Free: Contests & Raffles.
Subdivision of land into smaller parcels is a big problem, especially in areas where many animals are migratory. Smaller parcels along with more people and residential areas means more fences, dogs, cats, traffic, etc.
This topic is about WDFW land, not DNR. And I'm pretty sure DNR knows how much land they own and where it's located.When the WDFW acquires land, what is the cost of managing it? They don't necessarily need to spend any money to manage it. They simply need to buy it before it's sold to a developer who will subdivide it and sell it off in smaller parcels.
So, right now it is private land with presumably no access and likely not managed to benefit wildlife.WDFW buys it and the worst case scenario is that it is managed for wildlife with no access.Worst case still has better wildlife habitat and the potential for greater access.
This will be interesting. I own 80 acres next to the land they propose to buy in Pacific County. I would sure like to know some details.
Quote from: Halo on January 25, 2016, 08:01:21 PMThis will be interesting. I own 80 acres next to the land they propose to buy in Pacific County. I would sure like to know some details.What details? Have you called and asked them? Depending on the land you may find they will be good neighbors that you seldom see. With occasional hunters whom most will respect your property rights.
Quote from: Stein on January 25, 2016, 07:41:11 PMSo, right now it is private land with presumably no access and likely not managed to benefit wildlife.WDFW buys it and the worst case scenario is that it is managed for wildlife with no access.Worst case still has better wildlife habitat and the potential for greater access.Exactly!look at them.In my area it include purchasing access to the 7400 line on the Wynoochee river. Currently the gate is locked all because some fools decided it was okay to leave there trucks block the road. Cost an entire days worth of operations to the landowner.Other areas include wetlands next to wdfw lands that are good waterfowl habitat.Not sure of any bad that comes from these acquisitions. Also many need to understand that much of the funds used come from grants that if the WDFW does not apply for and use someone else will. In some case NGO's like The Audubon Society could acquire and shut down for hunting. Many of these grants come from taxes yet other organizations have access to them. Take a look at some of the trusts that are purchasing lands with these dollar. They are not public friendly at all.
When the WDFW acquires land, what is the cost of managing it? They don't necessarily need to spend any money to manage it. They simply need to buy it before it's sold to a developer who will subdivide it and sell it off in smaller parcels.
It's ok, but I notice one parcel is out between Walla Walla and Touchet. Why not in the foot hills where plenty of deer hunting would benefit more?
Quote from: csaaphill on January 25, 2016, 11:28:33 PMIt's ok, but I notice one parcel is out between Walla Walla and Touchet. Why not in the foot hills where plenty of deer hunting would benefit more?Looks like they have their reasons:
We have a corrupt system with corrupt "leaders". Or....at least leaders who don't seem to take action to improve transparency, accountability or professionalism. They continue to want more money and my stance is NO.No more until you can manage what you have. They don't need anything more on their plate as it seems clear to me they can't handle what they have.
Acquiring land for wildlife habitat and more hunting opportunities is something that just can't be put off until some time in the future.
Quote from: bobcat on January 26, 2016, 09:12:57 AMAcquiring land for wildlife habitat and more hunting opportunities is something that just can't be put off until some time in the future.I don't want to see us like Texas and states east of the Dakotas where basically everyone is forced to fork out money to hunt private lands or are jammed into a few public chunks of land.We can all hate the politics and policies of the state/federal land management agencies, but I like knowing that just about every year I can hunt some new piece of public land (typically state acquired).I live in a county with a ton of urban sprawl, in the past 10 years the county has bought a ton of forested/riparian lands (mainly smallish parcels) that otherwise would've been sold to developers. The downside is they don't allow hunting, however I would rather see trees in an area provided wildlife habitat then a two story $350,000 house that the only "habitat" is a mowed green yard
Quote from: bigtex on January 26, 2016, 09:29:14 AMQuote from: bobcat on January 26, 2016, 09:12:57 AMAcquiring land for wildlife habitat and more hunting opportunities is something that just can't be put off until some time in the future.I don't want to see us like Texas and states east of the Dakotas where basically everyone is forced to fork out money to hunt private lands or are jammed into a few public chunks of land.We can all hate the politics and policies of the state/federal land management agencies, but I like knowing that just about every year I can hunt some new piece of public land (typically state acquired).I live in a county with a ton of urban sprawl, in the past 10 years the county has bought a ton of forested/riparian lands (mainly smallish parcels) that otherwise would've been sold to developers. The downside is they don't allow hunting, however I would rather see trees in an area provided wildlife habitat then a two story $350,000 house that the only "habitat" is a mowed green yard Washington is FAR from being like the states you fear becoming. There is so much public land out here, I doubt anyone could ever hunt it all in their lifetime. What generally seems to be the issue is the more productive land is private and it is also generally located closer to the population centers; so the hunters that want more animals and closer to the house are the ones inconvenienced most. But still nothing like some of those other states. And to add, we have to pay $35 for DNR pass and $30 for Forest Circus pass.
I hear what you are saying Bigtex....BUTWhy do we have to pay to access our own land?
I may actually get to hunt a few of these places, or my kids and grandkids. I am certain of this, if it went private, that would NOT happen.
What worries me the most is the lake creek property. It is just south of Coffee Pot, which is a preserve. So why wouldn't they just make that the same. I too am all for more recreation opportunities. I just don't know if this is the way to go about it. Quote from: bobcat on January 25, 2016, 05:10:29 PMSubdivision of land into smaller parcels is a big problem, especially in areas where many animals are migratory. Smaller parcels along with more people and residential areas means more fences, dogs, cats, traffic, etc.So, owning your own piece of land, farming, ranching or recreating said piece of land is a threat? Then hell, nobody should own any land. Better hand it all over to the state then, so they can manage it better.
