Comparing a six year old selling lemonade to an international corporation is like simply retarded.
Post by: bowbuild on April 23, 2014, 09:15:31 PM
Then shut it down entirely. Keep the tax break for having timberland.
If they turn it into Recreational Property and charge fees, they should be taxed as such. No one is saying they have to allow trespassers on their property. We are just saying that it its being profited by use as Recreational Property, it should be taxed as such.
We also need to look into the poisons they are distributing with complete disregard to the animals owned by the State and therefore the public.
http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/ (http://jongosch.com/growing-evidence-links-herbicides-to-elk-hoof-disease/)
The primary reason for these companies own this land is for harvesting timber. They have a timber harvest plan put together that qualifies them for being taxed at the timber rate. To say they should be taxed differently because the are selling some permits for access would be like saying the property your house is on should be changed from residential to light commercial because your kids put a lemonade stand.
So you are saying running a "for profit" stand from your property with no business license is ok then? What about food handler licenses, and under age workers?? Shame on you. :chuckle:
Post by: t6 on April 23, 2014, 10:46:27 PM
Post by: RifleRidge on April 23, 2014, 11:05:38 PM
Like I just posted in another thread, I don't really have a problem with Weyerhaeuser charging for access. Other timber companies have been doing it for years. I just wish they would continue to allow free non-motorized access.
I do believe if they're charging for access to hunt, they should let their paying customers take care of the excessive bear problem, rather than contract hunters.
They should also take more care in preserving, and even creating, better wildlife habitat. What if they stopped spraying herbicides on their clearcuts and this resulted in an increase in deer, elk, grouse, and other wildlife? I'd be much more willing to pay a fee to hunt if there were more animals to hunt. Maybe the fact that they will now be making millions of dollars by selling access permits to hunters, will give them an incentive to actually work to increase wildlife numbers on their tree farms.
:tup:
Post by: bobcat on April 25, 2014, 12:55:39 AM
Well, the Aberdeen tree farm will have 8,000 permits, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if St Helens will have 15,000, considering it's got to be twice the size.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then why would Vail have less than a thousand? The thousand number (actually 800) is just a WAG. :chuckle:
How do you know?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the internet........some info is credible some isn't :chuckle:
Weyerhaeuser updated their website on April 22nd. Here is what it says:
Quote
We will sell up to 15,000 permits online for $150. Each permit will be good for the permittee, legally married spouse, and children and grand children 18 years old and younger. A permit is required for motorized and non-motorized access. These permits will be valid from August 1st, 2014 through January 31st, 2015 and are required to access the majority of the tree farm during that time frame.
Post by: motg9_6 on April 25, 2014, 10:36:26 AM
Post by: baldopepper on April 25, 2014, 11:03:00 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 25, 2014, 11:04:49 AM
Well, the Aberdeen tree farm will have 8,000 permits, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if St Helens will have 15,000, considering it's got to be twice the size.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then why would Vail have less than a thousand? The thousand number (actually 800) is just a WAG. :chuckle:
How do you know?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the internet........some info is credible some isn't :chuckle:
Weyerhaeuser updated their website on April 22nd. Here is what it says:Quote We will sell up to 15,000 permits online for $150. Each permit will be good for the permittee, legally married spouse, and children and grand children 18 years old and younger. A permit is required for motorized and non-motorized access. These permits will be valid from August 1st, 2014 through January 31st, 2015 and are required to access the majority of the tree farm during that time frame.
And thats for St Helens?
Post by: bobcat on April 25, 2014, 11:06:28 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 25, 2014, 11:09:51 AM
Yes, sorry, that is for St Helens.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just found it.....you are right.
15,000 seems odd when you look at the numbers for the other areas.
Post by: motg9_6 on April 25, 2014, 11:36:01 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on April 25, 2014, 12:05:20 PM
I also know that in my neck of the woods the timber/lumber industry is big business, and accounts for a huge number of jobs in our community. If it takes me paying an access fee to enjoy a sport I love, in order for them to have black ink on the bottom line, I'm all for it.
I could see better quality hunting with these permit fees as well. Less hunting pressure, less poaching, and HOPEFULLY the indians don't get keys to the gates and limit the effects of tribal hunting as well (I'm sure that's wishful thinking).
I do realize its going to cause some people to give up the sport, or not get into it in the first place and that's unfortunate. But I think those of us who don't just hunt, but are hunters, will still be able to enjoy it much the same. Maybe even better!
Post by: fireweed on April 25, 2014, 01:57:31 PM
For people that live in the middle of these tree farms, this isn't just about hunting season--its about life as we know it. My kids can't play in the crick, ride their bicycles, take the back roads to a neighbor's, go for a walk, pick berries, collect plants for school, ride horses, go fishing, pick agets or generally enjoy life as we have for over a century without a permit. HALF of our county is now permit for entry.
And every single homeowner subsidizes big timber each time they pay property taxes. Its just wrong, folks.
Post by: longwalker on April 25, 2014, 02:24:53 PM
Post by: baldopepper on April 25, 2014, 02:30:06 PM
Post by: motg9_6 on April 25, 2014, 02:59:07 PM
i think you nailed the root cause of the problem. there are people willing to pay thousand of dollars so it is seen as an opportunity to make money. given that same opportunity i think anybody that says they wouldnt do it are hypocrites.
fireweed
do you put in for special hunts??? is so how is that different than people wanting to pay for hunting rights to make the hunting better. thats why hunting clubs tie up a bunch of land and only let so many hunters in to manage and provide a quality hunting experience
Post by: fireweed on April 25, 2014, 05:38:44 PM
Sure they can close the land, charge, etc. but they are not "entitled" to all these tax breaks. Citizens can take them back--we doled them out to compensate for the public benefits of forest and we can take them away. Remember, everyone pays more ALREADY on their property taxes so timber can pay less.
Post by: longwalker on April 25, 2014, 07:31:24 PM
. Remember, everyone pays more ALREADY on their property taxes so timber can pay less.
this is maybe the funniest comment on this thread. you really expect anyone to believe that the reason property taxes are what they are is for the sole benefit of timber company's? i think you give there lobbyist to much credit.raping us for taxes is incentive of its own for the government of the united states. the IRS could give a *censored* less about "big" timber. too funny :lol4:
Post by: bowbuild on April 25, 2014, 08:47:28 PM
i guess there should be no such thing as property ownership then. we'll just abolish that. how bout it, you in? by the way your yard is where im going to park my trailer form now on
Government does it all the time to people, so guess I am in.....whether I like it or not. :bash:
Post by: Humptulips on April 25, 2014, 09:56:08 PM
. Remember, everyone pays more ALREADY on their property taxes so timber can pay less.
this is maybe the funniest comment on this thread. you really expect anyone to believe that the reason property taxes are what they are is for the sole benefit of timber company's? i think you give there lobbyist to much credit.raping us for taxes is incentive of its own for the government of the united states. the IRS could give a *censored* less about "big" timber. too funny :lol4:
Apparently you don't understand the tax laws. Anytime WEYCO, Rayonier or Hancock gets their property taxes reduced by a below market property tax valuation that is set by law everybody else has to make up for it.
That may not be so noticeable for someone from a county with a big Metropolitan area but you take a county like Pacific it probably doubles everyone elses taxes.
So the local people are already paying for the land to be open, now they have to chip in some more if they want to go pick blackberries, take a hike or whatever.
As for you camping in my front yard, How about you pay half my property taxes and then when you show up to camp I'll ask you to buy a permit too.
Post by: t6 on April 25, 2014, 10:09:07 PM
I've said my peace....raise their taxes to reflect the property is now recreational. If they don't like it, they can close it down. If they close it down, take away their extra permits they use to limit the number of bears and other predators they have.
Its not a dead issue because its big timber. All we have to do is fight.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
I wont buy a permit.
Post by: skidynastar33 on April 25, 2014, 10:48:36 PM
Thank you fireweed and humptulips and a few others for actually giving ideas!!
Post by: idahohuntr on April 25, 2014, 11:09:42 PM
Post by: longwalker on April 26, 2014, 06:11:36 AM
I started this topic so we could come together and come up with some ideas to fight this and do something. I am amazed at how much you fellow hunters want to just argue and fight on here like it's doing any good? It amazes me even more how many of you are fine with just bending over and taking it over and over again. How bout next year the price goes to 500$, then $1000. When will it stop?? The answer is when you want it to stop. All you got to do is do something about it. If hunters were more united we could get a lot more productive things done to improve our chances.
Thank you fireweed and humptulips and a few others for actually giving ideas!!
i would love it if the prices went up. just thin out the *censored* bags even more and give these company's more incentive to keep the tree farms instead of selling to tribes. the whole get angry at "big timber " sure sounds a lot like the enviro terrorist cry of death to "big oil" or the anarchist and 99%ers blood lust for "big industry"
humptulips, funny how your first reaction to me parking in your yard was wanting to charge me a fee. i thought that was the evil of "big timber" and that right to manage your property how you see fit should be abolished. interesting
Post by: MADMAX on April 26, 2014, 06:20:23 AM
They wanted us there
Now the meth-heads, vandalism and trash dumping has brought it to this.
very sad
It used to be the go to spot for my group for elk archery.
Post by: NWHydroprint on April 26, 2014, 07:15:32 AM
1) Rural economies benefit from hunters and fisherman coming in from Aug-Jan. This is going to cost small towns jobs.
2) It might seem that you will have a better experience for a year or 2 but the real goal will to be lease big tracts of land to private clubs or other corporations.
3) $150.00-$200.00 is not a lot of money but when it starts to cost $1000.00 a year or $10000.00 how many can really afford that?
4) Displaced hunters will be hunting state land and eastern WA how long will it take before these herds are at critical points?
5) Alot of these timberland were deeded to big timber by the state or traded to them for small parcels to expand towns and cities this is why there is a lot of state land that is landlock behind there gates.
6) If they change there business structure from solely timber harvest to recreation also why should they not pay taxes like other business in the state?
7) How much money does the WDFW pay timber companies for animal damage? Maybe we shouldn't be at all.
8) Why are we allowing these corporations to hire our state WDFW employees and equipment to patrol their land? What in it for the people of WA?
The list could go on and on but bottom line we as hunters will suffer in the end whether you are in favor of this now or not I bet that the Timber companies at some point will go to the WDFW and ask that they be allowed to sell Deer and Elk permits for hunting on their land and if this does happen remember that for a $150.00-$250.00 access to hunt was a bargain :bdid:
Post by: Humptulips on April 26, 2014, 08:08:50 AM
I started this topic so we could come together and come up with some ideas to fight this and do something. I am amazed at how much you fellow hunters want to just argue and fight on here like it's doing any good? It amazes me even more how many of you are fine with just bending over and taking it over and over again. How bout next year the price goes to 500$, then $1000. When will it stop?? The answer is when you want it to stop. All you got to do is do something about it. If hunters were more united we could get a lot more productive things done to improve our chances.
Thank you fireweed and humptulips and a few others for actually giving ideas!!
i would love it if the prices went up. just thin out the *censored* bags even more and give these company's more incentive to keep the tree farms instead of selling to tribes. the whole get angry at "big timber " sure sounds a lot like the enviro terrorist cry of death to "big oil" or the anarchist and 99%ers blood lust for "big industry"
humptulips, funny how your first reaction to me parking in your yard was wanting to charge me a fee. i thought that was the evil of "big timber" and that right to manage your property how you see fit should be abolished. interesting
You don't get it do you? I didn't want to charge you for camping. The issue is paying twice. We are already paying for access to tree farms through a tax break and then they turn around and charge. So what do we get for the tax break now?
I have the feeling you'll be perfectly happy to be the only hunter until the price gets to high or HSUS tries to outlaw hunting and then you'll wonder why nobody is around to help you stop them from taking away your right to hunt.
Post by: logger on April 26, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
Post by: Landowner on April 26, 2014, 09:39:00 AM
I've said my peace....raise their taxes to reflect the property is now recreational. If they don't like it, they can close it down. If they close it down, take away their extra permits they use to limit the number of bears and other predators they have.
They will shut it down. And if property taxes get raised because of retribution by counties pressured by hunters who feel they have some inherent right to hunt wherever they want---even though they don't own the timber land---then the timber company will pass on the cost of increased taxes to the consumers. That's how it works----consumers will pay more for the wood products needed and desired in today's world.
Or, maybe the timber companies instead break their ground up into 20 or 40 cabin sites and sell them, perhaps thousands of them. Those private parcel owners will need roads to get to those cabin sites, and elk don't like roads. And there goes the "open space".
150 bucks sounds like a smoking hot deal to me compared to hunting in Texas and other states on private ground. But even better, how about the hundreds of thousands of acres of public ground owned by the state and feds that are open for hunting. Some of the nicest elk and deer I've seen in the Blues have come off the abundant public grounds available for hunting and recreation.
Post by: t6 on April 26, 2014, 11:39:04 AM
Post by: buckfvr on April 26, 2014, 12:25:39 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 26, 2014, 01:21:44 PM
It seems that the big timber companies have already been thinning the herd with their herbacides that have been over dosed in many areas. They are seeing lower populations thanks to the lack of forage for the wildlife leading to malnutrition which leads to lower tolerance to disease, like hoof rot and hairloss syndrome.
Then there's the things dying you don't even think about like bees. Bees are responsible for your food production.
Post by: fireweed on April 26, 2014, 07:58:48 PM
I started this topic so we could come together and come up with some ideas to fight this and do something. I am amazed at how much you fellow hunters want to just argue and fight on here like it's doing any good? It amazes me even more how many of you are fine with just bending over and taking it over and over again. How bout next year the price goes to 500$, then $1000. When will it stop?? The answer is when you want it to stop. All you got to do is do something about it. If hunters were more united we could get a lot more productive things done to improve our chances.
Thank you fireweed and humptulips and a few others for actually giving ideas!!
i would love it if the prices went up. just thin out the *censored* bags even more and give these company's more incentive to keep the tree farms instead of selling to tribes. the whole get angry at "big timber " sure sounds a lot like the enviro terrorist cry of death to "big oil" or the anarchist and 99%ers blood lust for "big industry"
humptulips, funny how your first reaction to me parking in your yard was wanting to charge me a fee. i thought that was the evil of "big timber" and that right to manage your property how you see fit should be abolished. interesting
You don't get it do you? I didn't want to charge you for camping. The issue is paying twice. We are already paying for access to tree farms through a tax break and then they turn around and charge. So what do we get for the tax break now?
I have the feeling you'll be perfectly happy to be the only hunter until the price gets to high or HSUS tries to outlaw hunting and then you'll wonder why nobody is around to help you stop them from taking away your right to hunt.
We are not already paying for access through a tax break. You really need to spend some time understanding the tax laws before making statements like this. They are taxed at the rate they are because they have produced and follow a timber harvest plan. And this is all that is required of them to receive that tax rate.
Timber plans aren't needed for large parcels and aren't stated anywhere in state law as the "reason" for the reduced tax rate. I think you might be thinking about two other classifications (open space-open space) and (open space-timberland). The open space timberland is for small (less than 20 acres) pieces and does in most counties need a plan.
Open space-open space is for areas without logging and has what is called a weighted benefit system where you get so much (say 10%) reduction in taxable value for each public benefit on your land--public access can get you part of that reduction. So this idea of less taxes for public access is already being used in that category.
Post by: fireweed on April 26, 2014, 08:13:31 PM
hump, I have a question because I don't know all the ins and outs, but when it comes time to harvest and they pay the timber tax I was under the assumption that was to make up the difference in the lower tax rate. Am I on the wrong track?
The 5% state excise tax that is levied on the value of logs at harvest is not to compensate for a low PROPERTY tax, it is for the value of the Timber that has been on that property without any tax for the time it was growing. When homeowners pay property taxes a county places value of your land AND then has a separate value for your house or other improvement , but you have to pay on the value of BOTH every year. Trees are treated differently.
Because timber takes so long to grow, and can have a really high value, for tax purposes they have separated the trees from the land. What we've been discussing for changing only affects the land value, not the trees no matter what their value may be. If you never log, you never pay any tax on the trees no matter their value.
Post by: Humptulips on April 26, 2014, 09:17:16 PM
Post by: bowbuild on April 27, 2014, 10:41:58 AM
hump, I have a question because I don't know all the ins and outs, but when it comes time to harvest and they pay the timber tax I was under the assumption that was to make up the difference in the lower tax rate. Am I on the wrong track?
The 5% state excise tax that is levied on the value of logs at harvest is not to compensate for a low PROPERTY tax, it is for the value of the Timber that has been on that property without any tax for the time it was growing. When homeowners pay property taxes a county places value of your land AND then has a separate value for your house or other improvement , but you have to pay on the value of BOTH every year. Trees are treated differently.
Because timber takes so long to grow, and can have a really high value, for tax purposes they have separated the trees from the land. What we've been discussing for changing only affects the land value, not the trees no matter what their value may be. If you never log, you never pay any tax on the trees no matter their value.
Right or wrong, that's the way I have always understanded it. :dunno:
Cboom.....I would love to see your opinion in ten yrs...... :chuckle:
Post by: t6 on April 27, 2014, 11:28:17 AM
1. OPEN SPACE LAND MEANS EITHER
a. any land area so designated by an official comprehensive land use plan adopted by any city or county and zoned accordingly, or
b. any land area, the preservation of which in its present use would (i) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources, or (ii) protect streams or water supply, or (iii) promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes, or (iv) enhance the value to the public of
abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space, or (v) enhance recreation
opportunities, or (vi) preserve historic sites, or (vii) preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas, or
(viii) retain in its natural state tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as
may be reasonably required by the legislative body granting the open space classification, or
Do you honestly believe that the timber Companies are conserving and or enhancing the property naturally? They are conserving their own interests by eliminating natural forage for animals and thus sickening the animals. The toxic chemicals used do nothing to "Enhance" the land or surrounding lands in any way.
c. any land meeting the definition of farm and agricultural conservation land under subsection (8 ) of this section. As a condition of granting
open space classification, the legislative body may not require public access on land classified under (b)(iii) of this subsection for the purpose
of promoting conservation of wetlands.
Although they may not be required to allow access to the property nothing says they can charge for public access thru fees and permits without altering their designated use of the property. It becomes recreational property and should be taxed as such.
Post by: Humptulips on April 27, 2014, 11:49:52 AM
I started this topic so we could come together and come up with some ideas to fight this and do something. I am amazed at how much you fellow hunters want to just argue and fight on here like it's doing any good? It amazes me even more how many of you are fine with just bending over and taking it over and over again. How bout next year the price goes to 500$, then $1000. When will it stop?? The answer is when you want it to stop. All you got to do is do something about it. If hunters were more united we could get a lot more productive things done to improve our chances.
Thank you fireweed and humptulips and a few others for actually giving ideas!!
i would love it if the prices went up. just thin out the *censored* bags even more and give these company's more incentive to keep the tree farms instead of selling to tribes. the whole get angry at "big timber " sure sounds a lot like the enviro terrorist cry of death to "big oil" or the anarchist and 99%ers blood lust for "big industry"
humptulips, funny how your first reaction to me parking in your yard was wanting to charge me a fee. i thought that was the evil of "big timber" and that right to manage your property how you see fit should be abolished. interesting
You don't get it do you? I didn't want to charge you for camping. The issue is paying twice. We are already paying for access to tree farms through a tax break and then they turn around and charge. So what do we get for the tax break now?
I have the feeling you'll be perfectly happy to be the only hunter until the price gets to high or HSUS tries to outlaw hunting and then you'll wonder why nobody is around to help you stop them from taking away your right to hunt.
We are not already paying for access through a tax break. You really need to spend some time understanding the tax laws before making statements like this. They are taxed at the rate they are because they have produced and follow a timber harvest plan. And this is all that is required of them to receive that tax rate.
Timber plans aren't needed for large parcels and aren't stated anywhere in state law as the "reason" for the reduced tax rate. I think you might be thinking about two other classifications (open space-open space) and (open space-timberland). The open space timberland is for small (less than 20 acres) pieces and does in most counties need a plan.
Open space-open space is for areas without logging and has what is called a weighted benefit system where you get so much (say 10%) reduction in taxable value for each public benefit on your land--public access can get you part of that reduction. So this idea of less taxes for public access is already being used in that category.
1. OPEN SPACE LAND MEANS EITHER
a. any land area so designated by an official comprehensive land use plan adopted by any city or county and zoned accordingly, or
b. any land area, the preservation of which in its present use would (i) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources, or (ii) protect
streams or water supply, or (iii) promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes, or (iv) enhance the value to the public of
abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space, or (v) enhance recreation
opportunities, or (vi) preserve historic sites, or (vii) preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas, or
(viii) retain in its natural state tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as
may be reasonably required by the legislative body granting the open space classification, or
c. any land meeting the definition of farm and agricultural conservation land under subsection (8 ) of this section. As a condition of granting
open space classification, the legislative body may not require public access on land classified under (b)(iii) of this subsection for the purpose
of promoting conservation of wetlands.
They are not the same.
They are treated differently for taxation purposes.
Here are the tax laws governing assessment of land value for "Forest land"
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140)
As you can see the land value is set in law by the Legislature not by your county assesor.
Here are the tax laws for assessment of Open Space land
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.34.060 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.34.060)
The assessor sets the land valueation of Open Space lands
Further more the Legislature has given County govenments the ability to set priorities for Open Space Land vauation in
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.34.060 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.34.060)
Post by: Humptulips on April 27, 2014, 12:18:23 PM
Maybe the confusion is the term timberland. Tree farms are not defined as timberland. They are Forest land. Forest land has a value set at a maximum of $234/acre with a diminshing scale of valuation for less priductive Forest land.
Open Space Land valuation is determined in a different law by your county assessor. There is no set valuation by the Legislature as there is in Forest land.
"Forest land " is governed under RCW Chapter 84.33
"Open Space" is governed under RCW Chapter 84.34
Explore around in those Chapters and you will see they are not the same.
Post by: bowbuild on April 27, 2014, 12:22:20 PM
Scroll down to letter "J" tell me what that means please.
Maybe I am confused, but I wonder if they would have to REAPPLY for application because of "new" uses for the land? Just wondering? :)
Post by: Humptulips on April 27, 2014, 01:34:08 PM
For sure any of the big timber companies are locked in because it says in(1) any land already classified as Forest land before 7/22/01 is granfathered in.
Post by: bowbuild on April 27, 2014, 05:24:57 PM
I see what you are driving at but that is only for classification of new applications for Forest Land. Leasing for access might cause a bump in the application process but if it is already classified as Forest Land it looks like it is not going to change the classification
For sure any of the big timber companies are locked in because it says in(1) any land already classified as Forest land before 7/22/01 is granfathered in.
The way I see it was their "choice" to reclassify themselves by turning their property into a profit venture OUTSIDE the classification of timber lands. You said that they were grandfathered in....well you can't start changing the rules of classification AFTER THE FACT Once you change the term forest land to include XYZ you are going down a slippery slope, where does it stop? I would think it would need to be restructured for the use of the land, therefore a new application.
I would be interested in what Weyerhauser has for the new natural gas findings they have....are they under "forest land" or would they have to reclassify after they are removing the gas?....and if so Why?? They would be grandfathered would they not, as forest land....what's the big deal, it comes from the forest right? :rolleyes:
Think of it this way.....I have a septic tank....I have always had a septic tank. Does that mean that I do not have to reapply for a new septic field by the county??? Why?? I have always had a tank, am I not grandfathered?.....or what if a city has sewer, they can force me to use that sewer if there is "reasonable access" and deny me a septic permit.....is this correct?
Bowbuild
Post by: longwalker on April 27, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Post by: bowbuild on April 27, 2014, 06:14:41 PM
still waiting to see any sort of compelling argument as to how these tax laws correlate directly to allowing anybody in the world free reign to access there private property? so should just the people who live in the county where the tree farms have access? how about folks who rent in that county? they cant come in right? they dont pay property taxes. this sounds like you guys really got it all worked out on how to take property rights away from someone in just the "fairest" way possible. freakin commies...
Hey ass wipe....I did not come on here and try to offend you, so how about you offer the same amount of respect! They can shut their damn gates and let no one in as far as I am concerned, and it will be idiots like you that will reap the benefits in the future....not! :bash:
Post by: Humptulips on April 27, 2014, 06:15:50 PM
I see what you are driving at but that is only for classification of new applications for Forest Land. Leasing for access might cause a bump in the application process but if it is already classified as Forest Land it looks like it is not going to change the classification
For sure any of the big timber companies are locked in because it says in(1) any land already classified as Forest land before 7/22/01 is granfathered in.
The way I see it was their "choice" to reclassify themselves by turning their property into a profit venture OUTSIDE the classification of timber lands. You said that they were grandfathered in....well you can't start changing the rules of classification AFTER THE FACT Once you change the term forest land to include XYZ you are going down a slippery slope, where does it stop? I would think it would need to be restructured for the use of the land, therefore a new application.
I would be interested in what Weyerhauser has for the new natural gas findings they have....are they under "forest land" or would they have to reclassify after they are removing the gas?....and if so Why?? They would be grandfathered would they not, as forest land....what's the big deal, it comes from the forest right? :rolleyes:
Think of it this way.....I have a septic tank....I have always had a septic tank. Does that mean that I do not have to reapply for a new septic field by the county??? Why?? I have always had a tank, am I not grandfathered?.....or what if a city has sewer, they can force me to use that sewer if there is "reasonable access" and deny me a septic permit.....is this correct?
Bowbuild
I wish that it was that way but I can't find anything in the laws that would call for reclassification as long as they keep the land in production of forest products.
I don't think the whole septic tank example is very useful. It is a different law. Same with the whole Open Space argument above. Doesn't matter what seems right to a person.
Post by: Humptulips on April 27, 2014, 06:26:38 PM
Post by: grundy53 on April 27, 2014, 06:31:57 PM
Wow. YOU are asking for respect? Yet you resort to childish name calling. He wasn't even talking to you specifically. Grow up.still waiting to see any sort of compelling argument as to how these tax laws correlate directly to allowing anybody in the world free reign to access there private property? so should just the people who live in the county where the tree farms have access? how about folks who rent in that county? they cant come in right? they dont pay property taxes. this sounds like you guys really got it all worked out on how to take property rights away from someone in just the "fairest" way possible. freakin commies...
Hey ass wipe....I did not come on here and try to offend you, so how about you offer the same amount of respect! They can shut their damn gates and let no one in as far as I am concerned, and it will be idiots like you that will reap the benefits in the future....not! :bash:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Elkric on April 27, 2014, 06:38:33 PM
Post by: grundy53 on April 27, 2014, 07:16:31 PM
The guy was called a commie, I think ass wipe was extremely nice.I believe that was a generalized statement. Not directed at anyone personally.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: longwalker on April 27, 2014, 08:34:30 PM
The guy was called a commie, I think ass wipe was extremely nice.I believe that was a generalized statement. Not directed at anyone personally.
sent from my typewriter
would ya look at that. someone on here with a brain. color me impressed
Post by: longwalker on April 27, 2014, 08:35:47 PM
still waiting to see any sort of compelling argument as to how these tax laws correlate directly to allowing anybody in the world free reign to access there private property? so should just the people who live in the county where the tree farms have access? how about folks who rent in that county? they cant come in right? they dont pay property taxes. this sounds like you guys really got it all worked out on how to take property rights away from someone in just the "fairest" way possible. freakin commies...
Hey ass wipe....I did not come on here and try to offend you, so how about you offer the same amount of respect! They can shut their damn gates and let no one in as far as I am concerned, and it will be idiots like you that will reap the benefits in the future....not! :bash:
is this the compelling argument i was waiting for? i cant tell
Post by: fireweed on April 28, 2014, 07:57:03 AM
If that happened I wouldn't care one lick how much anyone charged for anything. Then there would be No questions of whether these tax breaks infringe in any way on property rights, or give the public any reason to insist on some access. Toss all the tax breaks, period. Make everyone equal. That's the American way, right?
Post by: t6 on April 28, 2014, 08:09:02 AM
T "Wearing my aluminum foil hat" 6
Post by: fireweed on April 28, 2014, 08:22:06 AM
Then all we have to do is sit back and wait....
pretty soon the companies will be saying, wait a minute, what about all these public benefits our land provides. We need those tax breaks or we will insert: [sell, subdivide, charge people, lease, close mills, lay of workers] Gee...seems those things have happened all ready. What they really are saying is we need those tax breaks or we will [make less money].
Post by: t6 on April 28, 2014, 01:42:13 PM
Post by: fair-chase on April 28, 2014, 02:10:19 PM
But...I think we need to ask ourselves what the unintended consequences would be of lifting the tax break for only a targeted few. The obvious outcome would be an increase in the price of timber/building, fewer timber related jobs, and cutting corners on habitat/natural resource development. Furthermore if the tax rate becomes too burdensome, you will see big timber selling off land. At which point the only buyers left who still get substantial tax breaks and subsidies are the extreme environmental groups who buy land and lock it up completely under the guise of "conservation easements". Or break it up and subdivide it. Either of which would be a far worse predicament than this current situation.
Just something to consider.
Post by: Humptulips on April 28, 2014, 07:53:18 PM
For the record, I'm all for getting rid of all of the tax breaks, deductions, and subsidies in favor of going to a flat tax. The government should not be in the business of manipulating behavior through the tax system. At the very least this is coercion, and does not represent the ideals of a free society.
But...I think we need to ask ourselves what the unintended consequences would be of lifting the tax break for only a targeted few. The obvious outcome would be an increase in the price of timber/building, fewer timber related jobs, and cutting corners on habitat/natural resource development. Furthermore if the tax rate becomes too burdensome, you will see big timber selling off land. At which point the only buyers left who still get substantial tax breaks and subsidies are the extreme environmental groups who buy land and lock it up completely under the guise of "conservation easements". Or break it up and subdivide it. Either of which would be a far worse predicament than this current situation.
Just something to consider.
This has been brought up before. I worked in the timber industry as a logger until just recently.
Increase in the price of timber/building. I don't think that would happen. It probably would if WA was the only game in town but they get plenty of competition from production coming from out of state. They would need to price their products competively or they wouldn't sell much. I see lumber at the lumber yard from out of state all the time now so they have to compete on price.
Fewer timber related jobs. That would be funny if it weren't so sad for timber workers. Jobs in the timber industry have been on a rapid decline and mostly because of mechanization. Those aren't government jobs. They take every oppurtunity to lay people off now. I can't see much changing. They make money by logging and they are going to keep that up but with as few people as they can no matter what the profit margin.
Habitat/Natural Resources. They do what they are required to do or what will bring them $s now. Doing something to improve habitat? If anything they do stuff to damage habitat. Maybe if they had a few less bucks, they would stick to the label when applying herbicides.
If they can subdivide it and sell it I think they will either way. It hasn't stopped them up 'til now.
Post by: fireweed on May 25, 2014, 12:24:42 PM
Weyerhaeuser wrong to forces hikers, hunters to pay for access
Daryl Blumberg
My Turn Montesano Vidette
I’ve given this some time as to not say anything regrettable, but I do want to initiate some conversation on the issue. Weyerhaeuser recently announced its closure of public access without permit to its lands for any reason, be it hunting or recreation. They are privately held lands. If I had someone dumping on my land, I would lock it up as well I suppose. With that being said, I must say this as well. I think it’s a low blow. It’s a low blow to the communities that helped to make Weyco what it is today. Most everyone around here either worked for Weyco or knows someone who has. Many around here have had generations of family work in the woods or mills. I know this is a dumb question, given the fact that I live in Montesano, but, does anyone remember the spotted owl ordeal? Does anyone remember the “this business or this family supported by timber dollars” signs in almost every window in town or staked into every front yard? I do.
Anyone remember pictures in the paper of the streets in Hoquiam being flooded with loggers in support of the industry? This community stood up in solidarity for the industry that included Weyco. To me, it feels as if Weyco has shut the door in their faces. Weyco was born and raised right alongside this community and that is why I’m so torn on this issue. It feels like a family dispute. I still know several people who are Weyco employees and shareholders.
I have countless memories that were made out there. I hoped to have countless more but if that’s to be the case, it will cost me $250 bucks a year and take place one and a half hours after sunrise or before dark. There are times that I simply need to get off of the pavement and away from buildings for an afternoon to “reboot.” Perhaps, I want to head over the hill to Brooklyn. Well, even if I wanted to, I couldn’t — not even with my new permit. Access to these areas are specific. My permit will only grant me access to one area, not all of Grays Harbor or anything else and with only one portal of access. I have to go in and out of the same gate. No more cutting over the hill.
Weyco started here around 1900. They had and have a saw mill in Longview originally built in 1929. They bought out Schafer Bros. in Aberdeen, if anyone remembers that name anymore. They built their entire company with their tact, intelligence and the hard work of our communities. I think many fail to realize that a company like this is built in partnership with those who put on a suit and those who put on caulk boots, one who carries a brief case and one who packs a saw. It’s the nature of a logging company to be built on the backs of the community in which it operates. The days of the logging camps are long gone. Members of many small towns that likely wouldn’t exist if it weren’t a launching point for logging activities, live in the heart of the area they log.
I have always been pro Weyco. I have always defended their business practices. I believe it not only the right of a company to maximize profit, but a responsibility to its shareholders. When they ceased operations of the saw mill and log yard in Aberdeen, I defended it. I was a part of the demolition of the old small saw mill and, while standing there, although it didn’t look at all historical due to many years of retrofit and progress, I could feel the history. It was sad, yet I defended it. Their recent restrictiions, however, simply can’t be defended. This is the end of an era. This is not good for the community. I don’t know about you, but I’ve noticed that after many of these logging and mill jobs left, employment and income have “slightly” tapered. Hunting has done nothing but get more costly over the years and, from what I read in a post by a friend, he contacted Sen. Jim Hargrove’s office. They said there was nothing they could do due to it being private land. When he asked about lost revenue from hunting licenses, they said they only expect to see a 10 percent reduction and they will get more funds from a rainy day fund and other sources. So, not only is hunting more costly, but now you need a $250 permit. Oh, and you can’t go with your dad or your friend unless they also have the permit. How’s that for destroying a long standing tradition?
I simply can’t support this. I hope they follow in the footsteps of Port Blakely and notice what a trouncing on community this is. Thoughts?
Daryl Blumberg is a hunter and recreational advocate who lives in Montesano. Feel free to email your thoughts on this topic for publication to editor@thevidette.com
.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 25, 2014, 12:33:52 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on June 01, 2014, 01:09:31 AM
Weyco started here around 1900. They had and have a saw mill in Longview originally built in 1929. They bought out Schafer Bros. in Aberdeen, if anyone remembers that name anymore.
I remember that name well. My dad lived with and worked for Anna Schafer, John Schafer's widow, during his high school years after his dad (my grandfather) was killed in a logging accident. When I was a youngster in the 60s we would go with dad to visit Anna and we boys would marvel at the giant goldfish in her pond and try to figure out how we could catch them.
Also of interest to us was her hand cranked elevator which would be loaded with firewood to be cranked up to the main floor of her house.
Schafer State Park, up the Satsop River, was created from land donated by Schafer Bros. Logging.
Post by: mfswallace on June 03, 2014, 09:36:18 AM
Post by: washelkhunter on June 03, 2014, 09:51:13 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 03, 2014, 02:16:17 PM
Take away tax breaks if it were even a remote possibility and what is there to stop timber companies from blocking all access to their property, period.
Or just increase fees, because someone will always be glad to pay for special access.
Or go strictly to large block, highest-bidder leases, again, always someone willing to pay.
As hard as it may seem to take, it doesn't seem like a winning battle for access without permit fees. Not saying I like it nor support it, but Weyerhaeuser and the other timber companies are a big force with lots of money, political influence and power.
Nothing is getting cheaper and places to just access forest land to hunt, fish, explore are finite and more and more crowded which adds additional limitations as to what activity can be partaken of.
It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow, I have hunted the Weyco land outside of Toutle since 1976, many days spent year around cruising the roads, looking for critters, watching sign, trapping, fishing, etc.
When the gates started going up, I knew it was only a matter of time before it would get to this point and now it is here.
Am I going to buy a permit? That is still up in the air. I don't live in Cowlitz Co. any more, so if I did happen to draw a special permit down there, yes, I would begrudgingly buy a permit, no special draw win means you won't see me hunting grounds that I have 38 years invested in learning and enjoying.
Good luck to all in the draw this year.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 03, 2014, 07:32:13 PM
Some thoughts to consider:
Take away tax breaks if it were even a remote possibility and what is there to stop timber companies from blocking all access to their property, period.
Or just increase fees, because someone will always be glad to pay for special access.
Or go strictly to large block, highest-bidder leases, again, always someone willing to pay.
As hard as it may seem to take, it doesn't seem like a winning battle for access without permit fees. Not saying I like it nor support it, but Weyerhaeuser and the other timber companies are a big force with lots of money, political influence and power.
Nothing is getting cheaper and places to just access forest land to hunt, fish, explore are finite and more and more crowded which adds additional limitations as to what activity can be partaken of.
It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow, I have hunted the Weyco land outside of Toutle since 1976, many days spent year around cruising the roads, looking for critters, watching sign, trapping, fishing, etc.
When the gates started going up, I knew it was only a matter of time before it would get to this point and now it is here.
Am I going to buy a permit? That is still up in the air. I don't live in Cowlitz Co. any more, so if I did happen to draw a special permit down there, yes, I would begrudgingly buy a permit, no special draw win means you won't see me hunting grounds that I have 38 years invested in learning and enjoying.
Good luck to all in the draw this year.
The WDFW could require damage culling to be performed by DFW assigned hunters/tag holders. They'd have to allow access if they wanted the elk and bears to be kept in control. Wildlife management is the job of the DFW, not a timber company. And, the wildlife belongs to all of us regardless of on whose land it's standing.
Post by: t6 on June 03, 2014, 07:53:25 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 03, 2014, 08:07:14 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 03, 2014, 09:54:27 PM
I know one thing that's going to have to happen- deer and elk hunting by permit only. Otherwise all the public land is going to be over hunted. No way around it without going to permit only. It really should have gone to that this year. But maybe the WDFW wasn't made aware in time to do away with the general seasons. Let's just hope they get it done by next year.So if WDFW goes to permit only in those areas...heck make those units of mostly timberland trophy units and only give out a few permits :dunno: ...does that take away the "supply" for paying those access fees...making it less desirable or not at all profitable for timber companies to charge for access in the first place? Seems like a bargaining chip for wdfw...tell big timber that if they charge more than a nominal $20-50 fee for access then they are going to give out 1 or 2 elk permits for the whole area...oh, and no depredation help :chuckle: :dunno:
Post by: kentrek on June 03, 2014, 09:59:35 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 03, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Some thoughts to consider:
Take away tax breaks if it were even a remote possibility and what is there to stop timber companies from blocking all access to their property, period.
Or just increase fees, because someone will always be glad to pay for special access.
Or go strictly to large block, highest-bidder leases, again, always someone willing to pay.
As hard as it may seem to take, it doesn't seem like a winning battle for access without permit fees. Not saying I like it nor support it, but Weyerhaeuser and the other timber companies are a big force with lots of money, political influence and power.
Nothing is getting cheaper and places to just access forest land to hunt, fish, explore are finite and more and more crowded which adds additional limitations as to what activity can be partaken of.
It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow, I have hunted the Weyco land outside of Toutle since 1976, many days spent year around cruising the roads, looking for critters, watching sign, trapping, fishing, etc.
When the gates started going up, I knew it was only a matter of time before it would get to this point and now it is here.
Am I going to buy a permit? That is still up in the air. I don't live in Cowlitz Co. any more, so if I did happen to draw a special permit down there, yes, I would begrudgingly buy a permit, no special draw win means you won't see me hunting grounds that I have 38 years invested in learning and enjoying.
Good luck to all in the draw this year.
The WDFW could require damage culling to be performed by DFW assigned hunters/tag holders. They'd have to allow access if they wanted the elk and bears to be kept in control. Wildlife management is the job of the DFW, not a timber company. And, the wildlife belongs to all of us regardless of on whose land it's standing.
Or they could continue to "manage" the land for timber production and expand the spraying of clearcuts beyond the supposed two years I believe they claim and starve the animals out faster than they are now. Locked gates and no public access...who is going to know? No food, no animals, no need for WDFW or hunters.
Like I said, it sucks, but it just seems like it could and probably would get worse. Is it worth it, will we really win and be better off or end up cutting off our noses to spite our faces?
Maybe a better approach would be to pressure WDFW to make the effected areas OTC and do away with the drawings?
I don't know what the answer is or if there even is an answer, just tossing out some thoughts from a little different perspective to see what feedback is returned.
Always appreciate a good, frank discussion.
Post by: bobcat on June 03, 2014, 11:22:51 PM
Now to explain my first statement, that I think access permits are a good thing. Yes, I really I do. Not enough that I'm going to purchase one, but I'd consider it in the future. Just looking at the Vail tree farm as an example. What sort of access did we have before the access permit program started last year? We had three weekends in October for deer season, and we had one weekend in November for the late season. That was it. No access for scouting before the season, no access for bear hunting in August or September, no access for elk hunting.
So four weekends per year was it, as far as I know. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, I realize walk in hunting was allowed when it wasn't closed for fire danger. But how much of the tree farm could really be accessed by someone on foot? I'd guess maybe 1%. So really what good was that?
I think it's much better to have the drive in access that permit holders now have, so hunters can spread out and access the entire tree farm, seven days a week for six months. Now people can hunt bears in August, grouse in September, early and late archery deer, pre-season scouting, etc. none of which could be done before.
It's only a bad deal for those who don't have the time to take advantage of it. If you're only going to hunt one weekend, it sure isn't worth it. But if you can hunt, say, every other weekend from August 1st to December 31st, it ought to be worth the $200.
Of course it's also a bad deal for those who want a permit but can't get one because they're sold out. And that's unfortunate. But then let's think back to the access we had before. Right, there was virtually no access. Unless you liked driving in there on opening day of deer season, along with two thousand other hunters, with no clue where to hunt as no pre season scouting was allowed.
Post by: grundy53 on June 04, 2014, 04:59:35 AM
I know one thing that's going to have to happen- deer and elk hunting by permit only. Otherwise all the public land is going to be over hunted. No way around it without going to permit only. It really should have gone to that this year. But maybe the WDFW wasn't made aware in time to do away with the general seasons. Let's just hope they get it done by next year.
For this to happen the WDFW would have to show a lot more brains and intestinal fortitude then they've shown in the past. Honestly I don't think they care enough about deer and elk to do this. Cougar will probably go permit only though....
sent from my typewriter
Post by: fireweed on June 04, 2014, 07:48:31 AM
These areas are so vast (see attached red area as PART of what Weyco. owns in Cowlitz Co.--they just bought another 55,000 acres here last year) hunting access can't be all that is considered.
The eastern "white area" on the map is federal and state land mostly landlocked by Weyerhaeuser!
Post by: bobcat on June 04, 2014, 08:39:56 AM
Quote
Bobcat, your argument only works for motorized hunting access. There are other issues that must be considered--walking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, rural economic development, neighborhood children playing in the woods, improving health, fishing access, landlocked public lands, increased public costs of enforcement, current tax breaks...the list goes on.
Fireweed, so you agree the opportunity for hunting Weyerhaeuser land will be better with the new access permit system?
As for all your other concerns, I don't know what can be done about that, since after all, it is private property. I guess the best thing would be to work with Weyerhaeuser and try to get another type of access permit for non-hunting use, maybe $75 and non-motorized access only.
Post by: fireweed on June 04, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Now matter how many times you say it, for some reason it never sinks in. Timber company private property is no different than yours or my private property. You want access to my land or leases and you are going to pay. None of your business what I pay in taxes, and none of your business who I partner with in order to afford land. It is up to me, the land owner to determine how I use it. Now did my lawyer work a tax deal for me, you bet, why because he works for me and not you. You could hire a lawyer and do the same thing.
Something to think about. Private property, where by your admission your kids are tresspassing. Now correct me if I'm wrong but in the past has the land owner had any problem with your kids picking black berries? Fishing in the pond? riding their horses on the roads?
Like any business out there, if you were to make them an offer that was too good to refuse they'd probably sell you a piece of that land.
Taxes and tax breaks not a citizen's business? Lawyers working loop holes are not a citizen's concern? If taxes aren't a citizen's concern, we all might as well stop voting!
PS. Going on timberland that is unfenced and not posted is NOT trespassing according to Washington state law. Timberland must be fenced, conspicouously posted, or you must be told personally that the land is closed. Look it up. (Most of these permits begin Aug 1)
Post by: fireweed on June 04, 2014, 09:50:45 AM
QuoteBobcat, your argument only works for motorized hunting access. There are other issues that must be considered--walking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, rural economic development, neighborhood children playing in the woods, improving health, fishing access, landlocked public lands, increased public costs of enforcement, current tax breaks...the list goes on.
Fireweed, so you agree the opportunity for hunting Weyerhaeuser land will be better with the new access permit system?
As for all your other concerns, I don't know what can be done about that, since after all, it is private property. I guess the best thing would be to work with Weyerhaeuser and try to get another type of access permit for non-hunting use, maybe $75 and non-motorized access only.
Here's what I think a good long-term solution is:
-Acquire Easements or public roads through private land to public land.
-Full timberland tax breaks on industrial (5000 acres) timberland must have at least non-motorized free access (like Minnesota and Wisconsin)
--Companies can still get the full tax break, recreational immunity AND charge for Motorized access permits if the permits are not too expensive, and the numbers not too restricted. The legislature looked at this a little last year.
--Companies that lease or have high priced, exclusive permits will have a higher value placed on that land because of a loss of a public benefit.
-Multi-company permits could partner with gov. on enforcement and other items.
-Timber companies pay same taxes as other recreation businesses on income from leases and fees.
As to your question about hunting getting better, yes, hunting access could be better this year than it was last year. But I don't think that is the relavent question. Instead we should be asking is hunting access the same as it was when the citizens granted the tax breaks for providing public benefits (1970). The companies have slowly racheted down the recreational access over the last decade, hoping the process has been slow enough, and the tax breakes ingrained enough, that we no longer make that connection, and we jump at the chance to buy a permit to get improved access--that they have intentionally restricted.
Post by: bobcat on June 04, 2014, 09:53:19 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 04, 2014, 10:03:23 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 04, 2014, 10:40:18 AM
Good post fireweed, I can agree with all of that. :tup:
:yeah:
Now, are you going to follow-up on that theme by presenting that to the law makers and maybe help push it through?
It seems like a very good and balanced solution that, if presented properly and encouraged by others by voicing support with our Representatives as a group with letters and emails it may be something that could fly.
Thank you fireweed for taking the time and effort to prepare a well written and thought out proposal.
Post by: fireweed on June 04, 2014, 01:22:13 PM
Good post fireweed, I can agree with all of that. :tup:
:yeah:
Now, are you going to follow-up on that theme by presenting that to the law makers and maybe help push it through?
It seems like a very good and balanced solution that, if presented properly and encouraged by others by voicing support with our Representatives as a group with letters and emails it may be something that could fly.
Thank you fireweed for taking the time and effort to prepare a well written and thought out proposal.
They all know me!
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 04, 2014, 01:32:00 PM
If I work a deal with the state for a break on my taxes why is it your business? If I choose to file an extension on my property taxes what business is that of anyone's? That is a busniess deal between me and the state, a private matter just like your taxes are a private matter. If I choose to hire a lawyer to help with that deal, why is that wrong or anyone's business?
My point is this, if you want to influence what a private company or land owner does with their property you have a couple of choices. You either play or you watch.
Why is it that you made no comment about the land owner not having any problem with your kids picking berries? Why no comment about your own legal right to buy land for recreational purposes? Sorry but you'll get very little sympathy for your cause here. If you want to change something NOW, then it is going to cost you. you want to change something in the future then get to work now and set the stage for change. Elect your representatives, raise money to fight corporate greed, stage a protest march. That kind of thing goes over great in Seattle.
Sounds like someone's in the timber business. I'll tell you why it's our business. They're paying taxes at a rate of $240/acre when the land isn't being actively logged. When that tax rate was set, it was understood between legislators and the timber companies that the land would be left open for public recreation. And, it was left open. All good. Now recently, timber companies have seen that they can make money charging for access fees. I have no problems with that. BUT, that changes the outlook for the public and we should no longer be giving away tax revenues for land we don't get to use for free. Either open up the land, or open up your pockets. The decision is still up to the landowner what to do with his own land.
My land is taxed at full value and I don't get extensions. When it's due, it's due. Time for big timber to pony up.
Post by: washelkhunter on June 04, 2014, 01:35:41 PM
Post by: buckhorn2 on June 04, 2014, 01:41:01 PM
Post by: headshot5 on June 04, 2014, 02:14:32 PM
Quote
Sounds like someone's in the timber business. I'll tell you why it's our business. They're paying taxes at a rate of $240/acre when the land isn't being actively logged. When that tax rate was set, it was understood between legislators and the timber companies that the land would be left open for public recreation. And, it was left open. All good. Now recently, timber companies have seen that they can make money charging for access fees. I have no problems with that. BUT, that changes the outlook for the public and we should no longer be giving away tax revenues for land we don't get to use for free. Either open up the land, or open up your pockets. The decision is still up to the landowner what to do with his own land.
My land is taxed at full value and I don't get extensions. When it's due, it's due. Time for big timber to pony up.
Is this documented somewhere?
Post by: oneshot12 on June 04, 2014, 02:47:36 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on June 04, 2014, 02:58:52 PM
Letter: Alter tax breaks on timberland
Published: June 3, 2014, 6:00 AM
Share on yahoomail
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email
More Sharing Services
1
The Columbian editorial “In Our View: From Free to Fee,” of May 23, completely missed the point. The opinion piece insinuates that rural residents, like myself, feel “entitled” to use private land free of charge because we always have. They state in that “if people are accustomed to receiving something for free, they come to view it as a birthright.”
But access hasn’t been free for decades. Each citizen pays more in property taxes so timberland can pay less. This tax structure compensates timberland owners for the public benefits of forests, including recreation.
Nobody has claimed that private companies don’t have the right to charge. And The Columbian is correct on one account: Companies do not owe the public free access because it has provided access in the past. They owe the public recreational access because of the spirit and intent of our tax law.
Yet, the editorial chooses to completely ignore this fact. If times are changing, the tax structure can change, too. After all, in the same logic of the editorial, the suggestion that the public somehow owes Weyerhaeuser full tax breaks simply because it has provided them in the past is an argument without merit.
Darcy Mitchem
TOUTLE
I agree with this POV.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2014, 11:00:19 AM
Sounds like someone's in the timber business. I'll tell you why it's our business. They're paying taxes at a rate of $240/acre when the land isn't being actively logged. When that tax rate was set, it was understood between legislators and the timber companies that the land would be left open for public recreation. And, it was left open. All good. Now recently, timber companies have seen that they can make money charging for access fees. I have no problems with that. BUT, that changes the outlook for the public and we should no longer be giving away tax revenues for land we don't get to use for free. Either open up the land, or open up your pockets. The decision is still up to the landowner what to do with his own land.
My land is taxed at full value and I don't get extensions. When it's due, it's due. Time for big timber to pony up.
You would be wrong in making that assumption. My point is that you should have no more to say about me and my personal taxes than you do any other private company or person. Weyerhauser is a big company, how big do you have to be to get the "special" treatment you advocate? You are ranting at that all encompassing bad guy 'big business". Make "them" do the right thing. Do you own any stock in Weyerhauser? How about a public worker pension program or Education pension program? If so "them" is you, just another stock holder. You guys don't need lessons in business, you know how the reality of this and how these things work. Weyerhauser gets a few bennies from the government for the thousands of jobs they provide and the huge investment in the state's forests. If they made 5 million a year off of this program, and I doubt they will make anywhere near that, it wouldn't cover the cost of administoring and manageing this program. I just don't see where all the outrage comes from. No one is getting rich off of this and in a company the size of Weyerhauser a few million here or there is a hiccup.
So, I disagree. Your real estate tax doesn't fluctuate depending on the current use. You and I pay full rate all the time for our property. This is not true for the timber companies. They get taxed at a lower rate for land not being actively logged. This rate was developed in the 1970s for land which is left open and available for public use. I have no problem with a private landowner doing what they wish with their land but I do have a problem with a landowner getting special rates for things they don't do. If they want to charge for access, that's just great. They can pay the same rates I pay if there's no value-added benefit to our society. That's money out of my pocket and yours, and because it's a public use issue and decreases the amount of taxes going into all of our state services, it is very much my business.
Post by: fireweed on June 09, 2014, 11:44:09 AM
Here's why--
1) Bad PR. These companies have spent Millions to improve their images, and they are throwing that all away. Even our state rep who is a FORESTER, said it is a PR nightmare.
2) puts their multiple layers of tax breaks in jeopardy. This is where the real $$ is. Citizens gave them, they can take them away. It is already under discussion.
3) Puts industry under a microscope for more regulations. If the public doesn't see a benefit for them, they are more likely to add regulations around spraying or slides, two hot topics. Mad rural citizens are less willing to defend timber companies against more regulations. Instead, they might start asking how much spray gets in their drinking water.
4) More likely for public to support government acquisition of timberland--like Wild Olympics idea. If people can't use it when its private, why not support more land purchases for the public domain? This could lead to overall loss of productive timberlands.
5) Alienates the local elected officials. You never know when you need a favor or local support to stop an unfavorable law or regulations. Why would they help you now? Constituents still vote, not business.
6) Negative brand association. If given a choice of lumber, one from a company that charges, like Weyerhaeuser and one from one that doesn't charge, like Sierra Pacific, which piece of lumber would the public most likely buy.
7) Less "eyes in the woods". Less people willing to report crimes on timberland, or go out of their way to keep an eye on timberland. These tree farms are so huge a company simply cannot afford to hire enough security to patrol it properly. They have always relied on neighbors turning in bad guys. Now that the neighbor walking his dog is the "bad guy", why would he report anything?
8. Loss of key "grass roots" supporters. In the past rural residents, sportsmen and timber industry employees/retirees have defended forest practices like clearcutting against environmental extremists. I doubt those key groups would go out of their way to express support in the future. How many "this family supports the timber industry" signs have you seen lately?
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2014, 11:54:53 AM
I have worked in the timber industry, I do own timberland and timber stock, I strongly support forestry, and I think the whole idea of charging for access (especially non-motorized) is BAD for the industry as a whole:
Here's why--
1) Bad PR. These companies have spent Millions to improve their images, and they are throwing that all away. Even our state rep who is a FORESTER, said it is a PR nightmare.
2) puts their multiple layers of tax breaks in jeopardy. This is where the real $$ is. Citizens gave them, they can take them away. It is already under discussion.
3) Puts industry under a microscope for more regulations. If the public doesn't see a benefit for them, they are more likely to add regulations around spraying or slides, two hot topics. Mad rural citizens are less willing to defend timber companies against more regulations. Instead, they might start asking how much spray gets in their drinking water.
4) More likely for public to support government acquisition of timberland--like Wild Olympics idea. If people can't use it when its private, why not support more land purchases for the public domain? This could lead to overall loss of productive timberlands.
5) Alienates the local elected officials. You never know when you need a favor or local support to stop an unfavorable law or regulations. Why would they help you now? Constituents still vote, not business.
6) Negative brand association. If given a choice of lumber, one from a company that charges, like Weyerhaeuser and one from one that doesn't charge, like Sierra Pacific, which piece of lumber would the public most likely buy.
7) Less "eyes in the woods". Less people willing to report crimes on timberland, or go out of their way to keep an eye on timberland. These tree farms are so huge a company simply cannot afford to hire enough security to patrol it properly. They have always relied on neighbors turning in bad guys. Now that the neighbor walking his dog is the "bad guy", why would he report anything?
8. Loss of key "grass roots" supporters. In the past rural residents, sportsmen and timber industry employees/retirees have defended forest practices like clearcutting against environmental extremists. I doubt those key groups would go out of their way to express support in the future. How many "this family supports the timber industry" signs have you seen lately?
I've performed clean-ups on their land. I supported timber companies back when clear-cutting on NF land was eliminated. I was married into a family with strong timber ties - loggers and timber mills. Big timber companies have changed the face of what timber used to mean to people. With the recent move to paid access and animals on WEYCO land being diseased, I don't feel that the companies are any longer concerned for the communities in which they operate or the wildlife which lives on their land.
Post by: bowbuild on June 10, 2014, 10:38:01 AM
I have worked in the timber industry, I do own timberland and timber stock, I strongly support forestry, and I think the whole idea of charging for access (especially non-motorized) is BAD for the industry as a whole:
Here's why--
1) Bad PR. These companies have spent Millions to improve their images, and they are throwing that all away. Even our state rep who is a FORESTER, said it is a PR nightmare.
2) puts their multiple layers of tax breaks in jeopardy. This is where the real $$ is. Citizens gave them, they can take them away. It is already under discussion.
3) Puts industry under a microscope for more regulations. If the public doesn't see a benefit for them, they are more likely to add regulations around spraying or slides, two hot topics. Mad rural citizens are less willing to defend timber companies against more regulations. Instead, they might start asking how much spray gets in their drinking water.
4) More likely for public to support government acquisition of timberland--like Wild Olympics idea. If people can't use it when its private, why not support more land purchases for the public domain? This could lead to overall loss of productive timberlands.
5) Alienates the local elected officials. You never know when you need a favor or local support to stop an unfavorable law or regulations. Why would they help you now? Constituents still vote, not business.
6) Negative brand association. If given a choice of lumber, one from a company that charges, like Weyerhaeuser and one from one that doesn't charge, like Sierra Pacific, which piece of lumber would the public most likely buy.
7) Less "eyes in the woods". Less people willing to report crimes on timberland, or go out of their way to keep an eye on timberland. These tree farms are so huge a company simply cannot afford to hire enough security to patrol it properly. They have always relied on neighbors turning in bad guys. Now that the neighbor walking his dog is the "bad guy", why would he report anything?
8. Loss of key "grass roots" supporters. In the past rural residents, sportsmen and timber industry employees/retirees have defended forest practices like clearcutting against environmental extremists. I doubt those key groups would go out of their way to express support in the future. How many "this family supports the timber industry" signs have you seen lately?
You should send this to every timber company, because you are spot on! I know several employees that are dead set against this new policy.
Post by: ouchfoss on June 10, 2014, 02:36:24 PM
I have worked in the timber industry, I do own timberland and timber stock, I strongly support forestry, and I think the whole idea of charging for access (especially non-motorized) is BAD for the industry as a whole:
Here's why--
1) Bad PR. These companies have spent Millions to improve their images, and they are throwing that all away. Even our state rep who is a FORESTER, said it is a PR nightmare.
2) puts their multiple layers of tax breaks in jeopardy. This is where the real $$ is. Citizens gave them, they can take them away. It is already under discussion.
3) Puts industry under a microscope for more regulations. If the public doesn't see a benefit for them, they are more likely to add regulations around spraying or slides, two hot topics. Mad rural citizens are less willing to defend timber companies against more regulations. Instead, they might start asking how much spray gets in their drinking water.
4) More likely for public to support government acquisition of timberland--like Wild Olympics idea. If people can't use it when its private, why not support more land purchases for the public domain? This could lead to overall loss of productive timberlands.
5) Alienates the local elected officials. You never know when you need a favor or local support to stop an unfavorable law or regulations. Why would they help you now? Constituents still vote, not business.
6) Negative brand association. If given a choice of lumber, one from a company that charges, like Weyerhaeuser and one from one that doesn't charge, like Sierra Pacific, which piece of lumber would the public most likely buy.
7) Less "eyes in the woods". Less people willing to report crimes on timberland, or go out of their way to keep an eye on timberland. These tree farms are so huge a company simply cannot afford to hire enough security to patrol it properly. They have always relied on neighbors turning in bad guys. Now that the neighbor walking his dog is the "bad guy", why would he report anything?
8. Loss of key "grass roots" supporters. In the past rural residents, sportsmen and timber industry employees/retirees have defended forest practices like clearcutting against environmental extremists. I doubt those key groups would go out of their way to express support in the future. How many "this family supports the timber industry" signs have you seen lately?
:yeah: Im sure Wild Olympics has probably gained a few supporters in the last few years because of all the fee access areas, which is not a good thing at all.
Post by: The Big Game Hunter on June 29, 2014, 04:04:39 PM
http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/ (http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/)
Post by: bowbuild on June 30, 2014, 09:29:11 AM
I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.
http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/ (http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/)
"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."
This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.
They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."
Bowbuild
Post by: motg9_6 on July 01, 2014, 02:55:21 PM
say someone trespasses on your place, pees on your porch tips over your garbage can and steals something from your house then your are responsible for not preventing them from doing it???I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.
http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/ (http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/)
"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."
This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.
They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."
Bowbuild
how about the criminals get held responsible with punishments for breaking the law that will keep them from doing it again.
just my :twocents:
Post by: bowbuild on July 01, 2014, 05:37:02 PM
i agree with almost all of your statements except one it being their fault.say someone trespasses on your place, pees on your porch tips over your garbage can and steals something from your house then your are responsible for not preventing them from doing it???I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.
http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/ (http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/)
"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."
This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.
They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."
Bowbuild
how about the criminals get held responsible with punishments for breaking the law that will keep them from doing it again.
just my :twocents:
All I can say is you must not believe in being proactive?? Sure they could still have damage, but prevention is the key for the pieces of crap that damage their property. I think any cop (and there are a few on here) will tell you to lock your doors for your safety, why not leave access to areas that are not being worked, and lock down areas that are?. Leaving BLATANT opportunity, is NOT being proactive... :twocents:
Post by: The Big Game Hunter on July 01, 2014, 06:47:48 PM
i agree with almost all of your statements except one it being their fault.say someone trespasses on your place, pees on your porch tips over your garbage can and steals something from your house then your are responsible for not preventing them from doing it???I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.
http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/ (http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/)
"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."
This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.
They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."
Bowbuild
how about the criminals get held responsible with punishments for breaking the law that will keep them from doing it again.
just my :twocents:
Nowhere do I say that it is their fault things are happening on their land and nowhere do I suggest that criminals shouldn't be prosecuted and held accountable for their actions. In fact, I state exactly the opposite: pursuing legal action against miscreants is a key component of solving with the problems Weyerhaeuser is dealing with. I've quoted my article below, and as you can see, I merely state that locking the gates will make things easier for Weyerhaeuser to police their land and make it more difficult for those inclined to cause trouble.
Locking the gates will also prevent most unauthorized motorized access, which will also limit the extent of most banned activities to areas closer to the edges of the tree farms. By reducing the area where the banned activities are most likely to occur, this will help make the land easier to police for existing Weyerhaeuser security.
Pursuing legal action against trespassers and vandals may seem like it costs more money than it is worth in the short term. However, if Weyerhaeuser aggressively takes action against those violating the rules, it will not take too long for word to get out and for people to start taking the new rules seriously. After a few people get slapped with fines, or possibly even jail time for serious offences, Weyerhaeuser will very likely see a sharp decline on the number of incidents that they have to deal with as people realize that it is not worth it to mess around on their land.
Post by: bowbuild on July 01, 2014, 07:03:21 PM
Bowbuild,
Weyco only leaves gates open because of the access to DNR or other State lands. Not because they want to.
If Weyco sells out all their permits, they stand to make 2.5 mil. Its just a matter of time before the cost to hunt causes a reduction in hunters in WA. In time there will be a loss of sales in hunting licenses, permits, and even rented campsites or motels. Do you think that Weyco is going to share their profit with WDFW or those businesses that rely on hunters during the usual off season of camper?
NO.... Everyone in WA has something to loose. Loss in revenue to WDFW will result in higher licensing fees. Loss in revenue to the camps or motels will result in higher costs during their other seasons. How many of us take our families on vacation in the summer?
Even the State will loose money in time. Loss in sales.....loss in sales taxes.
Your right on with this ! Everyone loses
No actually he is dead wrong! I live next to A weyehauser gate that is open 24/7 and has no DNR around it at all....infact what the heck are you talking about??? There are a good number of gates still open in Grays habor, and pacific county.
Other than that I agree with you.
To the others about private property.....you say slippery slope.....that slope has been gone for years...when a cop can enter your land without probable cause, which apparently the game department can (from my understanding, and I hope I am wrong) your "private" property is not so private anymore....the state decides what is private and what is not I guess.
Bowbuild
Post by: bowbuild on July 01, 2014, 07:09:22 PM
i agree with almost all of your statements except one it being their fault.say someone trespasses on your place, pees on your porch tips over your garbage can and steals something from your house then your are responsible for not preventing them from doing it???I just completed a blog post on this very topic. The post is pretty long, but it's a complicated subject, and I think it addresses the issue pretty well. I'd love to hear what you all think about my summary of the problem and my proposed solution.
http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/ (http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2014/06/weyerhaeuser-access-permits/)
"Locking and placing surveillance on all gates will do a great deal to prevent people from slipping onto Weyerhaeuser land without a permit. I know that gates are usually left open on the Vail Tree Farm when logging is actively occurring in an area. From many of the grumblings that I hear, it seems like most of the miscreants causing trouble on the tree farm gain access through open gates for the simple reason that they can and the consequences for doing so are so minimal. Ensuring that the gates are always locked will help deter people dumping garbage and vandalizing trees and equipment by simply making it more difficult and time consuming to do so."
This part of your blog is the most significant to me. Weyerhauser leaves gates open year round in a lot of areas.......this equates to easy access for people that have ill intent....is this Weyerhausers fault?? Yes, in a way it is.....would you leave your keys in your car running outside a gas station?? Some may, but you may pay a price for your stupidity....and in my mind that is your own fault.
They are punishing hunters for ALL the publics misdeeds. Most hunters I know including myself are rarely in the woods at this time (maybe a scouting trip and, I live right next to a gate) but for the majority we are at work like most people. The bad apples have the run of their property in the off season....close the damn gates!!!! Open them from august 1 through jan 31 shut them the rest of the year, and ensure your logging crews lock gates behind them....this is not rocket science, no eyes in the woods in the off season leads to destruction of property, and we as hunter get to pay for idiots, and Weyerhausers irresponsibility of "leaving the keys in the car."
Bowbuild
how about the criminals get held responsible with punishments for breaking the law that will keep them from doing it again.
just my :twocents:
Nowhere do I say that it is their fault things are happening on their land and nowhere do I suggest that criminals shouldn't be prosecuted and held accountable for their actions. In fact, I state exactly the opposite: pursuing legal action against miscreants is a key component of solving with the problems Weyerhaeuser is dealing with. I've quoted my article below, and as you can see, I merely state that locking the gates will make things easier for Weyerhaeuser to police their land and make it more difficult for those inclined to cause trouble.
Locking the gates will also prevent most unauthorized motorized access, which will also limit the extent of most banned activities to areas closer to the edges of the tree farms. By reducing the area where the banned activities are most likely to occur, this will help make the land easier to police for existing Weyerhaeuser security.
Pursuing legal action against trespassers and vandals may seem like it costs more money than it is worth in the short term. However, if Weyerhaeuser aggressively takes action against those violating the rules, it will not take too long for word to get out and for people to start taking the new rules seriously. After a few people get slapped with fines, or possibly even jail time for serious offences, Weyerhaeuser will very likely see a sharp decline on the number of incidents that they have to deal with as people realize that it is not worth it to mess around on their land.
I was not saying you did....that was my opinion on the matter.
Post by: The Big Game Hunter on July 01, 2014, 07:20:55 PM
I was not saying you did....that was my opinion on the matter.
Sorry, I'm not saying you did, my last comment was directed at motg9_6, not you.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 05, 2014, 06:35:22 PM
Post by: motg9_6 on July 06, 2014, 01:40:32 PM