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

[bearpaw]

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.

I think that's a reflection of your local government. It's exactly the opposite in our area, USFS lands are far more regulated and far fewer activities are allowed on the forest! State lands are used far more.

[bigtex]

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.

Well first off NPS land is exempt in these types of bills in every state. So if this bill were to pass and the federal lands were given to WA NPS lands would not be transferred. Wilderness areas would also not be transferred since they are congressionally designated.

There hasn't been a NPS park downgraded since WWII. There have been small land deals done where the NPS may swap a couple acres of land with another entity to fix a border issue. However, that doesn't mean there hasn't been efforts to do so. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers has sponsored bills in the past to sell NPS lands at Lake Roosevelt.

[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.

I think that's a reflection of your local government. It's exactly the opposite in our area, USFS lands are far more regulated and far fewer activities are allowed on the forest! State lands are used far more.

It's not local government (county) it's the DNR. DNR is starting to enact no target shooting areas and put up more gates across the state. It may not be in the NE yet, but just last year DNR was talking about target shooting "problems/issues" across several of the state forests in SW WA and what to do with them.

[bearpaw]

We all want public lands and the ability to use them. The real problem is increasing mismanagement by the USFS and BLM, that's the reason I am so opposed to the USFS and ranchers are so opposed to BLM. Both agencies have been taken over by the greenies and are shutting down access and activities. There's a good chance Trump is going to revamp both of these agencies. Trump is a businessman, once he secures our borders he is going to look at saving dollars and making government more efficient. I think that translates into more logging on USFS and continued grazing on BLM which will put much of this movement to rest. Hopefully Trump will change USFS and BLM policies and settle these issues. 

[bearpaw]

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.

I think that's a reflection of your local government. It's exactly the opposite in our area, USFS lands are far more regulated and far fewer activities are allowed on the forest! State lands are used far more.

It's not local government (county) it's the DNR. DNR is starting to enact no target shooting areas and put up more gates across the state. It may not be in the NE yet, but just last year DNR was talking about target shooting "problems/issues" across several of the state forests in SW WA and what to do with them.

I certainly understand your concerns, they are very similar to my concerns with the current status of the USFS and BLM. 

[KFhunter]

We all want public lands and the ability to use them. The real problem is increasing mismanagement by the USFS and BLM, that's the reason I am so opposed to the USFS and ranchers are so opposed to BLM. Both agencies have been taken over by the greenies and are shutting down access and activities. There's a good chance Trump is going to revamp both of these agencies. Trump is a businessman, once he secures our borders he is going to look at saving dollars and making government more efficient. I think that translates into more logging on USFS and continued grazing on BLM which will put much of this movement to rest. Hopefully Trump will change USFS and BLM policies and settle these issues. 

You almost touched on why I was opposed to the transfer from the get go.  Once transferred it's forever, administrations come and go and BLM/USFS will fall into mismanagement and disrepair and eventually we'll see another Trump in the future to possibly fix it.   If the states get their hands on all this federal land it's a bullet that can't be recalled, land will be transferred, sold and resold until we see more checkerboard and less access than we had before.  Landlocked state lands surrounded by mega timber.

[grundy53]

We all want public lands and the ability to use them. The real problem is increasing mismanagement by the USFS and BLM, that's the reason I am so opposed to the USFS and ranchers are so opposed to BLM. Both agencies have been taken over by the greenies and are shutting down access and activities. There's a good chance Trump is going to revamp both of these agencies. Trump is a businessman, once he secures our borders he is going to look at saving dollars and making government more efficient. I think that translates into more logging on USFS and continued grazing on BLM which will put much of this movement to rest. Hopefully Trump will change USFS and BLM policies and settle these issues. 

You almost touched on why I was opposed to the transfer from the get go.  Once transferred it's forever, administrations come and go and BLM/USFS will fall into mismanagement and disrepair and eventually we'll see another Trump in the future to possibly fix it.   If the states get their hands on all this federal land it's a bullet that can't be recalled, land will be transferred, sold and resold until we see more checkerboard and less access than we had before.  Landlocked state lands surrounded by mega timber.

not to mention we probably won't ever see a conservative governor in Washington.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[fireweed]

Land sales/transfers etc. don't have to be "all or nothing".  There are so many conditions that could be put on any transfers and written into the deeds. 

One big problem with outdoor access today is that the transfers or sales in the past were fee simple and didn't have the needed conditions like easements for public recreation access, trail easements, corner crossing issues.  Now we have former federal land that was given to railroads and sold to private timber.  100 years ago access wasn't an issue and people, trails, roads wandered across property lines. It all still worked for the public until the timber co. sold to individuals then put fee access on the rest.   

In Canada, most of all the commercial timberland is OWNED by the feds, but companies buy "timber rights" to log it and manage it.  And don't forget mineral, geothermal, subsurface rights are totally separate from the land on top.  Selling some lands, or certain rights to lands (mineral, timber) somewhere WITH CONDITIONS FOR PERPETUAL PUBLIC ACCESS might make sense in certain cases but it has to be done very carefully--not like in the past.

[jmscon]

@special t
In 2014 net profit from a timber sale I saw in NE was less than $1000 an acre. There is a lot dependent on those numbers, such as existing roads, distance to mills, timber age, etc. Depending on whether it's a clear cut or thinning (which that property was) will determine the how often it can be logged. 20 yrs for thinning and 40 (or more) for a clear cut.

So a square mile section might net $600k, that goes into the general fund. Then the state needs to maintain that property, fix washouts, grade the roads, etc. for 20 to 80 years (or put a gate on it like Hancock and weyerhaeuser do) until it is logged again. The difference and why those companies can make a profit and can hold on to their properties is because their profits go into a bank account instead of the state general fund.

[bearpaw]

Land sales/transfers etc. don't have to be "all or nothing".  There are so many conditions that could be put on any transfers and written into the deeds. 

 

[Special T]

Thankyou for that one number. Now what we need is the assessed value of the land. General sales agrigate for the area or the tax assessors value would do.

The problem I have with your second statement is your comparing state to private. Bad comparison. Why because it's more important to compare usfs to its state equivalent. I would assume that is DNR.

To me there is a drastic difference between the 2 gov agencies. One has a mandate to manage for profit while providing for some recreation.  The other is supposed to follow multiple use, and if they did we would be singing the praises of the USFS. Instead we see posts on here to call our state reps and senators because the Greenies are going to close and or rip out a road bed.

[WAcoueshunter]

Land sales/transfers etc. don't have to be "all or nothing".  There are so many conditions that could be put on any transfers and written into the deeds. 

Of course they COULD be, but are they?  I don't think that's typical.  Reserving easements or placing other restrictions on land before it's sold decreases the value to the buyer, and therefore the price to the seller.  If/when the State is desperate to raise funds to cover a budget shortfall, why would they want to take less $$?

As other's have pointed out, the problem with putting it in the hands of local government is you're assuming (hoping?) that EVERY single rendition of that government for the rest of time will have hunters rights and mixed use access in mind.  It only takes one time for that to not be the case and your ability to use that land is gone forever.

[bearpaw]

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

Myself I haven't voted either way, I like the idea of more local control but I would want to see additional language in the bill to assure that the land stays public land one way or another. I think you are off-base , first, the reason I think some support the legislation is because they are tired of USFS taking away access and limiting usage, they are hoping the state would allow more usage. Secondly, you seem to be assuming people want this land sold off, I don't think that is the case! 

[westside103147]

This bill if passed would result in one of two things. Either the land would be privatized and access would be lost or if it gets in the hands of DNR is will be poorly managed and would be in worse shape then it's already in.

DNR already doesn't have the resources to properly manage state owned land.

I have honestly met very few people within the USFS that are opposed to logging (including myself). Public perception is everything these days, unfortunately we are pandering to people who most likely will never step foot on this land. In my opinion if we would have managed logging better in the past this wouldn't be an issue, it's a classic case of paying for the sins of our fathers.

[Nwelkhunter81]

Sounds like as of today HR621 is dead. Question is will WA follow suit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk