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

[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 

What the heck does this have to do with state's rights, individual liberty or limiting government?

Maybe if some of us who really like free stuff (I do) tried exercising a little more impartiality we'd realize that people who are politically aligned with us but don't hunt are opposed to our free subsidy on a variety of moral reasons.

You do realize state governments are still governments right?

A state government where my representative lives in my district and I can just bounce a stupid question off him any time I want? Where the legislators work part time and have real jobs instead of year round and yet only working half time? Where I can drive less than an hour and witness their delibrations? Where they're competing against a handful of votes of only semi-libertard legislators from places like Flagstaff and Tucson as opposed to full-tilt flag burning, baby killing districts like San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle? Yeah, I'll take door #2.

[baldopepper]

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.

[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.

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??

[Stein]

It's pretty simple, the feds have a long track record of keeping public land public and allowing outdoorsmen access to it for recreational purposes.  States, every state, has a long track record of limiting access, limiting activity and selling off big chunks to large landowners who lock it off forever.

WA in particular is headed into a monster budget crisis.  So, we want to give them an asset that requires even more money to maintain in hopes that the group in Olympia (who doesn't even want you to own a gun) will take a step back and say, "yeah, let's spend a bunch of money so a few dudes can go shoot their deer."  Let's not sell it to one of our billionair constituents so we can keep up our insane social spending, let's watch out for the hunters.

[jackelope]

Right. Makes total sense.
(insert sarcasm here)

[Nwelkhunter81]

http://sportsmensaccess.org


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jackelope]

http://sportsmensaccess.org


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely someone will find fault with one of the groups that Sportsmen's Access is partnered with.

[Nwelkhunter81]

http://sportsmensaccess.org


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely someone will find fault with one of the groups that Sportsmen's Access is partnered with.

Maybe Old Milwaukee Beer 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

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! 

[wooltie]

So again, someone please tell me: what is the valid state interest in this bill? 

Passing this bill adds costs to the State.gov because the State would have to fund/manage the lands.  Moreover, HB 1008 prevents WDFW and DNR from acquiring additional lands (many of the same folks sponsor this bill and 1103).

The State gains no benefit from selling the lands, so why would the State sell the lands?

If a politician sponsors this bill yet opposes selling public lands, then what in the hell is the reason for this bill in the first place?  Increasing State.gov costs seems irresponsible when no mechanism to pay for those additional costs has been considered and proposed (this happens all the time), but this move doesn't sound like something limited .gov, balanced budget republicans would  support.

I personally don't care whether state or FED manage the lands; the lands need to be managed better and they need to remain public.  That's what matters.  And i think everyone agrees on this point.

But this bill doesn't achieve either of those objectives.

So again, what the hell is the point of 1103?

[Bean Counter]

So again, someone please tell me: what is the valid state interest in this bill? 
...

How about unshackling the tentacles of the federal government from your life and giving you more influence on how your forests are managed ?

[bigtex]

So again, someone please tell me: what is the valid state interest in this bill? 
...

How about unshackling the tentacles of the federal government from your life and giving you more influence on how your forests are managed ?

Ah yes because DNR has been so receptive of the interests of citizens in WA. Which is why I can't target shoot on DNR land in King County. Or why every DNR parcel in King County has a gate except for the main line roads. There's less regulations on USFS lands in this area than DNR lands.

[Bean Counter]

  Your state is more liberal than the national average.  My state is more conservative than the national average. Don't know what to tell ya--should I be made to suffer because of your problems? On our DNR equivalent, State Trust Land, I cannot "target shoot." but I can "zero my rifle in" while possessing a hunting license 

[jackelope]

http://sportsmensaccess.org


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely someone will find fault with one of the groups that Sportsmen's Access is partnered with.

Maybe Old Milwaukee Beer 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well done.
I did see the TRCP listed. Oh the horror.

[NumaJohn]

Hello, All.

It seems to me what we have in this thread--and most of the others on this topic--is a fundamental difference of opinion about individual rights and collective good. It seems some of the "Yes" voters here have very little concern for the hunting futures of most hunters in our country. Sad. Personal liberty trumps all, right? And financial independence. And your interpretation of the Constitution? It's as if you see no upside to what we have been provided by the visionary architects of the North American Conservation model. Had they subscribed solely to the "every man for himself" perspective, none of us would even be having this discussion now, as there would be no federal land left. The "individuals-before-all" proponents would be happily hunting leases and private parcels and paying for access to land-locked state land. Many hunters, including me, actually prefer to hunt public land, prefer to know there are vast swaths of forest where hunters and their families can go. I get the sense some of you really couldn't care less about hunters and other recreationists who depend on public land for access, and again, I think that's sad. Pathetic, even, in my view. Every post you offer reiterates that it's all about you and yours--and that's it.

I am not looking for handouts, mind you, just reiterating that the federal land belongs to ALL OF US. If the federal land gets transferred to the states, then--perhaps out of fiscal necessity--sold to private interests, most of us will be shut out. We will never get OUR land back. Yes, the USFS is and has been out of balance for years, but let's not trust what belongs to ALL OF US in this great country to the individual states. I just don't get how you got to think like you do. With all due respect, it strikes me as wildly out of step with the very legacy from which we all have so uniquely benefited. I still have yet to read anything approaching a compelling argument for transferring OUR land into a situation where it would be more vulnerable to the whims of states and the deep pockets of the Koch brothers and their billionaire cronies.

We must fight for what is OURS. Band together, hunters, and don't let our land slip away.

John