HB 2215 Would End WDFW, DNR & Parks Land Purchases

[bigtex]

House Bill 2215 would prohibit DNR, WDFW and State Parks from purchasing land until the Superintendent of Public Instruction certifies that in his opinion the state is fully funding education. This all goes back to the "McCleary Decision" which basically said that the State of WA is not spending enough on education.

Under this bill even those land purchases that would funded by non-state tax dollars such as federal grants would be prohibited. A large majority of WDFW's land purchases are grant purchases.

If this bill were to pass the only way the agencies could gain lands was from a donation or exchange of lands.

The bill is sponsored by 17 Republicans.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2215.pdf

[ndcasla]

Makes you wonder, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"

[timberfaller]

After being involved with a "purchase"(WDFW) and knowing others, who have, and seeing the after effects,  They ALL need to start selling off some(MOST) of what they have purchased and get out of the land business.

[Jingles]

Bout time they quit spending money to buy land. when they can't manage what they have now.....Like Roger says they need to sell a lot ((1/2) IMO))of what they already own.

[bobcat]

After being involved with a "purchase"(WDFW) and knowing others, who have, and seeing the after effects,  They ALL need to start selling off some(MOST) of what they have purchased and get out of the land business.

  

We need more public land to hunt on, not less.

[bigtex]

After being involved with a "purchase"(WDFW) and knowing others, who have, and seeing the after effects,  They ALL need to start selling off some(MOST) of what they have purchased and get out of the land business.

We need more public land to hunt on, not less.

The fact is a majority of WDFW land purchases are by federal dollars which have no impact on WA's education problem. So in reality what these representatives are doing is holding the agencies hostage. They're basically saying WDFW can't buy land with federal dollars because WA can't fund education with state dollars...Doesn't make sense at all...

In reality, WA needs to pump billions more into the education system according to the courts, a couple million that WDFW uses for land purchases is a drop in the bucket and the savings is basically meaningless.

[JimmyHoffa]

Does WDFW still payout PILT to counties/districts or did that end like a year or two ago?

[bigtex]

Does WDFW still payout PILT to counties/districts or did that end like a year or two ago?

Still does. Currently all counties receive 100% of the fish and wildlife fine money brought into the county courts. Prior to 2011 counties chose either PILT or fine money, not both however most chose PILT.

[timberfaller]

Bobcat,

The purchase I was involved with, YOU can't hunt on half of what was purchased, AND they FAILED to purchase the "critical habitat" that was available WITH the parcel they purchased, wait wait here is the kicker,  they could have had it ALL for the same price they paid for the LITTLE they bought!

Lets see,  5.1 million for 950 acre's BUT could of had just at 2000 acres for the same price.  Hummmmm,  can we all agree WASTE of tax dollars?  ONE other thing,  they didn't want the "water" habitat either!!

Guess what happened to the "critical habitat"

Sub divided and has houses on the now and lot of "No Hunting" signs all over the place.

Does that CLEAR the fog a little!

[wsmnut]

Bigtex is exactly right.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Bout time they quit spending money to buy land. when they can't manage what they have now.....Like Roger says they need to sell a lot ((1/2) IMO))of what they already own.

Bobcat,

The purchase I was involved with, YOU can't hunt on half of what was purchased, AND they FAILED to purchase the "critical habitat" that was available WITH the parcel they purchased, wait wait here is the kicker,  they could have had it ALL for the same price they paid for the LITTLE they bought!

Lets see,  5.1 million for 950 acre's BUT could of had just at 2000 acres for the same price.  Hummmmm,  can we all agree WASTE of tax dollars?  ONE other thing,  they didn't want the "water" habitat either!!

Guess what happened to the "critical habitat"

Sub divided and has houses on the now and lot of "No Hunting" signs all over the place.

Does that CLEAR the fog a little!

After being involved with a "purchase"(WDFW) and knowing others, who have, and seeing the after effects,  They ALL need to start selling off some(MOST) of what they have purchased and get out of the land business.

Soooo, take away for a moment the decision not get all of it, for whatever reason that was decided, how is it better to restrict them from getting ANY land at all, thus allowing it to all go to developers potentially?

Then none of it will be accessible for any reason, ie: hunting, fishing, etc., or possibily locked up and access permits charged, or obtained by special interest groups that can do what ever they wish, while, at the same time, restricting those they don't want out, thus, resulting in the same ending, no access by the common public.

As far as the inability to hunt certain parts of WDFW, DNR, etc lands, I would guess, short of some legal restrictions, it is an administrative decison by the agency, and with enough public pressure, I would think that could be changed.

Like it or not, some things that should come free do need to be fought for.

[pianoman9701]

It sounds to me like the bill is a broad stroke. While there may indeed be bad purchases being made, a blanket prohibition on land purchases, even those which come from federal money, seems to be extreme overreach. I would be in favor of a re-worked bill which doesn't "look the gift horse in the mouth", and outlines the reason/benefits to the residents or department purchases. Although I understand there's quite a bit of state land which isn't available to hunters, there's quite a bit more which is. I voted NO and would prefer this go back to the drawing board.

[luvmystang67]

I come from a place where the county government is buying up a lot of the private land in the name of preservation.  To all the old farmers, this sounds like a great way to prevent the land they loved from being developed.  The problem is, that slowly but surely the county is taking control of the majority of the open land in the county, never to be privately held again unless they choose to sell.  Given that it is funded by the might of the taxpayers, there's no reason they should have to sell.  Furthermore, now the laws of that land are decided upon by the masses. 

With public land purchases of game lands, I have found the hunting to usually be quite terrible actually, probably mostly due to the large number of hunters that use it. 

I 100% agree that we need more land open to hunting, but I'm wary of increasing public ownership of that land to accomplish it.  Especially in this state.  Voter referendum could someday change something we see as protected for our desired use.  Also, it prevents a new generation of farmers, ranchers or loggers from owning their own tracts and drives up the costs for the remaining parcels.

I would MUCH prefer that the state focused on revenue generating land (as they have with timber) and let us all use it (again as they currently do) so that its a win-win.  As far as granting access, I wish they would pass legislation or incentive packages to require private timber companies to allow access to sportsmen.  Furthermore, they should take the millions they're spending on buying properties and focus further on agreements with landowners and either pay them, fix up their properties or manage users for them to allow us more access on private land.

Consider your thoughts briefly (those of you who'd like to see more state land)... Do you really think Washington state (the public) having more (and likely permanent) control of your hunting ground is a wise decision looking forward? 

Again, I'm not saying I don't appreciate the opportunities that we already have due to public land ownership, but I'm wary of them taking it back to create even more common land.  At some point there are negative impacts to private citizens.

[pianoman9701]

WA State having control is far better for hunters than a private individual closing it off altogether, or opening it up through exorbitant lease structures which limit the availability to only the well-off. 60% of the land in this state is privately owned. Much of that belongs to timber companies and is either paid access or soon will be.

[JimmyHoffa]

Until some cunningly worded initiative pops up.  Probably the first place the antis will go for in the state will be state owned lands.

[BULLBLASTER]

What about land like the 40 in mtn view unit. Wdfw acquired a whole ton of land to increase hunting opportunity. Then they close it off to all but special permit holders with 1 -2 tags per season... that really increased opportunity... 

[pianoman9701]

Until some cunningly worded initiative pops up.  Probably the first place the antis will go for in the state will be state owned lands.

Well, if that happens, we're screwed either way. I'd at least like to start with opportunity and then fight if they threaten to take it away.

[fireweed]

 Dollar for dollar, I think the citizens get more from a direct purchase of land than they do for other items that run through our grant systems, like vintage light poles, paved parking lots, or fancy playground equipment shaped like a whale.  If its that bad, the legislature should suspend the entire WWRP program (direct state money for outdoor recreation)--not just land purchases.  I've worked on one of these grants, and the process the state imposes is hopelessly wasteful of tax dollars.  Just flat-out buying land is much more cost effective, and has more long term benefits than $30,000 outhouses and $10,000 signs.     I sure don't trust private businesses to act on a way that benefits a community anymore.  In Cowlitz County, a single private landowner owns HALF of all the land in the county.  This private landowner controls access to most of the rivers, lakes, and public lands.  And now us citizens cant even go for a walk without a permit.  Less public land?  No thanks!

[bigtex]

WDFW owns or manages just under a million acres in WA which isn't even 1.5% of the state. The amount of land that is truly held in WDFW ownership is even less because WDFW manages land on behalf of several other entities. As an example, a large majority of the "WDFW lands" in Grant and Adams counties are actually federal BOR lands that WDFW manages.

[winslow]

It is possible to be too mindful of unenforceable laws and regs. Just saying...

[WAcoyotehunter]

I wonder who is supporting this bill?  Likely the same folks that are supporting transferring federal land to state ownership. 

These people do not care about where or if we hunt.  They want the land in private ownership and free from environmental regulation.  It will end badly for hunters and anglers.

[luvmystang67]

I wonder who is supporting this bill?  Likely the same folks that are supporting transferring federal land to state ownership. 

These people do not care about where or if we hunt.  They want the land in private ownership and free from environmental regulation.  It will end badly for hunters and anglers.

As a hunter, I completely LOVE state and federal land.  Still, I worry about future state when the average Joe is urban, dislikes hunting/loves hiking, and votes to ban hunting on federal and/or state land.  This concern is not out of the question of you know anyone in the city of Seattle or can see the way the world is trending.  I see a time, potentially, when private land is our only outlet for hunting activities.

As far as federal land going to state ownership... think about this a little bit.  Think of states like Idaho, dominated by federal land ownership.  Instead of managing that land themselves, taking timber and mining harvest for their schools and their local government, that money is going into federal public coffers at the expense of Idaho land.  Idaho would probably be much better off as a state if they had control of their own natural resources.  From a narrow hunting perspective, state land may not be best.  From a wider economic concern, a federal government that holds a large portion of a state exerts a great amount of control over that state.

Do you think there's much federal land in Texas?  If there were, how would it be different?  Just some things to consider.  This is not a simple debate.

[JimmyHoffa]

I agree stang.  I like to see a good mix.  The view of multiple use is seeming to shift more toward majority use.  When enough of that majority is 'anti', they'll try to take something away from others. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

I wonder who is supporting this bill?  Likely the same folks that are supporting transferring federal land to state ownership. 

These people do not care about where or if we hunt.  They want the land in private ownership and free from environmental regulation.  It will end badly for hunters and anglers.

As far as federal land going to state ownership... think about this a little bit.  Think of states like Idaho, dominated by federal land ownership.  Instead of managing that land themselves, taking timber and mining harvest for their schools and their local government, that money is going into federal public coffers at the expense of Idaho land.  Idaho would probably be much better off as a state if they had control of their own natural resources.  From a narrow hunting perspective, state land may not be best.  From a wider economic concern, a federal government that holds a large portion of a state exerts a great amount of control over that state.

Do you think there's much federal land in Texas?  If there were, how would it be different?  Just some things to consider.  This is not a simple debate.

Ok- I understand that argument and agree that there are issues with Federal land management.  I live in a county that is ~85% federal ownership.  I gripe that they could/should be cutting more trees and doing some more stewardship projects all time.  There is also quite a bit of DNR land.  Those pieces are cut thin and left trashed.  The resulting money goes to state coffers.  And all three schools in the country are still broke, outdated and struggling for funds.

I would rather not transfer the land to the state.  I would rather address the issues on Federal land.

I do not support transferring ANY public lands to private ownership.  If you think that would be good for hunting into the future you are wrong.  Look at what is happening on timber lands on the West side.... Look at hunting back east and in Texas.... Private ownership is not good for the public.

[luvmystang67]

Private ownership is not good for the public.

This... is what I disagree with most.  I'm a big proponent of private property and the availability of private property to be owned.  Those who choose to do it put in a lot of time and money to make their property what they intend for it to be.  Perhaps corporate ownership of property as an extension of private is a bad deal, but individual ownership is very important for the way we operate as a country.

I'm not trying to take a small piece and run with it, I'm just saying that fundamentally I should be able to buy my own 100 acres of hunting land if I want to.  The more the government owns, the less there is for me to buy and its at a higher price.  Government didn't develop the land in the west, individual land owners did.   

If you want to hunt in Texas you buy your own land or pay someone to use theirs.  Hunting in Texas is fantastic.  Here, everyone can hunt and success rates are much lower and fees are much higher.  "Better" is in the eye of the beholder.

[luvmystang67]

Sorry to be ranting, I'm just very distrustful that my specific interests are best left to the public in any way.

[WAcoyotehunter]

You must have a lot more money available for hunting than most of us.  Public land is a place where everyone has equal opportunity to hunt and enjoy our wildlife resources.  People are financially burdened enough with $3 fuel and expensive tags.  Having a piece of public land to hunt on in fundamental to western hunting and should be guaranteed in perpetuity.

[bearpaw]

I voted yes, I think the state lands in most all the areas I hunt in NE WA are twice as good of hunting as any federal land due to the hands off attitude of federal management. Logging makes for 5 times the habitat for deer/elk/bear. Also we have trails on state land specifically designed for recreation riding provided by the state. The feds won't even let a UTV go up the same roads that logging trucks drive. Just crazy this hands off no use attitude of the feds. These are supposed to be multiple use lands!

Next in my list of complaints about the feds is that they continually remove access for most americans and they have destroyed local economies by stopping logging.

I'm tired of special interest wilderness loving groups controlling the direction of management by the feds on most of our forests. We don't have that problem on state land, we are allowed to access and enjoy state lands. Get the feds out, NOW!

[bobcat]

Dale, sounds like you should have voted no since you like the way state lands are managed.   

Did you read the bill?

[bearpaw]

I almost forgot to mention, while state lands help support our schools, federal lands are a money pit for all taxpayers.

Transfer those federal lands to the state, keep all current wilderness as wilderness, let the feds keep that stuff, that's the only type of management they are good at.

Make all multiple use lands truly multiple use, allow any motorized transportation on the roads, allow logging on a sustainable basis, get more funds for our schools, logging will benefit local economies, and logging will result in much better deer/elk/bear hunting.

[birddogdad]

so if this is federal money for these areas, I wonder how the feds will react if it passes? pull all funding that is incorrectly allocated or used? Law suits by sporting organizations against state and feds to follow.....

[WAcoyotehunter]

Why don't you work towards changing the Federal logging and travel management then Dale? 

There are ways to change the way the feds do business. for example, the Tester bill in Montana received bipartisan support and includes more wilderness opportunities, more ATV trails, and more logging.  It actually has timber volume requirements built in.

NEWFC is trying this same thing in NE Washington, the Clearwater Collaborative is doing it.... there are better ways than transferring the lands.

[bearpaw]

Dale, sounds like you should have voted no since you like the way state lands are managed.   

Did you read the bill?

I think I got mixed up with the topic/issue of transferring federal lands to state lands.   

But my vote will remain yes because I don't think WDFW is caring for the lands they buy. As a land owner it upsets me when I get weeds all over my place from neighboring properties that don't control weeds.

WDFW implemented a rule that outfitters must be permitted. I thought that was fair, I pay for permits or leases on other lands, but when I tried to get a permit they will not permit me. That is not fair, I have hunted some of those lands for years. I feel like WDFW is prejudice against hunting guides and any hunter who wants the help of a hunting guide. WDFW was very unfair and deceiving in the implementation of this restriction.

[bearpaw]

Why don't you work towards changing the Federal logging and travel management then Dale? 

There are ways to change the way the feds do business. for example, the Tester bill in Montana received bipartisan support and includes more wilderness opportunities, more ATV trails, and more logging.  It actually has timber volume requirements built in.

NEWFC is trying this same thing in NE Washington, the Clearwater Collaborative is doing it.... there are better ways than transferring the lands.

Outfitters and most Montanans supported that legislation in Montana. I would need to see what is proposed for NE WA, for obvious reasons most of us know we cannot trust any green leaning group, they have funding for lawyers and lobbyists to lobby against use by the rest of Americans and to prevent logging and they only pursue deals that cost the rest of us access and use.

There are people working on trying to bring use back for the majority of Americans but as you know these wilderness groups have deep, deep, pockets and fool people into supporting them.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Yes they do.

The difference with the collaboratives now is that they include everyone.  The ranchers, timber, environmentalists, hunters/anglers, hikers... whoever.  They are not "swayed" towards any one group. 

It's fun to sit at a table and hear timber industry argue for wilderness and conservation/environmental groups argue for increased timber harvest.  That is actually happening in Colville.

[bearpaw]

Currently State Parks is under funded, that is the reason the Discover Pass was created, to help pay for State Parks and they are still underfunded. There is definitely a need to take a close look at expansion of State Parks as well. If we can't afford to fund care of our current State Parks, how can we afford to put more land into parks?

If I remember correctly the DP is creating about 30 Million annual for parks. I think the parks budget was about 80 Million.

Discover passes need to more than double in cost to fund parks. If we continue to put more land in parks the budget shortfall will be greater. Are hunters and other outdoor recreationists willing to pay 3 or 4 times more for Discover Passes to fund additional State Park Lands?

[bearpaw]

Yes they do.

The difference with the collaboratives now is that they include everyone.  The ranchers, timber, environmentalists, hunters/anglers, hikers... whoever.  They are not "swayed" towards any one group. 

It's fun to sit at a table and hear timber industry argue for wilderness and conservation/environmental groups argue for increased timber harvest.  That is actually happening in Colville.

I haven't seen or heard this? Who's invited?

[JimmyHoffa]

You must have a lot more money available for hunting than most of us.  Public land is a place where everyone has equal opportunity to hunt and enjoy our wildlife resources.  People are financially burdened enough with $3 fuel and expensive tags.  Having a piece of public land to hunt on in fundamental to western hunting and should be guaranteed in perpetuity.

Or the opposite when it comes to the $.  Private land can go either way being a major cost or a really great deal.  If you are a stranger to land owners, you may have to break out a stack of bills to hunt.  Or you can load up on $3 fuel and drive around on public, campsites/gear/lodging, not use an ATV, not allowed to build a stand, etc.  Or if you know landowners that haven't sold out to pay operations it is a real cost saver.  Just show up during the season and stay on the couch or air mattress, hunt the property and have a good place to hang/process the animal, etc.
I do agree that having public land is good, though.  It's the ratio of public/private that can imo be an issue.  Too much of one isn't necessarily a good thing at the expense of the other.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Yes they do.

The difference with the collaboratives now is that they include everyone.  The ranchers, timber, environmentalists, hunters/anglers, hikers... whoever.  They are not "swayed" towards any one group. 

It's fun to sit at a table and hear timber industry argue for wilderness and conservation/environmental groups argue for increased timber harvest.  That is actually happening in Colville.

I haven't seen or heard this? Who's invited?

Everyone was invited.  NEWFC. There has not been much action lately, but there are more logs coming out of the woods and timber receipts to help the Colville NF pay for restoration projects. 

[bearpaw]

Yes they do.

The difference with the collaboratives now is that they include everyone.  The ranchers, timber, environmentalists, hunters/anglers, hikers... whoever.  They are not "swayed" towards any one group. 

It's fun to sit at a table and hear timber industry argue for wilderness and conservation/environmental groups argue for increased timber harvest.  That is actually happening in Colville.

I haven't seen or heard this? Who's invited?

Everyone was invited.  NEWFC. There has not been much action lately, but there are more logs coming out of the woods and timber receipts to help the Colville NF pay for restoration projects.

NEWFC? 
Was this the meetings with Conservation Northwest and Vaagen Lumber? If so, most people I know were not in favor of that because they wanted to change too many areas to wilderness.

[luvmystang67]

You must have a lot more money available for hunting than most of us.  Public land is a place where everyone has equal opportunity to hunt and enjoy our wildlife resources.  People are financially burdened enough with $3 fuel and expensive tags.  Having a piece of public land to hunt on in fundamental to western hunting and should be guaranteed in perpetuity.

Or the opposite when it comes to the $.  Private land can go either way being a major cost or a really great deal.  If you are a stranger to land owners, you may have to break out a stack of bills to hunt.  Or you can load up on $3 fuel and drive around on public, campsites/gear/lodging, not use an ATV, not allowed to build a stand, etc.  Or if you know landowners that haven't sold out to pay operations it is a real cost saver.  Just show up during the season and stay on the couch or air mattress, hunt the property and have a good place to hang/process the animal, etc.
I do agree that having public land is good, though.  It's the ratio of public/private that can imo be an issue.  Too much of one isn't necessarily a good thing at the expense of the other.

I agree with you 100%, there's a balance.  I like WA's balance.  There can be too much of a good thing was my only point earlier.  Clearly there are some major qualms with how different government organizations are managing and allow access on their lands.

FWIW, I use government owned lands probably more than a lot of people.  I also use private land.  Each has its perks and I am (and we all should be) glad and fortunate to have both.  I think a lot of people don't have any private land access because they've never asked.  Its fun hunting at those places though, your car is a lot less likely to get broken into at the gate and the chances of running across a tweaker are minimal.

[NumaJohn]

Hello, all.

Whenever I think about the importance of public land, I remember an experience my dad and I had when I was 12 years old and in my first season of hunting. (I'm 48 now.) We went to 18 farms/ranches to seek permission to hunt ducks. Out of those, 17 said, "Sorry, but we don't allow permission because of x, y, or z bad experiences in the past." The people who declined to grant permission weren't jerks about it, and they respected my dad's plea that he just wanted to get his son an opportunity at harvesting his first duck, but the answers were still "No."

Now, I know that public lands are often poorly managed at the state and federal levels, and as a taxpayer and one who cares about quality habitat, that bugs me to no end. The thing is, though, at least I can go to much of that land and hike, hunt, fish, etc. whenever I want as long as I am following applicable laws. That's an amazing privilege, and one that we are seeing diminished by the year. So I favor improvements to how the lands are managed, sure, but those are public lands that belong to all of us, for all of us. They constitute one of the best parts of our country, in my view. If we can afford additional purchases, then I see that as more insurance that my 12 year old and 10 year old will have some opportunities to recreate when they are my age and even older.

The West was won, in large measure, by kicking butt on Native Americans, and it was won through the strategic alignments of the federal government and corporate interests (e.g., timber, mining, railroad). The sham that was the Homestead Act, for example, led to destitution for many Americans. They had been duped through the careful propaganda put out by the government and the railroads. I feel like we are getting another push on a grand scale, but this time it's coming mostly from corporate interests who prey on our dissatisfaction with the ways our governments (state and federal) have screwed things up. I think our governments are responsible for a great many success stories, too, such as the national parks, wildlife refuges, trail systems, open lands for hunting, and the like. I agree with WAcoyotehunter that we would be far better off pursuing collaborations that bring the various stakeholders together to enhance multiple use where it makes sense and keep the land in the public's hands. The Tester bill does indeed show us an alternative path to "x or y" thinking.

I have difficulty seeing how more private land could lead to anything better for the average hunter and angler. Concerns about poor management practices and government spending notwithstanding, I am much more optimistic about our future if we retain access for all and maintain if not enhance public land holdings. Therefore I cannot support HB 2215, even though I agree with some of the assertions made by others about how poorly the state has managed some of our land.

John

[bigtex]

so if this is federal money for these areas, I wonder how the feds will react if it passes? pull all funding that is incorrectly allocated or used? Law suits by sporting organizations against state and feds to follow.....

If this bill were to pass basically the federal money used for acquisitions by states (basically only used by WDFW) would be able to be used by other states.

[bigtex]

I almost forgot to mention, while state lands help support our schools, federal lands are a money pit for all taxpayers.

Transfer those federal lands to the state, keep all current wilderness as wilderness, let the feds keep that stuff, that's the only type of management they are good at.

Make all multiple use lands truly multiple use, allow any motorized transportation on the roads, allow logging on a sustainable basis, get more funds for our schools, logging will benefit local economies, and logging will result in much better deer/elk/bear hunting.

There's a couple problem with your statement.

Not all state lands support schools, only DNR lands which are logged support state schools. When WDFW logs areas the money does not go to schools.

The federal government pays a PILT to county government for lands owned by the federal land management agencies. In 2014 counties in WA received over $19,000,000 for under 12,000,000 acres of federal lands in WA. The PILT allocation for the feds is typically at a higher rate then if the lands were held in private hands. Then you throw in federal employees who are adding to the tax base in the local communities. Additionally, you have federal agencies which fund positions in local government. As an example, somewhere between 25-33% of the Skamania County Sheriff's Office budget comes from USFS Law Enforcement funding. If those USFS lands were DNR in Skamania County the county SO would get $0 from DNR. So basically the SO would lose over a quarter of it's funding.

We can go back and forth on the practices of how the agencies manage the land, but to say the feds just simply drain the resources of the county is in correct.

[bearpaw]

I almost forgot to mention, while state lands help support our schools, federal lands are a money pit for all taxpayers.

Transfer those federal lands to the state, keep all current wilderness as wilderness, let the feds keep that stuff, that's the only type of management they are good at.

Make all multiple use lands truly multiple use, allow any motorized transportation on the roads, allow logging on a sustainable basis, get more funds for our schools, logging will benefit local economies, and logging will result in much better deer/elk/bear hunting.

There's a couple problem with your statement.

Not all state lands support schools, only DNR lands which are logged support state schools. When WDFW logs areas the money does not go to schools.

The federal government pays a PILT to county government for lands owned by the federal land management agencies. In 2014 counties in WA received over $19,000,000 for under 12,000,000 acres of federal lands in WA. The PILT allocation for the feds is typically at a higher rate then if the lands were held in private hands. Then you throw in federal employees who are adding to the tax base in the local communities. Additionally, you have federal agencies which fund positions in local government. As an example, somewhere between 25-33% of the Skamania County Sheriff's Office budget comes from USFS Law Enforcement funding. If those USFS lands were DNR in Skamania County the county SO would get $0 from DNR. So basically the SO would lose over a quarter of it's funding.

We can go back and forth on the practices of how the agencies manage the land, but to say the feds just simply drain the resources of the county is in correct.

My statement was that the federal lands is a money pit for taxpayers! USFS operates in the red, with Billions $$$ wasted on their bureaucracy. Whereas state timber lands provide more recreational opportunities, more dollars into local jobs and economies, and help fund our schools.

It appears local LE agencies do benefit from federal funding but looking at your numbers it appears counties only bring in about $1.60 per acre from the feds whereas private land owners pay far more and DNR timber lands provide jobs and income for the counties and schools. The funds going to local LE from fed agencies is coming more and more from the taxpayers because agencies like USFS no longer allow many activities that produce revenue or jobs. Increasingly the taxpayer is carrying the load.

When you look at the big picture I don't think I was at all incorrect in my statement but perhaps I should have specified USFS. I don't know the numbers, but at least BLM is allowing some oil and gas production and grazing. USFS less and less!

Many people are sick and tired of the federal over reach and the continued push for less recreation, less jobs, and less revenue from federal land. If the agencies were to reverse their trend of no use you wouldn't see this push to eliminate federal control of lands. Just sayin!

[bearpaw]

so if this is federal money for these areas, I wonder how the feds will react if it passes? pull all funding that is incorrectly allocated or used? Law suits by sporting organizations against state and feds to follow.....

If this bill were to pass basically the federal money used for acquisitions by states (basically only used by WDFW) would be able to be used by other states.

I can't remember, what percentage do the feds pay and what percentage does WA pay on purchases?
Do the feds continue providing funding to maintain these properties after purchase?

[bigtex]

so if this is federal money for these areas, I wonder how the feds will react if it passes? pull all funding that is incorrectly allocated or used? Law suits by sporting organizations against state and feds to follow.....

If this bill were to pass basically the federal money used for acquisitions by states (basically only used by WDFW) would be able to be used by other states.

I can't remember, what percentage do the feds pay and what percentage does WA pay on purchases?
Do the feds continue providing funding to maintain these properties after purchase?

It's not a percentage.
Basically WDFW applies for a grant from USFWS (usually Section 6) which they will use to acquire lands that meet the standards of the program.

For example, a large part of the acquisition of the Mountain View 4-O Ranch in Asotin County has been from USFWS grant funds, with some additional WA Recreation and Conservation grant funds, so this acquisition is truly a mix. In comparison, last year WDFW acquired a conservation easement on about 100 acres in Okanagan County which was 100% paid by the USFWS grant.

The feds sole purpose under Section 6 is the acquisition of the lands not the maintenance. However, other federal funding sources have ben used for maintenance. For example, Pittman Robertson funds are being used to maintain 4-O Ranch.