Post by: snarkybull on June 10, 2014, 12:59:46 PM
june 23 hearing on potential tax classification changes.
Post by: pd on June 10, 2014, 01:02:17 PM
Post by: Curly on June 10, 2014, 01:08:01 PM
Quote
-Set Hearing Date – June 23, 2014 – Ordinance merging timber land and designated forest land classifications and prescribing timber plans minimums and prohibiting certain fees
Post by: snarkybull on June 10, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
I hope Grays Harbor hunters attend en masse.
i don't think they are gonna check your address at the door ;)
seriously, anybody who hunts in grays harbor county should show up. you leave money here, too.
Post by: washelkhunter on June 10, 2014, 01:19:24 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2014, 01:21:16 PM
Post by: bucklucky on June 10, 2014, 01:24:46 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 10, 2014, 01:27:48 PM
Hope this does not backfire on us. I could see weyco closing the land completely and not allowing the public on ...ever...
:yeah:
Post by: stevemiller on June 10, 2014, 01:31:10 PM
So, this is a proposal to prohibit a landowner from being able to charge certain fees to access his own land? If so, I would be against this. It's one thing to attempt through the legislature to change the tax code regarding actively logged and non-actively logged acres in light of new access fees. It's another altogether to say someone can't charge access fees to their own land. If this is the case, I wouldn't support any move like this. Please clarify this for me, Snarkybull. Thanks.I agree with your thought Pman but look at it like this,All the billionaires in the US buy up all the public land and they are anti hunters,Then how do you look at it?who owned these timber lands before they were bought?What were the conditions of these sales when they were sold?If we let this country go to the people with the most money all the time we will all lose.That doesnt just go for the timber land issue it goes for all issues that all of us user groups have. :twocents:
Post by: snarkybull on June 10, 2014, 01:36:23 PM
So, this is a proposal to prohibit a landowner from being able to charge certain fees to access his own land? If so, I would be against this. It's one thing to attempt through the legislature to change the tax code regarding actively logged and non-actively logged acres in light of new access fees. It's another altogether to say someone can't charge access fees to their own land. If this is the case, I wouldn't support any move like this. Please clarify this for me, Snarkybull. Thanks.
If I knew the details I would share. I don't know anything you don't. but this is where voices can be heard.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
Post by: northwesthunter84 on June 10, 2014, 01:50:32 PM
Post by: MarkyMark on June 10, 2014, 02:20:02 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 10, 2014, 02:36:44 PM
What could possibly go wrong? Gates and no access period. Then we can all hunt the Capitol Forest together.
Sadly, that is a very real possibility...
Post by: bowbuild on June 10, 2014, 03:43:59 PM
Hope this does not backfire on us. I could see weyco closing the land completely and not allowing the public on ...ever...
:yeah:
If that's the case, so be it. Let the critters have their way on THEIR land, and leave OUR animals alone. It has been pointed out in the past that the game department rarely has to follow private property as to enforce the law, and I hope if they (timber companies) shut it down they actively protect our wildlife behind these gates, whether there are hunters or not!
Bowbuild
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2014, 03:58:46 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on June 10, 2014, 04:01:36 PM
Hope this does not backfire on us. I could see weyco closing the land completely and not allowing the public on ...ever...
:yeah:
If that's the case, so be it. Let the critters have their way on THEIR land, and leave OUR animals alone. It has been pointed out in the past that the game department rarely has to follow private property as to enforce the law, and I hope if they (timber companies) shut it down they actively protect our wildlife behind these gates, whether there are hunters or not!
Bowbuild
I think it would go the same route as bears and hounds...the timber companies will still be able to get them removed via depredation/damage permits because someone will always be willing to do it...just ask any hound hunter in the loop since the ban went into effect. They gladly do the timber companies bidding since it is the only way they can work their dogs and they love killing bear, because if they don't kill, they don't get used.
And/or it will be like the recent elk cull a few months ago (there was thread on here about it), where "professional sharp shooters" were employed to remove problem animals at night. Either way, be it by "professional sharp shooters" or privileged, select "hunters," there will always be plenty of volunteers who will gladly step up to protect timber company resources and happily remove animals that pose problems just because they can.
Post by: PolarBear on June 10, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
Hope this does not backfire on us. I could see weyco closing the land completely and not allowing the public on ...ever...:yeah:
They have been talking about shutting the woods down for all the public for years. It would not surprise me if they got pissed off enough to actually do it. Sierra Pacific has zero trespassing on a lot of their timber land, why not Weyco?
Post by: fireweed on June 10, 2014, 04:59:14 PM
An Ordinance terminating the Current Use Timber Land program and declaring land previously designated in the Timber Land program to be Designated Forest Land, and prescribing minimum timber management plan requirements.
WHEREAS Chapter 137, Laws of 2014 allows a county legislative authority to merge its Current Use Timber Land classification into its Designated Forest Land (DFL) program, thereby terminating the Current Use Timber Land classification; and
WHEREAS Chapter 137, Laws of 2014 further reduces the acreage requirement for DFL classification from 20 to 5 acres, and provides the county flexibility to regulate a Timber Management Plan; and
WHEREAS since the 1971 Forest Tax Law, Chapter 84.22 RCW, designed to ensure that taxes will not destroy economic incentives for growing timber on private timber lands, imposes a severance tax on timber after a harvest as a tax against the timber, not against the land, use of Designated Forest Land for commercial fee-based recreation is not an incidental use of such land, and a revision to the County’s DFL program should be made to maintain the spirit of the law, which is to use the land for harvesting timber; and
WHEREAS the DFL program should be modified to prohibit commercial recreation fees for access on Designated Forest Land, and require each Timber Management Plan contain a statement by the landowner that no commercial recreational use of the property will occur and acknowledging that such use is prohibited under the DFL classification, and that such use will result in violation of their Forest Management Plan and removal of property from the DFL program; and
WHEREAS it is in the best interest of the County to merge its Current Use Timber Land classification into its DFL program, and terminate the Current Use Timber Land classification as provided by Chapter 137, Laws of 2014,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY:
Section 1. Purpose. This Ordinance is intended to merge the Grays Harbor County Current Use Timber Land classification into its Designated Forest Land program, terminating the Current Use Timber Land classification, and to prohibit commercial recreation fees for access to land classified in the Designated Forest Land program.
Ordinance No. _______ Page 2 of 3
Section 2. Definitions. This Ordinance utilizes existing commonly used definitions contained in Chapter 84.33 RCW as currently in force, or as hereafter may be amended, and as supplemented in this section. For purposes of this ordinance, a “Timber Management Plan” shall include, in addition to the elements provided in RCW 84.33.035 (21), a statement that access to the forest land is not subject to any commercial recreation fee or charge and that the owner is aware that requiring payment of a fee or charge to access the forest land will violate the terms of the Forest Management Plan and result in removal of the forest land from the Designated Forest Land program. For purposes of this Ordinance, "commercial recreation" means activity access for which a fee is charged, including but not limited to hiking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, jogging, berry picking, mushroom picking, or floral salal picking for amusement, entertainment or recreation.
Section 3. Termination of Timber Land Classification. The Current Use Timber Land classification is hereby terminated.
Section 3.01 Merger With Designated Forest Land. Land that has been classified as Current Use Timber Land within the county is deemed to be Designated Forest Land under the provisions of RCW 84.33.130(1) and is no longer considered to be classified Current Use Timber Land for the purposes of Chapter 84.34 RCW.
Section 3.02 Previous Agreements Terminated. Any agreement prepared by the Assessor when an application was approved classifying land as Current Use Timber Land is terminated and no longer in effect. The Assessor must notify the Washington Department of Revenue after taking action under this section.
Section 3.03 Commercial Recreation Fees Prohibited. Fee-based commercial recreation is deemed to not constitute an incidental use of Designated Forest Land, and no owner shall charge or require payment of a commercial recreation fee for access to Designated Forest Land. Violation of this section shall result in removal of forest land from the Designated Forest Land Program under Chapter 84.33 RCW.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Post by: fireweed on June 10, 2014, 05:28:26 PM
If it is adopted, it might not pass constitutional muster, but it could get someone at Weyco's attention.
Therefore, I vote yes!
Post by: snarkybull on June 10, 2014, 05:30:48 PM
Post by: Alan K on June 10, 2014, 05:43:59 PM
Post by: fireweed on June 10, 2014, 06:00:17 PM
They can limit, lease, restrict, use fees, and still be SFI, but they are already doing all that now. The only thing left is to cut off public recreation entirely, which SFI says they can't do.
Post by: Alan K on June 10, 2014, 06:07:31 PM
Post by: kisfish on June 10, 2014, 06:17:26 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 11, 2014, 05:45:06 PM
:yeah:Hope this does not backfire on us. I could see weyco closing the land completely and not allowing the public on ...ever...
:yeah:
We may be sitting here in a year saying "I wish I could access Weyco lands." Paying a fee for access is better than no access at all. Many don't like change, but sometimes you need to roll with it. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 12, 2014, 05:54:07 AM
:yeah:Hope this does not backfire on us. I could see weyco closing the land completely and not allowing the public on ...ever...
:yeah:
We may be sitting here in a year saying "I wish I could access Weyco lands." Paying a fee for access is better than no access at all. Many don't like change, but sometimes you need to roll with it. :twocents:
And there are many who can't afford the change. People are already paying for access by paying the taxes that WEYCO doesn't on those lands and now WEYCO wants to charge them and keep the tax breaks. And if they do pay the fee, they have a really good chance of killing a sick animal.
Post by: Pacific on June 12, 2014, 08:58:16 AM
As has been said before, the actions of a small percentage of the people ruin the opportunity for the rest of us.
I, for one, just refuse to buy the permit/permits......
Post by: Curly on June 12, 2014, 09:20:32 AM
:yeah:Hope this does not backfire on us. I could see weyco closing the land completely and not allowing the public on ...ever...
:yeah:
We may be sitting here in a year saying "I wish I could access Weyco lands." Paying a fee for access is better than no access at all. Many don't like change, but sometimes you need to roll with it. :twocents:
And there are many who can't afford the change. People are already paying for access by paying the taxes that WEYCO doesn't on those lands and now WEYCO wants to charge them and keep the tax breaks. And if they do pay the fee, they have a really good chance of killing a sick animal.
:yeah:
Yeah, we may be wishing for access to their timberlands in the future, but that is not a reason to sit back on our hands and not try to do the right thing. At least Grays Harbor County is going to be discussing the issue. I'm glad they are.
I hope Fireweed will go to the meeting or at least send them a letter. He sure has a good handle on the issues with access and taxes. :tup:
Post by: Special T on June 12, 2014, 11:16:33 AM
I am not excited about Private companies and their practices but I am really upset at our inability to access public lands that we are locked out of.
Post by: Curly on June 12, 2014, 11:30:38 AM
Post by: bowbuild on June 12, 2014, 03:56:18 PM
Bowbuild
Post by: Curly on June 12, 2014, 04:47:54 PM
Post by: fireweed on June 12, 2014, 07:05:47 PM
these are what I see as the outcome
1) Weyco. sues to stop the ordinance
2) Weyco drops the permit fees
3) Weyco shuts everything down
My bet is on #1 most likely--tie it up in court until the legislature gets to it.
If #3 happens then the county should immediately fine a formal complaint with SFI.
Either way, whatever happens would only last a year or so. This issue screams for state action--probably by creating another land use category in forests where fees and other incomes are considered, but the land is taxed on a slightly higher value, and free public access for full tax break.
Post by: Halo on June 12, 2014, 07:29:58 PM
Post by: blackdog on June 12, 2014, 10:30:31 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 13, 2014, 08:21:10 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 13, 2014, 08:22:58 AM
Post by: snarkybull on June 13, 2014, 08:23:20 AM
I don't know how this will end but I do know that it would be good for a crowd to show up on the 23rd!:yeah:
Post by: bobcat on June 13, 2014, 08:33:22 AM
Counties mull moves to counter Weyerhaeuser access fees
12 hours ago • By Shari Phiel, Tom Paulu
Weyerhaeuser Co. expanding forest fee access program
Starting this summer, hunters will have to pay to get onto much of Weyerhaeuser Co.’s St. Helens Tree Farm and the company’s land near the coast.
Reacting to public anger over Weyerhaeuser Co.’s fee-for-entry policy, commissioners in Cowlitz and Grays Harbor counties are looking for ways to block the move.
A proposal in Grays Harbor County would raise Weyerhaeuser’s property tax, though a company spokesman said Thursday linking land access to taxes might be illegal.
Weyerhaeuser plans to start charging $150 for a family permit to visit much of its land around Longview starting Aug. 1. Some areas will be leased to the highest bidder. The company is also expanding its fee access program in Grays Harbor County.
More than 400 people have signed a petition asking the Cowlitz County commissioners to try to stop Weyerhaeuser from charging for public access. Chris Bornstedt of Kelso started the petition several weeks ago, leaving copies in local sporting goods stores. Bornstedt said the fee access system will be bad for the local economy because it will discourage hunters from spending.
“We’ll take (the petition) to county commissioners and let them know we aren’t happy with it,” Bornstedt said.
Cowlitz County Commissioner Jim Misner said he’s asked Weyerhaeuser to waive or reduce permit fees for Cowlitz County residents and for current and retired company workers.
At the commissioners’ meeting Thursday, Misner said he has asked Weyerhaeuser spokesman Anthony Chavez if the company could reduce fees for people who carry garbage bags into the forest and pick up trash. He said Waste Control has agreed to put dumpsters at five locations in the county where woods trash could be dumped.
“I told him a lot of hunters are going to be reluctant to hunt our local timberlands now because of the hoof-disease epidemic, so a lot of them aren’t going to hunt locally anyway,” Misner said. “The other thing is, I think it’s just good PR for the locals. Anthony likes the idea, but he wants to run it up the chain.”
Hunters are also upset in Grays Harbor County, where a proposed ordinance would increase taxes for timber companies that charge for access. Traditionally, Grays Harbor County allows some timber owners to pay lower taxes on land primarily used for growing and harvesting timber. Grays Harbor County Commissioner Wes Comier wants to eliminate the tax break for landowners who charge for public access.
Grays Harbor will hold a hearing on the proposal on June 23.
In an email, Chavez told The Daily News, “we are evaluating the ordinance and question the county’s authority to tax our timberlands in this way. Our preliminary research suggests the ordinance is inconsistent with state law and invalid.” The note did not elaborate.
“I think that Grays Harbor is on to something,” Misner said. He said he has asked the Cowlitz County’s prosecutor’s office to review the legality off the proposed Grays Harbor ordinance. Misner also suggested the commissioners hold a forum and invite people who have signed Bornstedt’s petition.
Cowlitz County Commissioner Mike Karnofski, a former Weyerhaeuser Co. employee, said he wanted to hear the Cowlitz County legal staff’s opinion of the taxation ordinance before considering a forum.
http://tdn.com/news/local/counties-mull-moves-to-counter-weyerhaeuser-access-fees/article_09fa0332-f28f-11e3-b765-0019bb2963f4.html (http://tdn.com/news/local/counties-mull-moves-to-counter-weyerhaeuser-access-fees/article_09fa0332-f28f-11e3-b765-0019bb2963f4.html)
Post by: blackdog on June 13, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
Post by: snarkybull on June 13, 2014, 05:39:42 PM
Let's raise taxes and take away property rights on the County's largest employer and landowner so we can all whine about lost jobs and lost access while we celebrate saving $150 a year.
they are not the county's largest employer
Post by: dreamunelk on June 13, 2014, 05:50:20 PM
Also they are not the employer they once were and most of their trees are going to China. There was a day when Weyerheauser and Rayonier were part of the community. That is no more.
Post by: Coastal_native on June 13, 2014, 08:09:34 PM
There was a day when Weyerheauser and Rayonier were part of the community. That is no more.
Couldn't have said it better.
Post by: pd on June 13, 2014, 08:20:03 PM
There was a day when Weyerheauser and Rayonier were part of the community. That is no more.
Couldn't have said it better.
Hmmm. I am not a local so I don't know about this. But the comments make me realize this is a tough issue. Lease keep us informed.
Post by: t6 on June 15, 2014, 11:15:54 PM
Post by: MarkyMark on June 15, 2014, 11:24:20 PM
Post by: bowbuild on June 16, 2014, 06:32:05 PM
No matter what happens I'm purchasing the Aberdeen Tree Farm permit. Bobcat promised to give me coordinates to his honey hole so I'm good to go. Thanks bobcat! ;)
Honey hole for the Aberdeen tree farm....now that's laughable.....honey hole... :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: dreamunelk on June 19, 2014, 07:22:19 PM
County hoping to clamp down on fee-for-access to timberlands
By Steven Friederich
The Vidette
MONTESANO — County Commissioner Wes Cormier says that timber companies like Weyerhaeuser should not be allowed to get a tax break for growing timberland, while at the same time charging hunters, hikers and berry pickers fees to access that land.
Such multi-use activities are currently allowed under the county’s “open space” forest designation, a state-designed program that came into place in 1971 allowing timber companies to get a break on their annual property taxes with the knowledge that the county will recover most of those taxes when the timber is eventually harvested. But Cormier has proposed tweaking the program to give companies a choice — either don’t charge fees for access or don’t get the property tax break.
The state put the program in place but left it to the counties to determine what should be in the forest management plan that timber companies are required to abide by and the Grays Harbor County commissioners speaheaded by Cormier have proposed an ordinance that would prevent fees for access as a condition of opting into the “open space” tax break program.
“The county can’t regulate designated forestland,” Cormier said. “That’s all done at the state level. But what we do manage at the county level is the timber management forest plan so we can add requirements to a timber management forest plan and we can require certain things we want the assessor to uphold.”
A public hearing on the ordinance has been set for 2 p.m., Monday, June 23 in the county commission chambers of the County Administration Building in Montesano. Officially, the ordinance states that the county’s timber management plan required for private owners will be “modified to prohibit commercial recreational fees for access on Designated Forest Land, and property owners acknowledge that such use is prohibited under the Designated Forest Land classification, and such use will result in violation of their timber management plan and removal of property from the Designated Forest Land program.”
County Commission Chairman Frank Gordon says he’s read the ordinance and praised the job Cormier has done in finding a fine line that the county can use to regulate a pretty tough issue.
Cormier is careful to note that the county cannot force any private property owner to grant access to their lands for free.
However, the tax break is an “opt in” system. There’s no requirement that Weyerhaeuser opt into the tax break. It’s just been to the company’s best interest over the years to do so. The property tax breaks given to timber companies like Weyerhaeuser can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Cormier said the ordinance allows timber owners like Weyerhaeuser to opt into the program — and completely cut off access. They just can’t charge for access.
Weyerhaeuser could also choose to designate part of its land into the “open space” program and other parts out of it. If timberland owners choose not to get the property tax break, then the land is assessed like any other piece of property and they are taxed the full amount.
“The appraiser would assess the land and value the timber as almost an improvement, taking into consideration it would have ‘this many board ft. and have an estimate of its value,” said Cormier, who used to be an appraiser in the Assessor’s Office before becoming a county commissioner two years ago.
State Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, said Grays Harbor County is taking a novel approach to an issue that he’s heard scores of complaints about since it was first proposed months ago.
“I think there’s going to be a lot of attention on this and I look forward to the public hearing,” Blake said.
Weyerhaeuser started charging fees for access in Oregon about a year ago and launched the program here in Washington state some months ago. The timber company used to allow free access for anyone. Now, the company charges several hundred dollars in some cases and mandates separate permits for each of its gates. Anyone caught on the property without a permit will be charged with trespassing — and, for some hunters, there have been multiple generations hunting on the Weyerhaeuser land. For years, there was a give and take between the timber companies and the hunters.
Timberland owners risked their properties being dump sites, but hunters and berry pickers coming on to the land would help catch those trying to illegally cut cedar or other valuable timber.
The ordinance states that fees for commercial recreation includes “means activity access for which a fee is charged, including but not limited to hiking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, jogging, berry picking, mushroom picking, or floral salal picking for amusement, entertainment or recreation.”
That means, to get the property tax designation, companies would not be allowed to even charge salal pickers for access to the land.
“I’ve pondered all of the unattended consequences to us passing this ordinance,” Cormier said. “I’d rather repeal laws than pass new ones. For me, this ordinance is worth it. The taxpayers of Grays Harbor County should not subsidize corporations, who are trying to get a taxbreak and charge for access. Either, it’s timberland or it’s multi-recreation commercial land. It can’t be both.”
Weyerhaeuser spokesman Anthony Chavez said he was traveling and didn’t have time for an interview. He emailed a statement: “We are evaluating the ordinance and question the County’s authority to tax our timberlands in this way. Our preliminary research suggests the ordinance is inconsistent with State law and invalid. Weyerhaeuser wants to keep its private lands open for public access in Oregon and Washington, but that has become increasingly challenging and costly in recent years. We believe the program will help to reduce or eliminate vandalism, dumping and other illegal activities. Fees allow for us to offset costs that are incurred as a result of allowing the public access to our property, for example road maintenance. We have run similar programs on our private lands in the southeastern United States for several years.”
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 19, 2014, 07:58:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 19, 2014, 08:03:33 PM
What happens if Weyco calls the County's bluff and says ok if we can't charge a fee then the lands are closed - then what? Do the Commissioners want to play that hand?
:yeah:
That's what worries me. The Aberdeen tree farm is only $75 and there's 8,000 permits being offered. So anybody who wants one should be able to get one. Who can't afford $75? I'd rather it stay open for motorized access for a small fee than be only open for non-motorized access for free. Or worse- shut sown completely.
Post by: fireweed on June 19, 2014, 08:13:52 PM
Besides, the real solution will be through the state re-do of the tax breaks.
Post by: Harbor_hunter on June 19, 2014, 08:27:47 PM
What happens if Weyco calls the County's bluff and says ok if we can't charge a fee then the lands are closed - then what? Do the Commissioners want to play that hand?
:yeah:
That's what worries me. The Aberdeen tree farm is only $75 and there's 8,000 permits being offered. So anybody who wants one should be able to get one. Who can't afford $75? I'd rather it stay open for motorized access for a small fee than be only open for non-motorized access for free. Or worse- shut sown completely.
A lot of people around Grays Harbor county would probably have a tough time coming up with $75 extra Bobcat. I realize you can pinch pennies here and there and should be able to come up with the money. A lot of people around here can hardly afford to pay their bills, let alone afford much extra.
Post by: blackdog on June 19, 2014, 08:54:14 PM
Post by: NWHydroprint on June 19, 2014, 09:10:51 PM
I feel either way at this rate hunters are not going to support each other so when a bill comes up to ban hunting or limit it those hunters that were priced out or locked out will cast votes to end what has already ended for them!
For those that want to buy these permits and leases remember you will need all the hunters in order to continue what you love and they onced loved to do.
Post by: snarkybull on June 19, 2014, 09:53:41 PM
I'm glad to see Grays Harbor getting tough. Pretty soon this issue might get beyond Weyco mouthpiece Anthony and be addressed by someone other than the messenger spouting talking points about garbage dumping. As for them shutting everything down, let them. It's worth the risk. Then formally challenge their SFI certification if the do not provide public recreation (which IS required if they want to be SFI certified).
Besides, the real solution will be through the state re-do of the tax breaks.
kapow! the fallout would be loud enough to be heard in olympia.
short term pain, long term gain. i'm in.
Post by: stevemiller on June 20, 2014, 03:35:33 PM
What happens if Weyco calls the County's bluff and says ok if we can't charge a fee then the lands are closed - then what? Do the Commissioners want to play that hand?If I read it correctly if they do shut it down completely then they get fully taxed for the land,Which will undoubtedly be quite costly to the timber company and quite lucrative to the county.Full tax on improvements(timber)Will be a lot of coin.
Post by: dreamunelk on June 20, 2014, 05:03:51 PM
Post by: stevemiller on June 20, 2014, 05:23:42 PM
Its like I said earlier in this thread,They were given tax breaks and some of the people that started off in this thread protecting the land owners rights just didn't know or understand the ins and outs of these deals that the timber companies got when they purchased these large tracks of land.Now that people are pushing for them to fallow those guidelines we should get behind them as much as we can.Yes they have a choice close it up and pay full taxes on the land (because they want to get greedy)Or leave it open as it was before.A lot of these co. across the U.S are starting to develop these lands and that needs to be stopped as well. :twocents: When these lands were purchased turning them into housing developments and such was far from what the people wanted.If these co. were allowed to systematically turn all of this forest land into suburbs what would we have left?
Post by: grundy53 on June 24, 2014, 06:10:19 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bowbuild on June 24, 2014, 08:08:22 AM
Best thing you can do is boycott the permits, but even here no one can agree on everything, and there are always going to be those that will cave out of the need to hunt no matter what. We will have them to thank in the future. :bash:
Bowbuild
Post by: fireweed on June 24, 2014, 09:26:06 AM
It's clear to me that this issue needs addressed at the state level. But we've got to keep the debate going until the winter (which shouldn't be hard through hunting season).
Post by: blackdog on June 24, 2014, 07:06:01 PM
Post by: bowbuild on June 25, 2014, 01:10:59 PM
My sources tell me Frank Gordon has promised Weyco a no vote.
Without the inside intel you have, I could tell how Gordon was going to vote!
Post by: blackdog on July 06, 2014, 08:18:17 PM
Post by: 280ackley on July 06, 2014, 08:38:13 PM
Actually the county will not get more money. Instead the tax burden would shift or equal out. So a homeowner like me who currently pays higher taxes to off set the timberland owners lower tax will see my tax rate go down.
I think your dreamun of more then elk. If the forest tax rate goes up your property tax won't be going down.
Post by: bobcat on July 06, 2014, 08:50:34 PM
Actually the county will not get more money. Instead the tax burden would shift or equal out. So a homeowner like me who currently pays higher taxes to off set the timberland owners lower tax will see my tax rate go down.
I think your dreamun of more then elk. If the forest tax rate goes up your property tax won't be going down.
Why wouldn't it? If one landowner pays more, the others will pay less. That's how it works.
Post by: dreamunelk on July 06, 2014, 09:33:56 PM
Actually the county will not get more money. Instead the tax burden would shift or equal out. So a homeowner like me who currently pays higher taxes to off set the timberland owners lower tax will see my tax rate go down.
I think your dreamun of more then elk. If the forest tax rate goes up your property tax won't be going down.
Read the tax laws! The county would have to balance the tax within the budget. Say they increase 10 million than they have to lower on others to fall inline with the budget.
Post by: zike on July 06, 2014, 10:31:07 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on July 07, 2014, 07:45:41 PM
Time will tell what this all means.
Post by: MarkyMark on July 07, 2014, 08:18:36 PM
Post by: blackdog on July 07, 2014, 08:24:53 PM
:tup:
Post by: MarkyMark on July 07, 2014, 08:26:01 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 07, 2014, 08:45:30 PM
Post by: blackdog on July 07, 2014, 08:59:07 PM
Post by: snarkybull on July 07, 2014, 09:07:37 PM
Post by: 280ackley on July 08, 2014, 10:46:19 PM
Actually the county will not get more money. Instead the tax burden would shift or equal out. So a homeowner like me who currently pays higher taxes to off set the timberland owners lower tax will see my tax rate go down.
I think your dreamun of more then elk. If the forest tax rate goes up your property tax won't be going down.
Read the tax laws! The county would have to balance the tax within the budget. Say they increase 10 million than they have to lower on others to fall inline with the budget.
I'm not a tax attorney and I bet you aren't either. I'll stick with property taxes not going down due to potential forest tax rate increases. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.
Post by: 280ackley on July 08, 2014, 10:50:35 PM
So does Rayonier qualify as a small forest landowner?No not even close, 2 million bf isn't really very much. As a example one DNR timber sale can have 6-7 million bf in it, thats only in one sale.
Post by: Doc Sauce on July 09, 2014, 07:02:56 AM
Post by: 280ackley on July 09, 2014, 09:07:33 PM
http://kxro.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/county-passes-ordinance-that-terminates-current-use-timber-land-program/ (http://kxro.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/county-passes-ordinance-that-terminates-current-use-timber-land-program/)Does anybody know a little bit more about the ordinance then what is in the above article regarding the "harvested no more than an average timber volume of two million board feet per year" statement? What average are they going to use? Is it a two, three, five year average or is not really a average at all as in a one year harvest? They reason I ask is that two million bF isn't really very much for a small land owner to harvest in a two or three year average. As a example a mature stand of timber should average somewhere around 30 mbf per acre. Soooo, 2,000,000 bf / 30,000 bf per acre = 66.67 acres. I'm just wondering what they are going to use as the average because this could affect a lot more landowners then intended.
Post by: blackdog on July 09, 2014, 10:23:49 PM
Post by: blackdog on July 09, 2014, 10:26:57 PM
Post by: 280ackley on July 09, 2014, 10:36:09 PM
They would need to also have fee for access program to be considered for removal from the voluntary tax deferrel program.Ok, thanks.
Post by: headshot5 on July 10, 2014, 09:51:34 AM
Quote
They would need to also have fee for access program to be considered for removal from the voluntary tax deferrel program.
Or have it posted no tresspassing/no public access?
Post by: blackdog on July 10, 2014, 11:30:59 PM