Post by: fireweed on July 08, 2011, 08:37:02 AM
Hunting access is taking a new twist in Southwest Washington as Rayonier starts selling permits for entry to its lands.
The company on Thursday announced a new hunting permit program for 46,000 acres near Grays River in Pacific County.
Though private timber companies like Rayonier have restricted access to their lands in recent years, they haven’t charged hunters they do let in.
"Hunting is going to become a rich man’s sport," said Vern Eaton of Longview, who has been active in hunting access groups. "I hate to see it come," he said.
Rayonier will sell 175 permits to enter its 31,000-acre Fossil Creek area from Aug. 15 through Dec. 31 for a flat $225.
Hunters also can bid for 30 entry permits to the 15,000-acre Salmon Creek area on Ebay. At the end of the bidding period, whoever has offered the most money will get the permit.
Hunters who get permits may bring a non-hunting companion.
For the past three years, Rayonier has been leasing parcels to groups of hunters. The bid levels for five leases in Grays Harbor County range from $1,317 for 567 acres to $4,124 for 4,615 acres. Clubs get exclusive use of the hunting areas for a year.
The Rayonier permit system brings a new phase to hunting access here.
Until about 10 years ago, hunters and other recreationists were welcome to camp on most private timberlands throughout the year.
Companies started closing their gates because of problems with timber theft, vandalism and garbage dumping. In recent years, most timber companies opened their gates during major hunting seasons -- but did not allow overnight camping.
Weyerhaeuser and the Department of Fish and Wildlife have collaborated on a program under which volunteers staff company gates so that special permit hunters can get in.
"We’ve been real fortunate here" with the Weyerhaeuser program, Eaton said.
However, hunting camps have migrated to state and federal land that’s still open.
A plus for hunters under the Rayonier permits is that camping and ATV use will be allowed for permit holders. Most other private timber companies don’t allow ATVs on their lands.
Rayonier still offers free public access for hunting, hiking and other recreation on 300,000 acres of its lands in Washington that aren’t leased or under the permit system. In Pacific County, more than 25,000 acres will still be open for free public access, according to a news release.
Though hunting permit systems are new in Southwest Washington, they’re common elsewhere in the country.
Paul Rice, a Rayonier official based in Florida, said nearly all of the company’s lands in the east are available to hunting only through leases.
"That’s not the approach we wanted to take in Washington," he said, because of its history of unrestricted access.
Rice said he isn’t aware of any other Washington timber companies with a permit system like Rayonier’s, though other companies are also trying to balance requests for recreation with the need to make a profit.
Rice said that in the future, Rayonier would like to offer another type of permit that doesn’t cost as much as the current $225 pass.
Future permits could resemble the state’s new Discover Pass, which costs $30, and "will have a lot of recreation opportunities, including hunting," he said.
Read more: http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1RWpQb8wW (http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1RWpQb8wW)
Post by: kalamasasquatch on July 08, 2011, 08:44:48 AM
:'(
Post by: YellowDog on July 08, 2011, 08:54:00 AM
For what its worth, I don't really blame Rayonier. Its their land. I blame the @sshats that vandalize stuff, dump garbage, destroy roads, etc.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 08, 2011, 09:01:29 AM
Post by: TheHunt on July 08, 2011, 09:03:51 AM
Post by: BLKBEARKLR on July 08, 2011, 09:08:58 AM
Post by: bigtex on July 08, 2011, 09:12:48 AM
http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story (http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story)
Rayonier will sell 175 permits to enter its 31,000-acre Fossil Creek area from Aug. 15 through Dec. 31 for a flat $225.
Hmm lets see.
Rayonier access to Fossil Creek for 31,000 acres for 4.5 months = $225
Hancock to access its Snoqualmie Tree Farm at 90,000 acres year round (except fire closures) = $225.
I'm sorry but it seems like Rayonier is really ripping off those people buying those permits.
Post by: rasbo on July 08, 2011, 09:13:36 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 08, 2011, 09:17:05 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 08, 2011, 09:23:08 AM
Post by: bigtex on July 08, 2011, 09:31:20 AM
Dude I can not even read sheet like this ... we all know its coming and we still are doing nothen but reading about it ....The fricken government should step in and TAX THE LIVING FRAKEN CRAP OUT OF THEM !!!!!! and for those who have money to spend on this type of hunting are setting the stage for disaster ...and I would never support such bullsheet knowing it is going again my fellow hunters and its now taking the meaning out of what hunting is all about ... So if you go an support these dumba$$$$$$ please do not come bragging to me about it .... THIS IS BS !!!!! >:( >:(
Unfortunately Bowhunter there are a lot of people that are willing to spend this much or more to hunt timberland. The Snoqualmie Tree Farm sold out it's 800 permits at $225 a piece in about 2.5-3 months. White River has sold about 600 of it's 800 permits at $225. And Kapowsin as we all know sells out it's 1,000-1,200 permits depending on the year at $300-350 a piece in about a month. I know some people who have several of these permits.
Post by: CedarPants on July 08, 2011, 09:38:07 AM
there are a lot of people that are willing to spend this much or more to hunt timberland
I think my only real concern is that there is a big difference between "willing to" and "capable of". It just seems to me that the days of throwing your kids in the truck and heading out for a weekend of hunting are almost long gone unless you are ready to fork out hefty access fees.
Not arguing with you at all bigtex. Just stating my opinion that I don't think these access fees affect everyone the same.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 08, 2011, 09:43:18 AM
Post by: rasbo on July 08, 2011, 09:47:09 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 08, 2011, 09:55:29 AM
Post by: rasbo on July 08, 2011, 09:57:32 AM
Well said rasbo. I know if I owned land, it would just be me, some family and a few friends. Other than that...a giant wall with barb wire, lasers, pit bulls, land mines, etc.:chuckle: sad but it has come to that,hancock still has to run tresspassers off,tearing the place up with quads and horses...
Post by: BLKBEARKLR on July 08, 2011, 10:12:32 AM
Well said rasbo. I know if I owned land, it would just be me, some family and a few friends. Other than that...a giant wall with barb wire, lasers, pit bulls, land mines, etc.:chuckle: sad but it has come to that,han*censored* still has to run tresspassers off,tearing the place up with quads and horses...
them damn horses making so wreaking so much havoc on the land. Why can't everyone just ride a quad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: rasbo on July 08, 2011, 10:16:42 AM
its the trails they go up and cut,then the trails wash out and it really gets to be a messWell said rasbo. I know if I owned land, it would just be me, some family and a few friends. Other than that...a giant wall with barb wire, lasers, pit bulls, land mines, etc.:chuckle: sad but it has come to that,han*censored* still has to run tresspassers off,tearing the place up with quads and horses...
them damn horses making so wreaking so much havoc on the land. Why can't everyone just ride a quad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Austrian Hunter on July 08, 2011, 10:20:36 AM
its private land.....sure lets get the government involved..then if I owned the land there would be zero access...hunt the public land its still there.I save a bunch of money hunting close to home and get my firewood there,how many would let the public access your property? how many farmers and ranchers let the public come and go as they please...these are farms,and they have many many problems with people that just dont give a crap...
:yeah:
Post by: Salmo on July 08, 2011, 10:32:54 AM
Dude I can not even read sheet like this ... we all know its coming and we still are doing nothen but reading about it ....The fricken government should step in and TAX THE LIVING FRAKEN CRAP OUT OF THEM !!!!!! and for those who have money to spend on this type of hunting are setting the stage for disaster ...and I would never support such bullsheet knowing it is going again my fellow hunters and its now taking the meaning out of what hunting is all about ... So if you go an support these dumba$$$$$$ please do not come bragging to me about it .... THIS IS BS !!!!! >:( >:(
Well said, They can kiss my assszzz. If hunters allow this as a successful program for Rayonier it will escalate. I have a feeling their are some higher up employees that have made a push within the company to make this their own private hunting grounds.. Well management "sorta" caved in with this one.
Post by: bigtex on July 08, 2011, 10:35:27 AM
I save a bunch of money hunting close to home and get my firewood there
:yeah:
I know a lot of people who basically only hunt a Hancock Tree Farm because they have a VERY good chance of bagging all 4 big game animals in the fall, get firewood and have pretty good fishing. They save a ton of money by simply taking a 30 minute drive to the tree farm instead of spending several hundred dollars (these days maybe even a thousand) in gas driving all over the state for the different seasons.
Post by: grundy53 on July 08, 2011, 10:38:28 AM
http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story (http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story)
Rayonier will sell 175 permits to enter its 31,000-acre Fossil Creek area from Aug. 15 through Dec. 31 for a flat $225.
Hmm lets see.
Rayonier access to Fossil Creek for 31,000 acres for 4.5 months = $225
Han*censored* to access its Snoqualmie Tree Farm at 90,000 acres year round (except fire closures) = $225.
I'm sorry but it seems like Rayonier is really ripping off those people buying those permits.
:yeah:
Post by: grundy53 on July 08, 2011, 10:39:55 AM
Post by: grundy53 on July 08, 2011, 10:40:45 AM
Post by: asl20bball on July 08, 2011, 11:17:34 AM
Post by: JPhelps on July 08, 2011, 11:38:22 AM
I understand that this is their land, they pay the taxes, and they can charge what they want for access to it.
However they do not own the wildlife. I wish that WDFW would make some of these areas special draw in response to these changes and see if that changed the timber companies mind.
I don't like where this is going.
Post by: TheHunt on July 08, 2011, 11:39:57 AM
Post by: TheHunt on July 08, 2011, 11:41:50 AM
Post by: fireweed on July 08, 2011, 11:50:39 AM
Post by: Curly on July 08, 2011, 11:59:58 AM
Post by: PolarBear on July 08, 2011, 12:17:45 PM
Post by: rasbo on July 08, 2011, 12:20:53 PM
Post by: Buckmark on July 08, 2011, 12:27:37 PM
If the permits were like 5 bucks or free to the first 175 applicants would that be ok?
Are you more upset that the lands will be closed to motorvehicle access if you dont have a permit compared to the alls welcome of the past, which led to tons of vandalisum, dumping and stealing?
I for one was kinda glad way back in the day when the snoqualmie (hankock) lands went to a vehicle access permit, alot less vehicles, trash and i worried less about being away from my rig all day knowing that the methheads could not be cruising the roads..
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 08, 2011, 12:31:32 PM
Post by: jackmaster on July 08, 2011, 12:35:12 PM
Post by: fireweed on July 08, 2011, 01:02:34 PM
Legislative findings.
As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:
(1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.
THE ABOVE ARE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT THE LEGISLATURE FOUND JUSTIFY THE SIGNIFICANT TAX BREAK OUTLINED IN WA. STATE LAW. If the "recreational spaces" talked about above were meant "pay for play" how is this benefitting the public?? And even if it isn't laid out precisely that they are getting a tax break partly for providing recreation, this is something that can be changed by the people with a tweek to this law. Remeber, the people are ultimately in charge.
Post by: grundy53 on July 08, 2011, 01:15:01 PM
I keep hearing the same thing from friends of mine who work for Weyco and Port Blakely. Weyco is very close to turning Vail into a permit, limited access only area. I don't blame them one bit.
They already did this for the area behind the Pe Ell camp. From the camp to the Pe Ell-Mcdonald rd to Stillman creek all the way up and around to Rock creek then down to Highway 6 and back to the camp. They just added the Rock creek area this year. They are talking about adding the Forks creek area next year. The kicker is that pretty much the only people that can get permits for this area is Weyco employee's that work in the Pe Ell camp. They won't even give permits to Weyco employees who work in other camps.
Post by: Curly on July 08, 2011, 01:33:18 PM
RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings.
As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:
(1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.
THE ABOVE ARE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT THE LEGISLATURE FOUND JUSTIFY THE SIGNIFICANT TAX BREAK OUTLINED IN WA. STATE LAW. If the "recreational spaces" talked about above were meant "pay for play" how is this benefitting the public?? And even if it isn't laid out precisely that they are getting a tax break partly for providing recreation, this is something that can be changed by the people with a tweek to this law. Remeber, the people are ultimately in charge.
I see your points. But if we start taxing timber properties more if they aren't allowing free access, then what happens if they just turn their land into subdivisions and sell it off? What happens when they can't make a profit logging any longer? And what would the minimum size of timber land be to be required to allow access to be eligible for lower taxes?
I'm sure timber companies are hurting pretty bad right now with this crappy economy and they are just trying to get some revenue wherever they can while waiting out the recession. I can't fault them for charging for access; they must spend a ton of money cleaning up all the junk that get left by a-holes, and fixing vandalized equipment, maintaining roads, etc. With the crappy economy, they aren't making much if anything on logs right now.
Hell, the State is requiring fees for access now, why shouldn't private companies charge as well?
Post by: rtspring on July 08, 2011, 01:43:30 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 08, 2011, 01:48:33 PM
For me this is real simple, who owns the property? If you owned it would you like someone telling you what you can and cannot do?
Public lands are basically free to hunt and a large portion of this state is public. :twocents:
Post by: fireweed on July 08, 2011, 02:07:51 PM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on July 08, 2011, 02:25:52 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 08, 2011, 02:29:16 PM
Kind of hard to jump up and down and scream about a private company charging to use private land when the state is making you pay to use State lands.
The state is charging what it must and so is the timber company. The state land is ours. But, the timber company gets tax breaks of millions of dollars for opening up their land to sport and recreation uses. As long as they lose their tax breaks once they start charging for use, I'm good with that.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on July 08, 2011, 02:32:22 PM
Kind of hard to jump up and down and scream about a private company charging to use private land when the state is making you pay to use State lands.
The state is charging what it must and so is the timber company. The state land is ours. But, the timber company gets tax breaks of millions of dollars for opening up their land to sport and recreation uses. As long as they lose their tax breaks once they start charging for use, I'm good with that.
Then you will wind up with a system like Texas or the East coast where you have to be a member of a club or pay for a lease. You're lucky if you pay 700-1000 bucks a year. Plus depending on the lease you may be told when you can and cannot hunt during the season or where on the property you can hunt.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on July 08, 2011, 06:05:40 PM
They make some money, reduce garbage/damage, keeps investors happy.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on July 08, 2011, 06:33:03 PM
Private property or not, the timber industry has made a deal with the tax man. In exchange for providing a set of public benefits they get a low property tax valuation compared to their neighbors. The way these property tax breaks work on the county level (just sat in on an auditor/assesor presentation) the reduced tax income from designated timberland etc. does not lead to a net loss of revenue because the difference is picked up by homowners and businesses. In our county the average homeowner already pays about $20 per year to support what is mostly designated timberland owned by big industry. That's fine and dandy as long as the public is getting their full public benefit from this tax break. I own timberland pay an obscenely low rate on my timberland vs. my home so I can see it both ways. PS. Here, most land that could be developed was chopped up and filled with McMansions during the housing boom, leaving off the grid timberland that would be difficult to develop (or outsource to China).
And you have the right to decide who comes onto your land and when. The timber company does too.
I have no doubt that the timber companies get great tax breaks, but they also have a lot of hoops to jump through with the state. Fuel reduction, buffer compliance, leave trees, and so on. Any of these are not met the state keeps a percentage from the operation and/or fines.
Post by: bigtex on July 09, 2011, 05:30:51 PM
people access these lands get hurt and sue the timber companies...sorry folks there's a whole need breed of cats out there and they suck,or should I say vacume,we will see if the censor's kick in :chuckle:
:yeah:
Good point to bring up Rasbo.
Those of you who do get permits from timberlands (such as Hancock) usually have to sign a document basically saying you are entering at your own risk and if you get injured/die it is your fault. Obviously landowners who let people enter their lands freely don't have this "contract".
I know of a coal company who for many years would let people enter their lands as long as they got permission from the company. Basically all you had to do was go to their office give them your info and they gave you a card about twice the size of a business card with some basic regulations on it. About 6/7 years ago they went from permission only to no trespassing and there were two reasons, vandalism (dumping, etc) and liability issues.
Post by: True Sportsman on July 09, 2011, 05:38:44 PM
Dude I can not even read sheet like this ... we all know its coming and we still are doing nothen but reading about it ....The fricken government should step in and TAX THE LIVING FRAKEN CRAP OUT OF THEM !!!!!! and for those who have money to spend on this type of hunting are setting the stage for disaster ...and I would never support such bullsheet knowing it is going again my fellow hunters and its now taking the meaning out of what hunting is all about ... So if you go an support these dumba$$$$$$ please do not come bragging to me about it .... THIS IS BS !!!!! >:( >:(
It is private land and they may do as they please. The answer isn't to tax the crap out of them. The answer should be for everyone to help police this ground and prevent misuse by idiots. If nothing illegal is happening, the timber companies are happy and access remains open. If there is a bunch of dumping, theft, and poaching what do you expect them to do? Leave the gates open anyway?
Post by: True Sportsman on July 09, 2011, 05:42:01 PM
I think trying to control what a private landowner can do with their property is a direct move against property rights. Let the market drive what they do, if government starts controlling timber property rights it will not know at what point to stop. :bash:
For me this is real simple, who owns the property? If you owned it would you like someone telling you what you can and cannot do?
Public lands are basically free to hunt and a large portion of this state is public. :twocents:
Excellent point.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 09, 2011, 06:01:38 PM
yeah thats fine but I do not agree with it .... just BS ... :yike:Dude I can not even read sheet like this ... we all know its coming and we still are doing nothen but reading about it ....The fricken government should step in and TAX THE LIVING FRAKEN CRAP OUT OF THEM !!!!!! and for those who have money to spend on this type of hunting are setting the stage for disaster ...and I would never support such bullsheet knowing it is going again my fellow hunters and its now taking the meaning out of what hunting is all about ... So if you go an support these dumba$$$$$$ please do not come bragging to me about it .... THIS IS BS !!!!! >:( >:(
Unfortunately Bowhunter there are a lot of people that are willing to spend this much or more to hunt timberland. The Snoqualmie Tree Farm sold out it's 800 permits at $225 a piece in about 2.5-3 months. White River has sold about 600 of it's 800 permits at $225. And Kapowsin as we all know sells out it's 1,000-1,200 permits depending on the year at $300-350 a piece in about a month. I know some people who have several of these permits.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 09, 2011, 06:10:04 PM
So for the people that are upset about this, is it because they are charging a fee or limiting the vehicle access to only people with permits.NOW I May agree with the part on leaving your vehicle but the rest is still BS :chuckle: :chuckle: :tup:
If the permits were like 5 bucks or free to the first 175 applicants would that be ok?
Are you more upset that the lands will be closed to motorvehicle access if you dont have a permit compared to the alls welcome of the past, which led to tons of vandalisum, dumping and stealing?
I for one was kinda glad way back in the day when the snoqualmie (hankock) lands went to a vehicle access permit, alot less vehicles, trash and i worried less about being away from my rig all day knowing that the methheads could not be cruising the roads..
Post by: rtspring on July 09, 2011, 07:09:29 PM
See what it costs to hunt this land 5 years from now? I bet you won't support it then.. Andi f you do you might just have the place to yourselves. If they are getting ANY and I mean ANY tax break from our state or government, paying for a permit to access it should not be allowed..
COMPLETE B.S.
Post by: Bigshooter on July 09, 2011, 07:41:12 PM
RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings.
As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:
(1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.
THE ABOVE ARE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT THE LEGISLATURE FOUND JUSTIFY THE SIGNIFICANT TAX BREAK OUTLINED IN WA. STATE LAW. If the "recreational spaces" talked about above were meant "pay for play" how is this benefitting the public?? And even if it isn't laid out precisely that they are getting a tax break partly for providing recreation, this is something that can be changed by the people with a tweek to this law. Remeber, the people are ultimately in charge.
I think this permit provides everything that you are saying that it doesn't. If a timber company totally looked the public out and they still got a tax break I think you would have a good arguement. But the public is still going to be able to use this private land.
Post by: Battle Ready on July 09, 2011, 10:02:53 PM
Back in the eastern part of the country..you pretty much have to pay to hunt anywere or else hunt the small spots of public...then you have combat hunting at its finest. I for one will be OK with walking in behind gates...as long as I have lots of space to hunt in...it could be worse.
Post by: NWHydroprint on July 10, 2011, 08:08:56 AM
If it wasn't for the tax breaks these timber companies would not have survived the timber crashes so in a way they do owe the people of washington.
What we are seeing is them trying to cash in on trophy hunting like in the midwest and east coast were groups spend 20,000 and private hunting.
How much money do they get to write off for tree damage from animals easy cure would be to close these areas to hunting and charge them $5,000 to $10,000 per tag so they can sell it or let the public hunt and leave theses areas open. Remember in the state of WA wildlife is owned buy the state.
NWH
Post by: blackhorn on July 10, 2011, 09:13:47 AM
Post by: logger on July 10, 2011, 10:04:51 AM
Post by: True Sportsman on July 10, 2011, 09:38:35 PM
As soon as the tax breaks are gone, you will see massive clear cutting and big for sale signs on what was once tree growing ground. Every landowner in the state big or small can have there land classified as timber or open space, It's not really the big tax break you guy's think it is, Timber co. has instances of what we call a taking of property in which because a new law was passed what could have been logged 5 years ago they can't now but yet the co. invested money in planting back the trees and maintaing the trees but will see know return on the trees, then they can get a tax break on that ground just like anybody else. It cost lottsa money to maintain the roads and when the snow run run off washes out roads, your talkin big money. Way better than the forest circus when they have a problem road they just close it.
Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about.
Post by: PolarBear on July 11, 2011, 03:39:04 AM
Post by: cem3434 on July 11, 2011, 08:07:28 AM
woohoo i'm in, just so I have a place to ride my ATV. Hopefully with the money they generate they can hire some security and get the dumping stopped.
:yeah: You can only ride Evans Creek and Elbe Hills so much before you get sick of it!
Post by: cem3434 on July 11, 2011, 08:09:16 AM
http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story (http://tdn.com/lifestyles/article_551bcd98-a8fd-11e0-9fc9-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story)
Rayonier will sell 175 permits to enter its 31,000-acre Fossil Creek area from Aug. 15 through Dec. 31 for a flat $225.
Hmm lets see.
Rayonier access to Fossil Creek for 31,000 acres for 4.5 months = $225
Hancock to access its Snoqualmie Tree Farm at 90,000 acres year round (except fire closures) = $225.
I'm sorry but it seems like Rayonier is really ripping off those people buying those permits.
It depends on the number of permits. If there are less permit holders, it makes for better hunting opportunities.
Post by: cem3434 on July 11, 2011, 08:18:31 AM
Dude I can not even read sheet like this ... we all know its coming and we still are doing nothen but reading about it ....The fricken government should step in and TAX THE LIVING FRAKEN CRAP OUT OF THEM !!!!!! and for those who have money to spend on this type of hunting are setting the stage for disaster ...and I would never support such bullsheet knowing it is going again my fellow hunters and its now taking the meaning out of what hunting is all about ... So if you go an support these dumba$$$$$$ please do not come bragging to me about it .... THIS IS BS !!!!! >:( >:(
Capitalism.....it sucks, doesn't it. Hunting is a privilege in this day and age and not a right like many people think. None of us like it, but if there is a way to make money off of your hobby then somebody will figure out how. I would guess that most people wouldn't go to work everyday without getting paid, so why should the timber companies open their gates without getting paid?
The State has figured out how to make money off of us by raising the cost of licenses and offering like 50 different raffles (which reminds me I still need to buy a few) and permit drawings. The timber companies are doing the same thing by charging for access passes. They own the property and sadly have ever right to try and capitalize off of our hobby like everyone else. :twocents:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 11, 2011, 09:06:06 AM
Yeah ...Well here is the problem .. there are a few that agree with you and thats what they are seeing so thats why they are now interrested...Which I guess you can not blame them ..but supporting this type of BS will eventually make it a rich mans sport and we all know it so lets just support something so it ends quicker .. Like me for instance I have 2 sons and counting me makes 3 of us hunting .. it cost me 400+ this year in tags and licenses and now If we want to go hunt areas like this it will cost us $ 675 more to enter such lands..The average hunter can not afford this ... the cost is a little extreme ... I would not mind paying a deposit for a key and getting back my money once I returned it .. Thats about as far as I go with it....Dude I can not even read sheet like this ... we all know its coming and we still are doing nothen but reading about it ....The fricken government should step in and TAX THE LIVING FRAKEN CRAP OUT OF THEM !!!!!! and for those who have money to spend on this type of hunting are setting the stage for disaster ...and I would never support such bullsheet knowing it is going again my fellow hunters and its now taking the meaning out of what hunting is all about ... So if you go an support these dumba$$$$$$ please do not come bragging to me about it .... THIS IS BS !!!!! >:( >:(
Capitalism.....it sucks, doesn't it. Hunting is a privilege in this day and age and not a right like many people think. None of us like it, but if there is a way to make money off of your hobby then somebody will figure out how. I would guess that most people wouldn't go to work everyday without getting paid, so why should the timber companies open their gates without getting paid?
The State has figured out how to make money off of us by raising the cost of licenses and offering like 50 different raffles (which reminds me I still need to buy a few) and permit drawings. The timber companies are doing the same thing by charging for access passes. They own the property and sadly have ever right to try and capitalize off of our hobby like everyone else. :twocents:
Post by: dreamunelk on July 11, 2011, 07:45:39 PM
On November 1968 the people of Washington State voted overwhelming (68%) to tax agricultural, timberlands, and other open spaces for actual use. The concern was the loss of green space to development and therefore the loss of recreation value of these lands. If you do your research and look at the advertisements, newspaper articles, and voter’s pamphlet they all claim public recreation value is a premise for the reduction in taxes. I have attached a few. This is not about government telling them what to do with their lands. This is about increasing profits at the expense of the public. Many of these landowners have closed their mills or the lands have been purchased for their long term income value. Basically this is where the money is at and they are making money. Now they are ignoring state law. If you have a problem with them charging for access then call your county and state elected officials they are the ones who are supposed to enforce the state law.
If someone will explain how to insert an image I will add a few of newspaper advertisements I have located.
Post by: logger on July 11, 2011, 08:03:53 PM
On November 1968 the people of Washington State voted overwhelming (68%) to tax agricultural, timberlands, and other open spaces for actual use. The concern was the loss of green space to development and therefore the loss of recreation value of these lands. If you do your research and look at the advertisements, newspaper articles, and voter’s pamphlet they all claim public recreation value is a premise for the reduction in taxes. I have attached a few. This is not about government telling them what to do with their lands. This is about increasing profits at the expense of the public. Many of these landowners have closed their mills or the lands have been purchased for their long term income value. Basically this is where the money is at and they are making money. Now they are ignoring state law. If you have a problem with them charging for access then call your county and state elected officials they are the ones who are supposed to enforce the state law.
If someone will explain how to insert an image I will add a few of newspaper advertisements I have located.
Not trying to be a smart ass, just lookin to learn something here, Does this law also apply to the guy with 30 acres that is taxed as timberland,does he have to allow public access also?
Post by: dreamunelk on July 11, 2011, 08:21:54 PM
I think I have the attachment thing figures out.
Post by: logger on July 11, 2011, 08:28:37 PM
Post by: fireweed on July 12, 2011, 09:16:28 AM
Post by: Humptulips on July 12, 2011, 10:22:35 PM
As soon as the tax breaks are gone, you will see massive clear cutting and big for sale signs on what was once tree growing ground. Every landowner in the state big or small can have there land classified as timber or open space, It's not really the big tax break you guy's think it is, Timber co. has instances of what we call a taking of property in which because a new law was passed what could have been logged 5 years ago they can't now but yet the co. invested money in planting back the trees and maintaing the trees but will see know return on the trees, then they can get a tax break on that ground just like anybody else. It cost lottsa money to maintain the roads and when the snow run run off washes out roads, your talkin big money. Way better than the forest circus when they have a problem road they just close it.
Geez, you must not look around when you're out in the woods. The massive clearcutting and for sale signs are already happening. The public taking of property via buffer strips and leave trees as in RMZs is equally applied to non-tree farm land. Don't kid yourself the tax breaks are big.
Ok so I understand the road thing but they keep the roads for their own benefit not for a few hunters.
I'm a logger and have owned timberland just not now so I think I know a little about what you say. Don't see it the same way though.
Post by: Humptulips on July 12, 2011, 10:28:30 PM
Rayonier would change their tune in a minute.
Of course WDFW will never do it.
Post by: bearpaw on July 14, 2011, 08:39:22 AM
Post by: YellowDog on July 14, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
WDFW could nip this right in the bud if they wanted to. Hunting on forest land is really a benefit to the timber companies. Wildlife does a lot of damage to the trees and the roads.Hunting and trapping helps to minimize this damage. WDFW could tell them if you charge for access, next time you apply for a damage control permit forget it. It will never happen.What animal damages logging roads? I have never heard of this before.
Rayonier would change their tune in a minute.
Of course WDFW will never do it.
Keep in mind that the animals need open space/timberland for food, cover, bedding, breeding, calving, etc. If there is non incentive for timber companies to log and re-plant and/or manage their lands for timber, A TON of habitat would be lost because timber land would be sold off as soon as it was clear cut. Timber land over a certain number of acres (40, 50?) has to have a timber management plan on file and there are costs for having those prepared as well as paying for foresters, etc. to keep the timber land designation and lower tax. Taking away the tax break is a :bdid:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 14, 2011, 09:13:16 AM
As far as threatening to clear cut and re-plant is concerned, aren't timber companies required to replant within a certain number of years? Aren't their clear cuts done under fairly strict federal and state guidelines?
Post by: YellowDog on July 14, 2011, 09:23:18 AM
You are probably right about the requirements of timber companies to replant and that basically proves my point. They pay less in taxes to offset the COST of making sure the trees are replanted and the forest is managed not only for their pocket books but for the benefit of the wildlife. I'm telling you if you take away the tax break you would see more and more land just sold off and lost to development than we already have. If you think our game populations suck now, you would not like to see what would happen then.
Also, do you think that a guy like Bearpaw with his 30 acres should have to allow you to hunt his land too since his 30 acres of timberland is taxed at a lower rate. Like he said, if he didn't get the break, he would have to sell it off for development purposes and that land would be lost forever for our game animals.
Timber companies and private property owners of timber land that are getting a tax break are already providing a benefit to the citizens of the state by keeping their land undeveloped so that animals have places to hide, eat, breed, sleep, and raise their young.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on July 14, 2011, 09:38:07 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on July 14, 2011, 09:41:18 AM
On November 1968 the people of Washington State voted overwhelming (68%) to tax agricultural, timberlands, and other open spaces for actual use. The concern was the loss of green space to development and therefore the loss of recreation value of these lands. If you do your research and look at the advertisements, newspaper articles, and voter’s pamphlet they all claim public recreation value is a premise for the reduction in taxes. I have attached a few. This is not about government telling them what to do with their lands. This is about increasing profits at the expense of the public. Many of these landowners have closed their mills or the lands have been purchased for their long term income value. Basically this is where the money is at and they are making money. Now they are ignoring state law. If you have a problem with them charging for access then call your county and state elected officials they are the ones who are supposed to enforce the state law.
If someone will explain how to insert an image I will add a few of newspaper advertisements I have located.
Looks like the states version of the Feds enforcing immigration law
Post by: YellowDog on July 14, 2011, 09:49:09 AM
Around here you see coyotes and badgers digging in the roadSo there are enough coyotes and badgers digging in the road that it constitutes enough "damage" that they require expensive repairs? Sounds like you need to kill some coyotes and we need to push for a hunting season on badgers.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on July 14, 2011, 10:47:51 AM
I do know that on the west side a beaver can make a real mess.
Post by: YellowDog on July 14, 2011, 11:09:25 AM
With government budgets getting smaller and smaller any kind of unscheduled maintenance is expensive. Is it a real problem no? It's a couple of new potholes in the road that will probably get filled in the next time the grader comes around (if the county decides the road needs graded this year)We're not talking about state or federal owned lands. We're talking about private property and I believe in most cases the timber companies are responsible for their own road maintenance.
I do know that on the west side a beaver can make a real mess.
I did come up with the beaver dams possibly washing out roads but again, the timber companies should be paying for those repairs.
In any event, the state, and from the sound of it, the citizens years ago decided it was worth it to give the tax break in order to encourage timber companies to stay in the timber business and not sell off their lands for development. This benefits wildlife (even those damn destructive beavers, coyotes, and badgers) too.
Basically I am in favor of the rights private property owners and like it or not the tax breaks do benefit all of the citizens of this state.
Post by: SuperDutyHunter on July 14, 2011, 01:13:35 PM
"What is Forest (Timber) Tax?
In 1971, state law excluded timber from property taxation. In place of a property tax on trees, timber owners pay a 5 percent excise tax on the stumpage value of their timber when it is harvested. In 1982, the Forest Tax was extended to timber harvested from State and Federal land, in addition to private land."
(you can see this text for yourself at: http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx (http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx))
This is the same reason why an individual with 30 acres in timberland isn't required to allow the public on their property. The lower tax rate has absolutely nothing to do with providing recreational access and everything to do with paying high property tax for 30-40 years without revenue while the timber is growing.
Don't forget also that businesses in Washington pay income tax on earnings and those earnings for a timber company come 30-40 years after they spent the initial investment to re-plant and manage the property for an entire rotation.
I'd hate to see the economy in Washington without the revenue and jobs created by timber companies and the forest products industry.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on July 14, 2011, 02:40:02 PM
With all due respect, most people who don't own timberland do not understand. Forestland is just taxed differently, not necessarily at a lower rate. Instead of paying more in property tax every year, that cost is offset until timber is harvested. At that point, timber excise tax is collected on the value of the timber harvested.
"What is Forest (Timber) Tax?
In 1971, state law excluded timber from property taxation. In place of a property tax on trees, timber owners pay a 5 percent excise tax on the stumpage value of their timber when it is harvested. In 1982, the Forest Tax was extended to timber harvested from State and Federal land, in addition to private land."
(you can see this text for yourself at: http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx (http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx))
This is the same reason why an individual with 30 acres in timberland isn't required to allow the public on their property. The lower tax rate has absolutely nothing to do with providing recreational access and everything to do with paying high property tax for 30-40 years without revenue while the timber is growing.
Don't forget also that businesses in Washington pay income tax on earnings and those earnings for a timber company come 30-40 years after they spent the initial investment to re-plant and manage the property for an entire rotation.
I'd hate to see the economy in Washington without the revenue and jobs created by timber companies and the forest products industry.
Nicely written :tup:
Post by: GEARHEAD on July 14, 2011, 05:01:18 PM
Post by: fireweed on July 15, 2011, 08:06:54 AM
I think it isn't so much the "cost" of the permits, its the slippery slope principle as we continue to lose areas that have been traditionally and historically used for hunting and other recreation. My county is half-industrial forestland. That land sits between public roads and public land, making our public land "landlocked". The huge 400,000 acre St. Helens tree farm used to be one of the best reasons to live here. (The garbage thing is a big smoke screen--Weyco. closed their treefarm a year AFTER volunteers started cleaning up garbage--and as soon as the local manager retired, and an out-of-stater replaced him). The only grocery store in town told me that it hurt their business MORE when the treefarm closed than when Weyco. shut down the mill. I could be looking, just to access public land, at the necessity of buying a handful of permits from several industrial treefarm owners just to get through private land to public land, not to mention that the DNR requires a permit too. Just like hyper-regulation in the hunting or fishing rules, pretty soon the "hassle factor" builds up. Less people take to the woods. That might sound good to some folks: Less competition. But over the long term, loss of hunters erodes our support. Erodes funding for game management. Erodes votes on hunting issues. Empowers the anti-hunters. And leads ultimately to loss of hunting for everyone, even those who like the pay to play system.
Post by: Special T on July 15, 2011, 10:19:51 AM
31k acres for $225 and 175 permitts equils $39,375 in raised funds
15k acres up for bid and 30 permitts lets say they go for $1k ea = $30k
This is an estimate, but we are looking a roughly $70k a year raised... What does that buy, from the timber companys perspective? That pays the wage and fuel for one employee to Gaurd the property. The gaurd keeps trash down, tresspassers off, and stuff from being stolen...
Maybe Logger or someone else can verifie this but how many loads of loggs need to be stolen to = $70k? 4-5 loads maybe? My Brother is a Mechanic for a loggin co and has run into Armed timber security keeping an eye on things behind locked gaits...
I don't think a timber company is trying to get rich by selling access, but likely tying to off set the cost of policing the area...
I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but there is a saying... You get what you pay for... Like someone said it doesn't take long to burn up $225 in fuel to travel far away for a hunting spot, especially if you combine that with the ability to cut firewood. :twocents:
Post by: Humptulips on July 15, 2011, 10:30:13 AM
I know about damage caused by some animals (bear, elk, etc.) I was specifically asking about damage to ROADS based on the portion of Humptulips post "Wildlife does a lot of damage to the trees and the roads."
You are probably right about the requirements of timber companies to replant and that basically proves my point. They pay less in taxes to offset the COST of making sure the trees are replanted and the forest is managed not only for their pocket books but for the benefit of the wildlife. I'm telling you if you take away the tax break you would see more and more land just sold off and lost to development than we already have. If you think our game populations suck now, you would not like to see what would happen then.
Also, do you think that a guy like Bearpaw with his 30 acres should have to allow you to hunt his land too since his 30 acres of timberland is taxed at a lower rate. Like he said, if he didn't get the break, he would have to sell it off for development purposes and that land would be lost forever for our game animals.
Timber companies and private property owners of timber land that are getting a tax break are already providing a benefit to the citizens of the state by keeping their land undeveloped so that animals have places to hide, eat, breed, sleep, and raise their young.
Beavers do a lot of damage to roads. Probably the most frequent damage control complaint WCOs get. Mostly plugged culverts and washed out roads. We do get complaints on flooded timberland also.
Bears are a big problem maybe not to the road but to the trees and then you have mountain beaver also. Deer and elk used to do a lot of damage but not so much anymore with the lack of same.
Post by: Humptulips on July 15, 2011, 10:34:53 AM
With all due respect, most people who don't own timberland do not understand. Forestland is just taxed differently, not necessarily at a lower rate. Instead of paying more in property tax every year, that cost is offset until timber is harvested. At that point, timber excise tax is collected on the value of the timber harvested.
"What is Forest (Timber) Tax?
In 1971, state law excluded timber from property taxation. In place of a property tax on trees, timber owners pay a 5 percent excise tax on the stumpage value of their timber when it is harvested. In 1982, the Forest Tax was extended to timber harvested from State and Federal land, in addition to private land."
(you can see this text for yourself at: http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx (http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx))
This is the same reason why an individual with 30 acres in timberland isn't required to allow the public on their property. The lower tax rate has absolutely nothing to do with providing recreational access and everything to do with paying high property tax for 30-40 years without revenue while the timber is growing.
Don't forget also that businesses in Washington pay income tax on earnings and those earnings for a timber company come 30-40 years after they spent the initial investment to re-plant and manage the property for an entire rotation.
I'd hate to see the economy in Washington without the revenue and jobs created by timber companies and the forest products industry.
Ah yes the timber tax. An owner of land that isn't given the special timberland tax break afforded tree farm owners pays exactly the same tax at exactly the same rate when they harvest any trees.
Post by: Humptulips on July 15, 2011, 10:43:35 AM
I want to interject some basic numbers
31k acres for $225 and 175 permitts equils $39,375 in raised funds
15k acres up for bid and 30 permitts lets say they go for $1k ea = $30k
This is an estimate, but we are looking a roughly $70k a year raised... What does that buy, from the timber companys perspective? That pays the wage and fuel for one employee to Gaurd the property. The gaurd keeps trash down, tresspassers off, and stuff from being stolen...
Maybe Logger or someone else can verifie this but how many loads of loggs need to be stolen to = $70k? 4-5 loads maybe? My Brother is a Mechanic for a loggin co and has run into Armed timber security keeping an eye on things behind locked gaits...
I don't think a timber company is trying to get rich by selling access, but likely tying to off set the cost of policing the area...
I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but there is a saying... You get what you pay for... Like someone said it doesn't take long to burn up $225 in fuel to travel far away for a hunting spot, especially if you combine that with the ability to cut firewood. :twocents:
My problem with it is the slippery slope argument. Once this starts pretty soon it will be pay to hunt everywhere. This will cut down on hunter numbers which means less political clout and less money for WDFW equals higher licenses to pay the bills which goes back to less hunters and so on until our numbers are so low HSUS gets there way.
Post by: Special T on July 15, 2011, 10:52:32 AM
There is a saying in Sales... The Bitterness of poor service lasts much longer than the sweetnes of a low price!
No trash, less thugs in the woods, less pressure, sounds like a pretty good deal to me. :twocents:
Post by: Humptulips on July 15, 2011, 11:42:09 AM
It is a slippery slope but there is little we can do about it. I know i will choose a quaility hunting experience for more $ over free hunting with a bad experience..
There is a saying in Sales... The Bitterness of poor service lasts much longer than the sweetnes of a low price!
No trash, less thugs in the woods, less pressure, sounds like a pretty good deal to me. :twocents:
The thing is I don't see the trash, never really have. Most trash I see is left by brush pickers that are buyig permits for access now.
Thugs ? Not even sure what you mean by that. Must be a Puget Sound thing. And less pressure at the expense of the future of hunting.
We all talk about getting the younger generation interested in hunting. This is the antithesis of that.
Poor service it may be but are you going to get something better then what you received for free before. I doubt if there will be anymore deer or elk.
Post by: SuperDutyHunter on July 15, 2011, 01:05:41 PM
RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings.
As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:
(1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.
THE ABOVE ARE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT THE LEGISLATURE FOUND JUSTIFY THE SIGNIFICANT TAX BREAK OUTLINED IN WA. STATE LAW. If the "recreational spaces" talked about above were meant "pay for play" how is this benefitting the public?? And even if it isn't laid out precisely that they are getting a tax break partly for providing recreation, this is something that can be changed by the people with a tweek to this law. Remeber, the people are ultimately in charge.
I don't see here where it states how or for what price timber companies (or anyone with timberland for that matter) need to provide scenic and recreational spaces. Where does it say this needs to be provided for free? Looks like the lawmakers and policymakers missed a very important piece of the puzzle/code if they wanted this to be a free benefit to the public.
I also still don't see a difference between an individual who owns 30 acres and pays designated forestland/timberland taxes and timber companies. The fact of the matter is, it's PRIVATE PROPERTY. If a timber company needs to provide scenic and recreational access (for free apparently) then so should every individual that pays "reduced" timberland taxes on their acreage. I don't know about you, but that isn't going to fly on my property (from my cold dead hands kind of thing).
I fully understand everyone's concern about reduced funding and the future of hunting however this is a matter of property rights. After moving here from Pennsylvania where you're lucky to find public property to hunt on, consider yourselves blessed to live in a state with one of the largest percentages of public land in the United States. Also consider yourselves lucky to have had the opportunity for countless years to hunt for free on property that you do not pay taxes on, nor own.
Timber companies and the forest products industry may indeed get "tax breaks" if you must, but don't forget that many other industries are "subsidized" in some form or another. You honestly think farmers would be producing half of the crops/vegetables they do if it weren't for subsidies or other forms of "tax breaks"? So why do states and feds do this? To create jobs and minimize land conversion to "higher and better" uses.
Let's all make it harder for businesses to survive, the timber companies will go under and the land can be turned over to the state or worse the Forest Service and everyone can hunt to their heart's content (after you buy your Discovery Pass). What are you going to have then? You already have a state that's in financial hardship and will be even worse off when state income tax is gone because timber companies are gone and you'll loose more jobs than I care to count.
Just remember this is private property and think how you would feel if you had someone saying you had to allow the public onto your property for free just because you pay forestland taxes on it.
Post by: predatorpro on July 15, 2011, 01:22:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 15, 2011, 01:59:07 PM
Post by: fireweed on July 15, 2011, 05:55:13 PM
Nobody is suggesting that anyone-even big companies-be "forced" to allow the public on their land. But when you enroll property for these tax breaks, the government does tell you what to do. If it's a farm, you must show income and farm. If you stop farming, they yank you from the program and send you a bill for 7 years back taxes. If it's timberland and you don't replant, or let brush take over, they might do the work for you and send you a bill, or yank you from the program. Afterall, you've made a deal with the tax man. Shouldn't a company that does allow free public access pay slightly lower tax rate than one with "keep out" signs or a pay-for-entry system? Right now, in Washington state, there is a property tax option that works exactly this way. Its called open space/open space. If you have land that isn't farm and isn't commercial forest, you can enroll it in openspace/openspace. You get percent in taxable value reductions for the different public benefits, like wildlife habitat, critical areas, and public access. If you allow public access you pay a lower tax rate than if you do not,everything else being equal. (One eastern Wa county counts "public access" if your land is enrolled in WDFW's "feel free to hunt" program.)
Remember, there is no right to lower taxes than you neighbor, unless the neighbor says it's ok and worth it for them. In this case, your neighbors are the citizens of the state.
Post by: Goldeneye on July 15, 2011, 06:31:24 PM
Post by: Special T on July 15, 2011, 08:05:19 PM
Post by: TheHunt on July 15, 2011, 08:45:36 PM
Post by: Goldeneye on July 15, 2011, 08:48:59 PM
Post by: foambeetle on July 15, 2011, 11:58:40 PM
people access these lands get hurt and sue the timber companies...sorry folks there's a whole need breed of cats out there and they suck,or should I say vacume,we will see if the censor's kick in :chuckle:
:yeah:
Good point to bring up Rasbo.
Those of you who do get permits from timberlands (such as Hancock) usually have to sign a document basically saying you are entering at your own risk and if you get injured/die it is your fault. Obviously landowners who let people enter their lands freely don't have this "contract".
I know of a coal company who for many years would let people enter their lands as long as they got permission from the company. Basically all you had to do was go to their office give them your info and they gave you a card about twice the size of a business card with some basic regulations on it. About 6/7 years ago they went from permission only to no trespassing and there were two reasons, vandalism (dumping, etc) and liability issues.
You guys may be interested in RCW 4.24.210 . . . "[a]ny public or private landowners or others in lawful possession and control of any lands . . . who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to . . . hunting, fishing . . . without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users."
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on July 16, 2011, 12:50:05 AM
Post by: SuperDutyHunter on July 18, 2011, 12:02:23 PM
This debate isn't about property rights, it's about property taxes.
Nobody is suggesting that anyone-even big companies-be "forced" to allow the public on their land. But when you enroll property for these tax breaks, the government does tell you what to do. If it's a farm, you must show income and farm. If you stop farming, they yank you from the program and send you a bill for 7 years back taxes. If it's timberland and you don't replant, or let brush take over, they might do the work for you and send you a bill, or yank you from the program. Afterall, you've made a deal with the tax man. Shouldn't a company that does allow free public access pay slightly lower tax rate than one with "keep out" signs or a pay-for-entry system? Right now, in Washington state, there is a property tax option that works exactly this way. Its called open space/open space. If you have land that isn't farm and isn't commercial forest, you can enroll it in openspace/openspace. You get percent in taxable value reductions for the different public benefits, like wildlife habitat, critical areas, and public access. If you allow public access you pay a lower tax rate than if you do not,everything else being equal. (One eastern Wa county counts "public access" if your land is enrolled in WDFW's "feel free to hunt" program.)
Remember, there is no right to lower taxes than you neighbor, unless the neighbor says it's ok and worth it for them. In this case, your neighbors are the citizens of the state.
Maybe you ought to really think about what you're saying here for a minute. If you truly believe what you're saying...then there are an awful lot of "citizens of the state" (mind you I'm not talking about timber companies here) that will be owing a lot of back taxes or seeing increased property taxes because they have their private property in forestland tax classification and have been REFUSING public access to their property much longer than any timber company has! These are members of the voting public and you really think they will support raising their own taxes just to "stick it" to the timber companies?
Before going off on some things, maybe people need to look at the big picture and maybe even do a little research first.
Table 3. Forest Land (Acres) by Ownership in Washington State: A Current Estimate excerpted from: http://www.cfr.washington.edu/nwef/documents/SciencePapers/tp1.pdf (http://www.cfr.washington.edu/nwef/documents/SciencePapers/tp1.pdf)
Total Forest land: 22,000,000
Public: 12,600,000
Private: 9,400,000
Industrial: 2,900,000
Non-industrial: 6,500,000
Large: 3,300,000
Small: 3,200,000
Small non-industrial landowners are primarily family forests and an example of a large non-industrial landowner would be Rayonier as seen in figure 2 (page seven) of http://www.cfr.washington.edu/nwef/documents/SciencePapers/tp1.pdf (http://www.cfr.washington.edu/nwef/documents/SciencePapers/tp1.pdf) (numbers above in table 3 are also from this document on page eight).
As you can see, if you had your way and those with forestland were taxed at a higher rate if they chose to close their property to public access, you'll be hurting those citizens of the state as you referred to them (3.2 million acres of family forests OR 49% of all non-industrial timberland) To be honest with you, that tax increase is probably a lot easier to swallow for a large successful company than all of those small fixed income families.
:bdid: Everyone back up fireweed and maybe we can bring down the state's economy together!
If you stir the pot, make sure it's a stick with some facts behind it. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, it's probably not a good idea.
Post by: kckrawler on July 18, 2011, 12:06:41 PM
Salmon Creek has 4 days left and one of the auctions on EBAY is up to $455 now.
This right here is what scares me the most...once the rest of the timber companies see that, I'll bet the days of the $225 permit are over.
For those who aren't following, the rifle hunts are all over $1000 and ones at $1500 now...
Post by: fireweed on July 18, 2011, 03:46:21 PM
I simply do not see how being informed about the in's and out's of something that affects all of us in one way or another--property taxes-- is bad for the state or the economy. Stirring the pot is good because an informed debate is part of our system. Ignorant citizens who never question the status quo do benefit some, however. This debate IS valuable. Right now timberland owners may be reading these posts. Perhaps it's a company, like Rayonier, with out of state investors. They could be pressuring local managers to charge for access. Afterall they charge "back home" in Alabama, or Georgia or Texas--why not here. The local managers haven't had a good answer to "Why don't you charge for access?!" Now, perhaps, they do have an answer. "We don't charge because the benefits aren't that much, we lose our liability immunity, and could put our property tax rate in jeopardy. It's just not worth it."
Post by: SuperDutyHunter on July 18, 2011, 05:04:16 PM
"Everyone back up fireweed and maybe we can bring down the state's economy together!"
I simply do not see how being informed about the in's and out's of something that affects all of us in one way or another--property taxes-- is bad for the state or the economy. Stirring the pot is good because an informed debate is part of our system. Ignorant citizens who never question the status quo do benefit some, however. This debate IS valuable. Right now timberland owners may be reading these posts. Perhaps it's a company, like Rayonier, with out of state investors. They could be pressuring local managers to charge for access. Afterall they charge "back home" in Alabama, or Georgia or Texas--why not here. The local managers haven't had a good answer to "Why don't you charge for access?!" Now, perhaps, they do have an answer. "We don't charge because the benefits aren't that much, we lose our liability immunity, and could put our property tax rate in jeopardy. It's just not worth it."
If you had taken the time to read the terms and conditions agreement on the website, it states:
"3. Upon execution of this Access Permit, PERMITTEE shall pay RAYONIER for the rights and privileges herein granted and for RAYONIER’s purchase of a liability insurance policy. The insurance coverage therein purchased shall include $1,000,000 Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability and a $250 deductible per claim."
So I don't think they are too worried about losing their liability immunity.
As stated in my previous post, I highly doubt that their property tax rate will change because with 49% of non-industrial timberland being owned by private individuals/families. I don't know of a single person who owns timberland in designated forestland (including myself) that would vote for legislation that would increase their own property tax rate. I also don't know anyone who owns timberland that also freely allows the public on their private property for hunting or any other reason.
Post by: tman24 on July 28, 2011, 09:35:24 PM
Post by: TheHunt on September 20, 2011, 11:30:02 AM