Hunting Washington Forum
Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2016, 11:08:21 AM
-
Just say the notice on Facebook. They'll probably be looking for more tax breaks, too! :tup:
-
No thank you, will not be giving them a dime ever. Plenty of places to hunt that are still free.
-
Love it ! Private 406,000 acre hunt club with nearly year-round access and camping for only $300. Thats a steal. Only thing better would be if less "members" signed up. hehe :tup:
-
Vail also
-
Love it ! Private 406,000 acre hunt club with nearly year-round access and camping for only $300. Thats a steal. Only thing better would be if less "members" signed up. hehe :tup:
And subsidized with your real estate tax dollars. Sounds like a great deal for them.
-
And the biggest change that hurts an already unhealthy Southwest Washington rural communities: generations of taking your kids for walks through the woods and streams now costs big bucks year round.
The previous commenter was right, our county is now a huge "private hunting club" subsidized by MY property taxes. Exactly what public benefits are we getting for those huge tax breaks now???
-
Love it ! Private 406,000 acre hunt club with nearly year-round access and camping for only $300. Thats a steal. Only thing better would be if less "members" signed up. hehe :tup:
Obviously you don't live in the middle of this kingdom. I do and my family has lived here for six generations. Creeks a few feet from my property, where my GREATGRANDPARENTS took their kids, are now going to cost my family $600 to wade in, and if we bring grandma that's another $300.
My community is surrounded and entrapped by your "private hunt club".
-
Makes me wonder what will happen with the other Weyerhauser permits this year...especially PeEll South. I am sure the price of that one is going up too.
-
Love it ! Private 406,000 acre hunt club with nearly year-round access and camping for only $300. Thats a steal. Only thing better would be if less "members" signed up. hehe :tup:
Obviously you don't live in the middle of this kingdom. I do and my family has lived here for six generations. Creeks a few feet from my property, where my GREATGRANDPARENTS took their kids, are now going to cost my family $600 to wade in, and if we bring grandma that's another $300.
My community is surrounded and entrapped by your "private hunt club".
Only problem is, what happens if the permits sell out and you only get one?
-
They should be paying full real estate taxes on that property, just like we do. They use the public roads going in and out of there. If someone gets hurt or they need police, they get emergency services just like we do. If they don't want to share their land, that's fine. It's their land - you know, except for the whole poisoning our wildlife thing. They should have to pay the full tax rate if they're giving nothing back to the residents of this state.
-
The primary basis of the tax breaks are to discourage subdivision and development of rural lands and encourage continuation of timber production on those lands. Keeping land in undeveloped forest production is better for the animals and environment. Get rid of the tax breaks and you will see a lot more sales like the chunks weyco has already sold that are now posted against any use.
"Get rid of the tax breaks, who cares what they do with it if I can't use it for free" is not a strong vote for conservation. :twocents:
-
We need to send a copy of this over to Trump !!! hahahaha what a freakin joke !
-
Weyerhaeuser has already sold, or is in the process of selling every acre that can possibly be developed (ie. road access and power). Right now they are selling every slice of land along the rivers they possibly can. Most of their land simply cannot be developed because it is too far off the grid. The "tax breaks are good for conservation" simply isn't true of a profit-driven company like Weyco. And, according to the law, the tax breaks were to compensate for the many public benefits of open space/ timberland. Then timberland tax breaks is very specific, and law lists those public benefits, including recreational spaces.
We can all agree that the public benefits of timberland have now been reduced, so it logically follows that the tax break should be reduced accordingly.
Other states (Wisconsin is a good example) value public access at 20% of the tax break. So, a company that charges or limits non-motorized access should pay on a taxable value that is 20% more than the base current use value. Simple logic. Not adjusting the tax break is corporate welfare at its worst.
-
The primary basis of the tax breaks are to discourage subdivision and development of rural lands and encourage continuation of timber production on those lands. Keeping land in undeveloped forest production is better for the animals and environment. Get rid of the tax breaks and you will see a lot more sales like the chunks weyco has already sold that are now posted against any use.
"Get rid of the tax breaks, who cares what they do with it if I can't use it for free" is not a strong vote for conservation. :twocents:
Because WEYCO cares so much about conservation and the environment, right? Sorry, I have to call BS on that. The tax breaks written in the 70s were written with public use of the land in mind. WEYCO had been allowing full public use of its land and wanted some consideration. The decision to defer taxation to harvesting was based on that public use remaining. Since this private landowner has decided to go pay to play, which is absolutely within their rights as a private landowner, their tax valuations should be increased to fair market value. You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well. For those who can ill-afford to pay the $300 fee for recreating on that land, it makes little difference who owns it - small individual land owners or one big one. They still can't access those forests.
-
Many of us saw this coming. Its just started. Too those who argued how great and what a steal of a deal these permits are, well, "Heres your sign!" :twocents:
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
-
$300.00 to harvest a hoof rot elk ? No thanks, our group is taking our hunting out of state. Drawn for Wyoming last year and Montana this year. You can have Weyco's herbicide fed elk all to yourselves, I'm done !!
-
They're just mimicking what Hancock has done for over a decade in King and Pierce counties.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
It wasn't important until it started affecting "them," which is the problem with hunters of all methods...can't stand together!!
-
It wasn't important until it started affecting "them," which is the problem with hunters of all methods...can't stand together!!
Or, we didn't know about it. :dunno: Personally, I've hunted public land since I moved here in '93. I've "stood together" with other hunters plenty of times and I'm certainly not alone on this site. Yours is a pretty broad generalization.
-
It wasn't important until it started affecting "them," which is the problem with hunters of all methods...can't stand together!!
Or, we didn't know about it. :dunno: Personally, I've hunted public land since I moved here in '93. I've "stood together" with other hunters plenty of times and I'm certainly not alone on this site. Yours is a pretty broad generalization.
Sadly, it is also very true.
-
You have either a very low opinion of other hunters or a very high opinion of yourself. I'm unsure why someone with your perspective would even associate with the rest of us. :dunno:
-
I actually agree with both
pianoman and blacktail.
Hancock started their program around 2003. At that time these type of forums either weren't around or weren't as popular as they are today. You didn't have mass email messages telling people about the issues. Most of us got our info from magazines.
I know the Hancock change was in the local WA hunting magazines but honestly there wasn't much opposition to the fee program starting.
I think a lot of people see it as being able to pay $300 to hunt a place they know like the back of their hand. Or spending that much or likely more to go to Okanogan or Colville where they will probably spend more in gas, food, lodging, etc. It's probably why Hancock was able to increase their fees just about every year and still sell out, until recently when they jacked up the number of permits.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
-
You have either a very low opinion of other hunters or a very high opinion of yourself. I'm unsure why someone with your perspective would even associate with the rest of us. :dunno:
Last post about this so as to prevent thread derailment any further. Would be happy to discuss further via PM if you like, but I hope this explians my thoughts better.
Pick a topic - baiting, crossbows, seasons scheduled during the rut, road hunting... You cannot help but see complaints from one group or another because somebody is percieved to be getting something they aren't.
When instead, hunters can't just enjoy their own legal choices of method, weapon, or style without complaing about the rest if they don't do it or feel they are missing out on something.
So no, I do not have a very high opinion of people who cannot just live their lives without having to complain or attack someone or another group about something he or they are doing, and doing legally, just because they don't like or agree.
People should just be happy people are participating and offer encouragement instead of calling the guy road hunting or the fellow that choses to bait for deer not real hunters because they aren't walking 10 miles into the wilderness or sneaking up ninja-like to within 6" of the deer or elk he is after.
Plenty of threads with examples of this.
I do appreciate reading your posts and opinions, you seem to be pretty broad minded and have a reasonable outlook on things, that is always welcome and appreciated.
Now, on to more important things..... When will the draw results be out???? :chuckle:
-
I apologize. I have a bug up my butt today. I just don't think hunters are as selfish or self-centered as a group. It is certainly a diverse group with many diverse interests. Some only waterfowl, some only big game, different disciplines, different backgrounds, different areas of the state. Because we don't always agree on everything doesn't mean that we're only concerned about something that affects us personally, as you had previously pointed to. Sometimes it's a matter of our perspective and how we see things differently.
-
Interesting point about hancock permits. I remember putting in hoping to be drawn to buy my couple hundred $ permit. Looks like Weyco is going to limit permits by raising the price vs a drawing like hancock. Not sure which method is best :dunno:
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I too own timberland and get a huge tax break on it. I find it obscene that I pay more in property taxes on the value of my septic tank and well than I do on my timberland. In Wisconsin, timberland owners choose: allow free non-motorized access or get a smaller (20% less) tax break. 240 acres can be totally exempt from the access provision, so small landowners get the full tax break either way. Sounds logical--a win/win for the public and the land owner. Our state could make that exemption any size we wanted, like 5,000 acres of exemption.
-
The state could regulate this any way they wanted. Unfortunately, as we've found out with the spraying issue, Big Timber pays both sides of the aisle to support their corporations. Any deviation from that and they pull out their money. Just another example of our corrupt government system.
-
Weyerhaeuser has already sold, or is in the process of selling every acre that can possibly be developed (ie. road access and power). Right now they are selling every slice of land along the rivers they possibly can. Most of their land simply cannot be developed because it is too far off the grid. The "tax breaks are good for conservation" simply isn't true of a profit-driven company like Weyco. And, according to the law, the tax breaks were to compensate for the many public benefits of open space/ timberland. Then timberland tax breaks is very specific, and law lists those public benefits, including recreational spaces.
We can all agree that the public benefits of timberland have now been reduced, so it logically follows that the tax break should be reduced accordingly.
Other states (Wisconsin is a good example) value public access at 20% of the tax break. So, a company that charges or limits non-motorized access should pay on a taxable value that is 20% more than the base current use value. Simple logic. Not adjusting the tax break is corporate welfare at its worst.
That is a great idea I had not heard of before. I have quite a bit of acreage with a timber exemption but I think it should apply to large landowners like 5000 acres or more. One of my exemptions is on 20 acres that I live on and it would not be practical to allow totally free or unlimited acess especially with horses cattle etc
-
It's political corruption at its worst. Our politicians are being paid to look the other way and they do.
-
One problem that Wisconsin is having is that the larger companies are using the 240 acre "exemption" to landlock the rest of their holdings. They are addressing that.
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
-
I have some trees as wildlife habitat. Can I get a tax break? +/- 1 acre.
-
I have some trees as wildlife habitat. Can I get a tax break? +/- 1 acre.
Pretty sure 5 acre minimum per Washington Law.
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
Not at all--and actually treating businesses based on size is common and logical.
Is Boeing treated the same as a guy who makes an airplane in his garage?
Do ma and pa farmer's marketers follow the same exact rules and pay the same exact taxes as ADM or Monsanto?
Same goes with the timber industry--should the family tree farm with 50 acres be treated exactly the same as Weyco with 50% of a county? Of course not. You must know the state already set the precedent, The DNR classifies landowners with 5,000 acres as "industrial timberland" and they already follow stricter rules on road maintenance and buffers etc. On the timber tax side, the smaller landowners have an exemption amount before they pay up. Nothing new here--It's already done this way.
Other states beside Wisconsin have figured this out: Minnesota has a public access requirement for timberland over 1900 acres, and Michigan Commercial Forest Program has an access requirement for large properties. (Keep in mind none of these other states require any motorized access--only non-motorized. )
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
No, and you're completely misrepresenting what I said. I pay higher taxes because WEYCO property in my county isn't taxed at anywhere near the same rate - I pay for their services. I pay those extra taxes to get recreational use of forest land. By charging a $300 fee, I'm getting bilked by WEYCO out of those extra taxes I pay. As far as less than 5K and more than 5K Acres being discriminatory is concerned, it is fair because when the huge landowners like WEYCO and Hancock close up their land, it affects the recreational privileges of entire populations of people. In addition, they're far more likely to be letting a majority of their land sit unlogged than a smaller timber owner. They're the ones who lobbied (paid the politicians), for these tax changes back in the 70s. They're the ones who should lose them.
-
[/quote]
"I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it".
[/quote]
I agree this is wrong, however I think the Wisconsin method of reducing taxes by 20% for allowing public access is a good idea - apply it to every size property to encourage more access.
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
No, and you're completely misrepresenting what I said. I pay higher taxes because WEYCO property in my county isn't taxed at anywhere near the same rate - I pay for their services. I pay those extra taxes to get recreational use of forest land. By charging a $300 fee, I'm getting bilked by WEYCO out of those extra taxes I pay. As far as less than 5K and more than 5K Acres being discriminatory is concerned, it is fair because when the huge landowners like WEYCO and Hancock close up their land, it affects the recreational privileges of entire populations of people. In addition, they're far more likely to be letting a majority of their land sit unlogged than a smaller timber owner. They're the ones who lobbied (paid the politicians), for these tax changes back in the 70s. They're the ones who should lose them.
This is absolutely false and has been shown on this board many times. The law regarding that tax in no way requires recreational use of the forest to the public. Those of you that keep saying this really need to take a look at the law.
-
Looking at some of the official documentation behind our timberland laws (it's been a while and I don't have it handy), there was at least discussion of recreation as one of the primary benefits.
If it wasn't written into the law, it was most likely because no one foresaw the evolution we are seeing now. Public access simply "was" for generations, and little else was imagined, most likely.
Laws change all the time. It's why states have legislatures. It sounds like other states have recognized the trend ahead of WA/OR, and are changing accordingly. My hope is not great for Washington (where big contributions seem to rule public policy) to change anytime soon.
-
I think $300 for a year of access, including camping on the property and 2 cords of firewood is a fair price to pay. But it sure doesn't make sense for everyone. It makes a lot of sense for someone with two or more kids under the age of 18, and especially if the spouse is a hunter as well. For five people, a $300 permit is only $60 per person. When you can take the entire family, and all can hunt and camp, that's a pretty good deal.
But for someone like me, with two kids who don't yet hunt, and a wife who doesn't hunt, it's a tougher decision for me to pay $300 just for myself to hunt. I can't take my brother with me, or my dad, unless they both buy permits as well. That's the really disappointing aspect of these Weyerhaeuser permits. My dad is 73 and doesn't really hunt anymore, but it would be nice to just take him for a drive and maybe shoot a grouse. Why can't they just allow a permit holder to have one guest?
The other thing that really disappoints me is that again, just like last year, the access permits go up for sale, and sell out before the WDFW posts the results of the special permit drawing. That really makes it difficult for people to know if they really want to buy an access permit or not. Why can't Weyerhaeuser wait a few more weeks to put them up for sale? Or, do it before the application period for special permits. But instead they have Vail selling on May 24th, Pe Ell South May 25th, and Pe Ell North May 26th.
However, I do understand from Weyerhaeuser's perspective that it really doesn't matter because regardless of what we may think of their system, all the permits will sell out, most areas in a matter of minutes.
-
cboom is right--in our current property tax law there is no requirement for providing recreational spaces. But there are no requirements for providing jobs, clean air, wildlife habitat, products, clean water, and all the other public benefits mentioned in the forest tax law either. There are simply no requirements to get the whole tax break other than the land must have trees. Everything else was just assumed or a handshake wink-and-nod agreement, but not a clear codified requirement.
Since the law was written, other laws like the forest practice laws and clean air laws now require landowners to act in ways that provide clean air, water, wildlife habitat, landslide considerations.
Providing full tax break with some level of free public access is just addressing a missing link in the law of the state.
-
The primary basis of the tax breaks are to discourage subdivision and development of rural lands and encourage continuation of timber production on those lands. Keeping land in undeveloped forest production is better for the animals and environment. Get rid of the tax breaks and you will see a lot more sales like the chunks weyco has already sold that are now posted against any use.
Zoning laws could take care of that.
-
For $1.75 more you could buy an Idaho Deer Tag
-
For $1.75 more you could buy an Idaho Deer Tag
Maybe, but how much would a westside guy who wants to hunt weekends, spend on fuel if he drove to Idaho every weekend for 3 months?
-
It was just food for thought. Not saying it's necessarily a better deal. I'm an Eastside Guy who has hunted timber land on the Westside in the past and that is just where my mind went.
Also, nobody would have to hunt Idaho for 3 months :chuckle:
-
Yes I know, and I totally understand that perspective as well. That's why I'm planning to spend more of my time and money in Wyoming this year, and in the future. But I'm a guy who likes to be in the woods every weekend throughout the entire hunting season. I don't want to just hunt one week, kill a deer, and call it a season. There's always plenty more to hunt, if nothing else coyotes and bobcats, or grouse. That's tough for me to do when I have to drive to the east side of the state, at a minimum.
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
No, and you're completely misrepresenting what I said. I pay higher taxes because WEYCO property in my county isn't taxed at anywhere near the same rate - I pay for their services. I pay those extra taxes to get recreational use of forest land. By charging a $300 fee, I'm getting bilked by WEYCO out of those extra taxes I pay. As far as less than 5K and more than 5K Acres being discriminatory is concerned, it is fair because when the huge landowners like WEYCO and Hancock close up their land, it affects the recreational privileges of entire populations of people. In addition, they're far more likely to be letting a majority of their land sit unlogged than a smaller timber owner. They're the ones who lobbied (paid the politicians), for these tax changes back in the 70s. They're the ones who should lose them.
This is absolutely false and has been shown on this board many times. The law regarding that tax in no way requires recreational use of the forest to the public. Those of you that keep saying this really need to take a look at the law.
You're correct that public use isn't written into the law. However, when the law was written consideration was given to the timber companies because at the time, full and free public us was being given. Things have changed. The big timber companies have now decided they don't want to give full and free public access. We should also change how they're taxed. I don't give full and free public access to my land and I'm taxed at the full rate. They should be, too.
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
No, and you're completely misrepresenting what I said. I pay higher taxes because WEYCO property in my county isn't taxed at anywhere near the same rate - I pay for their services. I pay those extra taxes to get recreational use of forest land. By charging a $300 fee, I'm getting bilked by WEYCO out of those extra taxes I pay. As far as less than 5K and more than 5K Acres being discriminatory is concerned, it is fair because when the huge landowners like WEYCO and Hancock close up their land, it affects the recreational privileges of entire populations of people. In addition, they're far more likely to be letting a majority of their land sit unlogged than a smaller timber owner. They're the ones who lobbied (paid the politicians), for these tax changes back in the 70s. They're the ones who should lose them.
This is absolutely false and has been shown on this board many times. The law regarding that tax in no way requires recreational use of the forest to the public. Those of you that keep saying this really need to take a look at the law.
You're correct that public use isn't written into the law. However, when the law was written consideration was given to the timber companies because at the time, full and free public us was being given. Things have changed. The big timber companies have now decided they don't want to give full and free public access. We should also change how they're taxed. I don't give full and free public access to my land and I'm taxed at the full rate. They should be, too.
From the things you posted in the past I thought you moved here from the east coast long after that law was put in place? I could be wrong on that, if so I apologize. It does rub me a bit wrong when outsiders move in and claim things were a given in a clearly written code when they didn't live anywhere close to here when the law was written. I did live here at the time. The law was written to protect the future of timberland, and responsible timber practices. Sure there was some more fluff added, of which at this time the timber companies have operated within the law. Public access was never a priority in writing that code. It was nice it was available for as long at it was, many of us that were here when it was put in place knew it would come to an end at some point. When the problems letting the public have free access became to costly we knew it would end. Most timber companies actually let it go on way longer than we figured it would.
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
No, and you're completely misrepresenting what I said. I pay higher taxes because WEYCO property in my county isn't taxed at anywhere near the same rate - I pay for their services. I pay those extra taxes to get recreational use of forest land. By charging a $300 fee, I'm getting bilked by WEYCO out of those extra taxes I pay. As far as less than 5K and more than 5K Acres being discriminatory is concerned, it is fair because when the huge landowners like WEYCO and Hancock close up their land, it affects the recreational privileges of entire populations of people. In addition, they're far more likely to be letting a majority of their land sit unlogged than a smaller timber owner. They're the ones who lobbied (paid the politicians), for these tax changes back in the 70s. They're the ones who should lose them.
This is absolutely false and has been shown on this board many times. The law regarding that tax in no way requires recreational use of the forest to the public. Those of you that keep saying this really need to take a look at the law.
You're correct that public use isn't written into the law. However, when the law was written consideration was given to the timber companies because at the time, full and free public us was being given. Things have changed. The big timber companies have now decided they don't want to give full and free public access. We should also change how they're taxed. I don't give full and free public access to my land and I'm taxed at the full rate. They should be, too.
From the things you posted in the past I thought you moved here from the east coast long after that law was put in place? I could be wrong on that, if so I apologize. It does rub me a bit wrong when outsiders move in and claim things were a given in a clearly written code when they didn't live anywhere close to here when the law was written. I did live here at the time. The law was written to protect the future of timberland, and responsible timber practices. Sure there was some more fluff added, of which at this time the timber companies have operated within the law. Public access was never a priority in writing that code. It was nice it was available for as long at it was, many of us that were here when it was put in place knew it would come to an end at some point. When the problems letting the public have free access became to costly we knew it would end. Most timber companies actually let it go on way longer than we figured it would.
I moved here almost 30 years ago, not that it matters. I'm a full resident of this state and have as much right to lobby my politicians on injustice as you. If you don't like my living here, that's your problem not mine. As long as big timber pays lower taxes on their land, continues to poison our wildlife, all the while refusing to allow unfettered public access, I will continue to lobby for changes which reflect fair taxation and good land and wildlife stewardship.
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
No, and you're completely misrepresenting what I said. I pay higher taxes because WEYCO property in my county isn't taxed at anywhere near the same rate - I pay for their services. I pay those extra taxes to get recreational use of forest land. By charging a $300 fee, I'm getting bilked by WEYCO out of those extra taxes I pay. As far as less than 5K and more than 5K Acres being discriminatory is concerned, it is fair because when the huge landowners like WEYCO and Hancock close up their land, it affects the recreational privileges of entire populations of people. In addition, they're far more likely to be letting a majority of their land sit unlogged than a smaller timber owner. They're the ones who lobbied (paid the politicians), for these tax changes back in the 70s. They're the ones who should lose them.
This is absolutely false and has been shown on this board many times. The law regarding that tax in no way requires recreational use of the forest to the public. Those of you that keep saying this really need to take a look at the law.
You're correct that public use isn't written into the law. However, when the law was written consideration was given to the timber companies because at the time, full and free public us was being given. Things have changed. The big timber companies have now decided they don't want to give full and free public access. We should also change how they're taxed. I don't give full and free public access to my land and I'm taxed at the full rate. They should be, too.
From the things you posted in the past I thought you moved here from the east coast long after that law was put in place? I could be wrong on that, if so I apologize. It does rub me a bit wrong when outsiders move in and claim things were a given in a clearly written code when they didn't live anywhere close to here when the law was written. I did live here at the time. The law was written to protect the future of timberland, and responsible timber practices. Sure there was some more fluff added, of which at this time the timber companies have operated within the law. Public access was never a priority in writing that code. It was nice it was available for as long at it was, many of us that were here when it was put in place knew it would come to an end at some point. When the problems letting the public have free access became to costly we knew it would end. Most timber companies actually let it go on way longer than we figured it would.
I moved here almost 30 years ago, not that it matters. I'm a full resident of this state and have as much right to lobby my politicians on injustice as you. If you don't like my living here, that's your problem not mine. As long as big timber pays lower taxes on their land, continues to poison our wildlife, all the while refusing to allow unfettered public access, I will continue to lobby for changes which reflect fair taxation and good land and wildlife stewardship.
Read what I said. It didn't say anything about me not wanting you to live here. I did say you were not here when this law was put in place, yet you pretend to know some inside details about its intent that were not written into the law? You have every right to lobby for whatever you want, as I will continue to lobby for property owners rights.
-
I strongly believe in property owners' rights. They should be able to do what they want with their land as long as it doesn't hurt their neighbors, or the environment and wildlife which belong to all of us. With rights com responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to pay their fair share of taxes. Thank you for the respectful dialogue, Cboom. :tup:
-
Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.
Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.
And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens overtime to patrol their property.
So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?
Regards, Branden
-
Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.
Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.
And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens overtime to patrol their property.
So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?
Regards, Branden
How about taxing everyone equally instead of giving the 1% the biggest break? I don't want them to pay more than me, just the same amount.
-
Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.
Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.
And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens overtime to patrol their property.
So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?
Regards, Branden
How about taxing everyone equally instead of giving the 1% the biggest break? I don't want them to pay more than me, just the same amount.
Go buy some timberland and you will pay the same rate they do :)
-
My taxes are too high. I can't afford to buy any more land. :)
-
If I had your money I would own a section!!
-
If I had your money I would own a section!!
For the last four years, we've been investing all of our money in the healthcare system.
-
Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.
Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.
And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens overtime to patrol their property.
So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?
Regards, Branden
How about taxing everyone equally instead of giving the 1% the biggest break? I don't want them to pay more than me, just the same amount.
So if you own timberland you don't get a tax break on it? I did not know there was language written into the law that says only the top 1% get a tax break. Could you please bring that part of the law up and show me where it states that? Thanks.
And again could somebody please answer this question? For those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?
Regards, Branden
-
I was born and raised in WA, I'm old (48) but not so old to remember when legislation was passed in the early 70's regarding property tax breaks. So, while I was alive when legislation was passed, I wqas too young to be paying attention. But I have read the stuff posted on this site explaining the breaks. Mostly thanks to Fireweed, going back several years. I was actually on the other side of the issue before, and now I'm in agreement with fireweed, pianoman, and others.
I do think the language isn't clear enough in the law to easily win any court cases, (maybe though with a really sharp lawyer) :dunno: but I do believe the intent was there some 40 odd years ago that one of the benefits to the public was recreational access and thus it was one of the reasons given to support lowering taxes on timberland. I see no reason why the legislature should not reevaluate the tax breaks; they probably should look to other states like Wisconsin to pattern new legislation after.
Sure some timber companies have been not allowing access over the years, and even early on, but now that almost all of them are doing it the issue will be getting more and more contentious. The law should have been rewritten 20 years ago..........
:twocents:
-
Some of this sounds like Bernie. Tax the hell out of the 1%.
Anyway I grew up hunting what is now Hancock. When I first started hunting there it was Champion and before that I believe Saint Regis. I didn't hunt there during that time but my uncle did and my grandma and grandpa both worked for Saint Regis. Back in those days there was public access but there was not vehicle access. That was in the 80's I believe. When I started hunting you could buy a year pass for $165, a 10 day for $55, a 3 day pass and a one day pass. Not once that I'm aware of for the last 30+ years have they allowed full unrestricted access.
And the nice thing is there isn't a bunch of garbage, or trash, or any of the bs that is in areas where there is free unrestricted access. Also Hancock pays game wardens overtime to patrol their property.
So here is a question for those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?
Regards, Branden
How about taxing everyone equally instead of giving the 1% the biggest break? I don't want them to pay more than me, just the same amount.
So if you own timberland you don't get a tax break on it? I did not know there was language written into the law that says only the top 1% get a tax break. Could you please bring that part of the law up and show me where it states that? Thanks.
And again could somebody please answer this question? For those in the know since it sounds like a lot of the guys on this thread where there when they signed the tax break into law and saw the back room handshake that says they will only get a tax break if they allow public access for recreational use. Why did Saint Regis go to restricted access so soon after the handshake was made?
Regards, Branden
You're the one who brought up Bernie and the 1%, not me. You explain it. :dunno:
-
You and I have to pay taxes based on fair market value. WEYCO should, as well.
Actually I get a big tax break for keeping 5+ acres in timber production - and its posted no trespassing like thousands of other small landowners and farmers in this state enjoying these tax incentives.
I figured you were connected to timber somehow. But, as many of us have stated in the past, a change in the tax laws regarding the timber industry should only affect owners of 5K acres or more. The little guys shouldn't have to pay the price for WEYCO's bait and switch tactics.
This is the craziest most discriminatory thing I have ever heard. "I want my tax break, but also want access to the guys land that owns more than I so lets take his tax break away if he doesn't let me on it". Should make no difference if a person owns 5 acres or a million, they should pay whatever the timber rate tax is per acre. What's next, you going to want to charge the guy that owns a dozen rigs more gas tax at the pump and pay a lover rate yourself because you only own two?
No gas tax, but he does not get a break on tabs because he has more rigs does he? :bash: :bash: