Post by: time2hunt on May 31, 2018, 04:02:51 PM
http://www.king5.com/mobile/article/tech/science/environment/wdfw-sued-over-bear-hunts-on-timber-farms/281-560352815
(Via KING 5)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: eastsidemallard74 on May 31, 2018, 04:14:15 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 31, 2018, 05:33:13 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 31, 2018, 05:43:04 PM
Wonder if the timber companies will help out WDFW in fighting this? Maybe it will lead to OTC spring bear or if all goes to the tribal houndsmen.
timber companies :pee:
They want to keep public off their property AND pay cheap property tax rates AND have WDFW slaughter bears AND not let anyone use the carcasses?
Ya, pizz on em. I hope WDFW looses the suit and bears strip the hell out of their trees until they fling open all their gates and beg hunters to come get some bears
Post by: hunter399 on May 31, 2018, 06:01:45 PM
:yeah: +1Wonder if the timber companies will help out WDFW in fighting this? Maybe it will lead to OTC spring bear or if all goes to the tribal houndsmen.
timber companies :pee:
They want to keep public off their property AND pay cheap property tax rates AND have WDFW slaughter bears AND not let anyone use the carcasses?
Ya, pizz on em. I hope WDFW looses the suit and bears strip the hell out of their trees until they fling open all their gates and beg hunters to come get some bears
Post by: Stein on May 31, 2018, 06:35:08 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I bet they won't be begging for more people on their land anytime soon.
That said, the lawsuit says you can take two bears and bait them, so that is different from the draw hunts as far as I know, it must be a completely different program. I also don't see them complaining when bears get into urban neighborhoods and are dealt with.
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 31, 2018, 07:16:28 PM
Was the tribes listed as a violator of the law or are the liberals only suing the wdfw and the corporate timber companies?
Post by: Ghost Hunter on June 01, 2018, 06:14:12 AM
Post by: jackmaster on June 01, 2018, 06:36:27 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 01, 2018, 07:01:35 AM
I will NEVER blame timber companies from shutting down their lands, it's THEIR land, I know if I owned a couple hundred thousand acres I wouldn't let people hunt it or I would do what the timber companies do and sell a few keys to responsible people , look at what people do to the land that is state owned :bash: it's a joke and a disgusting mess, having said that , wdfw needs to man up and get rid of the no trapping, no baiting, no hounding laws and let us get out there and control the damn predator problem!!
You won't ever own that much property. And usually, the actual companies doing the logging don't either. These are billionaires out to make a buck, however they see fit. Not lifetime loggers who know the land. This isn't a property owners right issue. It's investment groups who are taking advantage of massive tax breaks and not giving back in return what they were supposed to. How on earth this is still happening is beyond me.
I'm with KF on this one. Paying $300 to access property that they get a reduced tax rate on to allow public access to, only to have them start managing wildlife on their own with no regard to what WDFW puts out?
WDFW's wildlife policies suck, but the answer is not competing agencies. It's cleaning up what we have.
Now, if a timber company buys some land and pays the full tax on it.... Let them do what they want as far as access goes. As for the bears, they still need to obey the law!
Post by: X-Force on June 01, 2018, 07:15:07 AM
If timber companies don’t come to bat with WDFW CBD will wipe the floor with current practices.
If CBD wins our west side spring bear hunts will be next. :twocents:
Post by: baker5150 on June 01, 2018, 07:18:33 AM
Post by: baker5150 on June 01, 2018, 07:22:10 AM
What a massive over reaction.
I'd be willing to bet if one of these bears chewed one of their tree huggin buddies, they wouldn't complain about using dogs to track it down.
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 07:30:15 AM
I will NEVER blame timber companies from shutting down their lands, it's THEIR land, I know if I owned a couple hundred thousand acres I wouldn't let people hunt it or I would do what the timber companies do and sell a few keys to responsible people , look at what people do to the land that is state owned :bash: it's a joke and a disgusting mess, having said that , wdfw needs to man up and get rid of the no trapping, no baiting, no hounding laws and let us get out there and control the damn predator problem!!
You won't ever own that much property. And usually, the actual companies doing the logging don't either. These are billionaires out to make a buck, however they see fit. Not lifetime loggers who know the land. This isn't a property owners right issue. It's investment groups who are taking advantage of massive tax breaks and not giving back in return what they were supposed to. How on earth this is still happening is beyond me.
I'm with KF on this one. Paying $300 to access property that they get a reduced tax rate on to allow public access to, only to have them start managing wildlife on their own with no regard to what WDFW puts out?
WDFW's wildlife policies suck, but the answer is not competing agencies. It's cleaning up what we have.
Now, if a timber company buys some land and pays the full tax on it.... Let them do what they want as far as access goes. As for the bears, they still need to obey the law!
Lots of people pay reduced taxes including farmers, low income seniors, etc. The only reason timber companies get the heat around here is that they used to allow free access.
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 07:36:09 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 01, 2018, 07:38:24 AM
Post by: Old Man Yager on June 01, 2018, 08:20:26 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 01, 2018, 08:48:23 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 01, 2018, 09:36:15 AM
Lets remember who owns the land. I would not want people trespassing on my land especially the way people leave it and what they do on it. It's called private by correct definition.
Do you pay real estate taxes at a rate of 1/50th that everyone else pays?
Post by: WSU on June 01, 2018, 10:15:15 AM
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 12:12:13 PM
I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access. That includes farmers and tree farmers. While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt. I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.
If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land. I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax. I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do. The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs. Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.
Post by: WSU on June 01, 2018, 12:35:06 PM
I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access. That includes farmers and tree farmers. While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt. I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.
If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land. I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax. I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do. The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs. Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.
Property tax is a related issue. I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc. My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 01, 2018, 12:44:04 PM
I've long thought that landowners should not get any special treatment unless they allow hunters access. That includes farmers and tree farmers. While they have every right to restrict access, they shouldn't get public assistance for damage caused by wildlife that they refuse to allow the public to hunt. I don't think they'd have to allow unrestricted access but some meaningful amount.
If a bear goes into my yard, WDFW will come help using public money and I don't allow hunting on my land. I don't see the correlation between property tax rates and hunting, WDFW isn't funded by property tax. I think they should be charged more and encouraged to allow public access of all kinds, but when their land gets treated the way it does, I'm not surprised that we get to the point we do. The sad reality is that hunters, fisherman, target shooters and campers are a bunch of pigs. Not all or even most, but enough to really ruin things in short order.
If what you were saying were true, I could potentially side with you. After watching Hancock intentionally shut down areas during archery and muzzle loader, then open it back up only for modern firearm opener...Then shut it down again after opening weekend.....
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2018, 12:47:12 PM
The voters of the state, particularly King/Snohomish/etc; voted to allow this. Didn't they read the actual initiative?
:yeah: Part of the language of the bill was to allow hound hunting and baiting as needed by agents of the state to stop timber damage. People voted for it! :dunno:
This isn't an open hunting season for hound hunters, it is tightly regulated by the state using specific hound hunters to remove problem bear from damage areas only. Another misleading story by anti-hunters and the liberal news media!
I do have to laugh, WDFW thinks they can work with these people, how is that going! :chuckle:
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 12:50:40 PM
Property tax is a related issue. I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc. My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.
So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land? Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?
The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals. If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general. That is how it works in places like England.
In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 01:00:27 PM
The voters of the state, particularly King/Snohomish/etc; voted to allow this. Didn't they read the actual initiative?
:yeah: Part of the language of the bill was to allow hound hunting and baiting as needed by agents of the state to stop timber damage. People voted for it! :dunno:
This isn't an open hunting season for hound hunters, it is tightly regulated by the state using specific hound hunters to remove problem bear from damage areas only. Another misleading story by anti-hunters and the liberal news media!
I do have to laugh, WDFW thinks they can work with these people, how is that going! :chuckle:
I shouldn't want to get in bed with anti's when they go after a management tool used by big timber, but I've been irritated at big timber practices for quite a while be it public or private. DNR, USFS and other NGO big timber property owners are all in bed in gating off roads and herding people into small areas still left open; but that is a different issue and shouldn't be conflated with bear management.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 01, 2018, 01:01:19 PM
Property tax is a related issue. I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc. My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.
So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land? Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?
The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals. If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general. That is how it works in places like England.
In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.
I believe the property tax rate was negotiated with access in mind.
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 01:14:20 PM
Property tax is a related issue. I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc. My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.
So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land? Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?
The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals. If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general. That is how it works in places like England.
In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.
I believe the property tax rate was negotiated with access in mind.
I haven't seen that, from WA Department of Revenue:
Quote
Forest tax – sometimes called timber tax – is an excise tax that began in 1971, when the Legislature excluded timber from property taxation. In place of a property tax on trees, timber owners pay a 5 percent excise tax on the stumpage value of their timber when it is harvested. In 1982, the Forest Tax was extended to timber harvested from state and federal land, in addition to private land.
From WDFW:
Quote
In general, landowners get no special tax breaks for allowing public access to their property. In addition, landowners in special tax categories (e.g., timberland) are not required to allow public access. One exception exists in Asotin County where someone can be allowed to enter into the “Open Space” tax category if they meet requirements for and are enrolled in our Feel Free to Hunt public access program.
If access was part of the deal, it should have been included in the bill in 1971. Everything I read says it was simply replacing one tax with another and the timber companies asked for it to match their tax expenses to the revenue streams - they pay a bunch when they are logging and a little when they aren't. It seems like more of a cashflow thing.
It is often portrayed as a simple tax break, which is not correct. Whether they would pay more one way or another is difficult to say, it depends obviously on how much they cut and the price of timber when it is cut.
That's what I have been able to find anyway, there could be more facts to the story.
Post by: WSU on June 01, 2018, 01:16:53 PM
Property tax is a related issue. I was referring more to allowing special harvest privileges, reimbursing for wildlife damage, etc. My thought is that if they exercise their right to exclude the public (which is their right), don't expect the public to foot the bill for wildlife issues and give them special means, not available to the public, to harvest said wildlife.
So, WDFW should only get involved in nuisance animal problems if the landowner allows for anyone to have free access to their land? Would this apply to all landowners or somehow just a subset picked by someone?
The reason WDFW should be involved is they are managing the state's animals. If they didn't, either they wouldn't be managed at all, or they would only be managed for the benefit of the landowner, both of which would be a negative for the public in general. That is how it works in places like England.
In my mind, the property tax rate is a completely separate issue.
I'm not talking about a bear in a neighborhood. I'm talking about crop damage from elk from a landowner that won't allow access. Or tree damage to a tree farm that won't allow access.
I agree that my thoughts do raise issues about who should and who shouldn't be required to allow access. It just strikes me as wrong that people get granted special privileges (kill permits, reimbursement for damage) when their decision to not allow hunting creates their damage. I agree there isn't an easy answer.
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 01:22:56 PM
I don't believe in cooperate person-hood and I don't think rights granted to the individual by the bill of rights or constitution should apply to a cooperation.
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 01:24:05 PM
There are a bunch of acres of timber land that hold tons of animals, is critical habitat for winter range, calving range or other critical aspects.
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2018, 01:31:47 PM
I think once there's a board of trustee's involved, they have a CEO, or the company is publicly traded, then access should be a much bigger deal.
I don't believe in cooperate person-hood and I don't think rights granted to the individual by the bill of rights or constitution should apply to a cooperation.
So if I decide to incorporate my business for tax or liability benefits I should lose all my property rights?
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 02:36:24 PM
No, I'm talking about big S corporate who's members come and go yet the corporation carries on, there's no longer a single person who must be present to guide the company, thus any since of morality is no longer guaranteed from one board member elected CEO to the next, only the bottom line matters.
And even then I'd advocate for a certain size S corp who regularly acquisitions land for commercial purposes. IE: big timber, big AG etc.
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 02:54:30 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 02:55:16 PM
Post by: Stein on June 01, 2018, 02:58:44 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 01, 2018, 04:01:35 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 01, 2018, 07:20:43 PM
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 08:42:30 PM
Lets remember who owns the land. I would not want people trespassing on my land especially the way people leave it and what they do on it. It's called private by correct definition.
Do you pay real estate taxes at a rate of 1/50th that everyone else pays?
I would love a debate but just cannot on a black and white issue of privately owned property. The timber tax breaks are no different than the farm land use breaks. No issues with the wheat Farmers that some years they struggle to break even.
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 08:48:51 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on June 01, 2018, 08:50:18 PM
Everyone thinks there is too many predators but when an effort is made to reduce them all of a sudden we have a problem with timber companies not allowing everyone in without paying? I say the corporate timber companies are doing a far better job managing their land than the state and feds are and we should stand behind them against the liberals.
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 08:55:18 PM
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 09:00:32 PM
Post by: dscubame on June 01, 2018, 09:08:41 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on June 01, 2018, 11:07:52 PM
Long story short, many of these lands were government owned and given away for certain uses, with certain public uses excepted in their management. Again, this is how I have been lead to understand some of the issue, correct me if this is not the case.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 01, 2018, 11:55:04 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on June 02, 2018, 07:05:36 AM
The one thing that aggravates me about the timber company lands is that “as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong” most of these lands were originally US public lands that were granted to certain entities (railroads primarily)as compensation for the rails they installed and they had very generous tax incentives with certain public uses accepted. Otherwise they were granted or purchased at obscenely low rates for economic development through county and state programs that specified public access as a requisite for their tax incentives. Other portions were set aside for public economic benefits to schools and mental health with general public access as part of the agreement.
Long story short, many of these lands were government owned and given away for certain uses, with certain public uses excepted in their management. Again, this is how I have been lead to understand some of the issue, correct me if this is not the case.
This is how I understand it. For every mile of track they installed they got 1 section of land in an effort to build the transcontinental railroad. The special interest groups of the mid 1800’s were way better at getting what they wanted than the ones today. One railroad even created a timber company known as Plum Creek and others sold their land to timber companies.
Post by: CementFinisher on June 03, 2018, 09:34:13 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 03, 2018, 09:46:37 PM
Too bad we can't have houndsmen make a contract with the timber company to take guided hunters hound hunting on that timber companies property.
Hunters who'd be ecstatic to take a bear, use the rug and consume the meat.
The houndsmen would have the keys and ensure nothing gets trashed, bears would be killed, less trees would be stripped, WDFW would look better, houndsmen would make some cash.
Post by: CementFinisher on June 03, 2018, 10:37:09 PM
Post by: Elkcollector82 on June 16, 2018, 04:53:17 PM