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

[bigtex]

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!

I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.

[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.

Because they can't afford to maintain it.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure why the concept of money cash flow and "cost" is so difficult to understand. You can cut costs but only to a certain level, but you can almost always increase revenue.

It was pointed out that the #1 cost of the usfs was fighting fires. Strangly enough logging timber and putting cattle out on the land attack the problem from both sides. They bring in $ and reduce fuel loads.

If you think it's "costs $" to maintain a wood lot, how does DNR manage it?

I'm not in the logging industry but have you ever payed an ounce of attention to Loggers  posts?

@logger

[bearpaw]

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

I'm not sure why the concept of money cash flow and "cost" is so difficult to understand. You can cut costs but only to a certain level, but you can almost always increase revenue.

It was pointed out that the #1 cost of the usfs was fighting fires. Strangly enough logging timber and putting cattle out on the land attack the problem from both sides. They bring in $ and reduce fuel loads.

If you think it's "costs $" to maintain a wood lot, how does DNR manage it?

I'm not in the logging industry but have you ever payed an ounce of attention to Loggers  posts?

@logger

You are exactly right. The greenies have controlled the USFS for too long. They have practically stripped the USFS of all income sources other than tax payers. State lands and private land owners make millions off forests because they have not cut off all revenue sources, they have enhanced revenue sources.

[Bob33]

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!

I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.

In instances like this, blindly following a party line is foolish.

[yakimarcher]

I emailed both my reps and state senator

[Bean Counter]

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!

I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.

And damn them for championing states rights, fiscal sanity, individual liberty and limited government 

[Special T]

When my brother logged they replaced a culvert that went bad on a logging road they were using. The USFS said it would cost close ton $100k to replace and 4 months. The logging  out fit did it them selves for less than $10k in one day with an oversized culvert.

You can tell me all day long how much it costs to do maintenance.  I'm sure with a little poking around logger and myself could flood you with examples of how effecient the usfs is.

[bigtex]

When my brother logged they replaced a culvert that went bad on a logging road they were using. The USFS said it would cost close ton $100k to replace and 4 months. The logging  out fit did it them selves for less than $10k in one day with an oversized culvert.

You can tell me all day long how much it costs to do maintenance.  I'm sure with a little poking around logger and myself could flood you with examples of how effecient the usfs is.

The problem isn't the agency it's the laws behind it which have been enacted by Congress and then even more regulated by court decisions. The fact that a federal agency (any) has to do a natural resource study, cultural resource study, etc to put up a stop sign or new mailbox is ridiculous. Yet we see Congress blame the agencies for doing this when it is in fact a former session of Congress who enacted things like NEPA, and other study requirements

[haus]

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.
[/quote]

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
[/quote]
Their DNR is the umbrella agency, CPW operates within the DNR and is responsible for managing all of the states wildlife areas and state parks, the later being managed in an equivalent manner to our DNR state forests, nothing like the WDFW here. Being a washingtonian this threw me off the first time my coworkers suggested we go hunt elk in a state park; within the DNR is the state land board which manages the trust lands provided by the federal government, of those trust lands that involve O&G we're managed by the COGCC. CPW has to pay the state land board for what equates to 20% of the total trust acreage. 5% is leased by outfitters and clubs. The other 75% goes to O&G and farming.

[WAcoyotehunter]

When my brother logged they replaced a culvert that went bad on a logging road they were using. The USFS said it would cost close ton $100k to replace and 4 months. The logging  out fit did it them selves for less than $10k in one day with an oversized culvert.

You can tell me all day long how much it costs to do maintenance.  I'm sure with a little poking around logger and myself could flood you with examples of how effecient the usfs is.

I don't disagree that the feds need to do some things very differently. 

[Nwelkhunter81]

I think most would agree whether it's a state or a federal project, they tend to be more costly and take longer to complete.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grundy53]

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.

If you think the greenies want to lock it up just wait until it's privately owned...

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[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

I'm not sure why the concept of money cash flow and "cost" is so difficult to understand. You can cut costs but only to a certain level, but you can almost always increase revenue.

It was pointed out that the #1 cost of the usfs was fighting fires. Strangly enough logging timber and putting cattle out on the land attack the problem from both sides. They bring in $ and reduce fuel loads.

If you think it's "costs $" to maintain a wood lot, how does DNR manage it?

I'm not in the logging industry but have you ever payed an ounce of attention to Loggers  posts?

@logger

First of all, I come from a logging family and a logging community. So I'm well aware. You seem to fail to realize that the DNR is a government agency. They are not as bad as the USFS but they are nowhere as efficient as a private company. They are not as good at managing their lands as you seem to think they are. Once again I'll point out there is a lot of federal land that isn't timberland.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[grundy53]

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!

I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.

And damn them for championing states rights, fiscal sanity, individual liberty and limited government 

What the heck does this have to do with state's rights, individual liberty or limiting government? You do realize state governments are still governments right?

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[jackelope]

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.