WDFW land acquisition

[bobcat]

Acquiring land for wildlife habitat and more hunting opportunities is something that just can't be put off until some time in the future.

I look at all the money that's wasted and think about how much land that could have been purchased with that money instead.

First thing that comes to mind is the $850,000 being paid to one person for being a mediator at the Wolf Advisory Group meetings. 

[bigtex]

Acquiring 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 

[JimmyHoffa]

Acquiring 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.

[bigtex]

Acquiring 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.

Well, if some have their way of turning federal lands into state who knows what will happen. DNR sells state land to private owners all the time. I doubt it will happen, but there's people out there that want it.

Oregon has a $30 fee for ODFW lands, it's free for those who get hunting licenses and combo fishing licenses. But if you don't get a combo fishing license (freshwater only) you gotta pay up. At least WDFW gives you a WDFW pass for free if you buy a license.

California DFW has two passes, their Type A (best wildlife areas) is $160 and isn't free to license holders...

We in WA aren't the only ones who have to pay up to access public lands, but it's not as bad as some states....

[Gringo31]

I hear what you are saying Bigtex....

BUT

Why do we have to pay to access our own land?   

[JimmyHoffa]

I hear what you are saying Bigtex....

BUT

Why do we have to pay to access our own land?   

Couldn't pay for all their state parks, so had to find a different user group to pay into the giant shell game of government monies.

[Gringo31]

This is the way it goes....  Each answer being asked "Why". 

Usually after about 4-5 rounds of it you start getting to the real answer.



Why can't they pay for their state parks?  Why/how do they have this kind of money to spend if they don't have any?

[timberfaller]

Acquisitions needs to STOP at least until they start taking care of what they already have.  BUT as long as they are a "government" agency THAT will not happen.   They lack the personal who aren't afraid of working HARD MANUAL labor and long hours(no overtime pay)!

Having been involved with "purchases" the OTHER problem is, paying more then fair market value for what they purchase.  Also having "good" advise from the "powers that be"!   Once they get involved it goes downhill from there!

Question, Which is more important, green pastures or winter range??  Endangered species or raptors??  I can site two purchases where the correct answer was not taken into consideration!!

And that is just with State agency's,  don't even get me started on Federals!!  

[NoBark]

Like most budgets they have different areas of money set aside for different things, not just one big pot if you will.  In some, maybe most, of these acquisitions, the land is actually bought with money provided by a conservation org. with the understanding that the Department will reimburse those funds over a certain time period. It allows them to secure property before it's sold to the private sector before the Department actually has the cash to do so.

RMEF, DU, and many other groups do this across the country.   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. 

[Gringo31]

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.

The question I have is AT WHAT COST???

[pianoman9701]

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. 

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.

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.

Not necessarily, but sometimes. Buying a parcel of land out in the country is different from buying a waterfront property in an estuary like Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor. If you were to do nothing with the waterfront property, to include any kind of building or development, then there's little problem or effect on the wetland. The WDFW is planning on managing these wetlands to improve/maintain habitat and create public access for outdoor recreation, including hunting, fishing, and boating. They're currently owned mainly by Hancock Timber, unless I'm mistaken, and access is pay to play, not to mention the logging operations. Taking them under state ownership and WDFW management is a good thing and gives us more access.