Yes, the prior owner was in the timber business.
Not sure any allotments are even available on the land, or if any will be made available in the future.
RMEF - 13,000 acres of new public access
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Yes, the prior owner was in the timber business.
Not sure any allotments are even available on the land, or if any will be made available in the future.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
. . . as it states right there in the letter
Did anybody tell them that the alternative might have been gates and no trespassing signs?
. . . as it states right there in the letter
Did anybody tell them that the alternative might have been gates and no trespassing signs?
"Them" being who?
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
The people who left the Fb comments Jr posted.
one ate E grain
Active member
I just paid for my second year's dues to RMEF, I think it's just unbelievable what an altruistic organisation RMEF is. In looking at that land it's stunningly obvious how much it improves that entire tract. So many people will benefit for so long. People who won't even know it was RMEF that arranged for that land to be available for all the public to use.
The naysayers and whiners aren't important, in the end it is the act of conserving that land itself that stands as it's own testament.
The naysayers and whiners aren't important, in the end it is the act of conserving that land itself that stands as it's own testament.
The beauty of Facebook not only do you get the opinion of one "all government is bad˝ looney but all of his friends show up to chime in as well. The bad thing is enough of them are out there that they convince legislators to pass stupid bills about states taking over control of USFS land thinking it really would be better off in private hands.
Got it.
Given they don't understand that more public acreage helps reduce crowding in adjacent areas by giving new public access, I'm not sure they can follow the logic you provided. I suspect they probably struggle with the notion of fences and no trespassing signs.
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,882
But there will be no roads to drive! Dang how hard is that to understand?
jryoung
Well-known member
I noticed they took down the Facebook post now, but still left the original announcement up. I seriously wonder if because it was a link to a liberal site if it didn't have some effect. I thought it was really odd, because I don't think I have ever seen such a negative response when they've boasted about doing what they do.
Got it.
Given they don't understand that more public acreage helps reduce crowding in adjacent areas by giving new public access, I'm not sure they can follow the logic you provided. I suspect they probably struggle with the notion of fences and no trespassing signs.
It's part of the push from groups like the Blue Ribbon Coalition and TEA Party affiliated groups who are looking to get rid of public lands. They claim that public lands hurt the county tax base, but mostly, and not knowing the tax structure of this particular county in Oregon, you'd be looking at a couple thousand bucks a year that no longer go to the counties. That of course does not take into account the economy of hunting that puts more tax dollars into the system than property taxes and it fails to recognize the SRS & PILT Payments that will increase to the county with the inclusion of new fed lands within their boundaries.
To be sure, I was a little surprised to see a post from Daily KOS on the RMEF page.
Good job, RMEF. Keep up the great work!
jryoung
Well-known member
When the first guy mentioned property coming out of the tax rolls, my first though was that this is timber land, like Ag land most states have a tax favorable treatment for these lands.
I went to the OR DOR website because I was curious and sure enough, there was an application and special (reduced tax) treatment for timber properties. This argument coming out of these groups is comical....seeing how they hate taxes and all.
Forestland in Oregon is assessed differently than other property. This reduced tax assessment is intended to recognize the importance of forestland to Oregon's economy and respond to the growing pressures that urban growth puts on natural resources...Oregon offers special assessment programs to forestland owners. These programs reduce the property tax the landowner pays if they agree to manage the property primarily for growing and harvesting timber.
I went to the OR DOR website because I was curious and sure enough, there was an application and special (reduced tax) treatment for timber properties. This argument coming out of these groups is comical....seeing how they hate taxes and all.
Forestland in Oregon is assessed differently than other property. This reduced tax assessment is intended to recognize the importance of forestland to Oregon's economy and respond to the growing pressures that urban growth puts on natural resources...Oregon offers special assessment programs to forestland owners. These programs reduce the property tax the landowner pays if they agree to manage the property primarily for growing and harvesting timber.
Oregon also taxes Forestland on two different scales: Small Tract & Large tract. Small Tract Forestland is taxed 80% below fair market value. Not sure what large tract Forestland is taxed at but they have a maximum specialy assesed value of $62.70 per acre: http://www.oregon.gov/dor/TIMBER/docs/forestland-values.pdf
theat
Well-known member
Another great example of the work the RMEF does for wildlife and hunters.
I will probably never set foot on any of that land, but I am happy to know that those that those that hunt Oregon will forever have access to these lands.
I will probably never set foot on any of that land, but I am happy to know that those that those that hunt Oregon will forever have access to these lands.
Similar threads
