HB 2215 Would End WDFW, DNR & Parks Land Purchases

[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.