HB 1008 Would Require WDFW, DNR & Parks to Sell Land if they Want to Buy Land

[fireweed]

Shea also wants Eastern Washington to become the independent state of "Liberty"

[huntnphool]

My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership.  It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly

 +1

[csaaphill]

Hell no should be an option.

[Vees]

Land transfer proponents are using the same tactics at both the federal and state level. 

Federal - cut the forest service budget so they can't effectively manage the land, and then use that as a reason to transfer to the states.

State - cut the PILT funding so the state can't meet their obligations, and then use that as a reason to limit state land ownership.

The fight to privatize OUR public lands will show many different faces, but the end goal is all the same.  Less public lands and less public access for you and I to enjoy.  The arguments used by legislators for public land transfers are dishonest and the tactics are deceitful.  All sportsman should flat out reject these kind of proposals. 

[bigtex]

Three more Republican representatives have added their names as sponsors to this bill. The bill is now sponsored by Representatives Shea, Taylor, Short, McCaslin, Buys, Schmick, and Haler.

[fisheral87]

Can those who support this bill please offer their argument?

Thanks,

Al

[JasonG]

Definitely a bad bill for anyone who likes public land . In the end the state will sell to private sector.

[dreamunelk]

Very bad idea!

[JimmyHoffa]

bigtex, the other bill wants fed land transferred to the state so I'm guessing not technically 'sold'.  Would these two bills conflict in anyway?  I assume the other bill would take a National Forest and give it to DNR, but as long as it isn't paid for DNR doesn't have to give up equal acreage.

[bigtex]

bigtex, the other bill wants fed land transferred to the state so I'm guessing not technically 'sold'.  Would these two bills conflict in anyway?  I assume the other bill would take a National Forest and give it to DNR, but as long as it isn't paid for DNR doesn't have to give up equal acreage.

Isn't it odd that basically the same legislators who sponsor a bill that says WDFW/DNR/Parks has too much land and cant manage it, then turn around and sponsor another bill saying that all federal lands should be turned over to WA and as a result would be managed by those same state agencies??

After reading 1008 again it actually says when an agency "acquires" property they must then identify lands in that county to be sold. So there may very well be a conflict between the two bills sponsored by the same exact people...