Post by: AKBowman on June 13, 2012, 11:04:05 AM
I spoke to a couple guys I ran into in the late season last year that said it was a ZOO in there. Said they probably had more timber damage due to people driving ATV's off trail than they made from the permits. Good news for Rayonier was that with all the permit holders in there driving all over the place with vehicles and ATV's it drove a lot of the elk off their land.
I would never buy one just curious if they are selling them again this year?
Post by: shadowless_nite on June 27, 2012, 07:28:21 AM
"Hello,
We don't have any details finalized yet. We are hoping to roll this program out this summer. " recieved 3/9/12
Im hoping they were just talking out of their arse in march and maybe they will return this area back to the same way with gates closed during early archery so I can blow the dust off my bike again. I emailed them on the 9th and have yet to receive a response. maybe ill give them a call and see
Post by: BowBender87 on June 27, 2012, 11:09:37 AM
Post by: meathacker on June 27, 2012, 11:36:07 AM
Post by: BowBender87 on June 27, 2012, 11:52:55 AM
Post by: meathacker on June 27, 2012, 12:42:17 PM
they werent allowing walk in hunting? since when and at which gates were they enforcing this
nope not unless you had a rayoneir Permit. Last year was the first year. It was also a new gate. I believe it was on the 5800 if my memory serves me right. we have nicknames for everything so we never use the real road names that everyone else will know over the radio.
Post by: BowBender87 on June 27, 2012, 01:13:15 PM
Post by: meathacker on June 27, 2012, 01:37:42 PM
Post by: AKBowman on June 27, 2012, 01:44:56 PM
The guards for the surrounding timber co's were pissed b/c they had to up their patrol work load and were even talking about adding new gates on the inner boundaries. ATV's everywhere is the info I received.
Post by: AKBowman on June 27, 2012, 01:50:37 PM
wierd...not sure where the 5800 is i havent spent a whole lot of time in the fossil creek area...but i did go down a couple weeks ago and biked in about 6 miles..the signs at the gates just said no vehicle access with out permit...walk in was still allowed..and that was on rayonier
Yeah that was the same last yr this time of yr then they had a sign up just before season, also a guard at the gate checking access permits.
Post by: BowBender87 on June 27, 2012, 02:05:07 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 27, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
As far as this year goes, we can hope for the best. But Im thinking it will be the same as last year. Look for timber co to continue profiting off public resources.
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 02:33:06 PM
AK.... I heard similar stories as you. Especially regarding the straying vehicles onto surrounding timberlands. I have firsthand knowledge of this :bash: Not a rumor I spoke to a JA that had drove all the way through. And was way outside his permitted area.They are profiting off THEIR resources. It's private land. They can control access however they want. It sucks but it's their right.
As far as this year goes, we can hope for the best. But Im thinking it will be the same as last year. Look for timber co to continue profiting off public resources.
Post by: AKBowman on June 27, 2012, 03:30:20 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 04:21:18 PM
The elk are public resourcesthey are not selling elk.
Post by: bobcat on June 27, 2012, 04:27:52 PM
The elk are public resourcesthey are not selling elk.
Basically, that is what they are doing, is selling elk, or the right to hunt elk.
If a person wanted to just go for a hike in that area would they need to pay for an access permit?
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 04:51:55 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 27, 2012, 04:56:07 PM
No they aren't. They are selling access. The permit is to enter THEIR land. You buy the elk from the state when you buy your tag.Those elk are free ranging and can go to Weyerhaeuser land or Hancock land or state land any time they want. You can buy the permit and not even hunt elk.
I understand all that. But how many people are purchasing the permit for something other than elk hunting? I'd bet not very many, and most likely, none.
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 05:12:57 PM
No they aren't. They are selling access. The permit is to enter THEIR land. You buy the elk from the state when you buy your tag.Those elk are free ranging and can go to Weyerhaeuser land or Hancock land or state land any time they want. You can buy the permit and not even hunt elk.
I understand all that. But how many people are purchasing the permit for something other than elk hunting? I'd bet not very many, and most likely, none.
I also understand that. But that doesn't mean they are selling the elk. They are selling the right to access their land. Saying they are selling the Elk is like saying Cabelas is selling the elk because you bought the rifle/bow that you used to kill the elk there. They are not selling the elk, they are selling a very useful tool to help harvest the elk (access to their land). The same as Cabelas sells you a very useful tool, but not the Elk. As much as I would love to have it all accessible to the public like it used to be I also am not going to berate someone for trying to make money off their land. That's why they bought the land to begin with, to make money. They figured out how to make more money then just logging it. Can't really blame them for that. Besides it will drastically reduce illegal dumping and equipment theft/tampering. So you can berate them all you want but imagine you had a huge chunk of land. Would you let the public hunt on it with unlimited access for free? What about after they stole some stuff and dumped some trash?
Post by: bobcat on June 27, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
But I do wish there was some way private timber companies could be required to allow public access, just for hunting.
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 06:34:20 PM
I agree with all that you're saying. It is their land, and they can do what they want.
But I do wish there was some way private timber companies could be required to allow public access, just for hunting.
I understand where you're coming from but I whole heartedly disagree. While I would love more hunting access, requiring a private land owner to allow access for hunting would be terrible. How would you feel if the government told you that you were required to allow bird watchers into your back yard? Even though you know they would leave garbage and steal your stuff. Sound fair? I don't think so. You would be throwing land owner rights right out the window. Like I said, I'm all for more access but I don't think the government should destroy private land owners rights to do it. :sry:
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 06:39:36 PM
Post by: AKBowman on June 27, 2012, 07:28:57 PM
The elk are public resourcesthey are not selling elk.
No just access to the public resources
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 07:35:36 PM
actually they are selling access to their land.The elk are public resourcesthey are not selling elk.
No just access to the public resources
Post by: AKBowman on June 27, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
actually they are selling access to their land.The elk are public resourcesthey are not selling elk.
No just access to the public resources
I don't really want to get in an argument about it and generally agree with the statements you have made earlier. It's just that they own such large tracts of land and selling access to that land to those that can afford it is going to do nothing but bad things for hunting in this state and hunting in general.
Out of the areas you mentioned above only fossil and salmon creek are locked up, the other areas are gated but still allow access, correct?
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 07:57:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 27, 2012, 08:03:47 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 27, 2012, 08:06:09 PM
Post by: AKBowman on June 27, 2012, 08:18:57 PM
Well, one thing is if some of these tree farms are alse going to be used as "elk farms" maybe the zoning designation should be something other than just "forest land" and the property be taxed at a higher rate. I know I'm not the first person to think of this
Something needs to be done that's for sure.
The thing is I wouldn't mind paying for access if the access permit DID NOT allow you to take a motorized vehicle onto the land. If it allowed campIng and access but no
Motorized vehicles i would be all over it. I would still not be for it, I just can't see how allowing walk or bike in access is causing them any issues
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 28, 2012, 07:12:08 AM
Im sure this is probably a topic best put in SYM, But I just beleive its a sneaky way to charge to hunt. And the loophole should be closed up is all. In your cabelas analogy the problem is that cabelas is selling you something you didnt already have ownership in. The people already "own" the elk. My license and tag, are payment to you and the rest of the public for the opportunty to harvest one.
Heres an example, I have elk on my property, your driving by and see them standing in my field. I dont own the elk but I own the property they are on. You stop and ask me if you can hunt them, I say no. Thats my right as a property owner. You offer to pay me to hunt them, if I say yes I am immediatley profiting off of a public resource regardless of whether you kill one or not. Now, could I charge folks to access my property and take pics of the elk, pick my flowers, camp on my property? Sure I can since I own the flowers, the campground, and the rights to the pictures. But not the right hunt I dont own that and I dont own the elk no matter how much land control.
If they want to charge for access thats fine but not for hunting, if you are caught hunting on an access pass it should be the same as poaching.
Post by: grundy53 on June 28, 2012, 08:03:49 AM
:sry: Sorry guys, I didn't mean to derail the thread. Grundy.... I agree 100 percent with you on property rights and their right to deny and/or limit access :tup:. My issue isn't about their access pass, its about their access pass to HUNT. I know, I know any non-hunter could buy one, its only granting acess. And as much as I would like it I dont beleive the state or any entity should force granting access. My point is only NON HUNTERS should be able to access. How many permits would they sell if hunting wasnt allowed?
Im sure this is probably a topic best put in SYM, But I just beleive its a sneaky way to charge to hunt. And the loophole should be closed up is all. In your cabelas analogy the problem is that cabelas is selling you something you didnt already have ownership in. The people already "own" the elk. My license and tag, are payment to you and the rest of the public for the opportunty to harvest one.
Heres an example, I have elk on my property, your driving by and see them standing in my field. I dont own the elk but I own the property they are on. You stop and ask me if you can hunt them, I say no. Thats my right as a property owner. You offer to pay me to hunt them, if I say yes I am immediatley profiting off of a public resource regardless of whether you kill one or not. Now, could I charge folks to access my property and take pics of the elk, pick my flowers, camp on my property? Sure I can since I own the flowers, the campground, and the rights to the pictures. But not the right hunt I dont own that and I dont own the elk no matter how much land control.
If they want to charge for access thats fine but not for hunting, if you are caught hunting on an access pass it should be the same as poaching.
In my analogy I was comparing the rifle from Cabelas to the access, not to the elk. They are both tools. As far as it being wrong to sell the right to hunt.... we own the elk not the right to hunt. I couldn't disagree with you more on your stance. if you made it poaching for paying to hunt on private land then you would have to shut down almost all guides and outfitters. Then you look at the guides and outfitters that hunt on public land... oh wait they are profitting off of our public resources too. Better outlaw them too.
Post by: AKBowman on June 28, 2012, 09:24:50 AM
:sry: Sorry guys, I didnt mean to derail the thread. Grundy.... I agree 100 percent with you on property rights and their right to deny and/or limit access :tup:. My issue isnt about their access pass, its about their access pass to HUNT. I know, I know any non-hunter could buy one, its only granting acess. And as much as I would like it I dont beleive the state or any entity should force granting access. My point is only NON HUNTERS should be able to access. How many permits would they sell if hunting wasnt allowed?
Im sure this is probably a topic best put in SYM, But I just beleive its a sneaky way to charge to hunt. And the loophole should be closed up is all. In your cabelas analogy the problem is that cabelas is selling you something you didnt already have ownership in. The people already "own" the elk. My license and tag, are payment to you and the rest of the public for the opportunty to harvest one.
Heres an example, I have elk on my property, your driving by and see them standing in my field. I dont own the elk but I own the property they are on. You stop and ask me if you can hunt them, I say no. Thats my right as a property owner. You offer to pay me to hunt them, if I say yes I am immediatley profiting off of a public resource regardless of whether you kill one or not. Now, could I charge folks to access my property and take pics of the elk, pick my flowers, camp on my property? Sure I can since I own the flowers, the campground, and the rights to the pictures. But not the right hunt I dont own that and I dont own the elk no matter how much land control.
If they want to charge for access thats fine but not for hunting, if you are caught hunting on an access pass it should be the same as poaching.
As usual well said BVBH. In a nutshell it is a sneaky way to charge for hunting. Bottom line is as it sits today the timber co's have the rights to do what they are doing and I support those rights. I just think there needs to be some intervention from somewhere that will change things to keep allowing access to these vast areas.
BVBH makes a great point in the idea that although the timber co's are not necessarily selling these access permits as "hunting" permits, essentially hunters are the only group purchasing them. If the costs of hunting keep increasing and access decreasing their soon won't be any hunters left to make $ off of. No ones going to spend $250 to drive around and look at a bunch of trees. If the state starting giving tax breaks to timber co's that allowed free access that might be a good start
Post by: sirmissalot on June 28, 2012, 09:47:58 AM
:sry: Sorry guys, I didnt mean to derail the thread. Grundy.... I agree 100 percent with you on property rights and their right to deny and/or limit access :tup:. My issue isnt about their access pass, its about their access pass to HUNT. I know, I know any non-hunter could buy one, its only granting acess. And as much as I would like it I dont beleive the state or any entity should force granting access. My point is only NON HUNTERS should be able to access. How many permits would they sell if hunting wasnt allowed?
Im sure this is probably a topic best put in SYM, But I just beleive its a sneaky way to charge to hunt. And the loophole should be closed up is all. In your cabelas analogy the problem is that cabelas is selling you something you didnt already have ownership in. The people already "own" the elk. My license and tag, are payment to you and the rest of the public for the opportunty to harvest one.
Heres an example, I have elk on my property, your driving by and see them standing in my field. I dont own the elk but I own the property they are on. You stop and ask me if you can hunt them, I say no. Thats my right as a property owner. You offer to pay me to hunt them, if I say yes I am immediatley profiting off of a public resource regardless of whether you kill one or not. Now, could I charge folks to access my property and take pics of the elk, pick my flowers, camp on my property? Sure I can since I own the flowers, the campground, and the rights to the pictures. But not the right hunt I dont own that and I dont own the elk no matter how much land control.
If they want to charge for access thats fine but not for hunting, if you are caught hunting on an access pass it should be the same as poaching.
As usual well said BVBH. In a nutshell it is a sneaky way to charge for hunting. Bottom line is as it sits today the timber co's have the rights to do what they are doing and I support those rights. I just think there needs to be some intervention from somewhere that will change things to keep allowing access to these vast areas.
BVBH makes a great point in the idea that although the timber co's are not necessarily selling these access permits as "hunting" permits, essentially hunters are the only group purchasing them. If the costs of hunting keep increasing and access decreasing their soon won't be any hunters left to make $ off of. No ones going to spend $250 to drive around and look at a bunch of trees. If the state starting giving tax breaks to timber co's that allowed free access that might be a good start
Its to my understanding that the state already does provide tax breaks to allow access. Not sure how it works especially when it comes to charging access fees, and allowing vehicles or walk in only but there are laws in place for all of this. Maybe someone can step in and clarify the laws.
I'm not saying its right to charge access fees but it is private land, and in my opinion we can all benefit from a change in land management. If not every Tom Dick and Harry can drive up in the woods, day or night, I can see improved hunting for those of us willing to fork out the cash and privilege to hunt there. Hancock does a pretty good job managing the land and therfore the wildlife.
Post by: AKBowman on June 28, 2012, 11:18:23 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 28, 2012, 11:24:29 AM
This question has come up in previous posts and I believe the consensus is NO the state does not provide tax breaks to Timber Co's for allowing public access.:yeah:
Post by: zackmioli on June 28, 2012, 11:45:21 AM
Post by: JPhelps on June 28, 2012, 11:54:52 AM
I hate the thought that I may not be able to take my kids hunting on the ground that my family has been hunting way before land management strategies changed.
Post by: tman24 on June 28, 2012, 10:51:07 PM
Post by: BowBender87 on June 29, 2012, 12:24:13 AM
He said that Weyco is moving to have access permits soon.
:tup:
Post by: mrgoodwrench on June 29, 2012, 11:03:08 AM
wierd...not sure where the 5800 is i havent spent a whole lot of time in the fossil creek area...but i did go down a couple weeks ago and biked in about 6 miles..the signs at the gates just said no vehicle access with out permit...walk in was still allowed..and that was on rayonier
You didn't read the sign correctly.....there is NO PUBLIC ACCESS without a permit. You don't want a criminal trespass ticket in Pacific County. I know a couple guys who got them and they were $1100.
Post by: mrgoodwrench on June 29, 2012, 11:05:19 AM
The elk are public resourcesthey are not selling elk.
Basically, that is what they are doing, is selling elk, or the right to hunt elk.
If a person wanted to just go for a hike in that area would they need to pay for an access permit?
YES. All public access in this area is on a fee basis and requires a permit. It is legal, you can cahrge for ACCESS....that is what Rayonier is selling.
Post by: mrgoodwrench on June 29, 2012, 11:17:58 AM
I understand everyone's complaints, I used to hunt all of this area, and I work for the company. I now hunt public land since I can't hunt the tree farm without a permit. The only thing I can say is that I see more elk and far fewer hunters when I get out on public land than in the areas that are open to the public on private industrial timberland.
Rayonier isn't the only company doing permits, Hancock has the Kapowasin, Merril and Ring has the Physt, Weyco had one in Molalla Oregon, I think Port Blakely has one by Riffe Lake......and there will be more to come from other companies. Rather than pissing and moaning online.....everyone should pressure WDFW to secure some hunter access with the money we spend.
Post by: BowBender87 on June 29, 2012, 11:31:55 AM
wierd...not sure where the 5800 is i havent spent a whole lot of time in the fossil creek area...but i did go down a couple weeks ago and biked in about 6 miles..the signs at the gates just said no vehicle access with out permit...walk in was still allowed..and that was on rayonier
You didn't read the sign correctly.....there is NO PUBLIC ACCESS without a permit. You don't want a criminal trespass ticket in Pacific County. I know a couple guys who got them and they were $1100.
I wont argue about a sign that I seen. The sign I read allowed walk/bike in and it was rayonier.
Post by: HoofsandWings on June 30, 2012, 09:22:55 AM
This practice started in the South (Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, etc). The timber companies that own land there also own land here.
Post by: HoofsandWings on June 30, 2012, 09:30:26 AM
Post by: TimberCutter on June 30, 2012, 06:27:10 PM
Post by: mrgoodwrench on July 01, 2012, 09:48:58 AM
wierd...not sure where the 5800 is i havent spent a whole lot of time in the fossil creek area...but i did go down a couple weeks ago and biked in about 6 miles..the signs at the gates just said no vehicle access with out permit...walk in was still allowed..and that was on rayonier
You didn't read the sign correctly.....there is NO PUBLIC ACCESS without a permit. You don't want a criminal trespass ticket in Pacific County. I know a couple guys who got them and they were $1100.
I wont argue about a sign that I seen. The sign I read allowed walk/bike in and it was rayonier.
Well whether you'll argue or not, you misread the sign. We don't have any signs that allow vehicle access with a permit, and walk in access. You may have seen a red dot sign that doesn't allow vehicle access, or you saw one that mentions a permit....and precludes any non permitted access. Just trying to help you guys out of a fine.
Post by: meathacker on July 03, 2012, 07:39:54 AM
Post by: tjsr61 on July 03, 2012, 08:48:56 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on July 03, 2012, 10:53:08 AM
This question has come up in previous posts and I believe the consensus is NO the state does not provide tax breaks to Timber Co's for allowing public access.
The tax breaks are not specifically for allowing public access. However, the timber companies do get a large tax break as "timberlands" and pay a very low tax rate on their land. In the fine print it does say this is to help provide recreation. I think more than anything, polically, its in the timber companies best interest to allow public access. You are correct though that they do not receive a tax break for allowing public access. I thought somewhere I read that when the state worked out a deal which basically traded the timber companies for land, that part of the deal was allowing access to the public, I can't seem to find anything about it though so I must have misunderstood.
Post by: grundy53 on July 03, 2012, 11:05:42 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on July 03, 2012, 12:07:44 PM
Post by: mrgoodwrench on July 06, 2012, 08:04:20 PM
This question has come up in previous posts and I believe the consensus is NO the state does not provide tax breaks to Timber Co's for allowing public access.
The tax breaks are not specifically for allowing public access. However, the timber companies do get a large tax break as "timberlands" and pay a very low tax rate on their land. In the fine print it does say this is to help provide recreation. I think more than anything, polically, its in the timber companies best interest to allow public access. You are correct though that they do not receive a tax break for allowing public access. I thought somewhere I read that when the state worked out a deal which basically traded the timber companies for land, that part of the deal was allowing access to the public, I can't seem to find anything about it though so I must have misunderstood.
Timber owners pay a reduced tax rate as their crop grows.....when we harvest we pay a HUGE excise tax on the value of the timber harvested. No one could afford to put a value on their timber every year, and pay the apporiate tax for it. It is easier for everyone to pay it when it is cut, and at the current market price.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx (http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx)
Post by: TimberCutter on July 09, 2012, 02:54:06 PM
Post by: spin05 on July 10, 2012, 12:57:05 AM
So i go to work this morning up trap creek and through the salmon creek gate, I come back through the gate after work and there is a pickup load of trash dumped at the gate. Not yard waste just pure house hold crap!!! Just another nail in are coffin. Oh i wish i would of caught them.
Yup i agree. I get real tired of seeing that. If they dont dump it there then it is on the end of some dead end landing. The thing is it isnt the hunters do this,But we get punished for it. I hunted salmon Creek for years. The one thing i liked about down there is i never saw much garbage dumped. Probly Tweakers.......
Post by: PLUVIUSWAPITI on July 10, 2012, 04:56:57 PM
Post by: slim9300 on July 10, 2012, 04:57:53 PM
This question has come up in previous posts and I believe the consensus is NO the state does not provide tax breaks to Timber Co's for allowing public access.
The tax breaks are not specifically for allowing public access. However, the timber companies do get a large tax break as "timberlands" and pay a very low tax rate on their land. In the fine print it does say this is to help provide recreation. I think more than anything, polically, its in the timber companies best interest to allow public access. You are correct though that they do not receive a tax break for allowing public access. I thought somewhere I read that when the state worked out a deal which basically traded the timber companies for land, that part of the deal was allowing access to the public, I can't seem to find anything about it though so I must have misunderstood.
Timber owners pay a reduced tax rate as their crop grows.....when we harvest we pay a HUGE excise tax on the value of the timber harvested. No one could afford to put a value on their timber every year, and pay the apporiate tax for it. It is easier for everyone to pay it when it is cut, and at the current market price.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx (http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx)
Exactly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: mrgoodwrench on July 14, 2012, 10:40:48 AM
So i go to work this morning up trap creek and through the salmon creek gate, I come back through the gate after work and there is a pickup load of trash dumped at the gate. Not yard waste just pure house hold crap!!! Just another nail in are coffin. Oh i wish i would of caught them.
Cutter-
Our security guy found the same pile....we got three forms of ID from it on the powerline road. Hopefully Pacific County will pursue it. Which side are you cutting on?
Post by: slim9300 on July 14, 2012, 10:30:54 PM
So i go to work this morning up trap creek and through the salmon creek gate, I come back through the gate after work and there is a pickup load of trash dumped at the gate. Not yard waste just pure house hold crap!!! Just another nail in are coffin. Oh i wish i would of caught them.
Cutter-
Our security guy found the same pile....we got three forms of ID from it on the powerline road. Hopefully Pacific County will pursue it. Which side are you cutting on?
Wtf is wrong with people. If the police don't do anything I would suggest taking your worst smelling garbage and putting it on their porch. Leave a note that says, "Looked like the perfect spot for some garbage."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TimberCutter on July 15, 2012, 07:42:56 AM
Post by: logger on July 15, 2012, 08:53:40 AM
Post by: shadowless_nite on July 17, 2012, 12:47:25 AM
Post by: fireweed on July 17, 2012, 09:30:42 AM
The land and timber are taxed seperately. Yes, there is a big excise tax on harvest, but each year there is still a small tax on the land, that is taxed less than the land your house sits on because it provides public benefits. The law doesn't specifically say how much each public benefit is worth, but the legislative findings in the law DO list them:
Legislative findings.
(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.
Therefore the state is justifying the tax break on timber and timberland. And therefore timberland owners are double-dipping into the public's pocket when they charge fees: they get part of their LAND taxbreak from providing "recreational spaces" and they can charge the public too. I say the system should have a value for each benefit, like 20% for recreation, and the timberland that charge get as smaller tax break than those that don't charge.
Their are other loopholes too. Developements pioneered by Weyerhaeuser called "forest reserves" use the taxation loopholes to pay timberland rates on land that will never be managed for raw materials or logged. Hard to imagine logging trucks, slash piles, and helicopter spraying in gated communities of McMansions. They won't log or will log so rarely, they won't pay excise tax. Timberland should meet the intent of the law to get such a tax breaks.
Post by: sirmissalot on July 17, 2012, 09:45:02 AM
About the tax breaks.
The land and timber are taxed seperately. Yes, there is a big excise tax on harvest, but each year there is still a small tax on the land, that is taxed less than the land your house sits on because it provides public benefits. The law doesn't specifically say how much each public benefit is worth, but the legislative findings in the law DO list them:
Legislative findings.
(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.
Therefore the state is justifying the tax break on timber and timberland. And therefore timberland owners are double-dipping into the public's pocket when they charge fees: they get part of their LAND taxbreak from providing "recreational spaces" and they can charge the public too. I say the system should have a value for each benefit, like 20% for recreation, and the timberland that charge get as smaller tax break than those that don't charge.
Their are other loopholes too. Developements pioneered by Weyerhaeuser called "forest reserves" use the taxation loopholes to pay timberland rates on land that will never be managed for raw materials or logged. Hard to imagine logging trucks, slash piles, and helicopter spraying in gated communities of McMansions. They won't log or will log so rarely, they won't pay excise tax. Timberland should meet the intent of the law to get such a tax breaks.
Exactly what I was trying to say. Its just in their best interest, policitally, to provide recreational access. Otherwise we as voters could change the laws (maybe). Its already being talked about, both for timber companies who won't provide public access and to those who charge access fees.
Post by: HoofsandWings on July 17, 2012, 01:48:28 PM
That burns my ass, I am doing a green diamond unit, last week the crew left at 3 p.m I stayed and shovel logged till 7p.m when I get to the gate, there is 22 bags of household garbage right in the road.Well, it could be bear hunters trying to get the bears out in the open for the opener. Or it could be coyote hunters.
Post by: slim9300 on July 17, 2012, 04:08:00 PM
That burns my ass, I am doing a green diamond unit, last week the crew left at 3 p.m I stayed and shovel logged till 7p.m when I get to the gate, there is 22 bags of household garbage right in the road.Well, it could be bear hunters trying to get the bears out in the open for the opener. Or it could be coyote hunters.
It doesn't sound like you are kidding and if you aren't, you need to reassess your views of hunters in general. I don't know a single hunter that would dump bags of garbage on a logging road. The only people that do that are meth heads and idiots that I wouldn't mind seeing disappear from society.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: HoofsandWings on July 17, 2012, 04:30:15 PM
My hunting partner had some real low lifes surround him when he came out of the woods and was heading to the truck. They did not say anything, but they intimidated him to leave the area.
Over next to the Toutle unit, a guy shot a nice bull, but before he could get to the animal, some guys ran over to the bull and said they had shot the elk. There were six of them. I ran into him a little while later and he told me what happened.
Post by: logger on July 17, 2012, 08:29:38 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 17, 2012, 08:38:30 PM
You guy's sure got it out for the so called "tax break", research it some more and see if it would be wise to take that ground out of timberland classification.:yeah:
Post by: sirmissalot on July 18, 2012, 10:22:31 AM
You guy's sure got it out for the so called "tax break", research it some more and see if it would be wise to take that ground out of timberland classification.
I sure don't have it out for anyone, let alone a tax break. I guess I'm confused as to what the arguement is. I agree with the timber companies getting as many breaks as possible, I'm just saying the way I read it they are supposed to provide "recreational spaces". I also understand (now) they are in no way required to allow public access, let alone free public access. I don't blame the timber companies one bit for wanting to charge access fees, and as long as they remain reasonable, I have no problem with it. If it were my land, I too would charge access fees to the general public, why not? We now have to pay to access state land (discovery pass) I don't see why a private landowner shouldn't do the same. I just hope for the sake of all of us, sportsman especially, that they still allow public access, fees or not, I think we can all agree to that.
Post by: Legacy on July 18, 2012, 05:37:23 PM
Taking the Margaret unit as an example, there are a total of 426 tags being issued for bull and antlerless elk hunts there this fall over basically an 8 - 9 week period. Assuming that a lot of these hunters also want to bring along a buddy or two to scout or accompany the tag holder, its easy to realize there could be up to 1,000 "strangers" walking or driving or riding bikes, etc. to hunt elk on these privately owned timber lands with most their activities starting well before daylight and ending after dark. In addition, the timber companies have to assess the risks of potential liability to these folks as well as the additional risks of potential property damage they may experience as a result of vandalism, torn up roads, garbage, fire, camps, road blockages, gate damage, etc.
I can also understand why some timber companies may not even want to mess with limited hunter access through the purchase of access permits. In and of itself, these can still create potential liability issues and an administrative headache these private timberland owners may not want to deal with because some of the additional issues listed above simply don't go away.
Post by: tjsr61 on July 26, 2012, 01:25:01 PM
Post by: tj93_51 on July 31, 2012, 10:54:56 AM
Post by: HoofsandWings on July 31, 2012, 03:51:08 PM
Call Tracie toll free 1-855-RAY-HUNT (729-4868)
Post by: Bolt Action on July 31, 2012, 04:26:35 PM
Post by: BowBender87 on August 01, 2012, 07:32:00 AM
Post by: JPhelps on August 01, 2012, 08:03:44 AM
Post by: Goldeneye on August 01, 2012, 09:01:29 AM
47 permits left! They are sellin quick! 265 this year though...
It's 9:00 a.m. and there's only 10 permits left out of 175. Very popular, I guess...
Post by: shadowless_nite on August 01, 2012, 10:07:43 AM
Post by: tjsr61 on August 01, 2012, 01:05:16 PM
I don't like it all :bash:
Why do you think that?
Post by: meathacker on August 01, 2012, 01:19:28 PM
Post by: Goldeneye on August 01, 2012, 01:35:50 PM
it sounds like there are going to be more guys in the Rayonier areas than the rest of the unit. :tup:
Same number of permits as last year. The surrounding timber company land had plenty of folks on it too.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 01, 2012, 01:59:29 PM
it sounds like there are going to be more guys in the Rayonier areas than the rest of the unit. :tup:
Same number of permits as last year. The surrounding timber company land had plenty of folks on it too.
Sounded like it jumped from 175 to 265 :dunno:
Post by: JPhelps on August 01, 2012, 02:02:34 PM
I dont like it because I don't feel that "pay to play" is good for hunting.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 01, 2012, 02:09:52 PM
Post by: meathacker on August 01, 2012, 02:23:45 PM
it sounds like there are going to be more guys in the Rayonier areas than the rest of the unit. :tup:
Same number of permits as last year. The surrounding timber company land had plenty of folks on it too.
I was just being a smart A. the area i hunt did seem to have less people last year to me though.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 01, 2012, 02:33:49 PM
Post by: tjsr61 on August 01, 2012, 02:49:43 PM
The cost went up to $265.
I dont like it because I don't feel that "pay to play" is good for hunting.
Maybe its not but, its seems like its whats coming to
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 01, 2012, 02:52:00 PM
Post by: tjsr61 on August 01, 2012, 02:55:45 PM
Doesn't mean we should lay down and take it. :tup:
Yes true, but remember they own that property just like you and I own our own property. So they are intitled to do what they want just like you and I.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 01, 2012, 03:00:20 PM
Post by: BowBender87 on August 01, 2012, 03:09:12 PM
Post by: BowBender87 on August 01, 2012, 03:18:36 PM
Post by: JPhelps on August 01, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
My point is what if all private timber companies (almost all of SW Washington) went to this system and kept the numbers low enough that not everyone would have the opportunity to hunt here (many places where their families have hunted for years). These leftover people who can't afford it or don't hit the bid button fast enough are all left with DNR and USFS land which will become crowded, making success even tougher. This is not good for recruitment and retainage for our sport and in these times we need all the help we can get.
I agree that they own the land and can do as they please but I'm not a fan of It. I wish WDFW had the funds to work with these companies to provide everyone access.
Just trying to keep an open mind about this and think towards the future. When other timber companies see that you can make $40,000+ off of only 31000 acres in a couple hours it won't be long.
Post by: BowBender87 on August 01, 2012, 03:48:05 PM
Post by: rb2506 on August 01, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: AKBowman on August 01, 2012, 10:29:13 PM
A guy told me once that timber companys get a big tax break for opening their land to the public. Is this true? Are they making money and getting tax breaks?
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
Take 3 minutes and read the thread
Post by: GEARHEAD on August 01, 2012, 11:00:54 PM
as for the archery guys, you got it made, exept the elevation is too low, the rut is later than higher up and the season ends before the rut will start.
i will say this, i recieved alot of info from timber personnel both admin and in the field and all were very very helpful, and in one case above and beyond helpful. alot of you guys have given him alot of chit, and he doesnt deserve it, and his remarks are right on target. Thank you again Mr G.
Post by: slim9300 on August 02, 2012, 07:23:49 AM
I'll give ya the breakdown for last year, about 20 archery and all the rest modern. the guys that go modern had better wear body armor, because it will be an absolute zoo. there may be active logging going on, so you will be required to buy a C.B. radio, if you want to live, if ya get past the trucks, then ya have to get past the guns. its way to small to support that many modern hunters. and most will not be on foot, they will be driving anything, and i mean anything that has a motor.
as for the archery guys, you got it made, exept the elevation is too low, the rut is later than higher up and the season ends before the rut will start.
i will say this, i recieved alot of info from timber personnel both admin and in the field and all were very very helpful, and in one case above and beyond helpful. alot of you guys have given him alot of chit, and he doesnt deserve it, and his remarks are right on target. Thank you again Mr G.
The area had WAY more rifle hunters in it before the permit system. Clearly you have never been there before the intro of the permit system or you would know. There is some other info above that is almost laughable but I will keep that intel to myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 02, 2012, 08:24:29 AM
I'll give ya the breakdown for last year, about 20 archery and all the rest modern. the guys that go modern had better wear body armor, because it will be an absolute zoo. there may be active logging going on, so you will be required to buy a C.B. radio, if you want to live, if ya get past the trucks, then ya have to get past the guns. its way to small to support that many modern hunters. and most will not be on foot, they will be driving anything, and i mean anything that has a motor.
as for the archery guys, you got it made, exept the elevation is too low, the rut is later than higher up and the season ends before the rut will start.
i will say this, i recieved alot of info from timber personnel both admin and in the field and all were very very helpful, and in one case above and beyond helpful. alot of you guys have given him alot of chit, and he doesnt deserve it, and his remarks are right on target. Thank you again Mr G.
The area had WAY more rifle hunters in it before the permit system. Clearly you have never been there before the intro of the permit system or you would know. There is some other info above that is almost laughable but I will keep that intel to myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hmmmmm.... Thats wierd. :dunno: Musta been a TON of guys down low off the FC mainline.
Post by: bucklucky on August 02, 2012, 08:31:54 AM
Post by: fireweed on August 02, 2012, 09:00:59 AM
It's even worse than that. In SW Washington most PUBLIC LAND is also controlled by Weyerhaeuser!! 35,000 acre DNR land behind Weyco gates (Toutle Unit). USFS land and trails behind private gates (Winston/Margaret). 7,000 acre state WDFW wildlife area (mudflow unit) behind Weyco. gates. So this is ok with everyone?? They own most of the land, and want to CONTROL even more. Afterall, its private land, private property rights, they should be able to do what they want with it. Charge YOU to go to YOUR land??? Hold public land for ransom. You already need a Discover Pass to get to USFS land in many places--where does this craziness end? 10-20 different passes to hunt? And we voters give them tax breaks to help them do it. I worked for Weyco. and one thing they pounded into our head was "we operate with a license from the public." And the challenges of balancing "private land" that contains "public resources". SO true. Remember, the public is really in charge--we CAN change their license (how they operate) if enough people get mad enough.
Post by: tjsr61 on August 02, 2012, 09:30:43 AM
JPhelps Wrote: ""My point is what if all private timber companies (almost all of SW Washington) went to this system and kept the numbers low enough that not everyone would have the opportunity to hunt here (many places where their families have hunted for years). These leftover people who can't afford it or don't hit the bid button fast enough are all left with DNR and USFS land which will become crowded, making success even tougher. This is not good for recruitment and retainage for our sport and in these times we need all the help we can get.""
It's even worse than that. In SW Washington most PUBLIC LAND is also controlled by Weyerhaeuser!! 35,000 acre DNR land behind Weyco gates (Toutle Unit). USFS land and trails behind private gates (Winston/Margaret). 7,000 acre state WDFW wildlife area (mudflow unit) behind Weyco. gates. So this is ok with everyone?? They own most of the land, and want to CONTROL even more. Afterall, its private land, private property rights, they should be able to do what they want with it. Charge YOU to go to YOUR land??? Hold public land for ransom. You already need a Discover Pass to get to USFS land in many places--where does this craziness end? 10-20 different passes to hunt? And we voters give them tax breaks to help them do it. I worked for Weyco. and one thing they pounded into our head was "we operate with a license from the public." And the challenges of balancing "private land" that contains "public resources". SO true. Remember, the public is really in charge--we CAN change their license (how they operate) if enough people get mad enough.
So for me I am undicided on the issue of it being good or bad to pay for a private property to hunt. What can you say or do to help me understand which side of the fence to be on, I understand its always an argument, but there has to be some factual stuff to base a decision on. I am wondering if there have been and studies done on the animals and land in these situations. Sorry if my questions are unclear. Anyone can answer to these. Thanks
Post by: slim9300 on August 02, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
I'll give ya the breakdown for last year, about 20 archery and all the rest modern. the guys that go modern had better wear body armor, because it will be an absolute zoo. there may be active logging going on, so you will be required to buy a C.B. radio, if you want to live, if ya get past the trucks, then ya have to get past the guns. its way to small to support that many modern hunters. and most will not be on foot, they will be driving anything, and i mean anything that has a motor.
as for the archery guys, you got it made, exept the elevation is too low, the rut is later than higher up and the season ends before the rut will start.
i will say this, i recieved alot of info from timber personnel both admin and in the field and all were very very helpful, and in one case above and beyond helpful. alot of you guys have given him alot of chit, and he doesnt deserve it, and his remarks are right on target. Thank you again Mr G.
The area had WAY more rifle hunters in it before the permit system. Clearly you have never been there before the intro of the permit system or you would know. There is some other info above that is almost laughable but I will keep that intel to myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hmmmmm.... Thats wierd. :dunno: Musta been a TON of guys down low off the FC mainline.
PMed you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: fireweed on August 02, 2012, 09:11:31 PM
Post by: Tilley Rd on August 03, 2012, 10:01:07 AM
Post by: bucklucky on August 03, 2012, 10:57:10 AM
Post by: JPhelps on August 03, 2012, 11:11:11 AM
Post by: slim9300 on August 03, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
All this stuff does is gaurantee I will be buying out of state tags instead. Why pay extra to hunt a state that isnt that great when you cab hunt a betteer state with more critters and way less hunting pressure.
I agree. There is a reason I always spend the last two weeks of September and some of November in MT chasing elk and deer. This state is a joke in comparison.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Basket Rack on August 04, 2012, 10:50:05 AM