HB 2215 Would End WDFW, DNR & Parks Land Purchases

[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!