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

[haus]

It should also be noted that when it comes to the political battle between us and the anti-hunters, they want to operate in an environment where we are completely dependent upon private and state ground for access and opportunity. Having that big brother 3rd wheel in there makes it more difficult for them to navigate the political landscape. Sure there are exceptions, specifically the wolf issue considering anti-hunters view predators as their furry little vehicles of ideological control and execution. Yet one issue can't be allowed to dictate a final decision on a subject that would have such profound social and economic impact upon our state.

[Special T]

You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.

Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.

I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.

[jmscon]

The thing is that lake, that is now 20 miles to get to, is still accessible! It might not be in a couple of years if this passes and the transfers start.

Over the years federal funding that has gone to the dept of agricultural for the usfs has been slowly hacked away at. The price of timber has gone down significantly as well. Also the cost of fighting forest fires is taking up over half the budget. This has also lead to a decrease in none fire personnel (according to a report in 2015) by 39%!   https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf This is creating a hands off management of forest service property. And a huge reduction in road management, hence closures.

If the costs to fight the forest fires in this state were to come solely from our state budget we would see those lands get sold off so fast it would make your head spin!

If you think the state is going to maintain the roads and access better, go drive a green dot road system! The non green dot roads have been closed to reduce the cost of "maintaining" the green dot roads! In L. T. Murry, Wenas wildlife areas some green dot roads are impassable. The Naneum State forest is a little better but not by much.

The consequences with privatizing the once federal land doesn't just end with access. If those lands start to get developed then there will be huge fights over water rights as has happened in kittitas and skagit counties.

 

[grundy53]

You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.

Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.

I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.

A lot of federal land isn't timber. You also have to think outside of Washington. Colorado doesn't allow hunting on state land. New Mexico doesn't allow camping on state land. Many state's versions of DNR have a profitability mandate. If the land doesn't show a profit they are mandated to sell it. Nevada was given a ton of land at statehood. They have sold off virtually all of it. Texas has virtually zero public lands. I think we would be better served by changing the USFW then we would be by changing the ownership of the land. Once it's gone it's gone forever. I'm hoping Trump guts the USFW and reorganizes it.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[wooltie]

You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.

Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.

I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.

Read the bill.  The Bill requires WA state to transfer 95% of the net proceeds received from any sale of land to the FED.gov.  WA state retains 5% to be deposited into a rainy day school fund.  This is shell game designed to make transferring public land into private hands that much easier, using the States as the vehicle.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) On or before December 31, 2017, the
15 United States shall:
(a) Extinguish title to all public lands; and16
17 (b) Transfer title to public lands to the state of Washington.
18 (2) If the state subsequently transfers title to any public lands
19 received under subsection (1) of this section, the state shall:
20 (a) Retain five percent of the net proceeds the state receives
from the transfer of title; and21
22 (b) Transfer ninety-five percent of the net proceeds the state
23 receives from the transfer of title to the United States.
24 (3) In accordance with the Washington state Constitution, the
25 amount the state retains in accordance with subsection (2)(a) of this
26 section must be deposited into the permanent common school fund
created in RCW 28A.515.300.

[haus]

You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.

Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.

I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.

A lot of federal land isn't timber. You also have to think outside of Washington. Colorado doesn't allow hunting on state land. New Mexico doesn't allow camping on state land. Many state's versions of DNR have a profitability mandate. If the land doesn't show a profit they are mandated to sell it. Nevada was given a ton of land at statehood. They have sold off virtually all of it. Texas has virtually zero public lands. I think we would be better served by changing the USFW then we would be by changing the ownership of the land. Once it's gone it's gone forever. I'm hoping Trump guts the USFW and reorganizes it.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

CO does on 99% that falls under CPW lands, its the trust lands where it gets sideways. CPW has to pay the state land board to get access for hunting and fishing, which due to cost leaves the majority of the trust lands inaccessible. It's largely locked up by the O&G industry and cattle ranching, the majority of the workers being hunters and fisherman makes the whole situation rather frustrating.

[grundy53]

You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.

Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.

I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.

A lot of federal land isn't timber. You also have to think outside of Washington. Colorado doesn't allow hunting on state land. New Mexico doesn't allow camping on state land. Many state's versions of DNR have a profitability mandate. If the land doesn't show a profit they are mandated to sell it. Nevada was given a ton of land at statehood. They have sold off virtually all of it. Texas has virtually zero public lands. I think we would be better served by changing the USFW then we would be by changing the ownership of the land. Once it's gone it's gone forever. I'm hoping Trump guts the USFW and reorganizes it.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

CO does on 99% that falls under CPW lands, its the trust lands where it gets sideways. CPW has to pay the state land board to get access for hunting and fishing, which due to cost leaves the majority of the trust lands inaccessible. It's largely locked up by the O&G industry and cattle ranching, the majority of the workers being hunters and fisherman makes the whole situation rather frustrating.

Their trust land is the equivalent of our DNR land. The CPW land is the equivalent of our WDFW lands. The federal land would fall under the trust land not CPW.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Bob33]

You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.

Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.

I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.

Read the bill.  The Bill requires WA state to transfer 95% of the net proceeds received from any sale of land to the FED.gov.  WA state retains 5% to be deposited into a rainy day school fund.  This is shell game designed to make transferring public land into private hands that much easier, using the States as the vehicle.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) On or before December 31, 2017, the
15 United States shall:
(a) Extinguish title to all public lands; and16
17 (b) Transfer title to public lands to the state of Washington.
18 (2) If the state subsequently transfers title to any public lands
19 received under subsection (1) of this section, the state shall:
20 (a) Retain five percent of the net proceeds the state receives
from the transfer of title; and21
22 (b) Transfer ninety-five percent of the net proceeds the state
23 receives from the transfer of title to the United States.
24 (3) In accordance with the Washington state Constitution, the
25 amount the state retains in accordance with subsection (2)(a) of this
26 section must be deposited into the permanent common school fund
created in RCW 28A.515.300.

There you go. It's patently clear the state can sell the property once it has title.

[wooltie]

You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.

Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.

I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.

Read the bill.  The Bill requires WA state to transfer 95% of the net proceeds received from any sale of land to the FED.gov.  WA state retains 5% to be deposited into a rainy day school fund.  This is shell game designed to make transferring public land into private hands that much easier, using the States as the vehicle.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) On or before December 31, 2017, the
15 United States shall:
(a) Extinguish title to all public lands; and16
17 (b) Transfer title to public lands to the state of Washington.
18 (2) If the state subsequently transfers title to any public lands
19 received under subsection (1) of this section, the state shall:
20 (a) Retain five percent of the net proceeds the state receives
from the transfer of title; and21
22 (b) Transfer ninety-five percent of the net proceeds the state
23 receives from the transfer of title to the United States.
24 (3) In accordance with the Washington state Constitution, the
25 amount the state retains in accordance with subsection (2)(a) of this
26 section must be deposited into the permanent common school fund
created in RCW 28A.515.300.

There you go. It's patently clear the state can sell the property once it has title.

And HB 1008, also sponsored by some of the same politicians sponsoring HB 1103, prevents WDFW and DNR from increasing the amount of land these agencies can acquire.  Additional land acquisitions must be essentially "acreage neutral".  If you buy five acres, then you also need to sell five acres for example.

So if these bills pass, then WA State would suddenly have title to all this new land but the agencies that would own and manage the land would not be able to acquire it.

What's the State to do with all this land and no public agency to manage it?

I mean, 1103 contains no valid state interest...WA doesn't even get the $$ from selling the land.

[Special T]

If they only get 5% why would they sell it.  The annual timber harvest would eclipse a 1 time sale where you got 5%.

I find at least a little comfort that 1 person haus understands where I'm coming from.

[grundy53]

If they only get 5% why would they sell it.  The annual timber harvest would eclipse a 1 time sale where you got 5%.

I find at least a little comfort that 1 person haus understands where I'm coming from.

Because they can't afford to maintain it.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Nwelkhunter81]

I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!

[bearpaw]

I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!

Did anyone say it was a democrat vs republican issue? I'm all for more local control, sick and tired of the USFS being run by greenies who want to lock it up and stop all access and activities. I want to hear more about the bill before I make up my mind either way.

[Nwelkhunter81]

Please re-read my statement... I said comments on other state bills not necessarily on this forum!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

Please re-read my statement... I said comments on other state bills not necessarily on this forum!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You said people!

However, I just saw in another topic where someone was making it a D or R issue on this forum. 
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,206970.msg2772589.html#msg2772589