Post by: fireweed on December 29, 2014, 09:20:06 AM
Post by: Firedogg on December 29, 2014, 03:29:32 PM
Post by: Crunchy on December 29, 2014, 04:04:02 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on December 29, 2014, 04:05:58 PM
I'd much rather walk in access for free then pay to drive in.
:yeah:
Post by: Firedogg on December 29, 2014, 04:15:44 PM
Post by: t6 on December 29, 2014, 10:07:43 PM
Post by: bowbuild on December 30, 2014, 05:11:57 PM
How many of you have seen garbage dunping going on DURING hunting season hunter related?? How about they get smart and only open their gates during hunting seasons, and shut them the rest of the year when anyone could take a semi-truck full of garbage out in the woods because there are no eyes in the woods?? Why do HUNTERS (which are the targeted group) get to pay for ALL of the public dumping?? They are full of crap! :bash: :bash: :bash: I see dumping right at closed gates, hunters paying a fee, is NOT punishing the right group. Weyerhauser and the like, just said screw you to every group that has taken part in clean up efforts! I would rather walk in as well! :tup: :tup:
Bowbuild
Post by: ELKBURGER on December 31, 2014, 06:20:57 AM
:yeah:I'd much rather walk in access for free then pay to drive in.
:yeah:
Post by: longwalker on December 31, 2014, 07:06:39 AM
Post by: longstevo on December 31, 2014, 07:20:06 AM
The bottom line is this: the timber companies are breaking the law. Their land is designated as Open Space Forestland, which gives them a HUGE tax break as long as the land is being used for timber purposes and allows the public access.
They cannot simply cease free access and expect their tax breaks to continue.
If they want to lock all gates and charge, then fine. It's their property and right to do so. But they'd better open up their check book.
Post by: kramman on December 31, 2014, 07:20:37 AM
Post by: longwalker on December 31, 2014, 07:41:03 AM
Post by: longstevo on December 31, 2014, 02:02:50 PM
The. I guess everybody will be celebrating a huge loss for hunters than? Lose the tax break and those gates close. Yeah you can walk in and that's great, I likly walk more than most but the fact remains, enormous tracks of land access will be lost for the vast majority of hunters. I guess that's a win???
As long as the land is accessible to the public for free, then nothing is lost. Hunters are more than free to strap on your boots, get on your mountain bike, and explore every single corner of that gated land. How is that lost? :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2014, 02:12:33 PM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on December 31, 2014, 02:38:15 PM
Post by: Firedogg on December 31, 2014, 07:08:06 PM
Post by: t6 on December 31, 2014, 08:03:47 PM
I wouldn't let guys like you pack my trash out of the woods.
It's no wonder hunting is on the decline... its the decline of common sense and courtesy towards each other that causes people to reevaluate their choice to hunt.
Post by: t6 on December 31, 2014, 08:11:57 PM
Post by: zike on January 01, 2015, 12:54:43 AM
Whether you personally like the locked gates or not, these companies who charge for access are nollonger eligible for the tax break
So what about the farmers and ranchers who have open space tax breaks on their lands and charge an access fee or lease to a hunt club. Will they lose their tax breaks too. I hope so.
Post by: bobcat on January 01, 2015, 12:58:17 AM
Whether you personally like the locked gates or not, these companies who charge for access are nollonger eligible for the tax break
So what about the farmers and ranchers who have open space tax breaks on their lands and charge an access fee or lease to a hunt club. Will they lose their tax breaks too. I hope so.
Would you rather they turn all that farm land into subdivisions??
Post by: bowbuild on January 01, 2015, 09:29:56 AM
Whether you personally like the locked gates or not, these companies who charge for access are nollonger eligible for the tax break
So what about the farmers and ranchers who have open space tax breaks on their lands and charge an access fee or lease to a hunt club. Will they lose their tax breaks too. I hope so.
Would you rather they turn all that farm land into subdivisions??
Like they wouldn't do it anyway if there was enough money involved... :rolleyes:
Post by: montana44mag on January 02, 2015, 01:23:26 AM
Stand by.... Age does not discriminate. We will all get old and someday you will have to look at the locked gates and know.... the hunt is over.
If they just lock the gates, you shouldn't have to go too far to get into animals. :dunno:
Post by: longwalker on January 02, 2015, 05:30:35 AM
I wouldn't let guys like you pack my trash out of the woods.
So you leave your trash in the woods? And we wonder why they close the gates and want am access fee....
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 02, 2015, 08:53:01 AM
You REALLY think THAT was what he meant? :tinfoil:
I wouldn't let guys like you pack my trash out of the woods.
So you leave your trash in the woods? And we wonder why they close the gates and want am access fee....
Post by: longwalker on January 02, 2015, 02:23:06 PM
You REALLY think THAT was what he meant? :tinfoil:
I wouldn't let guys like you pack my trash out of the woods.
So you leave your trash in the woods? And we wonder why they close the gates and want am access fee....
i really do. just as much as he thinks my comments were directed towards disabled vets :rolleyes: how do you suppose locking up the gates and abolishing any semblance of an access program benefits these disabled vets ability to better hunt these areas by the way?
Post by: t6 on January 02, 2015, 10:05:32 PM
Locking up the gates and charging access fees is bad for game and a death sentence to the hunting of many disable people.
Supporting this shows that you know little about how the timber companies came to own such large tracts of land and the damage that will happen to the game animals anywhere its implemented.
Post by: fireweed on January 05, 2015, 07:48:29 AM
Post by: grundy53 on January 05, 2015, 08:06:09 AM
There is lotsa country in vail and Pe ell that won't even get scratched by walk in hunters, no mater how young or in shape you are... God I can't wait for Montana again next year....:yeah:
Post by: longstevo on January 07, 2015, 04:33:06 PM
There are solutions out there: A few states already require non-motorized public access for the full tax break. We could change our system to something similar, but modified to encourage some motorized, too. Full tax break and complete liability protections if large landowners allow FREE non-motorized access, coupled with smaller fee motorized access. Everyone wins except well-off hunters who like exclusivity.
I'm in full support for non motorized access. Strap on the pack!
Post by: floatinghat on January 08, 2015, 09:43:39 PM
There are solutions out there: A few states already require non-motorized public access for the full tax break. We could change our system to something similar, but modified to encourage some motorized, too. Full tax break and complete liability protections if large landowners allow FREE non-motorized access, coupled with smaller fee motorized access. Everyone wins except well-off hunters who like exclusivity.
I'm in full support for non motorized access. Strap on the pack!
:yeah:
Post by: Goshawk on March 15, 2015, 08:49:18 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on March 15, 2015, 08:55:26 PM
Too bad other counties did not join in the fight. Guess hunters support it or they would be screaming their heads off to their elected officials.
Post by: Goshawk on March 22, 2015, 06:51:08 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on March 22, 2015, 07:00:51 PM
Here in Washington State, our own apathy has done more to damage hunting than all the Disney Educated anti-hunters combined.
Well said :tup:
Post by: fireweed on February 07, 2016, 09:23:43 AM
http://thevidette.com/sections/news/local/feb-16-hearing-set-county%E2%80%99s-access-fee-ordinance-amendments.html
Proposed changes to ordinance (basically removing anything about fees, all in exchange for??????)
http://www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us/info/commissioners/pdf/Ordinance2016-0412RepealAmendment.pdf
Post by: bobcat on February 07, 2016, 09:54:18 AM
Post by: blackdog on February 07, 2016, 06:21:36 PM
Post by: dscubame on February 07, 2016, 06:23:21 PM
I'd much rather walk in access for free then pay to drive in.
Hell yes and it keeps others from driving in which is a double positive!
Post by: longstevo on February 10, 2016, 01:58:34 PM
Post by: RB on February 10, 2016, 03:19:19 PM
Post by: fireweed on February 11, 2016, 09:57:53 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1473904709510444/
Post by: skipjack on February 11, 2016, 10:54:03 AM
Post by: bowbuild on February 12, 2016, 11:59:58 AM
I wonder if this will trickle over and change the way farmers get taxed and recieve federal money then turn around and lease ground for tens of thousands of dollars for waterfowl hunting?
Anything with a "for profit" venture should be taxed much different in my opinion. If they choose to not charge a access fee, OR deny access, then no tax increase should be involved.
Post by: cboom on February 13, 2016, 12:25:15 PM
I wonder if this will trickle over and change the way farmers get taxed and recieve federal money then turn around and lease ground for tens of thousands of dollars for waterfowl hunting?
Anything with a "for profit" venture should be taxed much different in my opinion. If they choose to not charge a access fee, OR deny access, then no tax increase should be involved.
So you think a farmer that doesn't let people on his land should lose his ag. tax status? If so I'm sure you agree that you should be paying income taxes at the highest tax bracket so those that make more than you don't have to subsidize you anymore?
Post by: fireweed on February 17, 2016, 07:44:41 AM
Post by: fireweed on February 17, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Post by: hoof rot on February 17, 2016, 12:56:13 PM
Post by: fireweed on February 18, 2016, 09:54:46 AM
http://montesanotoday.com/2016/02/17/video-interview-with-county-commissioner-wes-cormier-timber-land-access-fees/
Post by: bowbuild on February 20, 2016, 12:21:42 PM
I wonder if this will trickle over and change the way farmers get taxed and recieve federal money then turn around and lease ground for tens of thousands of dollars for waterfowl hunting?
Anything with a "for profit" venture should be taxed much different in my opinion. If they choose to not charge a access fee, OR deny access, then no tax increase should be involved.
So you think a farmer that doesn't let people on his land should lose his ag. tax status? If so I'm sure you agree that you should be paying income taxes at the highest tax bracket so those that make more than you don't have to subsidize you anymore?
We will NEVER see eye to eye. Yes, a farmer, a land owner, a timber company......I could care less......it has NOTHING to do with access,(although that is what brought this subject up) lock all the gates, and keep hunters off private land....don't like it, but if they pay equaly, they have that right! I do not feel those with "MORE" should get tax breaks for having more...period! You are constantly suggesting that welfare for corperations or private land owners is fair....that does not sound very conservative to to me, it only proves what the Dems always spew "freebees" makes me wonder what side of the fence you are on?.....If you can't afford the taxes that "should be" equaly destributed, then buy less....heck it could mean more state land for all of us to hunt! Good day to you sir.... :hello:
Post by: cboom on February 20, 2016, 12:36:08 PM
I wonder if this will trickle over and change the way farmers get taxed and recieve federal money then turn around and lease ground for tens of thousands of dollars for waterfowl hunting?
Anything with a "for profit" venture should be taxed much different in my opinion. If they choose to not charge a access fee, OR deny access, then no tax increase should be involved.
So you think a farmer that doesn't let people on his land should lose his ag. tax status? If so I'm sure you agree that you should be paying income taxes at the highest tax bracket so those that make more than you don't have to subsidize you anymore?
We will NEVER see eye to eye. Yes, a farmer, a land owner, a timber company......I could care less......it has NOTHING to do with access,(although that is what brought this subject up) lock all the gates, and keep hunters off private land....don't like it, but if they pay equaly, they have that right! I do not feel those with "MORE" should get tax breaks for having more...period! You are constantly suggesting that welfare for corperations or private land owners is fair....that does not sound very conservative to to me, it only proves what the Dems always spew "freebees" makes me wonder what side of the fence you are on?.....If you can't afford the taxes that "should be" equaly destributed, then buy less....heck it could mean more state land for all of us to hunt! Good day to you sir.... :hello:
So then you agree you should be paying income tax at the highest rate as well? And because you have less money in your pocket you will just buy less? And you will find your food and housing costs go way up as well since the land they come from are taxed so heavily.
Different tax rates for different land uses is no more welfare than different tax brackets for different income levels.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on February 20, 2016, 01:20:47 PM
The lanquage of the law referenced the benefits of the tax breaks for constituents including encouraging retention of forest lands for all to enjoy.
The last few words are being grabbed upon as meaning the law provided for free public access of forest lands. Thats a stretch but even so that is not the primary intention of the law and the benefits of the tax break are still important .
Post by: bowbuild on February 20, 2016, 08:18:57 PM
I wonder if this will trickle over and change the way farmers get taxed and recieve federal money then turn around and lease ground for tens of thousands of dollars for waterfowl hunting?
Anything with a "for profit" venture should be taxed much different in my opinion. If they choose to not charge a access fee, OR deny access, then no tax increase should be involved.
So you think a farmer that doesn't let people on his land should lose his ag. tax status? If so I'm sure you agree that you should be paying income taxes at the highest tax bracket so those that make more than you don't have to subsidize you anymore?
We will NEVER see eye to eye. Yes, a farmer, a land owner, a timber company......I could care less......it has NOTHING to do with access,(although that is what brought this subject up) lock all the gates, and keep hunters off private land....don't like it, but if they pay equaly, they have that right! I do not feel those with "MORE" should get tax breaks for having more...period! You are constantly suggesting that welfare for corperations or private land owners is fair....that does not sound very conservative to to me, it only proves what the Dems always spew "freebees" makes me wonder what side of the fence you are on?.....If you can't afford the taxes that "should be" equaly destributed, then buy less....heck it could mean more state land for all of us to hunt! Good day to you sir.... :hello:
So then you agree you should be paying income tax at the highest rate as well? And because you have less money in your pocket you will just buy less? And you will find your food and housing costs go way up as well since the land they come from are taxed so heavily.
Different tax rates for different land uses is no more welfare than different tax brackets for different income levels.
I believe in a Flat tax, so yes I would agree to a point.....everyone pays the same amount, no exceptions...
Post by: fireweed on February 22, 2016, 07:55:35 AM
We need a review. Go back to the original law, review the testimonies, and see what it really was supposed to reward. Then, check that with the issues of today, and ask if the law is still working as intended. Does it need modified? I believe today, if the law was in the legislature or on the ballot, it would never pass as-is. When this law passed, most people agreed it was a win-win situation for recreationists and landowners. I doubt very many would assert that now.
To the naysayers, if the tax break still works exactly as intended, what is wrong with a review to confirm that? After nearly 50 years, don't the taxpayers deserve to see if they are still getting a good deal? Or is corporate welfare as much of a "sacred cow" as real welfare?
Post by: fireweed on February 24, 2016, 10:05:33 AM
This focuses on Boeing deal--another tax break put in the law without any hard numbers of jobs attached. But the timber tax breaks are similar--tax breaks set in place under one set of conditions--time passes and benefits decrease, but tax break is still the same.
http://crosscut.com/2016/02/target-boeing-a-new-push-for-conditions-on-tax-breaks/
Post by: fireweed on March 08, 2016, 12:12:43 PM
http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/columnist/timber-companies-shouldn-t-get-tax-break-forests-if-they-don-t-share-forests