Camping only for the rich, now.

[The Heretic]

A lot of big timber companies that own land used to be pretty laid back about letting the public use it. The problem is so many leave garbage behind or worse. So they started charging people to use it to deter the general population from destroying it.

It is, afterall, their land and not yours.

The problem is population growth - i.e., more people.

Places that used to be used be very few people because they were remote and there weren't that many people, are now more accessible by a LOT more people.

So as you say, people abuse the land, cut down and shootup live trees, leave garbage, cause fires, etc.

The solution is to restrict usage. One way is to require permits.

I own timber land, it cost me a pretty penny to maintain (not to mention the taxes on the timber), and there is the issue of fire danger and liability. So only people who have my permission are allowed on it - they have to ask nicely first, and they have to tell me each time they want to use it so that I know they are there (mostly for the sake of safety and so I don't have to go see who is back there when I notice them) - and yes, people have trespassed without permission.

 

[PNWguy]

Amazing how every thread on this forum becomes political. I'm kind of confused though... Wanting free access or "affordable access" to private property seems more like a liberal point of view to me?

I'm curious how people would feel if it was an individual (and not a corporation) who bought the land? Does this have more to do with being anti-corporation?

Regarding the number of times you camp versus price - irrelevant. Gym memberships cost the same regardless of how many times you go each month.

And I'm amazed that you cannot grasp the uniqueness of the situation. This is land that is surrounded by federal and state land that has been used by the public for decades.

They currently own 1.6 million acres in Idaho, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Apparently, they started charging permits on their land in 2007, while I was living in Arizona.

The new leased camping spots is the latest development, and there are rumors that they will start leasing the hunting rights next.

Good article on the issues from both sides here:

Same land, new price; Potlatch Corp. now requires permits to access its land,

I get the arguments for them simply doing what they want with their land. The difference is just how much it impacts the lives of thousands of people who have been hunting, fishing, and camping on those lands for decades.

 

[The Heretic]

This is true if they are paying the same tax rate I am paying for property, if they get a break on taxes, which I believe they do, then it would not be so straight ahead.

The tax break a timber owner gets is the same as any farmer; i.e., they pay the same tax as anybody on the land, but they can optionally (only with gov. approval) get a deferred tax on the value of their crop until they harvest. Then, on harvest, they pay the tax, plus capital gains, plus a 'severance tax' plus they then have to replant. So no, not a "break". BTDT - this is the second time, and I need to go see a specialist to have my taxes done this time - had to get an extension too, but had to pay the severance tax by the end of January IIRC.

 

[The Heretic]

And I'm amazed that you cannot grasp the uniqueness of the situation.

That is because it isn't unique. I have been observing this for decades. Places I used to go now have all access denied because of people abusing the land.

 

[PNWguy]

The tax break a timber owner gets is the same as any farmer; i.e., they pay the same tax as anybody on the land, but they can optionally (only with gov. approval) get a deferred tax on the value of their crop until they harvest. Then, on harvest, they pay the tax, plus capital gains, plus a 'severance tax' plus they then have to replant. So no, not a "break". BTDT - this is the second time, and I need to go see a specialist to have my taxes done this time - had to get an extension too, but had to pay the severance tax by the end of January IIRC.

PotlatchDeltic re-structured themselves as a real estate investment company, hence the need to show profit from permitting and leasing.

 

[The Heretic]

PotlatchDeltic re-structured themselves as a real estate investment company, hence the need to show profit from permitting and leasing.

This too is common

 

[41mag]

Our decades-long favorite camp spots have been along various coastal sites. The last decade or so, has seen the erosion of our ability to spontaneously head for the coast & be pretty much assured of finding a spot in our favorite campgrounds. Now most of them are 'reserved' up to a year ahead.

Of course cost keeps leaping upward. When I finally sold off my stable of camp vehicles, not only did I regain a ton of money, gone was the stress of 'having to have a good time'.

Dragging whichever RV to the coast, plus parking for a few nights, was eating well over a hundred $$$ bill. I can rent a luxury room for about that was coming to cost. And while I miss the camp fire, most of them have 'a fireplace' and I don't have to wrangle large heavy objects through the traffic.

Yes, there's private campgrounds nearby, often available for similar cost. Along with a host of the reasons I abandoned city life decades ago.

And frankly, the wonders of 'outdoors camping' have eroded as the wheezy breath of ever plodding geezerhood continues to acquire my location regardless of camp circumstance.

 

[41mag]

Property rights versus statism; confiscation of other's property for the "greater good".

sounds like the plot line to "Open Range"

 

[The Heretic]

It is dismaying to me too. But as someone who has seen the damage and the trash that city folk dump in "the woods" and in the ditches along farmland, etc., and as a 'farmer' who has had to deal with these issues much of my life (both on the family farm and now my own property), I can totally understand why any land owner would restrict access in some fashion.

Considering the amount of abuse, the liability and the amount of wildfires we have had in the west, I would say that it is surprising they didn't just totally deny all access altogether, like a lot of others large land owners.

The fact that people in general have been able to use the privately owned land previously doesn't mean that they have a right to continue using it. Especially considering the risk and the abuse.

It comes down to what I have been saying for quite a while; as the population grows, the cost of just about everything that is finite will increase because the resource is finite and therefore the amount per person will decrease.

 

[slimmer13]

And I'm amazed that you cannot grasp the uniqueness of the situation

I'm amazed that some cannot grasp the concept that nobody is entitled to what isn't theirs.

 

[The Heretic]

I'm amazed that some cannot grasp the concept that nobody is entitled to what isn't theirs.

I remember my grandfather having to deal with people stopping alongside our orchards and picking the unripe (still covered with green flesh) walnuts off the trees, right in front of our house. They would always claim they thought they were free because they were right along the public road.

Then there were the people who we would find in our strawberry fields picking fruit when we would go up to harvest. They would always drive off before we could deal with them.

This was 50+ years ago. It only gets worse as there are more and more people living in urban areas who think anything rural belongs to them because there isn't someone there to prevent them from taking what isn't theirs.

 

[Diamondback]

$2600 a YEAR??? FOOOOOK thats better than what one of my friends landlords charge for the priviliege to hunt his property in Kings Valley ($5,000 per whichever SEASON, per person and only with his guidance.)

Heck I'd try to cough up the $500/ year for single RV spot so I could have a spot to camp, fish, hunt year round, just park a 10ft-20ft trailer "cabin" or something like that there and thats on disability benefits.

$2600 a year? At that price, just park the landyacht and make it "permanent residence"... dunno if the Post Office or UPS would deliver that far out.

I've thought on fishing/hunting/access fees should I find myself owning acreage, and while in principle I'd LIKE to say "just cover the costs of your being there including insurance riders etc.," but... at the same time you need something to screen out the riffraff and vermin. Possibly a high but refundable damage deposit?

 

[Goosebrown]

I'm amazed that some cannot grasp the concept that nobody is entitled to what isn't theirs.

It's not yours. You don't have a right to it. Seriously this argument is what happens to PSU students.

 

[Goosebrown]

PotlatchDeltic re-structured themselves as a real estate investment company, hence the need to show profit from permitting and leasing.

And that's their right to do. Good for them. Their land. Their decision.

 

[MannyGlocks]

I completely agree with Goosebrown's statements.

Private property is just that!

On my property, you have to go through a 36" gate, travel a good distance to get to the house with all the land completely fenced.

And man, is it lovely and would appeal to many a free loading camper, but without my permission to do so, it's not happening.

Does that make me some sort of selfish, no goodnick?

Nope.

Given I 'earned' the fortune it cost to buy and maintain, no one gets a free ride to utilize my property.

Period!

 

[orygun]

Agenda 21?

 

[Kruel J]

And I'm amazed that you cannot grasp the uniqueness of the situation. This is land that is surrounded by federal and state land that has been used by the public for decades.

They currently own 1.6 million acres in Idaho, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Apparently, they started charging permits on their land in 2007, while I was living in Arizona.

The new leased camping spots is the latest development, and there are rumors that they will start leasing the hunting rights next.

Good article on the issues from both sides here:

Same land, new price; Potlatch Corp. now requires permits to access its land,

I get the arguments for them simply doing what they want with their land. The difference is just how much it impacts the lives of thousands of people who have been hunting, fishing, and camping on those lands for decades.

They have no responsibility or otherwise to care how it affects your life. If you want to be able to camp on some land so badly, buy your own piece.

 

[PNWguy]

On my property, you have to go through a 36" gate, travel a good distance to get to the house with all the land completely fenced.

And man, is it lovely and would appeal to many a free loading camper, but without my permission to do so, it's not happening.

Does that make me some sort of selfish, no goodnick?

Nope.

Given I 'earned' the fortune it cost to buy and maintain, no one gets a free ride to utilize my property.

Period!

Do you own 1.6 million acres interconnected and embedded within federal and state lands?

Does the state have an ATV trail system that crosses your land as well as the aforementioned state and federal lands?

Have you had your lands open to the public for recreation since 1906?

Not a valid comparison.

This is a map of the area showing all of the various land types. Note how the federal and state lands are intermingled with the timber company land...



Also note on this one snippet of the trail I rode on yesterday. I utilized a Forest Service maintained ATV trail by parking at the trailhead on federal land, then taking the trail that then went on timber company land.

They now demand that I get a $25 permit to utilize a Forest Service trail that was put in using my tax dollars.

Does that really make sense to you?

 

[Goosebrown]

Do you own 1.6 million acres interconnected and embedded within federal and state lands?

Does the state have an ATV trail system that crosses your land as well as the aforementioned state and federal lands?

Have you had your lands open to the public for recreation since 1906?

Not a valid comparison.

This is a map of the area showing all of the various land types. Note how the federal and state lands are intermingled with the timber company land...

View attachment 576517

Also note on this one snippet of the trail I rode on yesterday. I utilized a Forest Service maintained ATV trail by parking at the trailhead on federal land, then taking the trail that then went on timber company land.

They now demand that I get a $25 permit to utilize a Forest Service trail that was put in using my tax dollars.

Does that really make sense to you?

View attachment 576520

It's a very valid comparison.

You had no right to use that land when you were a kid. No right now.

Your "trail" is meaningless on their land. Always has been unless you have a signed document by the owner.

Your argument is that of a homeless guy smoking meth who wants to camp in front of someone's store downtown.

Really anazing sense of entitlement there. Really shocking.

 

[Diamondback]

I completely agree with Goosebrown's statements.

Private property is just that!

On my property, you have to go through a 36" gate, travel a good distance to get to the house with all the land completely fenced.

And man, is it lovely and would appeal to many a free loading camper, but without my permission to do so, it's not happening.

Does that make me some sort of selfish, no goodnick?

Nope.

Given I 'earned' the fortune it cost to buy and maintain, no one gets a free ride to utilize my property.

Period!

I've had similar thoughts about a spread, but a little more elaborate... breaking the property down into four levels of restricted access.

1. Core compound - 100yd from furthest outbuildings, fenced, tripwired and monitored. NO entry, period.
2. Inner perimeter - about halfway from property center to property line, NO entry unless invited.
   
3. Middle perimeter - about halfway from inner perimeter to property line, fishing/hunting/camping by permit only.
   
4. Outer perimeter - the remainder, more public access but I'd still want to know who's coming and going; no camping, do your business and be on your way.

Those elevating access restrictions also establish prima facie Ill Intent should someone force entry into the main house, because of having violated THREE previous levels of access restriction first. Oh, and by the way, trailcams--lots and lots of cameras, everywhere, some visible but most concealed. "I know you're out there, I've sent the cops your picture and they're on the way..."