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.