The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”

[wolfbait]

I think the wolverine is the next pet project for WDFW and crew, Scott Fitkin has been working on that along with the fake endangered wolves.

[WAcoyotehunter]

That's no secret.  Wolverine are up for listing.

[wolfbait]

Corridors of Wilderness: How much land should the government own?

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/feb_2002/corridors_of_wilderness.htm

Washington’s Fish and Wildlife riles Asotin County with land buys
Kerri Sandaine
Lewiston Tribune

 Posted 3/9/2014
ASOTIN, Wash. – The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has gobbled up more than 10 percent of the 410,240 acres in Asotin County and that’s ruffled some feathers.

A group of Asotin County residents say purchases by the state agency are having an adverse effect on every other property owner in the county, whether they live in the country or city.

When that land goes off the tax rolls, everyone else winds up absorbing the added tax burden, said Brad Forgey, of Asotin. He and other members of the agricultural community are hoping changes are made at the state level to address the problem.

“We’re trying to even up the playing field,” said Matt Seibly, of Anatone. “The state needs to make the county whole, because the burden is on the remaining taxpayers.”

State-owned lands are exempt from property tax, but counties can receive payments in lieu of taxes from Fish and Wildlife to compensate for the loss. Those payments have been frozen at 2009 levels, which translates into a tax revenue hit for the county on all of the new acquisitions, said Bruce Petty, of Cloverland.

“The state isn’t paying its fair share and it affects everyone,” said Dan Sangster, of Anatone.

According to Dan Budd, a real estate section manager for Fish and Wildlife, the department owns 42,151 acres in Asotin County, and the annual payment in lieu of taxes is frozen at $36,123.

Several more purchases are in the works, including additional 4-0 Ranch property near the Grande Ronde River, Budd said. When complete, the state will have acquired 12,000 acres, just north of the Oregon-Washington border, from Mike Odom, the ranch owner.

The department can purchase land for public use if the sellers are willing, and the Asotin County group said they don’t have a problem with that. But they are worried about what it will do to the overall tax base.

Two bills have been introduced that deal with Fish and Wildlife land purchases. One is backed by Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, who said he’s been concerned about this issue for the past 20 years.

Currently, Fish and Wildlife doesn’t pay anything on small parcels, but his bill would require payments in lieu of taxes on parcels of all size, except boat launches and nearby parking lots. The bill has moved through the Senate and is now in the House.

“I’ve been concerned and working to limit these purchases for many years,” Schoesler said. “I think the state needs to redirect its funding toward such things as school construction and higher education, rather than acquiring more land that we can’t afford to take care of.”

http://citizenreviewonline.org/washingtons-fish-and-wildlife-riles-asotin-county-with-land-buys/#more-2749

Why is the USFWS, WDFW and the environmentalists buying up so much land? With less ungulates there is/will be more habitat then before wolves were illegally introduced into the lower 48.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....

[bobcat]

It's for wildlife habitat. Simple. And it's a good use of our money. I'd rather see my tax dollars be spent on wildlife habitat than some illegal immigrants' college education.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[snowpack]

I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....

If it is open to hunting (and desirable), it is likely that the land generates enough revenue in the local area (fuel, food, lodging, etc) that it could offset the additional tax to the county.

[bearpaw]

So now I'm a cattle rancher also? How many people on W-H are frighten right now? I guess hunters are the ONLY people who can comment about what wolves have/and are doing? The rest of you who are not hunters have no say in the matter. It just wouldn't be fair, you might scare other people.

So you are not a hunter.  There have been many other "witch hunts" on this forum about getting rid of people who were suspected of not being "true" hunters...so why has wolfbait not been banned?  He comes on here and advocates policies that are detrimental to hunters and wildlife conservation...probably more harmful than a greenie spewing anti-hunting rhetoric...ban him!!  Send him to the cattlemens forum to spread his tinfoil hat garbage. Wishful thinking I know. 

To set the record straight:

Even though H-W is a hunter's website we have not made it a policy to delete accounts of non-hunters, unless they cause trouble, fail to follow the forum rules, or misrepresent themselves as hunters when in fact we learn they are not hunters. If we learn that a member is misrepresenting themself as a hunter when in fact they are not, that is a swift way to be banned. Anyone doubting that this policy has been fair, please post the name of any member who has been unjustly banned from this forum.

I would also point out that numerous hunters on this site are ranchers, just as there are other members of most other professions.

[idahohuntr]

So now I'm a cattle rancher also? How many people on W-H are frighten right now? I guess hunters are the ONLY people who can comment about what wolves have/and are doing? The rest of you who are not hunters have no say in the matter. It just wouldn't be fair, you might scare other people.

So you are not a hunter.  There have been many other "witch hunts" on this forum about getting rid of people who were suspected of not being "true" hunters...so why has wolfbait not been banned?  He comes on here and advocates policies that are detrimental to hunters and wildlife conservation...probably more harmful than a greenie spewing anti-hunting rhetoric...ban him!!  Send him to the cattlemens forum to spread his tinfoil hat garbage. Wishful thinking I know. 

To set the record straight:

Even though H-W is a hunter's website we have not made it a policy to delete accounts of non-hunters, unless they cause trouble, fail to follow the forum rules, or misrepresent themselves as hunters when in fact we learn they are not hunters. If we learn that a member is misrepresenting themself as a hunter when in fact they are not, that is a swift way to be banned. Anyone doubting that this policy has been fair, please post the name of any member who has been unjustly banned from this forum.

I would also point out that numerous hunters on this site are ranchers, just as there are other members of most other professions.

So non-hunters are ok...makes sense...would be tough to enforce anyways.  But non-hunters who pretend to be hunters are banned swiftly...why?  Is it simply anyone who misrepresents themselves?  Or just non-hunters who say they are hunters?

[Special T]

Humanure! 

[villageidiot]

I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....

Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

[bobcat]

I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....

Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....

Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.

Exactly.  The article specifically mentions property taxes.

Open public land is good for the PUBLIC... and for hunters and others that enjoy using the land.

[wolfbait]

It's for wildlife habitat. Simple. And it's a good use of our money. I'd rather see my tax dollars be spent on wildlife habitat than some illegal immigrants' college education.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bobcat do you think WA has more ungulates then say Montana or Idaho did/does? Do you believe that WA is less populated with people then these two states? Both MT and Idaho hunt cougars and bears with hounds, With 18 BPs needed before delisting can begin, and not allowing cougars or bears to be hunted with hounds how long will WA ungulates survive? Do you think WDFW and the environmentalists are buying up all the land they can for fish and bird habitat?

[wolfbait]

I don't buy the "tax rolls" argument that people use when the gov buys ground for US to hunt.  Farmers/ranchers pay damm near nothing for undeveloped ground, timber companies probably pay less....

Wow,  You are really misinformed.  Land sales are open to anybody.  The rancher pays the same for undeveloped land as you.  It's on the market to sell and if you want it, just write a check like anybody else.  The rancher has no inside track when buying land.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the amount of property tax they pay, not how much they pay for land that they purchasse.

Exactly.  The article specifically mentions property taxes.

Open public land is good for the PUBLIC... and for hunters and others that enjoy using the land.

What will happen to the land once there is nothing left to hunt?

[bobcat]

Bobcat do you think WA has more ungulates then say Montana or Idaho did/does? Do you believe that WA is less populated with people then these two states? Both MT and Idaho hunt cougars and bears with hounds, With 18 BPs needed before delisting can begin, and not allowing cougars or bears to be hunted with hounds how long will WA ungulates survive? Do you think WDFW and the environmentalists are buying up all the land they can for fish and bird habitat?

I don't know the answers to all these questions. If you want answers, ask the WDFW. I did a quick google search and found a good summary that shows why the property was purchased. I hope this helps to answer some of your questions:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/2014_proposals/mountain_view_2014.pdf