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

[kentrek]

  On our DNR equivalent, State Trust Land, I cannot "target shoot." but I can "zero my rifle in" while possessing a hunting license 

And your okay with that ?

[Special T]

The choice isn't quite as binary are many of you state. Public/ private.  It could remain public with more logging or grazing. Fees could go up and more logging could occur.  The usfs could have prevented this action by not pushing us out of the forest. Kept to the multiple use model that Pinchot made popular. But instead work to make all the land defecto wilderness.

[grundy53]

The choice isn't quite as binary are many of you state. Public/ private.  It could remain public with more logging or grazing. Fees could go up and more logging could occur.  The usfs could have prevented this action by not pushing us out of the forest. Kept to the multiple use model that Pinchot made popular. But instead work to make all the land defecto wilderness.

There is a ton of FS land that is open. Where I hunt there is way more state land that is gated or the roads put to bed.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[wsmnut]

The choice isn't quite as binary are many of you state. Public/ private.  It could remain public with more logging or grazing. Fees could go up and more logging could occur.  The usfs could have prevented this action by not pushing us out of the forest. Kept to the multiple use model that Pinchot made popular. But instead work to make all the land defecto wilderness.

Trouble is it likely won't stop there.  As soon as the state has a budget shortfall a developer will whisper to a legislator and before you can blink there will be a bill in the state house to sell off enough land to offset the shortfall.
     What will really be aggravating is when some of these sales will land lock remaining public ground.
     I don't know how any hunter could be for this kind of change.  Blindly following any idealism is a path to ruin.

[grundy53]

How does the future this bill holds directly benefit hunters and outdoorsmen?

Forget the R vs. D discussion and explain to me the benefits this bill holds for DIY hunters, hikers, fishermen, general outdoorspeople. If you're feeling spunky, explain to me the downsides this bill holds for the same user groups.

makes me think of the old adage "if it aint broke, don't fix it".  The user groups you mention have absolutely nothing to gain from this bill, and the thread has set out numerous possibilities of what we could loose. I've seen several references that seem to say "he's a hunter and he's for it, therefore it must be ok".  Important to keep in mind that many thousands of acres of public access land have been lost to fellow hunters who've leased, bought, or pushed for raffles and auctions on public areas that most of us can't afford to participate in. Just because they hunt, doesn't mean they have any desire to be out with the general public when they do it.  There is no upside to this bill for the basic everyday outdoors person and a whole lot of downside possibilities.

Kinda what I was thinking.
Anyone else?
@bearpaw
@Bean Counter
Bueller??

Our Representative, Shelly Short has been chosen to replace our Senator Dansel who has been hired by the Trump Administration. I know Shelly is very busy but she sent a short message from her phone stating she would never support sales of our public lands, I believe her! She said she would forward my concerns to the prime sponsor for consideration. I suspect it's possible they don't realize their may be a loophole whereby lands could be sold, but as SpecialT stated that doesn't make much sense for 5%?

I would definitely consider state control of access to our lands over federal control which sucks, the state would certainly do more logging and less wilderness. I'm not so sure BHA can be trusted about this legislation, it could be a ploy by them to retain the best chances they have of getting more wilderness. That is the foremost reason BHA was originally created, more wilderness! I firmly believe there is a fair amount more game on state land than USFS. I'm just thinking out loud, I'm not taking a position until I know more.

As someone said, if Trump will restructure the USFS perhaps that agency will be more likeable! 

Honestly, this isn't about BHA. Whatever you think their motives are. This is about all public land hunters. Whether backcountry or road hunter and everyone in between. For the most part where I hunt on the Westside it's either private industrial timberland where you are required to buy an access permit (pay to play) or it's state land that is gated at the pavement. Whereas where I hunt on the eastside it's mostly FS land where I can drive all day and not hit pavement or worry about a gate. Which would you prefer?

I don't care if they pinky promise they won't sell the land. One large fire would change everything. Or when they are backed into a corner about funding education (like they already are) the liberals would find some easy money selling off all that extra timberland.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Bob33]

Our Representative, Shelly Short has been chosen to replace our Senator Dansel who has been hired by the Trump Administration. I know Shelly is very busy but she sent a short message from her phone stating she would never support sales of our public lands, I believe her!

What happens when she is longer a representative? Will her predecessor feel the same way? Does her one vote prevent the sale of public land?

If you follow what the governor is saying and attempting to do recently, he wants a massive $11 billion tax increase. You can only squeeze a turnip (the public) so much to gain more tax revenue. When he (or his most likely Democratic successor) still doesn't have enough for his pet projects, where will he turn?

[Special T]

I know there are some land assessors, folks that work for DNR and timber guys on here.

We need some rough numbers to compare. Apparently some people think that the state is likely to sell land that they can generate revenue for a 5% stake of the sale.

What is the average value for timberland an acre, ie what it's likely to sell for. What is the average yield that DNR produces via harvesting  timber?

Make similar comparisons to blm style grazing ranching land.

It's possible that these 2 land types are not equil as I remember some one saying on here DNR has been doing sales and trades for more timberland.

Prove me wrong that it's more profitable for the state to sell than harvest and multiple use.

[bigtex]

Let's be honest, most people on here vote republican. I think some people have a hard time going against their party. Public land transfers/sales is essentially a republican idea. Some people are so partisan that if a republican legislator/congressmen is behind the bill, or even better if their own legislator is behind the bill then they must think it's a good idea so I their constituent believe them and also think it is a good idea. I've seen it many times on here regarding legislation on here, people will say "well Jon Smith is my Senator and he's a good dude, I don't like this legislation but I believe in him, I'm behind him, so there must be something good about this!  "

As far as I know, every state other than Utah which has actually commissioned a study to look into if their state could manage the federal lands in their state has found that the transfer would essentially bankrupt the state. I think Wyoming and Montana were the two most recent to publish similar studies.

[bigtex]

Make similar comparisons to blm style grazing ranching land.

It's possible that these 2 land types are not equil as I remember some one saying on here DNR has been doing sales and trades for more timberland.

Prove me wrong that it's more profitable for the state to sell than harvest and multiple use.

WA DNR is there to make $. Because of this they have been selling off their smaller parcels, parcels on islands, and desert parcels since the best way to make $ is through timber harvest. In fact there is at least one current state law supporting such move, it has an interesting title....:

RCW 79.11.310
Sale of lands with low-income potential

(1) The purpose of this section is to provide revenues to the state and its various taxing districts through the sale of public lands which are currently used primarily for grazing and similar low priority purposes, by enabling their development as irrigated agricultural lands.

(2) All applications for the purchase of lands of the foregoing character, when accompanied by a proposed plan of development of the lands for a higher priority use, shall be individually reviewed by the board. The board shall thereupon determine whether the sale of the lands is in the public interest and upon an affirmative finding shall offer such lands for sale. However, any such parcel of land shall be sold to the highest bidder but only at a bid equal to or higher than the last appraised valuation thereof as established by appraisers for the department for any such parcel of land. Further, any lands lying within United States reclamation areas, the sale price of which is limited or otherwise regulated pursuant to federal reclamation laws or regulations thereunder, need not be offered for sale so long as such limitations or regulations are applicable thereto.

(3) The department shall adopt appropriate rules defining properties of such irrigated agricultural potential and shall take into account the economic benefits to the locality in classifying such properties for sale.

[Bob33]

Apparently some people think that the state is likely to sell land that they can generate revenue for a 5% stake of the sale.

It's not only revenue from the sale; it's also the decrease in expenses to own and manage it.

[grundy53]

I know there are some land assessors, folks that work for DNR and timber guys on here.

We need some rough numbers to compare. Apparently some people think that the state is likely to sell land that they can generate revenue for a 5% stake of the sale.

What is the average value for timberland an acre, ie what it's likely to sell for. What is the average yield that DNR produces via harvesting  timber?

Make similar comparisons to blm style grazing ranching land.

It's possible that these 2 land types are not equil as I remember some one saying on here DNR has been doing sales and trades for more timberland.

Prove me wrong that it's more profitable for the state to sell than harvest and multiple use.

You are assuming that the only reason they would sell the land is to make a profit. I think the main reason they would sell it is because they can't afford to maintain it. Also to a lesser degree some developers or industrial timber companies aka large campaign donors would whisper in someone's ear.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[grundy53]

Let's be honest, most people on here vote republican. I think some people have a hard time going against their party. Public land transfers/sales is essentially a republican idea. Some people are so partisan that if a republican legislator/congressmen is behind the bill, or even better if their own legislator is behind the bill then they must think it's a good idea so I their constituent believe them and also think it is a good idea. I've seen it many times on here regarding legislation on here, people will say "well Jon Smith is my Senator and he's a good dude, I don't like this legislation but I believe in him, I'm behind him, so there must be something good about this!  "

As far as I know, every state other than Utah which has actually commissioned a study to look into if their state could manage the federal lands in their state has found that the transfer would essentially bankrupt the state. I think Wyoming and Montana were the two most recent to publish similar studies.

I agree. I'm admittedly an R voter. I have never voted for anyone that didn't have one next to his name. I also vote conservative on initiatives. But this is too big a deal for me to just toe the party line. I am adamantly opposed to this.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Special T]

Let's at least try and run some quick numbers shall we?

[Special T]

Let's be honest, most people on here vote republican. I think some people have a hard time going against their party. Public land transfers/sales is essentially a republican idea. Some people are so partisan that if a republican legislator/congressmen is behind the bill, or even better if their own legislator is behind the bill then they must think it's a good idea so I their constituent believe them and also think it is a good idea. I've seen it many times on here regarding legislation on here, people will say "well Jon Smith is my Senator and he's a good dude, I don't like this legislation but I believe in him, I'm behind him, so there must be something good about this!  "

As far as I know, every state other than Utah which has actually commissioned a study to look into if their state could manage the federal lands in their state has found that the transfer would essentially bankrupt the state. I think Wyoming and Montana were the two most recent to publish similar studies.

I think those studies would be quite informative. Do you have links?

[JimmyHoffa]

bigtex, do you know of any instances of national park land ever being 'downgraded' to regular wilderness or forest circus land such that it is huntable again?  I've heard about fed land being sold off and heard of feds buying up private, but not recall NPS land ever being sold off.