Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 06, 2019, 09:05:28 AM
Just FYI...check their website for the new rules.
Grade
Post by: highside74 on March 06, 2019, 09:13:14 AM
Post by: JBar on March 06, 2019, 09:17:17 AM
Post by: dvolmer on March 06, 2019, 09:44:50 AM
$600 for my wife and I :yike: My guess is Eastern WA might be a little more crowded this year!
Any decent hunting in Eastern Washington will cost you more than that for a 3x3. Everything over here has went into hunting clubs and trespass fees. Expect to spend $1000-$1500. Any state/federal land is over ran with big fat Orange Pumpkins!!!! Last 10 years the east side has went in the toilet!! You better have a real good friend with lots of land or plan on spending some money for any quality hunting experience over here now days!
Post by: JBar on March 06, 2019, 09:51:23 AM
Post by: BeerBugler on March 06, 2019, 10:02:30 AM
Post by: buckfvr on March 06, 2019, 10:39:32 AM
$600 for my wife and I :yike: My guess is Eastern WA might be a little more crowded this year!
Any decent hunting in Eastern Washington will cost you more than that for a 3x3. Everything over here has went into hunting clubs and trespass fees. Expect to spend $1000-$1500. Any state/federal land is over ran with big fat Orange Pumpkins!!!! Last 10 years the east side has went in the toilet!! You better have a real good friend with lots of land or plan on spending some money for any quality hunting experience over here now days!
That might be the case in s.e. wa., but that doesnt hold true in n. e. wa. What does exist here is predators. With such large options as Colville NF, still plenty of room to call your own, but such a diminished ungulate population that you may not even see a deer........and Hancock has locked up some areas to walk in only, but the problem is, (many of us believe so), that Hancock is in cooperation with F&G in order to keep areas roadless for the wolves, and sure enough, the walk in spots have dens and you cant find deer where they once not long ago , were many. Id not be surprised to see Hancock try to make there western holdings less attractive to the public in order to provide a sanctuary for wolves that would reduce ungulates that raise hell with young trees.......It couldnt be clearer to me, seeing it first hand over here.
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 06, 2019, 10:48:35 AM
Grade
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 06, 2019, 10:55:55 AM
Post by: JBar on March 06, 2019, 11:20:23 AM
Post by: smithkl42 on March 06, 2019, 11:24:45 AM
With the end of public access came unlimited power for the timber companies to tie up their land for those who'll pay the price, an ever-increasing price, it seems. And for those who've hunted those woods for years and can no longer afford it, tough luck. Timber companies control a large % of the private land in our state. It's time to dial back the tax benefits they receive of lowered tax rates on their land, deferred until timber weighing. I have little doubt that in some cases with the new rules, the income generated per acre from access fees will outpace the value of the timber on that land over the same period of time that it takes to grow. That makes it a different business and the land should be taxed accordingly. We must give the timber companies an incentive to work with the people of the state to open up their lands or assess a fair real estate tax from those who charge exorbitant fees for that access.
This makes a ton of sense to me, though I have no particular way of knowing what the relative sizes are of the two revenue streams. But if it's as you say, then yeah, it seems like their taxes should be calculated quite differently.
Post by: N7XW on March 06, 2019, 11:53:18 AM
With the end of public access came unlimited power for the timber companies to tie up their land for those who'll pay the price, an ever-increasing price, it seems. And for those who've hunted those woods for years and can no longer afford it, tough luck. Timber companies control a large % of the private land in our state. It's time to dial back the tax benefits they receive of lowered tax rates on their land, deferred until timber weighing. I have little doubt that in some cases with the new rules, the income generated per acre from access fees will outpace the value of the timber on that land over the same period of time that it takes to grow. That makes it a different business and the land should be taxed accordingly. We must give the timber companies an incentive to work with the people of the state to open up their lands or assess a fair real estate tax from those who charge exorbitant fees for that access.:yeah:
Grays Harbor County tried to pass a resolution increasing taxes. Weyco sued them and the county backed down.
Post by: buckfvr on March 06, 2019, 12:01:31 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with the wolf theory but Hancock doesn't own all the property within the farms. White river is owned by the Muckleshoot tribe, do you think they want wolves eating their elk herd? I sure wouldn't!! I believe Eatonville is owned by several timber companies. I don't know the details but I would think the land owners would have some say. :dunno:
The muckleshoots will kill the wolves in their holdings.....they will spread fast.....a strong interest was shown by all at the Spokane meeting last week to trans locate wolves west of the summit right now, no waiting bs. As soon as you guys can say theres no wolves, there will be.....its coming. Logic and rational thinking are in short supply when it comes to Big Timber Companies, the governor, and wolves......This scenario is front and center on their minds while no one is paying attention.
Post by: ASienkiewich on March 06, 2019, 12:49:58 PM
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 06, 2019, 01:04:40 PM
Grade
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 06, 2019, 01:08:33 PM
With the end of public access came unlimited power for the timber companies to tie up their land for those who'll pay the price, an ever-increasing price, it seems. And for those who've hunted those woods for years and can no longer afford it, tough luck. Timber companies control a large % of the private land in our state. It's time to dial back the tax benefits they receive of lowered tax rates on their land, deferred until timber weighing. I have little doubt that in some cases with the new rules, the income generated per acre from access fees will outpace the value of the timber on that land over the same period of time that it takes to grow. That makes it a different business and the land should be taxed accordingly. We must give the timber companies an incentive to work with the people of the state to open up their lands or assess a fair real estate tax from those who charge exorbitant fees for that access.:yeah:
Grays Harbor County tried to pass a resolution increasing taxes. Weyco sued them and the county backed down.
Especially with the new rules, I think a solid case could be made to tax them as a commercial property, not timberland. That would make them have to chit or get off the pot with regards to what business they're actually in and public access to their land. As well, the WDFW should be putting pressure on them with regards to damage permits to allow hunters unfettered access to fill those tags. They want the best of everything and in the process, WA hunters and taxpayers get screwed.
Post by: duckmen1 on March 06, 2019, 01:24:24 PM
Nice of them to send this out AFTER the spring bear deadline. No spring bear limited access pass... Hancock is a mismanaged corrupt joke, they need to go so we can actually have a decent opportunity to hunt IMO
Where is the new rules listed saying this? I can't seem to find it on the website. I only see the rules about individuals needing there's own permit and such.
Post by: N7XW on March 06, 2019, 01:46:38 PM
With the end of public access came unlimited power for the timber companies to tie up their land for those who'll pay the price, an ever-increasing price, it seems. And for those who've hunted those woods for years and can no longer afford it, tough luck. Timber companies control a large % of the private land in our state. It's time to dial back the tax benefits they receive of lowered tax rates on their land, deferred until timber weighing. I have little doubt that in some cases with the new rules, the income generated per acre from access fees will outpace the value of the timber on that land over the same period of time that it takes to grow. That makes it a different business and the land should be taxed accordingly. We must give the timber companies an incentive to work with the people of the state to open up their lands or assess a fair real estate tax from those who charge exorbitant fees for that access.:yeah:
Grays Harbor County tried to pass a resolution increasing taxes. Weyco sued them and the county backed down.
Especially with the new rules, I think a solid case could be made to tax them as a commercial property, not timberland. That would make them have to chit or get off the pot with regards to what business they're actually in and public access to their land. As well, the WDFW should be putting pressure on them with regards to damage permits to allow hunters unfettered access to fill those tags. They want the best of everything and in the process, WA hunters and taxpayers get screwed.
I couldn't agree more Pman :tup:
Post by: AnimalControl on March 06, 2019, 01:48:09 PM
Post by: ASienkiewich on March 06, 2019, 01:55:42 PM
Very disappointed by the new rules. I’ve had the pass for two years now and had just got done talking myself into a third...until I saw the rule change. Now it’s a big NOPE! Your gonna make me pay double (600$) to ride with my wife in Kapowsin? Not gonna happen. Like I’ve said in previous post, deer hunting in there is a joke, spring bear hunting is a waste of points (8.2% percent success in 2017) and shed hunting is a circus. If you buy this pass you should go into thinking that it’s a 300$ elk special draw where your odds are 1/1200.
The elk odds are way worse than that when you realize it’s not legit, they don’t even have the decency to post the names of the people who draw anymore! Lol but all you said is true. I hope this makes even more people stop hunting in there so maybe one day a change for the better will come
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Roosevelt on March 06, 2019, 02:11:18 PM
By the way, I am surprised that these permits are even managed via Hancock. They own very little in the Kapowsin tree farm anymore, and I didn't even know they owned any in the White River. I am not as familiar with that farm, but know the Muckleshoots bought around 90,000 acres from them in that tree farm a few years back (I believe Hancock still manages it for them). I know a large chunk (if not all) of the Eatonville tree farm was sold recently as well. Hancock is fazing out of the timberland management/investment business so when this permit came out as a Hancock permit this year I was surprised. The management and decisions within these farms is voted on by the stakeholders (land managers) within the farms. Even though you are buying a "Hancock Permit", the land you are hunting is mostly owned and/or managed by other companies. I am assuming they have stayed with the Hancock label out of convenience. I am pleased to see that the new landowners are all working together to keep the permit and area managed as one block though. With the checkerboarded ownerships in those areas I have been interested to see how they would manage recreational access.
Post by: AnimalControl on March 06, 2019, 02:24:22 PM
I believe the objective of the change of policies is an effort to boost deer populations and the quality of bucks. I think they could have made different changes to accomplish this. The old rules allowed a family to go up (with one permit) and kill an animal for each tag holding family member. When you put 1200 permits up for sale that quickly diminishes the deer population in an area. I think last year they changed the rules to a two point minimum, which was a good first step. Now, they are going away from the general antlerless deer harvest on the properties they manage, and I think that was a great move as well. However, instead of making families buy two permits for husband and wife (and potentially more for children over 18), my opinion is that they should put a limit on harvest of animals per permit instead. Whether it is one animal of each species per permit or two? However, I think making families buy two permits isn't the way I would have done it. Pretty much across the board there has been an effort to get more participation from women and children into hunting and the outdoors in general. If you put a limit of one deer tag per permit, then it allows families to go up and do all of the other outdoor recreational activities that tree farms provide while still working toward the goal of improving the deer population and quality. Just a thought that crossed my mind.
By the way, I am surprised that these permits are even managed via Hancock. They own very little in the Kapowsin tree farm anymore, and I didn't even know they owned any in the White River. I am not as familiar with that farm, but know the Muckleshoots bought around 90,000 acres from them in that tree farm a few years back (I believe Hancock still manages it for them). I know a large chunk (if not all) of the Eatonville tree farm was sold recently as well. Hancock is fazing out of the timberland management/investment business so when this permit came out as a Hancock permit this year I was surprised. The management and decisions within these farms is voted on by the stakeholders (land managers) within the farms. Even though you are buying a "Hancock Permit", the land you are hunting is mostly owned and/or managed by other companies. I am assuming they have stayed with the Hancock label out of convenience. I am pleased to see that the new landowners are all working together to keep the permit and area managed as one block though. With the checkerboarded ownerships in those areas I have been interested to see how they would manage recreational access.
Well said. The deer population in there definitely needs an overhaul. In my two years and countless miles walking, I have never laid eyes on a buck in there. With the two point minimum and antlerless being banned, I think it would be a miracle for a family to fill even 1 deer tag. I 100% agree with you that the new rule on each adult needing there own pass is a big thorn in the continuation of the hunting community.
Post by: trophyhunt on March 06, 2019, 04:10:05 PM
Post by: ASienkiewich on March 06, 2019, 05:22:42 PM
Last point under Kapowsin. Email I received todayNice of them to send this out AFTER the spring bear deadline. No spring bear limited access pass... Hancock is a mismanaged corrupt joke, they need to go so we can actually have a decent opportunity to hunt IMO
Where is the new rules listed saying this? I can't seem to find it on the website. I only see the rules about individuals needing there's own permit and such.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pope on March 06, 2019, 06:28:20 PM
Post by: Alan K on March 06, 2019, 06:35:45 PM
First off, access permits have become a necessary evil. And it’s not about netting income; it’s about covering the costs of allowing the public on the property and requiring the users to take some ownership of their actions on the property. With open gates there is massive garbage dumping, poaching, vandalism, theft, squatting etc. Just go look at DNR or USFS lands and you can see the difference. When people pay for use, they will abide by the rules so that they don’t lose their privileges. Joe tweaker from the public with open access won’t abide by any landowner rules. They’ll gladly strip a logging shovel of whatever they can peel off it to go sell for their next fix, meanwhile a contractor is stuck with a 10k bill to fix everything. Then the next contract the landowner negotiates with a contractor in that area ends up having to pay more for their services because the contractor includes the cost of a watchman to babysit their equipment. Public traffic on roads, particularly when people drive around in cars or 2wd pickups washboards the heck out of them, further deepens potholes, etc. If a company now has to grade at minimum the mainlines on the property 4-5 times a year to keep them drivable, you’re looking at tens of thousands of dollars. Side roads that don’t have any merchantable timber to haul out of will not see any attention until the next rotation. Those roads quickly deteriorate and look like the disaster that USFS roads are. Then you have the liability risk of folks recreating on the property when you’ve got active haul. 99% of the public doesn’t have and use CB’s when on a working forest, and honestly I’m surprised there aren’t more accidents than there are. From everything that I’ve heard from folks around the industry, companies don’t net more than a dollar or two per acre after all of the expenses related to security patrols, staffing to handle the permit programs, the costs of locks, keys, maps, websites, etc. etc. A merchantable stand at age 45 or so will likely have around 25-30 MBF/acre. Call it 27.5 MBF/acre. At a stumpage (net income) of $300/MBF you’re looking at $8,250 per acre. Net income from recreation permits, even on the high side of $2/acre annually * 45 years is $90/acre. Nothing compared to the timber value. Claims that permit programs will outdo timber income are just ludicrous and show how little folks know about the actual numbers involved. And I don’t in any way mean that as an insult, obviously folks are concerned about access and rightfully so. But if you’re going to speak on taxes, values, etc. you need to understand the numbers involved first.
On the taxes timberland owners pay and how it’s structured. . . If there was no forestland designation, you would see fringe property being converted like crazy. The purpose of taxing as forestland is to place a long term moratorium on development and preserve forest lands, and the habitat, water quality, etc. that it maintains. It’s a way of preventing further urban sprawl. The taxes you see on a parcel in a map sifter are basically based on bare, undevelopable land. The timber value is taxed separately at harvest. When there is no timber income, there is no tax charged. When you do harvest, there is a huge tax charged. It’s kind of like a sales tax, if you don’t purchase, you don’t pay tax. If you don’t harvest you don’t pay tax. When folks hear about a tree farm selling for $3000/acre and their eyes pop out of their head, they’ve got to understand that that is an average per acre value based on both the bare land and the timber value combined. Merchantable stands are valued at closer to that $8,250 per acre number mentioned before. A brand new clearcut has that same value discounted at some interest rate over 45 years and might have an NPV of $750/acre. The difference with our home property taxes is that the land is being continually utilized for a value. Housing our families, serving as a business front, etc. That value is continually being provided year after year, throughout the year. The property is not locked up in development moratoriums. We’re free to use it virtually however we please. Designated forest lands do not have any regular continual income (apart from now access permits, which I’ve got to believe are taxed as real time income, say 10%$ of $1-2/year per acre). You can’t develop it, all it does is sit there and serve us all by maintaining habitat and water quality in a much better state than developed land does.
Now back to this thread, specific to Hancock and their recreation permit program. . .
Folks are correct that Hancock is only one of the different owners in there now. Over the last few years many of the different ownerships that Hancock has managed for have been selling their property. I think it’s approximately equal ownership between three companies now. I suspect Hancock continues management of the recreation program because they had the infrastructure in place to continue doing so. Anyone familiar with how checker boarded that tree farm is can see that if any of the new owners opted out it would wreak havoc on the access program and likely cause it to fall apart. It’s a good thing that the new owners have kept their new property included.
On every adult requiring a permit. . . It makes no sense. Virtually every other recreation permit program out there has offered the ‘family’ permit and I have never heard of any issues because of it. I can’t see any good reason why they would make this move. The gripe is well deserved! Hopefully they’ll produce an explanation or would be willing to revert to the old prices and family permits.
On the wildlife management. . . I see limiting the antlerless harvest, and building towards older bucks as a great thing. I wish more of these permit programs would institute similar restrictions. Our wildlife populations are hurting and WDFW doesn’t seem to care to do anything about it. When numbers are in the toilet like they are there is no reason to continue with doe harvest. It’s good they at least continue to provide the opportunity for the youth, disabled, and senior folks who draw permits. On the 2 pt minimum, I’d love to see Weyerhaeuser go to something like that. There will be an initial outrage, but it’s sort of like when west side elk went to 3 pt minimum. At first everyone thought the world was going to end because nobody ever saw branched bulls, 95% of bulls were all killed as spikes. There was a lean year or two there in the beginning, but now everyone still kills the same amount of bulls. The only difference is now they are bigger bodied and have better head gear! Hancock’s elk management has created the biggest bulls in western Washington bar none. A couple years ago an archery hunter shot a bull over 400”! Pictures got posted on here at the time. It’s amazing what this state can produce with proper management. I think it’d be awesome if timber companies started working towards even a 3 pt minimum for deer. Harvest would be lean while they worked up to that, but eventually you’d have 3 points running around in the same quantity of spikes. I remember talking to loggers about Weyerhaeuser Pe Ell after the big storm up there that washed out access to huge expanses of the tree farm. It took years to regain access and hunting was completely shut down. Those first couple years when hunting was allowed again guys were tipping over 3 & 4 points left and right. After that it was back to picking the bucks off as spikes every year. That would have been the perfect time to come out with a 3 pt minimum there! As far as the tin foil conspiracy about wolves. . . Hancock wouldn’t be putting any sort of extra restrictions on ungulate harvest if they wanted to eliminate deer and elk because of their minimal impact on trees. . . On the math of the elk draw. . . They have been increasing the amount of bull elk permits, and typically by the time the drawing happens only a fraction of the permits have sold. They haven’t even been selling out for years now. I think last year there were 11 permits available for Kapowsin, and if by the time the drawing happens there are say, 400 permits sold, you’re looking at about a 2.75% chance at drawing. From what I’ve seen in there a 300+” bull is very possible, with an outside chance at a record book bull. You have better odds than drawing any of WDFW’s quality elk permits with any amount of points (let alone one of the few TRULY quality permits they offer), and a have a better chance for a bigger bull than available anywhere else.
On the spring bear hunt… West side spring bear hunts are a joke as is. Someone already pointed out the success rate. It’s horrible. I see these spring bear hunts as a favor to hunters really. Bear feeding is common on a lot of tree farms, and it mitigates damage a heck of a lot more than boot hunters. The reality is the only bears getting harvested on these hunts are those in the road or those caught in a clearcut. There might be the occasional guy that is able to call one out of the thick stuff, but those guys are few and far between. The problem bears that timber companies would like removed are the ones that spend their time in the dense 15-20 year old reprod eating on their trees. Their trees would be much better protected by feeding in these areas rather than not feeding and incurring massive damage so that boot hunters with terrible success rates can hunt. Trying to get spring bear hunts eliminated to hurt the timberland owners would honestly probably be seen as a relief to the landowner. The only guys missing out would be the hunters. A separate gripe I have with the spring bear hunts on the west side is that they all describe the hunt area as “areas designated by so and so”. Do any of us know what those areas are when we apply? Nevermind that Hancock didn’t publish that there wouldn’t be a reduced price bear access permit before the deadline. Still a bad move on their part, but what if the “designated area” was a 10 acre patch of blackberry infested reprod for all 150 permit holders? What I’m saying is that these hunts are a gamble to put in for any way you look at it. We don’t know squat about these permit areas that we put in for, other than the fact that they have horrendous success rates. What this state needs is a statewide, year around bear season. Deer and elk bonus points should be given as a bonus for harvesting a bear or cougar as thanks for saving future deer and elk. The populations have skyrocketed since the banning of baiting and hound hunting. WDFW has no idea how many bears there are out there, and frankly I don’t know that there is a way to get an accurate number. They don’t spend their time in clear cuts where they can be counted during a spotlight survey like deer and elk. The same goes for cougars. They have no idea how many there really are out there.
Whew… Apologize for the short novel there. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the timber industry though, and a lot of mudslinging ever since these access permit programs became a thing. I see a lot of these threads and feel obligated to explain the reality of things. At the end of the day, private lands are private lands. If the price and rules are overly burdensome, there is public land out there that we can hunt if we’d rather. They are largely void of game, particularly USFS land, but we can all be pushing for more timber harvest which will bring back feed and allow game populations to come back. With more game on public lands we won’t feel the need to pay just for the often decent at best hunting these access permits provide.
Side note: Anyone know who the first major landowner was to institute wide spread access permit requirements? We are! On our public (DNR) lands! Our beloved Discover Pass broke the ice…
Post by: cougforester on March 06, 2019, 06:44:10 PM
Post by: Crunchy on March 06, 2019, 07:11:40 PM
I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.
I agree well put. We all know from his writing ability that he doesn't fell trees for a living.
Post by: logger on March 06, 2019, 07:17:01 PM
I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.
I agree well put. We all know from his writing ability that he doesn't fell trees for a living.
Post by: Alan K on March 06, 2019, 07:19:31 PM
I will say those guys are some of the toughest men in the woods though!
Post by: duckmen1 on March 06, 2019, 07:45:20 PM
Last point under Kapowsin. Email I received todayNice of them to send this out AFTER the spring bear deadline. No spring bear limited access pass... Hancock is a mismanaged corrupt joke, they need to go so we can actually have a decent opportunity to hunt IMO
Where is the new rules listed saying this? I can't seem to find it on the website. I only see the rules about individuals needing there's own permit and such.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you. Looks like i just gave the state 6 points if we drew because we only put in because the limited access option. We arent gonna be paying that price thats for sure. So unfortunately that will be a few tags unused if drawn.
Post by: grundy53 on March 06, 2019, 08:35:25 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Crunchy on March 06, 2019, 08:41:27 PM
Hey now! I didn't pay for a college education to cut timber... :chuckle:
I will say those guys are some of the toughest men in the woods though!
Paying for one, and getting one are two different things. Looks like you got both. And Idaho of all parts haahha.
Post by: CastleRocker on March 06, 2019, 08:44:04 PM
As otheres have noted; that was a very well written response. I have some experience with Weyerhaeuser as I retired from there. A cousin of mine retired as president of WRECO, and was a past head of the North Cascade Timberlands. I live just up the road from the retired head of the South Cascade Region, and we've discussed at length the current management policies. I was able to see firsthand how the beancounters at corporate headquarters can sharpen their pencils, and show some incredibly creative accounting...
Post by: Naches Sportsman on March 06, 2019, 09:10:26 PM
I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.
Bingo. Too many recreationists who don't see the big picture.
The Forestry professors at UI constantly preach that at the end of the day, it all comes down to $$.
I'll gladly pay timber companies like PotlatchDeltic $58 a year to access their lands as I know where it goes.
Those greedy *censored*s. :chuckle:
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 07, 2019, 08:35:48 AM
Grade
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 07, 2019, 09:36:35 AM
Post by: justyhntr on March 07, 2019, 03:04:37 PM
Post by: Crunchy on March 07, 2019, 03:38:49 PM
Post by: Thehowler on March 07, 2019, 04:02:23 PM
Post by: Alan K on March 07, 2019, 07:41:17 PM
I guess first off, I have to say private land owners have the right to do what they please with respect to charging a fee for access. As far as overcharging goes, that’s a highly subjective term. I personally purchase an annual recreation permit from Weyerhaeuser, and the price IS a lot to me. There are a lot of people out there though for whom that same price is not a lot. If you look at what is happening to the Rayonier access permit down there in Fossil Creek, the price keeps going up and available permits goes down. It’s working towards fewer but higher paying people. Because there is an amount of folks out there that will pay for it! The reality is what might be overpriced to you and I may not be to others. Look at what some people pay for raffle and auction tags, it’s crazy. I could easily see a hunting club being put together for the rich, where 40-50 guys buy in for 5-10k and just lease an entire tree farm year after year. After a few years of a maximum of that many deer/elk harvested on the property the quality would increase substantially and the value would continue to push price upward. I guess where I’m going with that, is while the cost seems steep, I wouldn’t necessarily call it over charging, particularly when you look what the prices people pay for decent hunting access elsewhere in the country. If everything were about the money, you would absolutely see lands leased to small groups versus selling hundreds or even thousands of access permits. Now that virtually all timberlands have moved to access permits there are more options out there and my guess is we will see pricing level off because there is more 'competition'.
On the road maintenance, yes it’s done where there is active log haul. The difference though, is on the roads that don’t see haul, where the only traffic they see is from recreational users and the occasional administrative use. Without the traffic they would not need attention at minimum for 5-10 years when they might need a brushing. Drainage wouldn’t be messed up with rutting, pot holes, washboards, etc. The only time you’d need to touch it up with a grader is to peel some sod off before the next harvest! Some jackwagon could be wheeling in the snow and get sucked into a ditch in some corner of the tree farm, plug it up getting out, and next thing you know water runs down the wheel path rather than the ditch. The fines wash out, the water saturates a saddle in the road and you get a wash-out. There are tons of examples, and all of these costs can be directly attributed to recreational use as the roads are not otherwise used. There are hundreds of miles of road on most large tree farms, and I’d bet only 20% or so see haul each year, and the majority of those miles are the mainlines.
You’ll have to fill me in on which tax break exists that says lands designated as forestland are required to allow free and unlimited access. I’m not aware of one. If you’re talking about deferring the taxes on the timber until harvest, the taxes are paid in full. There is no ‘break’, it’s just not paid each and every year for the 1/45th of growth. Think of it like your IRA which grows pre-tax. When you withdraw it gets taxed in full. The timber grows pre-tax, and when it's harvested is taxed in full. What incentive would there be for a 40 year old guy to buy a clearcut to grow a forest if he has to pay annual taxes on incremental growth each year, when there’s a decent chance he’ll die before ever recovering those tax dollars, let alone make any money. Good luck to any millennial or whatever they call folks under 40 anymore affording to buy land for growing a forest. The economics wouldn't make sense. The small landowners will all develop. The fringe properties of even the big guys will be developed. Heck, in areas like the Snoqualmie Tree Farm, right there next to Seattle’s growth, I could see some huge tracts being developed as that population mass continues to push outward. I do believe that private landowners on the east side are compensated for enrolling their lands for public access (by WDFW though isn’t it?), but I have never heard of such a thing on the west side. And I agree timber is just a long rotation crop similar to wheat over there!
I’m sorry but I don’t buy it for a second that garbage dumpers are caught with any regularity even with security cameras or regular patrols. And even if someone is caught, I can’t imagine they are ever punished meaningfully enough to deter future dumping. This state rarely goes after the ‘small stuff’. Just about every timber company out there has cameras at their gates but it continues to happen and there are never any prosecutions. Security patrols are absolutely an extra cost when the alternative is locked gates and no access. With open access they patrol the interior for theft, vandalism, dumping, etc. With closed gates they can go check locks etc. in a fraction of the time. Maybe security isn’t even necessary as each forester can drive by and check a gate or two on their way home. Contractors that are vandalized are never compensated for their losses to vandalism. Often times insurances are so ridiculous that an operator is better off not making a $5-10k claim for a piece of equipment getting stripped because if it doesn’t happen again in the next 6 months the increased premiums which they’ll have to pay on ALL their equipment will be worse than if they’d just paid out of pocket initially. These costs that contractors deal with are all passed on to the landowners they work for. Like everything in business, the costs are just passed on. We (the DNR, our public lands) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for watchmen to babysit equipment on state lands because of the easy access all of the lowlifes have. Is the DNR writing a check directly? Of course not, but those costs come out of the stumpage bid for the timber sales. You don’t have to believe me when I explain these costs to you, but I can tell you I am in and around it every day and they are absolutely a reality!
Pianoman9701,
Go back and re-read my post. There is a heck of a lot more costs than just garbage cleanup that permit fees go towards! You’re exactly right on permit holders being held to a standard. That was what I was trying to explain by them ‘taking ownership’ when paying for it. Loss of privileges is a deterrent from breaking rules. With free and open access there is no deterrent. Folks paying for access rarely dump garbage because they know that if they are caught they will lose their $XXX permit privileges and likely be blackballed from future access. The garbage dumping that permit fees help cover is largely at gates, particularly side gates that don’t see a lot of action where people think they can get away with it. Stripped/burnt out cars are dumped on fringes of properties that end up getting impounded, etc. If there is a wide spot just far enough from the centerline of a county road with a dumped car, the county won’t touch it, the landowner has to pay for removal.
I did mention that there is a small net income (assuming the quantity and prices are enough to cover costs). I illustrated quite clearly that the net income from access permits compared to timber is not even remotely close. To try and classify forestlands tax wise based on about 1% of its income source as opposed to the other 99% would be absurd. And I honestly don’t know, but I’d be shocked if taxes aren’t paid annually on permit income. I don’t see how that could be deferred out like the taxes on the timber.
As far as garbage clean-up groups, I think that could go a long way. I’d encourage you to organize something. I think its Green Diamond that offers cash rewards to folks for supplying information/evidence of wrongdoing on their property that leads to conviction. The benefit from a low life being convicted is obviously worth something to Green Diamond. I could see folks willing to devote days cleaning up garbage being viewed the same way. Maybe these timberland owners would let folks earn their access permits by doing clean up rather than paying cash. I don’t see it being a way to get them to open the flood gates again and deal with the tweakers , vandalism, theft, damage, etc. that is associated with doing so though. Limited and controlled access to private lands is here to stay.
You’re just flat out mistaken if you think these permits and the fees associated are viewed at all a big money maker in the grand scheme. They cover the ongoing annual costs, while providing the public the opportunity to recreate. Say a tree farm is 100,000 acres, and has the site class/soils to support a 45 year rotation. If 80,000 acres are operable, and the age class mix is miraculously perfectly distributed, there would be a sustainable annual harvest of 1,777 acres. At the run of the mill 27.5 MBF/acre and $300/MBF stumpage, the annual timber income would be ~$14.6 million dollars. The GROSS income from all of the permits, let alone what is netted after all of the associated expenses is a drop in the bucket in comparison. These companies spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on these properties to operate and maintain as forest land, which provide habitat and curb development. I can’t imagine that there is some office bean counter sitting there conspiring about how they can soak Joe recreational user for all he’s got. There are far bigger issues on their plates! Again, the prices are set to cover the costs of maintaining the recreational access, and to require the permit holders to have some skin in the game so that they aren’t breaking rules without risking a meaningful loss of privileges. You can disagree, but I'm just giving you the reality of things.
Justyhntr,
There is no doubt that predators are a major problem not only on these tree farms, but throughout the state. Unfortunately there is nothing that any of us, timberland owners included, can do about that. If you really don’t believe that limiting harvest on the already dwindling numbers of reproducing does will help the deer populations out, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s pretty much population management 101. Continuing down the path of stacking up does during archery seasons only accelerates the downfall. I’ll say again, that I believe it’s a great step towards helping out our game populations, and I’d like to see more of these private land owners doing the same throughout the state! WDFW doesn’t have the spine to reduce harvest when they’re trying to increase license and tag fees, even though it would be the right thing to do. If I were in charge of WDFW and setting seasons and harvest the first thing I’d do is shut down all antlerless harvest until numbers stabilize/recover. The next thing I’d do is start blaring all over the news what the SCIENCE shows of the impact of predators and start bringing the public opinion back around to effective methods of predator control. It’s already attempting a coming back in Oregon I hear, why can’t we do the same?
I’ll wrap up again here by saying I am in no way in support of every adult having to pay for access permits individually. Family permits aren’t a problem anywhere, and I don’t see a real reason to go away from that. I realize I’ve sort of derailed this thread by speaking about permits in general, whereas the common and obvious issue people have is Hancock’s change to requiring all adults to purchase. Broad sweeping claims were made about forestland owners though and I couldn’t help but respond! I won't defend dumb changes like what Hancock did, but I will defend access permits because I understand the realities of the industry and why forestland owners are doing it. There has been understandable outrage over the last several years over what was once free access now being closed completely or requiring a fee. Nobody wants to have to start paying for something they used to get for free, but at the end of the day it’s private property! Lets turn our public lands into desirable recreating areas so that we won’t have to pay fees for access to decent hunting (at least no more than $35…)!
Post by: Stein on March 07, 2019, 09:19:52 PM
I don't know that PILT has anything to do with public access, my understanding it that it is a tax structure recognizing that a piece of timber land has a bunch of revenue one year and then maybe nothing for many years & this was a way to help manage that from a tax and cash flow perspective.
It's private land, free is better than $300 but there are plenty of places that do not allow any access.
Post by: justyhntr on March 07, 2019, 09:27:03 PM
Post by: Alan K on March 07, 2019, 09:38:09 PM
Post by: elkchaser54 on March 08, 2019, 01:56:00 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on March 08, 2019, 06:24:48 AM
Post by: justyhntr on March 08, 2019, 07:04:49 AM
did I mention I like the new lower cost! :chuckle:You should also enjoy less vehicles, especially during the spring bear season. :tup:
Post by: bracer40 on March 08, 2019, 09:48:51 AM
I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.
Absolutely agree! One of the best posts I've ever read on HW!!
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 11, 2019, 08:32:01 AM
Again, not trying to pick a fight, just replying that your "justifications" are falling on deaf ears, especially when they are taking away family permits, selling lands to the Muckleshoots, and as you stated Hancock isn't the only land owner in Kapowsin, but they are running the access program, so by your own admittance they are literally making the access program into a "for profit" business...do you really thing all of the permit fees are going towards road maintenance, garbage collection and security? Pretty sure those other land owners/timber companies pay to do that too, as part of their costs of doing business.
They already shut down the elk hunting in there, the deer hunting sucks...so if this is how the "access program" is going, then WDFW and the state needs to step in and call it as it is, a hunt club and take away any tax breaks/deferments they get and treat it as any other property taxed business...
Grade
Post by: deerlick on March 11, 2019, 10:00:34 AM
not really but should be coming soon as you guys buy some permits
Post by: logger on March 11, 2019, 01:51:38 PM
Alan K...I get your points and they make sense for the private timber company "logic" but not to the WA taxpayer/hunter/outdoor recreation user...here's my "opinion"...I don't care about operation costs of the timber company...if they receive ANY kind of tax break, even a deferment because of providing "public access" and still allowed to charge then it's wrong, and it's obvious that they are trying to reduce the amount of passes sold, out pricing the average buyer...just like I don't care about the guy who spends $100,000 on an auction tag (fyi, that comparison is stupid as that money goes 100% to the foundations and wildlife division, not into some East Coast shareholders portfolio). My point is that they are making it a private hunt club anyway and still getting the tax breaks/deferments. If anything, they should be allowing FREE access (with rules and waivers in place...I have no problem with knowing who is on the land, when/where they are and holding them accountable). This whole "roads, security, garbage, etc" is part of their business...either they are a timber company or they are a hunt club, right now they are trying to be both and exploiting both ends of it. You can throw out all the numbers you want, again, I don't care, as they are making money off of the permit sales and getting tax breaks/deferments. My analogy of the wheat farmer in the Palouse shows that there are FREE programs out there for large private land owners.you mentioned tax breaks several times, what are those tax breaks that you mentioned? as far as I am aware of timberland is taxed as timberland regardless of who owns it
Again, not trying to pick a fight, just replying that your "justifications" are falling on deaf ears, especially when they are taking away family permits, selling lands to the Muckleshoots, and as you stated Hancock isn't the only land owner in Kapowsin, but they are running the access program, so by your own admittance they are literally making the access program into a "for profit" business...do you really thing all of the permit fees are going towards road maintenance, garbage collection and security? Pretty sure those other land owners/timber companies pay to do that too, as part of their costs of doing business.
They already shut down the elk hunting in there, the deer hunting sucks...so if this is how the "access program" is going, then WDFW and the state needs to step in and call it as it is, a hunt club and take away any tax breaks/deferments they get and treat it as any other property taxed business...
Grade
Post by: fireweed on March 11, 2019, 03:25:30 PM
And you are right, the property tax breaks are NOT tax breaks, they are tax shifts. The government still gets their taxes--they just get more from the average Joe and less from Big W. The property tax burden on forestland is actually shifted from them to us. The excise tax (which is collected at harvest) has nothing to do with property tax on land, only the tax on the trees.
Citizens voted to change the State Constitution in 1969 so this shift would be allowed. Certain open-space land is valued at less than its fair market value. Why would we do such a thing? To protect the public benefits that open space areas, like timberland, provide. As I've pointed out before,RCW 84.33.010, legislative findings justify the tax shift with a list of public benefits including "habitat for wild game" and "scenic and recreational spaces". Industrial timberlands are now charging for access to both recreational spaces and wildlife--simple double dipping.
It doesn't have to be this way--all or nothing tax shift. In fact, in one open space category in our state, the landowner "earns" a higher tax discount through a "public benefit rating system". We could do it with timberland. Wisconsin, Michigan and several other states already to this, so it's not so far fetched.
Hancock is just the worst offender of all, and with bears, I simply can't believe--especially after the negative King 5 coverage of timberland hound hunting, that they would charge hunters more to hunt problem bears. It doesn't matter if the boot hunters are not killing the "right" bears--its a matter of optics. They are just begging the WDFW to cut out all the loopholes for timber companies for peeling bears.
Post by: grade-creek-rd on March 11, 2019, 04:07:35 PM
Link to tax breaks spelled out by WA Depart. of Revenue: https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf
And thank you Fireweed for breaking it down correctly...see his comment above mine, as its a synopsis of the guide in the link I posted!
Grade
Post by: Matth on March 11, 2019, 05:35:22 PM
Right, we want unconditional access, with zero accountability, to property that is not ours :dunno: I honestly not sure any action will be widely excepted.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 11, 2019, 06:02:26 PM
Open space which benefits the county with access for the public.
Designated forest and ag which benefit the county with jobs for local contractors/stimulated local economy. The additional benefit being the land cannot be developed without 7 years back taxes at the applicable tax rate.. residential, commercial etc.
Edited to add,
The public does not have any say in whether or not access is provided to designated forest or ag land. Open space land they do.
Post by: crowinghen on March 14, 2019, 07:04:30 AM
Snoqualmie here we come!
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 14, 2019, 07:06:21 AM
Post by: crowinghen on March 14, 2019, 07:09:02 AM
Hope you go into it with a open mind
mostly just want to predator hunt there, we have other areas that we will also be hunting.
what's the problem there? We had the pass a few years ago- we had no issues.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 14, 2019, 07:41:16 AM
Post by: crowinghen on March 14, 2019, 08:03:38 AM
I guess my experience has been the deer hunting wasn't as good as I expected. The firewood was not much unless you like butts and really picked over. I had the north cascades on to and it was even less deer. Didn't care the fire shutdowns but that's a every year thing these days. But that's just my experiences
I hear ya!
We were able to obtain access to some property full of deer, so that's where we will deer hunt.
It's just too expensive to buy the Kapowsin pass for 2 people just to go in and hunt their predators. And that WDFW biologist doesn't shut down the unit based on "assumed kills"., I'm talking assumed kills of cougar, not people.
Post by: brineal on March 14, 2019, 04:48:55 PM
Alan K...I get your points and they make sense for the private timber company "logic" but not to the WA taxpayer/hunter/outdoor recreation user...here's my "opinion"...I don't care about operation costs of the timber company...if they receive ANY kind of tax break, even a deferment because of providing "public access" and still allowed to charge then it's wrong, and it's obvious that they are trying to reduce the amount of passes sold, out pricing the average buyer...just like I don't care about the guy who spends $100,000 on an auction tag (fyi, that comparison is stupid as that money goes 100% to the foundations and wildlife division, not into some East Coast shareholders portfolio). My point is that they are making it a private hunt club anyway and still getting the tax breaks/deferments. If anything, they should be allowing FREE access (with rules and waivers in place...I have no problem with knowing who is on the land, when/where they are and holding them accountable). This whole "roads, security, garbage, etc" is part of their business...either they are a timber company or they are a hunt club, right now they are trying to be both and exploiting both ends of it. You can throw out all the numbers you want, again, I don't care, as they are making money off of the permit sales and getting tax breaks/deferments. My analogy of the wheat farmer in the Palouse shows that there are FREE programs out there for large private land owners.
Again, not trying to pick a fight, just replying that your "justifications" are falling on deaf ears, especially when they are taking away family permits, selling lands to the Muckleshoots, and as you stated Hancock isn't the only land owner in Kapowsin, but they are running the access program, so by your own admittance they are literally making the access program into a "for profit" business...do you really thing all of the permit fees are going towards road maintenance, garbage collection and security? Pretty sure those other land owners/timber companies pay to do that too, as part of their costs of doing business.
They already shut down the elk hunting in there, the deer hunting sucks...so if this is how the "access program" is going, then WDFW and the state needs to step in and call it as it is, a hunt club and take away any tax breaks/deferments they get and treat it as any other property taxed business...
Grade
Before I say anything, I have been buying Hancock permits for a few years now and I disagree with this rule change.
That being said, no land owning timber company is compelled or has some responsibility to allow anyone on it. It's their land, not yours. Selling those permits doesn't mean chit to their bottom line or to their taxes, its a drop in the bucket, permit sales mean virtually nothing financially or in terms of gained revenue to these companies. They allow permit sales to keep hunters and the public happy and appeased that there is at least some form of access and that is it , that is all. Trust me, most of them would gladly gate everything and shut everyone out..it is easier that way.
For those who don't believe illegal dumping and vandalism is a major factor you are kidding yourself. There is way too big a population with far too close a proximity to these timberlands and they would absolutely get trashed out without controlled access. Same goes for walk in access in some of these places.. I can walk in for free on all these companies land over by Spokane but not here by Seattle. Too much risk. Less population, less risk, more allowed access, cheaper access; that's the way of the world on timberlands.
Post by: MAVsled on March 14, 2019, 05:34:22 PM
open access to public free or for a fee , get Fed Tax Credit.
this is far more than total of all access permit fees.
Post by: idaho guy on March 14, 2019, 05:35:37 PM
I think that was the best comment, on any subject, I've ever read on this forum. Well done. I'm in timber as well, but normally just let this stuff fly and don't get down in the weeds since it seems to never be a subject people are willing to be educated in. Hopefully this will help some folks learn a bit more about the industry before immediately labeling all large timber owners evil, corrupt, slimy organizations.
I agree that's the best post I have ever seen on this issue. Thanks Alan
Post by: idaho guy on March 14, 2019, 06:11:43 PM
Alan K...I get your points and they make sense for the private timber company "logic" but not to the WA taxpayer/hunter/outdoor recreation user...here's my "opinion"...I don't care about operation costs of the timber company...if they receive ANY kind of tax break, even a deferment because of providing "public access" and still allowed to charge then it's wrong, and it's obvious that they are trying to reduce the amount of passes sold, out pricing the average buyer...just like I don't care about the guy who spends $100,000 on an auction tag (fyi, that comparison is stupid as that money goes 100% to the foundations and wildlife division, not into some East Coast shareholders portfolio). My point is that they are making it a private hunt club anyway and still getting the tax breaks/deferments. If anything, they should be allowing FREE access (with rules and waivers in place...I have no problem with knowing who is on the land, when/where they are and holding them accountable). This whole "roads, security, garbage, etc" is part of their business...either they are a timber company or they are a hunt club, right now they are trying to be both and exploiting both ends of it. You can throw out all the numbers you want, again, I don't care, as they are making money off of the permit sales and getting tax breaks/deferments. My analogy of the wheat farmer in the Palouse shows that there are FREE programs out there for large private land owners.
Again, not trying to pick a fight, just replying that your "justifications" are falling on deaf ears, especially when they are taking away family permits, selling lands to the Muckleshoots, and as you stated Hancock isn't the only land owner in Kapowsin, but they are running the access program, so by your own admittance they are literally making the access program into a "for profit" business...do you really thing all of the permit fees are going towards road maintenance, garbage collection and security? Pretty sure those other land owners/timber companies pay to do that too, as part of their costs of doing business.
They already shut down the elk hunting in there, the deer hunting sucks...so if this is how the "access program" is going, then WDFW and the state needs to step in and call it as it is, a hunt club and take away any tax breaks/deferments they get and treat it as any other property taxed business...
Grade
ranchers and farmers also get a huge property tax break with the AG exemption. The agriculture tax break is for a lot of the same reasons as the timber exemption. Yet farmers and ranchers charge thousands of dollars for trespass fee hunts? How is a timber land owner different its all still private ground. I hate the timber permit system and almost never buy the timber permits in Idaho(I think I have bought 2 in 25 years) I was hoping no one would buy one and they would decide it was a bad idea :chuckle: With that said the timber exemption provides a lot of value to everyone by preserving habitat and open space that would otherwise be split up. The point is its private property and they have a right to charge whatever someone will pay.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 14, 2019, 06:57:33 PM
and the huge Federal Tax credits the timber companies receive are the real target for them...
open access to public free or for a fee , get Fed Tax Credit.
this is far more than total of all access permit fees.
What is the tax credit?
Im familiar with breaks for conservation easements, but I doubt their farms are enrolled in one.
Post by: Humptulips on March 14, 2019, 07:44:36 PM
I cannot believe you are not aware of the huge property tax break on Forestland. The tax break is because of ridiculously low Property valuations written into the law favoring Forestland. How many of us get a valuation of $100/acre which is about average for Forestland. If I own 10 acres the assessor says my land is worth $7500/acre so I pay on $75,000. The Timber company land next door pays on $1000 for the 10 acres adjacent to me. Guess who pays more property tax plus they don't have to pay any special assessments like school levies. Oh, they get their tax break and don't tell me they pay timber excise tax in lieu of property tax because everyone who harvests logs has to pay timber excise tax even if they pay taxes on the full valuation of their land.
The tax break was sold to the people as a way to keep the land open for recreation. I fail to understand why we, the public, should continue this tax break when we get nothing for it.
Also don't tell me the permit fees are about road maintenance, garbage dumping or patrolling. If that was really the case they could allow free walk ins.
Nope it is a smokescreen to get everybody used to paying (which it looks like they have succeeded in.) and then jack the fees to the roof like they have done in other States. That is certainly within their rights but don't ask me to subsidize them through property tax shifting and then pay out of wallet too.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 14, 2019, 08:02:13 PM
Neither ag or designated forest has any obligation to provide access to the public because of their tax designation.
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2019, 08:24:01 PM
Alan,
I cannot believe you are not aware of the huge property tax break on Forestland. The tax break is because of ridiculously low Property valuations written into the law favoring Forestland. How many of us get a valuation of $100/acre which is about average for Forestland. If I own 10 acres the assessor says my land is worth $7500/acre so I pay on $75,000. The Timber company land next door pays on $1000 for the 10 acres adjacent to me. Guess who pays more property tax plus they don't have to pay any special assessments like school levies. Oh, they get their tax break and don't tell me they pay timber excise tax in lieu of property tax because everyone who harvests logs has to pay timber excise tax even if they pay taxes on the full valuation of their land.
The tax break was sold to the people as a way to keep the land open for recreation. I fail to understand why we, the public, should continue this tax break when we get nothing for it.
Also don't tell me the permit fees are about road maintenance, garbage dumping or patrolling. If that was really the case they could allow free walk ins.
Nope it is a smokescreen to get everybody used to paying (which it looks like they have succeeded in.) and then jack the fees to the roof like they have done in other States. That is certainly within their rights but don't ask me to subsidize them through property tax shifting and then pay out of wallet too.
On the other hand, you don't have to write a big check to the state every time you cut a tree down. They pay, just in a different way. They also don't have the ability to do certain things with the land that you do. It is the same for state and federal timber land, they all pay a 5% stumpage fee in lieu of property tax. 4% goes to the county where the timber is harvested and 1% goes to the general fund.
That law has nothing to do with public access, it's a completely separate issue whether the company wants to allow public access or no and under what conditions. It is treated the same as any other private property in the state, the landowner decides who has access.
Post by: Humptulips on March 14, 2019, 08:37:58 PM
Alan,
I cannot believe you are not aware of the huge property tax break on Forestland. The tax break is because of ridiculously low Property valuations written into the law favoring Forestland. How many of us get a valuation of $100/acre which is about average for Forestland. If I own 10 acres the assessor says my land is worth $7500/acre so I pay on $75,000. The Timber company land next door pays on $1000 for the 10 acres adjacent to me. Guess who pays more property tax plus they don't have to pay any special assessments like school levies. Oh, they get their tax break and don't tell me they pay timber excise tax in lieu of property tax because everyone who harvests logs has to pay timber excise tax even if they pay taxes on the full valuation of their land.
The tax break was sold to the people as a way to keep the land open for recreation. I fail to understand why we, the public, should continue this tax break when we get nothing for it.
Also don't tell me the permit fees are about road maintenance, garbage dumping or patrolling. If that was really the case they could allow free walk ins.
Nope it is a smokescreen to get everybody used to paying (which it looks like they have succeeded in.) and then jack the fees to the roof like they have done in other States. That is certainly within their rights but don't ask me to subsidize them through property tax shifting and then pay out of wallet too.
On the other hand, you don't have to write a big check to the state every time you cut a tree down. They pay, just in a different way. They also don't have the ability to do certain things with the land that you do. It is the same for state and federal timber land, they all pay a 5% stumpage fee in lieu of property tax. 4% goes to the county where the timber is harvested and 1% goes to the general fund.
That law has nothing to do with public access, it's a completely separate issue whether the company wants to allow public access or no and under what conditions. It is treated the same as any other private property in the state, the landowner decides who has access.
That is not true. If you own say 3 acres and have it logged you do not get the tax break on assessed valuation but you pay 100% of the timber excise tax.
All laws apply equally to use of land except development. If you wish to develop forestland you can but you must pay 7 years back taxes on what the real valuation of the land is to pull it out of Forestland status. That in its self is a pretty good break for a crop with a 40+year rotation.
You are correct the law does not guarantee public access but it was sold to the voters that way back when it was passed.
So voters were easily fooled back then. Not a lot has changed.
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2019, 09:04:55 PM
To me, it doesn't look much different than the tax breaks for farmland other than timber companies have historically allowed public access while farmers (in general) have not. Same story for non-profit organizations that have sizeable land ownerships, the taxes are not tied at all to access.
I wasn't around in 1971, so I can't comment on all the reasons why it was enacted or what the pitch was. If public access were to be legislatively tied to property tax breaks, there would be a bunch of interesting happenings in the large ranches and farms in most western states.
Post by: Humptulips on March 14, 2019, 09:25:31 PM
The timber excise tax didn't exist before the timber tax break did it? My understanding is that one tax was lowered (property) and a new tax was added (forest) and the idea was the net would be the same, it would just be tied to cutting which would match tax payments to timber revenue which is much easier for companies to manage.
Prior to adoption of the current system of taxation on forestland, trees on the land were taxed like property so the value of forestland varied as to maturity of that timber. The two were separated but beyond that the assessed valuation was pegged artificially low by statute. The reason for doing that was to promote keeping the land undeveloped as a way to preserve scenic and recreational values. At least that is how it was sold.
The timber excise tax is paid at the same rate by anyone harvesting timber but owners of less then 5 acres of timber are not eligible for the artificially low land valuation . It originally was 20 acres minimum.
The way it works a timber company is taxed at most 1/20th of what a non-forestland owner would be on the same land.
I have no problem with that if we, the public, received something for our money.
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2019, 09:55:12 PM
Post by: Humptulips on March 14, 2019, 10:36:16 PM
The trees them selves were prior to 1971 considered along with the value of the land when the land was valued by the assessor. So two 10 acre parcels side by side but one logged and one with timber would have different valuations. The value of the timbered parcel would be increased by the value of the timber and so would pay more property tax.
Now property tax is only paid on the land. The big difference is back then the assessor set a valuation on the fair value of the land. Now the assessor cannot do that. By law the Assessor has to go by the valuations set in RCW 84.33.140 which can vary but top out at $234/acre.
Post by: Alan K on March 14, 2019, 10:45:43 PM
Alan,
I cannot believe you are not aware of the huge property tax break on Forestland. The tax break is because of ridiculously low Property valuations written into the law favoring Forestland. How many of us get a valuation of $100/acre which is about average for Forestland. If I own 10 acres the assessor says my land is worth $7500/acre so I pay on $75,000. The Timber company land next door pays on $1000 for the 10 acres adjacent to me. Guess who pays more property tax plus they don't have to pay any special assessments like school levies. Oh, they get their tax break and don't tell me they pay timber excise tax in lieu of property tax because everyone who harvests logs has to pay timber excise tax even if they pay taxes on the full valuation of their land.
The tax break was sold to the people as a way to keep the land open for recreation. I fail to understand why we, the public, should continue this tax break when we get nothing for it.
Also don't tell me the permit fees are about road maintenance, garbage dumping or patrolling. If that was really the case they could allow free walk ins.
Nope it is a smokescreen to get everybody used to paying (which it looks like they have succeeded in.) and then jack the fees to the roof like they have done in other States. That is certainly within their rights but don't ask me to subsidize them through property tax shifting and then pay out of wallet too.
The difference is your land is completely developable, while the neighboring timberlands cannot be. There is a huge valuation difference there! And I certainly don’t call the forestland designation a tax break. Landowners are essentially selling their development rights for the reduction. If the landowner reneges, they’re on the hook for the back taxes. If there were a tax reduction for doing nothing, like what Amazon was being offered in New York just for showing up, that’s what I call a tax break. I guess our definitions vary. It’s all about curbing urban sprawl and keeping forest lands forests, which maintain habitat and maintain quality water sources. If you think we, the public, ‘get nothing for it’ I don’t know what to tell you.
Nobody in their right mind would pay full boat developable land taxes on timberlands. Literally nobody would grow a forest. It just doesn’t pencil to hold lands in timber when the income generated by holding it for 45 years when you look at the taxes you would pay. If there was no timberland designation, the annual taxes per acre might be in the $75/acre range today (bare, undeveloped land). Assuming that taxes increase 1% per year, the cumulative cost of the years of taxes would total $4,236/acre by the time the timber hits 45 years old. Go back to my previous example of the value of a 45 year old run of the mill stand, which would have a timber value of $8,250. If the dirt cost you $750/acre, and you paid $4,236 in taxes, you’d have paid out a total of $4,936 per acre and 45 years of your life to make a net of $3,314, or 67% for 45 years of investment. Basically a straight 1.48%, even worse if you looked at it as compounding. Heck, you’d be far better off buying a bond than investing in a forest!
Maybe the huge industrial timberland owners would hang on to their land knowing that all of the smalls would have to develop their timberlands, waiting for an increase in stumpage when demand climbs and the supply basket shrinks. A developable clearcut though would have a greater net return by developing it the day the forestland designation went away than after a 45 year investment period. Nobody but the largest of owners would keep their lands as timber. It just doesn’t make sense.
You're obviously familiar with the RCW that fireweed mentioned. There is not, and never was, a requirement for free access to private property when the designation was brought about. If it were, it would have been a deal breaker. Nobody would sign their property up for free and uncontrolled access to every member of the public. Not a chance. And I think you’ll be hard pressed to convince the public that a lack of free unlimited access to private property justifies removing the one major incentive for private property being maintained as forest.
The demise of our access to private lands has come about because of the degradation of our society. Back in the day we didn't have the tweakers, vandals, thieves, etc. that we do today. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of folks on here would respect any private property they're granted access to, but it's the 10% of lowlifes out there (I used to say 1%, but these days it's unfortunately probably closer to 10%...) that have ruined it for us. Again, requiring a person to pay for access again, makes them invested and unlikely to risk what they paid for by breaking the landowners rules. It allows the landowners to keep the bad apples out, and those on the fence from even thinking about it. Whether you want to believe me or not, the income is absolutely an offset of the costs associated with managing the access programs, and might even net a dollar or two per acre depending on the permit numbers and costs. If it were all about the money, they would close everything down to save the costs of allowing the public in and simply sell a handful of leases to the high roller types that spend $50,000 for an auction tag.
I’m sure I’m starting to sound like a broken record on this, but we should be more concerned about getting OUR (public) lands managed to provide good hunting opportunity than worrying about private land owners charging for access to THEIR property. Say there are 15 tree farms all of around 100,000 acres charging for access here on the west side. It might not even be that many acres, but it would total 1.5 million. OUR lands here on the west side total about 5.6 million acres (1.3 in the Gifford, 1.7 Mt Baker Snoqualmie, 0.6 Olympic, and 2.0 DNR (assuming 2m of the 3m acres are on the west side). There are PLENTY of acres out there that could be managed to provide our game species with quality habitat like private timberlands do. We should be putting our energy into pushing for more active management of our lands that will not only generate additional income for our schools (DNR), but also revitalize our rural communities that have dried up since active management came to a standstill (USFS).
Post by: Humptulips on March 14, 2019, 11:18:58 PM
And nobody that I know is saying they should pay taxes on the value of highest and best use. They could be paying on what timberland sells for though which is nearer $3000/acre instead of $234/acre and truth be told all our taxes would go down. The tax bill is divided amongst all property owners so we pay to make up for their lower rate. Anytime one group gets special tax treatment to lower their tax bill I will continue to call that a tax break.
No doubt if they were paying taxes on the fair use value of their land it would force the price of land down. It simply would not be as valuable if there were more cost associated with owning it.
And I think you are wrong about free access being a deal breaker back then. Big timber would have jumped at that if it was all they could get. It was all free to access anyway at that time by their choice so it would not have been perceived as much of a cost.
I actually am very much in favor of a tax break for forestland owners. I just think if the public is going to subsidize them would should get something in return.
Post by: Alan K on March 15, 2019, 06:39:58 AM
And you're exactly right that pieces are being developed still despite the designation. That's how valuable land gets as population expands. Now imagine the rate of development when the tax burden of growing a forest is increased several times over? It would be that much worse. The forestland designation is not an absolute end to development, but it certainly serves as an anchor to slow things down. The $3000/acre value includes the timber value, not just the bare land. You're saying the timber itself should be taxed year after year and then get a hefty lump sum tax bill at harvest too?
I also think you're kidding yourself if you believe our taxes will ever go down! As always, the government would just find something else to waste it on while development pushes into the hills...
Post by: Buckhunter24 on March 15, 2019, 06:45:43 AM
As far as the 234/acre unless its specific to your county I think its outdated. I just clicked on the first designated forest section I came acres and it was valued at over 100k/640 acres. Many of the landowners I have encountered have been around that 2k/acre rate.
Post by: fireweed on March 15, 2019, 10:03:30 AM
Just like the tax break doesn't require public access, it doesn't require that the land to ever be logged, either. The only real requirement is that the land has trees.
Post by: Humptulips on March 15, 2019, 10:16:07 AM
It becomes undevelopable at the designated forest land tax rates. Yes, the option to develop is there, but you pay the back taxes as though it never had the designation. That is what the whole point of it is. So you really don't believe the public is 'getting something' by keeping forest lands as forest just because the landowner doesn't allow free and uncontrolled access to their lands?
And you're exactly right that pieces are being developed still despite the designation. That's how valuable land gets as population expands. Now imagine the rate of development when the tax burden of growing a forest is increased several times over? It would be that much worse. The forestland designation is not an absolute end to development, but it certainly serves as an anchor to slow things down. The $3000/acre value includes the timber value, not just the bare land. You're saying the timber itself should be taxed year after year and then get a hefty lump sum tax bill at harvest too?
I also think you're kidding yourself if you believe our taxes will ever go down! As always, the government would just find something else to waste it on while development pushes into the hills...
I am unclear what you think the public benefits from subsidizing a timber company when all you can do is drive by and look at no trespassing signs.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 15, 2019, 10:16:35 AM
Post by: fireweed on March 15, 2019, 11:12:28 AM
Other states have separated out that portion of the tax break/shift that is covered by public access. You can earn a larger break if you provide free public access.
States: Maine: 25% off taxable value for public access on all open space land
New Hampshire: 20% reduction in the current use assessment of the acres opened to public recreational use
Wisconsin: landowners choose "Open" or "Closed" with highest tax break for "open" where they must allow free public access for hunting, fishing, hiking, sight-seeing and cross country skiing
Michigan: Industrial timberland enrolled in the Commercial Forest Program (CFP) must allow free foot access for hunting/fishing. This is the only state I have found with a requirement.
Washington: Open Space-Open Space: landowers earn an extra 10% off taxable value for public access.
Keep in mind, all of these programs only require non-motorized access. I have much less of a beef with charging for motorized access, but non-motorized should be free to get the full tax break. Afterall, most of the arguments of industrial timberland about why they "must" charge is limited to vehicle access: road damage, garbage dumping, stealing forest products etc.
We could have a pretty good system if industrial timberland had to allow non-motorized access to get the highest tax break, and we opened motorized on roads that have state/federal easements on them to public land.
Timber companies could still charge for a vehicles on their roads that do not have public easements.
Problem solved.
Post by: idaho guy on March 15, 2019, 02:12:27 PM
Post by: MAVsled on March 15, 2019, 09:12:10 PM
but simply miss those days 51 years ago, when Weyerhauser would open Spur 10 gate...for FREE access.
My father & I would drive in the old Intl Scout 6 banger to hunt up by lake Hancock and couple other areas in the high country. More often than not, we'd get our bucks and some dandies at that.
times...and attitudes, approaches sure have changed!
Post by: Alan K on March 17, 2019, 10:53:07 AM
I am unclear what you think the public benefits from subsidizing a timber company when all you can do is drive by and look at no trespassing signs.
. . . .
I've stated the benefits numerous times in this thread, the WAC itself clearly spells the benefits out in the legislative findings as well. I can't help you if you don't see the public benefits in keeping picture #1 from becoming picture #2. I'd imagine out in Humptulips there isn't much urban sprawl going on, so you likely don't see the impacts yourself, but I can assure you it is a very real problem along the I-5 corridor. Around any population center really. If public access is your only issue, you should be bellyaching about the small designated forestland owners. The overwhelming majority of 40 acre and under folks allow zero public access, not even for a fee. And again, there is no requirement for it anyways.
Fireweed may be on to something with additional lowered taxes in exchange for public access. I'm skeptical that it would do much for the majority of landowners, but you never know. That would be up to each landowner to decide. Going the other way though, and raising taxes on what is already a VERY long investment horizon will just accelerate sprawl. How quickly do you suppose the landowner with the 160 acres in the center of picture #2 would chop up and develop his property if it were going to be taxed at a development value similar to the parcels surrounding him? It's all about the economics and incentivizing timberlands to stay timberlands. The way it is right now the economics for development are so strong that lands continue to be developed even with the favorable designated forestland tax rates, albeit at a much slower rate than it would be without the designation.
And I do think there should be a minimum parcel size in order to qualify that would provide meaningful habitat/water benefits. I don't know what that size would be, it would probably have to be site specific. When you get down to chopped up 40's with a web of driveways and evenly distributed houses you lose a lot of the benefits for our game species. I'm sure that the insects, birds, small game, etc. still benefit, but deer, elk, other large species not so much. When 20 acre and under parcels owned by small landowners are harvested their riparian protections are greatly reduced as well in comparison to large landowners. It's a catch 22 really. The rules that small landowners must abide by are less restrictive and less protecting of water/habitat, but at the same time those parcels are generally the ones on the front lines of further sprawl and most likely to be developed if tax burdens are increased.
Post by: cem3434 on March 17, 2019, 11:36:57 AM
Post by: fireweed on March 18, 2019, 08:21:19 AM
Thus, other rules, like zoning and Growth Management were passed.
Those rules now have more teeth to keep timberland as timberland than the property tax break incentive.
And, much timberland simply cannot be developed because it is just too far out--no paved roads, no fire department service, no power, high in the mountains.
We now have a carrot (tax break) and stick (zoning) way to deal with sprawl.
Post by: fireweed on March 18, 2019, 09:08:29 AM
In two different counties, the average value I am charged taxes on is $140/acre at a rate of about 1% = taxes of $1.40 per acre. (This doesn't include the DNR forest fire protection flat fee). A 10-20% increase is would be about 15-25 cents per acre more in taxes.
I suggest a flat fee in that range per acre if industrial timberland does not allow free non-motorized access. This isn't going to break the bank. They still make money if they charge. The same amount/rate could be deducted from those that do allow free access, balancing things out. Small landowner parcels that do not provide meaningful opportunities for recreation would be exempt, such as other states do. Such a small change may not be much, but it makes a point and is in line with what other states do. Even for Weyco this is less than a million dollars more in taxes for all their property in Washington. Chump change.
Post by: Humptulips on March 18, 2019, 09:43:29 AM
You are right about that, a bit of a loophole too. If you have 640 acres of designated timber, you can divide it into 64 ten acre parcels. Then each of those ten acre parcels can have 1 acre removed for a homesite while the remaining 9 remain in designated forest.
As far as the 234/acre unless its specific to your county I think its outdated. I just clicked on the first designated forest section I came acres and it was valued at over 100k/640 acres. Many of the landowners I have encountered have been around that 2k/acre rate.
Just thought I would point out that the example you sited works out to $156/acre.
Post by: Stein on March 18, 2019, 09:45:26 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2019, 10:02:50 AM
To stir the pot a bit, for those proposing increasing taxes on forest land that doesn't provide public access, would that only apply to forest land or would it also include ag and ranch properties that also get very similar tax breaks?How's the hunting on that ag and ranch land? :peep:
Post by: Stein on March 18, 2019, 10:07:55 AM
To stir the pot a bit, for those proposing increasing taxes on forest land that doesn't provide public access, would that only apply to forest land or would it also include ag and ranch properties that also get very similar tax breaks?How's the hunting on that ag and ranch land? :peep:
Lots of deer and elk and waterfowl on certain ag and ranch lands. To combine threads, I wonder if the flooded corn properties have land taxed below market value...
Post by: Humptulips on March 18, 2019, 10:20:05 AM
You can make a pretty good case for ag land needing a tax incentive to protect riparian areas and keep buildings out of flood zones. Less so for ranches.
I think the best way would be to tax all land based on current use with a penalty for withdrawing the land from that use for development and then incentivize landowners to open their land to public use through a percentage reduction of taxes.
Public access, combating urban sprawl, keeping flood plains undeveloped are all worth while things to incentivize with a reduction in taxes. The problem is now the tax reduction is given with no incentive to use the land in a way that benefits the public.
Post by: idaho guy on March 18, 2019, 10:38:20 AM
I think the two are separate issues.
You can make a pretty good case for ag land needing a tax incentive to protect riparian areas and keep buildings out of flood zones. Less so for ranches.
I think the best way would be to tax all land based on current use with a penalty for withdrawing the land from that use for development and then incentivize landowners to open their land to public use through a percentage reduction of taxes.
Public access, combating urban sprawl, keeping flood plains undeveloped are all worth while things to incentivize with a reduction in taxes. The problem is now the tax reduction is given with no incentive to use the land in a way that benefits the public.
I think the issue is the same for timber or ag exemption and farms and ranches have by far some of the best hunting for deer and elk. I agree 100% that there should be a better tax rate available for public access. I think the reduced tax rate would open timber companies back up to free access in a lot of areas. I am not sure a lot more farmers and ranchers would bite other than the ones already enrolled in things like block management. There you go hunt wa solved the problem!! Now we have to get a politician to actually do something :chuckle:
Post by: Stein on March 18, 2019, 10:46:23 AM
Now we have to get a politician to actually do something :chuckle:
Be careful what you ask for..
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2019, 10:46:53 AM
Post by: idaho guy on March 18, 2019, 11:08:11 AM
Now we have to get a politician to actually do something :chuckle:
Be careful what you ask for..
good point on second thought....
Post by: scottfrick on March 15, 2020, 08:31:52 PM
Post by: brokentrail on March 15, 2020, 09:39:07 PM
Post by: nwmein199 on March 16, 2020, 04:18:41 AM
Are the rules still the same this year? Figured emails would of been sent out by now for this year.
Yes rules are the same this year as last. I didnt see any new rules in the email they sent out. Only new thing is you have to buy the permit from the global Hancock website now.
Post by: trophyhunt on March 16, 2020, 06:24:05 AM
Post by: nwmein199 on March 16, 2020, 07:22:21 PM
https://www.hancockrecreation.com/
Post by: Old Man Yager on March 16, 2020, 07:37:40 PM
Post by: MLhunter1 on March 16, 2020, 07:45:58 PM
Post by: BigCutty3 on March 21, 2020, 04:10:05 PM
Im on the fence, I love having a place close to home but it sure seems like they are getting real lock happy with the gates in the last year. Between "storm" damage, droughts, corona closure and elk season closure its getting harder to justify.
Post by: Thehowler on March 21, 2020, 04:24:21 PM
Post by: brokentrail on March 21, 2020, 04:49:40 PM
Post by: BigCutty3 on March 21, 2020, 05:19:36 PM
Post by: Stein on March 21, 2020, 05:53:49 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on March 21, 2020, 06:23:00 PM
Post by: bearbaito6 on March 22, 2020, 03:25:03 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 22, 2020, 05:26:26 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on March 22, 2020, 05:27:46 PM
Post by: Thehowler on March 22, 2020, 05:35:04 PM
Post by: bearbaito6 on March 22, 2020, 07:43:49 PM
Post by: Old Man Yager on March 24, 2020, 08:55:57 AM
I’m pissed. We’re going into the best few weeks of shed hunting and they close it. Literally the safest place I could hang out with a virus goin around. And you can bet nothing major is gonna change by the 31st. :bash: :bash: :bash:Sheds will still be there, except for the ones on the roads that the employees pick up
Post by: trophyhunt on March 24, 2020, 09:21:13 AM
no they won’t!!!! No reason to ever buy that pass or go look for sheds anymore. I heard they aren’t selling anymore passes, only those people that have already bought the pass for 2020 can go in.I’m pissed. We’re going into the best few weeks of shed hunting and they close it. Literally the safest place I could hang out with a virus goin around. And you can bet nothing major is gonna change by the 31st. :bash: :bash: :bash:Sheds will still be there, except for the ones on the roads that the employees pick up
😜
Post by: BigCutty3 on March 24, 2020, 05:32:46 PM
Post by: Old Man Yager on March 24, 2020, 05:41:44 PM
I have trouble finding them anyway...... :chuckle: :chuckle: :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :dunno: :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle:no they won’t!!!! No reason to ever buy that pass or go look for sheds anymore. I heard they aren’t selling anymore passes, only those people that have already bought the pass for 2020 can go in.I’m pissed. We’re going into the best few weeks of shed hunting and they close it. Literally the safest place I could hang out with a virus goin around. And you can bet nothing major is gonna change by the 31st. :bash: :bash: :bash:Sheds will still be there, except for the ones on the roads that the employees pick up
😜
Post by: BigCutty3 on April 01, 2020, 10:48:45 AM
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on June 04, 2020, 10:16:41 PM
I know you posted this comment in 2019... but really? You've never seen a buck in there? I hunted it 2017 and again in 2018 and we saw at least 6-8 bucks every year. Could never get close enough to slip an arrow into one of the bucks but we filled our tags on doe's during late season, since it was still open for that back then for archery. Hell we cruised up to an area in 2018 and were gonna hunt down a crotch that still had trees and brush while clear cut on both sides.. in 15 minutes we saw a 3x3 a 2x2 and about 10 does. Buddy shot a BIG old doe and I had already punched my tag so I was just along for the nature walk and help packing back to the truck.I believe the objective of the change of policies is an effort to boost deer populations and the quality of bucks. I think they could have made different changes to accomplish this. The old rules allowed a family to go up (with one permit) and kill an animal for each tag holding family member. When you put 1200 permits up for sale that quickly diminishes the deer population in an area. I think last year they changed the rules to a two point minimum, which was a good first step. Now, they are going away from the general antlerless deer harvest on the properties they manage, and I think that was a great move as well. However, instead of making families buy two permits for husband and wife (and potentially more for children over 18), my opinion is that they should put a limit on harvest of animals per permit instead. Whether it is one animal of each species per permit or two? However, I think making families buy two permits isn't the way I would have done it. Pretty much across the board there has been an effort to get more participation from women and children into hunting and the outdoors in general. If you put a limit of one deer tag per permit, then it allows families to go up and do all of the other outdoor recreational activities that tree farms provide while still working toward the goal of improving the deer population and quality. Just a thought that crossed my mind.
By the way, I am surprised that these permits are even managed via Hancock. They own very little in the Kapowsin tree farm anymore, and I didn't even know they owned any in the White River. I am not as familiar with that farm, but know the Muckleshoots bought around 90,000 acres from them in that tree farm a few years back (I believe Hancock still manages it for them). I know a large chunk (if not all) of the Eatonville tree farm was sold recently as well. Hancock is fazing out of the timberland management/investment business so when this permit came out as a Hancock permit this year I was surprised. The management and decisions within these farms is voted on by the stakeholders (land managers) within the farms. Even though you are buying a "Hancock Permit", the land you are hunting is mostly owned and/or managed by other companies. I am assuming they have stayed with the Hancock label out of convenience. I am pleased to see that the new landowners are all working together to keep the permit and area managed as one block though. With the checkerboarded ownerships in those areas I have been interested to see how they would manage recreational access.
Well said. The deer population in there definitely needs an overhaul. In my two years and countless miles walking, I have never laid eyes on a buck in there. With the two point minimum and antlerless being banned, I think it would be a miracle for a family to fill even 1 deer tag. I 100% agree with you that the new rule on each adult needing there own pass is a big thorn in the continuation of the hunting community.