HB 1103 Would Demand the Transfer of Federal Land to State of WA

[WAcoyotehunter]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!

Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces  roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?

Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?

You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?

shortsightedness for sure.  If the states get the land and the politicians that are sponsoring this bill get their way the land will become private property.

[Special T]

What I see is a group of vindictive bunny huggers reducing acces in the USFS.
 If I have to hike more than 10 miles to get to a lake I used to be able to hike a mile or 2 are they my friends?  No.

The difference I see is that people are pro porting a possibility as a fact.  It's also a possibility we will be at war with China or get struck by a meteor in the next year.

Do I want it sold to a private company? No.  Besides if it can't be logged who would buy the land?

If all the bunny huggers don't want the land sold you think they won't have an impact on our liberal govenor?

[Special T]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!

Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces  roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?

Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?

You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?

shortsightedness for sure.  If the states get the land and the politicians that are sponsoring this bill get their way the land will become private property.

Or they could add it to the DNR holdings and use that timber $ to come up with the extra cash they need to fund schools.  Wouldn't that be a great battle. School funding against bunny huggers on loggable land.

Let's also keep in mind that the land we are talking about does not include wilderness areas... I've hiked them plenty.

Operating from a position of fear is how we have arrived here.

[jackelope]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!

Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces  roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?

Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?

It has happened.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2015/05/oregons_state_parkland_sale_to.html

.....But approached with an increasingly appealing offer from the Chicago-based developer, and pressure from Oregon's former governor John Kitzhaber, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has agreed to privatize 280 acres of the state's public coast so Keiser can turn it into a golf course......

There are more. Google is your friend.

[jackelope]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!

Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces  roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?

Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?

You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?

shortsightedness for sure.  If the states get the land and the politicians that are sponsoring this bill get their way the land will become private property.

Or they could add it to the DNR holdings and use that timber $ to come up with the extra cash they need to fund schools.  Wouldn't that be a great battle. School funding against bunny huggers on loggable land.

Let's also keep in mind that the land we are talking about does not include wilderness areas... I've hiked them plenty.

Operating from a position of fear is how we have arrived here.

Is it only about what can be logged? I see a repetition in your posts.

[WAcoyotehunter]

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!

Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces  roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?

Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?

You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?

shortsightedness for sure.  If the states get the land and the politicians that are sponsoring this bill get their way the land will become private property.

Or they could add it to the DNR holdings and use that timber $ to come up with the extra cash they need to fund schools.  Wouldn't that be a great battle. School funding against bunny huggers on loggable land.

Let's also keep in mind that the land we are talking about does not include wilderness areas... I've hiked them plenty.

Operating from a position of fear is how we have arrived here.

Well that's fantastic, since the DNR pretty much sucks at actually managing land, I'm not interested.  I would rather keep working to push the FS to log and do more active management than watch the land get over logged and wash downstream...then get sold. 

BTW- managing land is more than logging,  it's managing recreation, spraying weeds, fixing fish barriers, managing fire....

[Special T]

Well I happen to live and recreate mostly on the west side.

I'm not surprised a park was sold. I'm not in the loop on Oregon parks but the ones here have to steal money from sportsmen (who largely dont use them) to support the state parks. There is a winning formula for parks but they (parks/state) aren't willing to make the changes.

How many posts have I seen on here in the last year people calling attention that some usfs knucklehead is closing a road down with very thin or BS reasoning? I can think of a couple on either side of the mountain.

I remember calling and writing everyone I could to prevent a merger of the wdfw and DNR and parks. What did we/me get for our sucessful effort? A kick in the balls. Do you think we will be treated better by another organisation that doesn't hold our interests at heart?

[Stein]

One one side are ranchers, billionaires and republicans.  On the other side is virtually every conservation, fishing, hunting, mountain biking, ORV and outdoors nonprofit group.  If you care about access to do anything, it shouldn't be hard to pick a side without even reading up on the issue.

[Special T]

I've said my piece. Go raise hell with them. Just realize you won't get any pat on the back cooperation or improvement from them.

[bearpaw]

Representative Short is from my district and is very well liked by residents in NE WA, she was elected again by a wide margin in the last election. My wife and I know her personally, we know she supports the 2nd Amendment, hunting, fishing, etc. Here is my message to learn more before I say yea or nay on this legislation:

Dear Representative Short,

Hi Shelly, I want to thank you for doing such a great job of representing our district in Olympia over the years. As you may or may not know my wife Tara and I operate a hunting business based near Colville and I own an online hunting forum with thousands of members who live and hunt here in Washington. Many of the members on the forum are concerned about access to public lands and potential sell off of public lands if the state takes over ownership of federally owned lands, I know several of them are sending letters to you opposing HB 1103, so I though perhaps I would try to find out more about HB 1103.

Generally I am in favor of more local control over our public lands but I have a few questions regarding HB 1103.

1.   Is there language to prohibit the sell off of our public lands if the state did get ownership of federal lands? Language to prevent any net sell off of public lands would make this legislation more palatable to sports folks. I understand the federal agencies currently trade lands at times with timber companies when it’s considered beneficial, but the biggest concern for me (and others) is that the state would not be able to sell off lands like has happened in some other states resulting in less public land available for public use.

2.   In NE WA I think the state does a far better job of managing our lands than the USFS. There is logging, easy public access, and essentially the state lands benefit the public as a whole far more than the USFS lands which do not allow logging, burn up in forest fires, and which are continually becoming tougher to access due to more and more road closures. But some sports folks have claimed the state has closed access to some state lands in other parts of Washington. I don’t know how true that is, but could you please find out if public access has been limited to any state owned lands and could you make sure that no loss of public access can happen through this legislation or through state actions once they gain ownership of federal lands through this legislation?

Sell off of public lands and access to public lands are extremely important issues so any clarification and language you can provide may make this legislation more acceptable to those who are concerned.

Respectfully,
Dale Denney

[Special T]

I'm happy you have a relationship with her. Her responce will be enlightening.

[bigtex]

Well I happen to live and recreate mostly on the west side.

I'm not surprised a park was sold. I'm not in the loop on Oregon parks but the ones here have to steal money from sportsmen (who largely dont use them) to support the state parks. There is a winning formula for parks but they (parks/state) aren't willing to make the changes.

How many posts have I seen on here in the last year people calling attention that some usfs knucklehead is closing a road down with very thin or BS reasoning? I can think of a couple on either side of the mountain.

I remember calling and writing everyone I could to prevent a merger of the wdfw and DNR and parks. What did we/me get for our sucessful effort? A kick in the balls. Do you think we will be treated better by another organisation that doesn't hold our interests at heart?

Oregon sold a state forest (equivalent of a DNR state forest like Capitol or Colockum) not a park.

[haus]

I'm for it. Why because if the usfs was doing its job there would be plenty of cash to support itself and then some. Instead they have embraced sue and settle tactics with bunny huggers. The usfs was once a great  promoter of multiple use that funded itself.  In addition to not logging to generate revenue they are ripping roads out making it harder for us to access OUR land.

All facts T. They've essentially worked themselves out of relevance through their own actions and decisions. Then they turn around and complain they are understaffed and underfunded, which is entirely true, but they don't understand why. We're going onto 20 years now of limiting and consolidating access to our national forests combined with going from a cut it all land management focus to don't touch a thing. It's left the national forests with thousands of acres of land where the tree's are all the same age resulting in significant impacts on ungulate populations. The majority of massive uncontrollable wildfires in the drier regions of the west can be attributed to the lack of managing the national forest timber regrowth cycles and direct limitations of accessibility by destroying and/or not maintaining roads. Also, despite going from 8 years of Dem to 8 of repub and back to 8 of dem the USFS has basically operated the same throughout.

That all being said, and yes at one time I was of the same conclusion as you, but do we collectively believe as hunters that the best solution to address the USFS shortcomings is to kick them out and put all of our hopes into our states DNR and WDFW managers? I don't know, we don't know 100% if that's the right direction to go. Right now on the surface on many points it seems better, but will those points stick? We do know that the volatility of change in management increases at the state level. Our state agencies policies will fluctuate sooner and faster with the voting mood of the majorities desires in WA. Fluctuations at the national level in voting direction have a slower less volatile affect on the management of our lands, that has been consistent for about 23 years now.

We do know that historically states have a rather crappy track record overall when it comes to what they do with land they receive from the federal government. That's a blanket statement though, some states hold on and do well for public access and don't target the elimination of specific outdoor user groups while others have sold off vast amounts of acreage and/or severely limit who where when and how one can access the public land.

My view at this time is that it comes down to a lesser of two evils decision. My hope is that DT, with consideration to the fact that he has a son who seems well versed on what impact the USFS management has had upon us, will overhaul the whole agency from top to bottom and completely reverse its course. That is the easiest way forward, lowest risk, direction to go here. Wish in one hand...well you know the rest, but I'd rather do that then roll the dice on the DNR/WDFW today. 4 years from now if we haven't seen any improvement or change at the USFS then okay, but until then we gotta give the new chief a chance here.

[grundy53]

If you enjoy public lands you should be against this. Period. If this goes through they will be sold to private industry. If you think the pay to play is bad now it will be a lot worse. The whole west will be like Texas.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[JimmyHoffa]

Thinking more about it...I'm less concerned with DNR selling it off to corporations than I am Inslee giving it away to campaign contributors.  I'm now firmly in the no camp.