Weyerhaeuser Permit for hiking?

[Member 34319]

How do you figure?

In some extent I understand that it was purchased legally by a corporation.

But why is it that our governing agencies can sell off that much of the publics state lands?

Then the smaller folk like us, have to pay huge amounts of taxes living in a community made up of micro lots. However, they get tax cuts for buying in bulk and having to maintain.

Then they are supposed to follow some basic guidelines, like allowing public access, per the purchase agreements. But, they push the envelope and start charging huge fees for access. Then when the people get pissed and push their government to hold them accountable. They show their weight and tell the Feds that they have more money and resource to legally F over the Feds and the small folks.

They use illegal substances they promised not to for sustainable timber growth.

They are just another example of government getting into bed with a large corporation for money and power and F'ing over the little guy.

I know this sounds a lot like I'm against capitalism. In some ways that is true. However calitalism is great for America as long as our government stays out of private business.

 

[Mistman]

IMO there is a huge difference in 'privately owned' land and land owned by a corporate monopoly.
1st of all I'm not sure I feel it's o.k. for any one entity to 'own' that much of a country's resources when it spans as much acreage as theirs does. As far as their land management goals I'm also not sure I agree that they are a 'slash and dash' outfit. They have a long record of accumulation and 'take over' with the intent to manage and re-cut. If the devil is the timber company then there are worse devils out there.
My problem and my only problem is that as an American I want free unrestricted access to the vast amount of timber lands available in this country. I grew up in the age of open roads, driving from one outfits land to another's w/out gates, then into state land and back into private land without restriction. Access was free and easy, everyone spread out and we all enjoyed the freedom.
The "Problem" is in the history of our at times very corrupt government. Back room deals were made in the age of big industrial money, the country was run by an elite financial and political 'good 'ol boys' network. As a young government it wasn't hard to take advantage of situations and people. The smart men were running business and letting politics be handled by their 'people'. It took a long time for eyes to open and care enough to shut things down but by then it was too late.
The building of railroads was one of the fiercest and most bloody battles in politics and business in those days. If you could build a RR you could control parts of the country. The government wanted the country opened up for settlement and were more than willing to grant huge tracts of land and $$ to the men who would put the tracks down. A lot of times all you had to do was show intent, lay some line and the coffers were opened up. Take the land, sell it off away you go. There is a whole lot of 'history' surrounding railroads in America, and not a lot of it good for the people of this country.
Most of the land acquired by Weyerhaeuser in Wa., 900k acres, was purchased from a right away granted to the Great Northern Railway by the U.S government during that extremely shady and undocumented time of the inner workings of business and government in those days. Weyerhaeuser was already huge when they came to Washington and have continued to grow by accumulation and take over ever since. Weyerhaeuser is a real estate invetment trust, they manage land.
I have no solution I only know we are all suffering from lack of access to our most beloved areas, areas hunted by families for generations that are now restricted. It's all legal but doesn't make it hurt any less. To think those land could have been manage by 'we the people' makes it hurt a little more. Not that the Forest Service or BLM are the be all of land management but at least if we don't like things we can do something about it.
I used to think timber companies only owned the Timber Rights and couldn't restrict access for other reasons. It sure seemed that way back in the day, not the last thing I'll be wrong about I'm sure. I know in Oregon there are many people who didn't bother to buy a licence this year as they don't really know where to hunt now that they can no longer hunt where they used to.
So like it or not we're going European, if you've got the $$, time and access rights you can hunt. Think about all those people who stand behind having firearms for hunting. If you don't have a place to hunt, why you need a gun??
Chipping away.....