DNR Looking to Transfer 620 Acres to 5 New Owners in 5 Counties

[bigtex]

DNR will be seeking legislative approval to transfer 620 acres of DNR lands in 5 areas to 5 new owners. The proposals are apart of the Trust Land Transfer (TLT) program. Under TLT lands are moved out of "trust" status either to a new owner, or given new status within DNR. The legislature then essentially writes a check to DNR to cover the timber revenue loss. The proposals that will move DNR lands out of DNR are:

-80 acres of DNR land near Lake Cushman to Tacoma Public Utilities
-40 acres of DNR land on the Preston Ridge to King County Parks
-50 acres of DNR land on the "Olympic View" property to Kitsap County
-160 acres of DNR land at Glenrose to Spokane County
-The 290 acre Lake Spokane Campground will be moved from DNR to State Parks. The lands are currently owned by DNR but managed by State Parks

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_bc_bnr_15_17_tlt_presentation.pdf

[Skillet]

Thanks for bringing this up bigtex.  How does this typically affect access? Are the new "owners" usually less liberal with the permission slips?

[bigtex]

Thanks for bringing this up bigtex.  How does this typically affect access? Are the new "owners" usually less liberal with the permission slips?

It's all up to the new owners.

The 40 acres on Preston Ridge slated for King County will now be closed to hunting.

[Goshawk]

In the case of Manke Lumber Co., in many cases access comes to a halt while the new owners either lock it up, or charge access fees.

DNR needs to work for the ALL THE PEOPLE of Washington State to keep public access public.  If you have the chance to shout out an objection to the land deals, do it quickly before these are gone too.

[bigtex]

In the case of Manke Lumber Co., in many cases access comes to a halt while the new owners either lock it up, or charge access fees.

DNR needs to work for the ALL THE PEOPLE of Washington State to keep public access public.  If you have the chance to shout out an objection to the land deals, do it quickly before these are gone too.

You need to remember DNR is not around to provide us land we can recreate on. DNR is around to generate $ for the state. There is a large amount of DNR land in King County which is completely inaccessible as it is in an off-limits watershed.

[dreamunelk]

In the case of Manke Lumber Co., in many cases access comes to a halt while the new owners either lock it up, or charge access fees.

DNR needs to work for the ALL THE PEOPLE of Washington State to keep public access public.  If you have the chance to shout out an objection to the land deals, do it quickly before these are gone too.

You need to remember DNR is not around to provide us land we can recreate on. DNR is around to generate $ for the state. There is a large amount of DNR land in King County which is completely inaccessible as it is in an off-limits watershed.

Hunting and other outdoor recreation does not generate revenue for the State?

[bigtex]

In the case of Manke Lumber Co., in many cases access comes to a halt while the new owners either lock it up, or charge access fees.

DNR needs to work for the ALL THE PEOPLE of Washington State to keep public access public.  If you have the chance to shout out an objection to the land deals, do it quickly before these are gone too.

You need to remember DNR is not around to provide us land we can recreate on. DNR is around to generate $ for the state. There is a large amount of DNR land in King County which is completely inaccessible as it is in an off-limits watershed.

Hunting and other outdoor recreation does not generate revenue for the State?

DNR's purpose is to generate revenue for schools. When DNR logs a clearcut the money goes to schools. DNR will always acquire more timber-revenue worthy land and give up land that's not as valuable. Doesn't matter if the new land is completely inaccessible, or is accessible.

It's the Department of Natural Resources, not the Department of Natural Recreation. Which is one of the reasons why DNR doesn't really concern themselves with trying to create public access routes for all of their land.

[Little Dave]

However they do concern themselves with the Discover Pass access fee.

Recreation is well promoted on their website.  They even include a link to the buy a Discover Pass website.  There is a link to the funding schools info page, but it's not first column first row.  That's where they put recreation.

Ideally folks in the DFW should be working with the DNR to ensure we retain hunting access, it is part of the reason why the hunting license costs more than zero.  The King County Parks info pages about the DNR property acquisition mention "Wildlife" as one of the attributes of the property, but do not include "Hunters" in their list of recreation stakeholder groups interested in these lands.

Here's a snapshot of the DNR home page as it is today:

[bigtex]

However they do concern themselves with the Discover Pass access fee.

Recreation is well promoted on their website.  They even include a link to the buy a Discover Pass website.  There is a link to the funding schools info page, but it's not first column first row.  That's where they put recreation.

Ideally folks in the DFW should be working with the DNR to ensure we retain hunting access, it is part of the reason why the hunting license costs more than zero.  The King County Parks info pages about the DNR property acquisition mention "Wildlife" as one of the attributes of the property, but do not include "Hunters" in their list of recreation stakeholder groups interested in these lands.

Here's a snapshot of the DNR home page as it is today:

I never said DNR doesn't care about recreation. I said their overall #1 purpose isn't recreation, which is something many people don't understand. To the general public, DNR is for recreation because we're not on the business end of the agency. But in Olympia, DNR is to make $ for the state in terms of logging, shellfish sales, agricultural leasing, etc. Basically for DNR revenue generation is #1 recreation is further down the list.

Look at DNR's Mission Statement: "In partnership with citizens and governments, the Washington State DNR provides innovative leadership and expertise to ensure environmental protection, public safety, perpetual funding for schools and communities, and a rich quality of life."

Now let's compare that with WDFW's Mission Statement: "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities."

And State Parks' Mission Statement: "The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission cares for Washington's most treasured lands, waters, and historic places. State parks connect all Washingtonians to their diverse natural and cultural heritage and provide memorable recreational and educational experiences that enhance their lives."

DNR is the only agency that doesn't list "recreation" in their mission statement 

[Little Dave]

I agree.  They don't spell out "recreation" in their mission statement.  They are vague they put it as "rich quality of life" ?

So how would they be doing "rich quality of life" ?

In 2015 King County plans to spend about $4.5 billion dollars, that's half of their 2015-16 biennial $9 billion dollar spending plan.  The DNR is going to support the county by providing about 7% of that in 2015 ... about $33 million from timber sales.  So, seven percent is really not enough to justify "rich quality of life"

It's the recreation, and it is obvious that the only way DNR can do "rich quality of life" is by providing recreation.  Generously distributed throughout the DNR website are links to buy the Discover Pass, maps to trails, and the green dot road system.  It's so prominent and obvious, if only to justify their existence as an agency to the public.

There seems to be some sort of communication issue between the DNR and the DFW.  As a taxpayer, I expect the agencies to work well together.  However, they don't.  The DFW recommends sand shrimp for fishing bait, the DNR pulls commercial permits to harvest it.  DNR reports black bear damage, the DFW delays so the DNR turns to the tribes for help.  Why can't I get a note from DFW that says the DNR is selling this property but has retained hunting access to the property.  I just get a note that you can't hunt it anymore, I'll write a ticket if you do.  That's not the service I am expecting.

[Humptulips]

DNR will be seeking legislative approval to transfer 620 acres of DNR lands in 5 areas to 5 new owners. The proposals are apart of the Trust Land Transfer (TLT) program. Under TLT lands are moved out of "trust" status either to a new owner, or given new status within DNR. The legislature then essentially writes a check to DNR to cover the timber revenue loss. The proposals that will move DNR lands out of DNR are:

-80 acres of DNR land near Lake Cushman to Tacoma Public Utilities
-40 acres of DNR land on the Preston Ridge to King County Parks
-50 acres of DNR land on the "Olympic View" property to Kitsap County
-160 acres of DNR land at Glenrose to Spokane County
-The 290 acre Lake Spokane Campground will be moved from DNR to State Parks. The lands are currently owned by DNR but managed by State Parks

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_bc_bnr_15_17_tlt_presentation.pdf

I don't quite understand why the Legislature should need to write them a check for lost revenue. If a County or Tacoma  buys the land why not purchase income producing land with that money.
These entities are buying the land, right?