Free: Contests & Raffles.
I'm very leery of the state taking over federal lands in WA, actually I'm dead against it. WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.
I'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?
Quote from: stuckalot on October 06, 2014, 09:58:25 PMI'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?Obviously both the feds and state need more coverage.
Quote from: bigtex on October 06, 2014, 10:11:41 PMQuote from: stuckalot on October 06, 2014, 09:58:25 PMI'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?Obviously both the feds and state need more coverage. Not so sure I would agree with that. We don't need an LEO behind every tree...public eyes and ears in the woods will stop more crime than an army of fed. officers.
I think as long as it doesn't involve a wolf the folks on here would report it...some good self-policing on trashed camps etc.
Sad.
I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.
Quote from: bearpaw on October 07, 2014, 12:14:37 AMI see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?
Quote from: bigtex on October 07, 2014, 08:28:31 AMQuote from: bearpaw on October 07, 2014, 12:14:37 AMI see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on? there are other types of access besides foot bigtex
Quote from: bigtex on October 07, 2014, 08:28:31 AMQuote from: bearpaw on October 07, 2014, 12:14:37 AMI see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on? I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen. RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.
There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA.
They do need better management that's for sure. My fear is the unknown, what the state would do with it 10, 20, 100 years or more down the road? Will my great grand-kids have unfettered access to the CNF? timber prices would fall out the bottom if all fed lands were turned over all at once and states forced to log it for revenue
Quote from: bigtex on October 07, 2014, 08:28:31 AMThere is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA.So has DNR actually closed those lands or are they simply landlocked? Big difference! Apples and Oranges
Yah, the feds do a better job... Riiiiiighhht. Another reason I don't support the RMEF!