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

[grundy53]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hopefully this sends a message. Need to also get rid of HR622.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No HR 621 would've sold about 3 million acres to any willing seller, none of the lands were in WA. This bill demands the transfer of federal lands in WA to the state.

[fisheral87]

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! 

The difficulty I have with this is the shifting of fiscal responsibility from a tax base of the entire population of the US to a tax base of WA. I don't understand how transferring land to WA puts it in the hands of a more capable agent. if WA had demonstrated itself to be wildly successful at maintaining access and sustaining fiscally responsible management then then maybe this would makes sense.

Does anyone have examples of this being the case?

Al

[grundy53]

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! 

The difficulty I have with this is the shifting of fiscal responsibility from a tax base of the entire population of the US to a tax base of WA. I don't understand how transferring land to WA puts it in the hands of a more capable agent. if WA had demonstrated itself to be wildly successful at maintaining access and sustaining fiscally responsible management then then maybe this would makes sense.

Does anyone have examples of this being the case?

Al

Agreed

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[wsmnut]

If this were to happen, wait until the state, any state, is faced with the annual fire fighting bill.  Uh oh.

[baldopepper]

I can see where the next attempt will be a transfer bill that requires public access to any lands sold.  BUT, that public access has to be carefully analyzed.  Is public access just guided hikes in the summer, a few public picnic areas open to the public, open trails only in fringe areas etc., etc.  All of these with no other access qualifies as public access.  Utahs CWMU idea was pushed with the claim that it would allow general hunting  access to the lands involved.  Yea, it sure does-10% of the allocated permits to each unit are open to the public on a special drawing basis.  That technically qualifies as public access. Watch for this type of Trojan Horse bill to come up next.

[Nwelkhunter81]

Washington state Legislature

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Enter your address, select your rep and select HB 1103 to voice any concerns

[bearpaw]

I can see where the next attempt will be a transfer bill that requires public access to any lands sold.  BUT, that public access has to be carefully analyzed.  Is public access just guided hikes in the summer, a few public picnic areas open to the public, open trails only in fringe areas etc., etc.  All of these with no other access qualifies as public access.  Utahs CWMU idea was pushed with the claim that it would allow general hunting  access to the lands involved.  Yea, it sure does-10% of the allocated permits to each unit are open to the public on a special drawing basis.  That technically qualifies as public access. Watch for this type of Trojan Horse bill to come up next.

Some people bitch about anything! That's 10% on private lands that residents didn't have before. 

FYI - Washington already has something similar which has also opened up private lands to a few lucky applicants.

[bearpaw]

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! 

The difficulty I have with this is the shifting of fiscal responsibility from a tax base of the entire population of the US to a tax base of WA. I don't understand how transferring land to WA puts it in the hands of a more capable agent. if WA had demonstrated itself to be wildly successful at maintaining access and sustaining fiscally responsible management then then maybe this would makes sense.

Does anyone have examples of this being the case?

Al

Agreed

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

If Trump can change things in the USFS I would agree, until then I feel more local control is needed. This bill didn't have the language needed to keep the land public land one way or another, but it's a learning process to build on in the future.

[Russ McDonald]

I was thinking last night and was wondering if this bill has anything to do with HR 621 that died in congress the other day.  With that bill trying to see millions of acres of Federal land maybe the state was trying to get into that with their own bill.    Just a thought and no I don't think that the state could take on more land.  I think they have a bad enough time managing their own land.

[bigtex]

I was thinking last night and was wondering if this bill has anything to do with HR 621 that died in congress the other day.  With that bill trying to see millions of acres of Federal land maybe the state was trying to get into that with their own bill.    Just a thought and no I don't think that the state could take on more land.  I think they have a bad enough time managing their own land.

No. This state bill comes up every year for about the past 3+ years. It is actually a template bill which has been introduced in every state legislature in the west, they just change the names of the parks in them that are exempt.

HR 621 was about as extreme as it gets as it would've sold federal land to the highest bidder. It wasn't simply selling land to state governments, transferring lands to states, etc. It was an outright sale bill.

[baldopepper]

I can see where the next attempt will be a transfer bill that requires public access to any lands sold.  BUT, that public access has to be carefully analyzed.  Is public access just guided hikes in the summer, a few public picnic areas open to the public, open trails only in fringe areas etc., etc.  All of these with no other access qualifies as public access.  Utahs CWMU idea was pushed with the claim that it would allow general hunting  access to the lands involved.  Yea, it sure does-10% of the allocated permits to each unit are open to the public on a special drawing basis.  That technically qualifies as public access. Watch for this type of Trojan Horse bill to come up next.

Some people bitch about anything! That's 10% on private lands that residents didn't have before. 

FYI - Washington already has something similar which has also opened up private lands to a few lucky applicants.

whoa rough response.  Only partially true, rather extensive list of current CWMU units that have in the past allowed unlimited public access for a nominal access fee.  Why would they hassle with that when they can make much more money under the CWMU system.  As I've said in the past, I don't blame them. If my occupation were the same as yours I'd like the system also. Do you offer and use any of the CWMU permits? Heck, I can't even start to name all the areas in Utah we hunted growing up there that are now off limits - guess that's not entirely true either, most of them are still accesible if you can come up with enough money.  Doesn't effect me much, I'm an old guy, not that many hunts left, but I sure wonder what the future of hunting will look like.

[bearpaw]

I can see where the next attempt will be a transfer bill that requires public access to any lands sold.  BUT, that public access has to be carefully analyzed.  Is public access just guided hikes in the summer, a few public picnic areas open to the public, open trails only in fringe areas etc., etc.  All of these with no other access qualifies as public access.  Utahs CWMU idea was pushed with the claim that it would allow general hunting  access to the lands involved.  Yea, it sure does-10% of the allocated permits to each unit are open to the public on a special drawing basis.  That technically qualifies as public access. Watch for this type of Trojan Horse bill to come up next.

Some people bitch about anything! That's 10% on private lands that residents didn't have before. 

FYI - Washington already has something similar which has also opened up private lands to a few lucky applicants.

whoa rough response.  Only partially true, rather extensive list of current CWMU units that have in the past allowed unlimited public access for a nominal access fee.  Why would they hassle with that when they can make much more money under the CWMU system.  As I've said in the past, I don't blame them. If my occupation were the same as yours I'd like the system also. Do you offer and use any of the CWMU permits? Heck, I can't even start to name all the areas in Utah we hunted growing up there that are now off limits - guess that's not entirely true either, most of them are still accesible if you can come up with enough money.  Doesn't effect me much, I'm an old guy, not that many hunts left, but I sure wonder what the future of hunting will look like.

I started outfitting Utah in 1996 or 1997, can't remember which year for sure. At that time the CWMU program was pretty new. Most of my first leases were leases of private ranch property during regular season, most of the property I leased was already closed to public hunting. CWMU's have certainly increased in quantity since then but I don't think the CWMU program is the reason private property was closed to public hunting, I think the real reasons are like every other state, landowners are tired of slob hunters cutting fences, leaving gates open, littering, shooting livestock, and in many cases landowners need another revenue stream. The CWMU program and similar programs in other states at least get access for some public hunters verses just a regular lease where no public hunters are allowed. The reason I like the CWMU program is that the season dates vary, I can hunt the regular seasons and then add additional hunting days with the CWMU at a different time of the month, but the cost is in giving up 10% of the tags to the public.

[KFhunter]

I might go for this if I lived in Liberty, the 51st state.