POLL: SB 5754 - Noxious Weeds on State Lands

[bearpaw]

Senator Short who took over for Senator Dansel who is now working for the Trump administration has introduced the following legislation:

SB 5754: Noxious Weeds on State Lands
Lack of state action to control noxious weeds on state lands are burdensome on adjacent landowners and local noxious weed boards. Yesterday, the Senate passed my bill, Senate Bill 5754, that would allow our counties to recover costs from the state for noxious weed control on state lands. Currently, state law allows counties to take action to control noxious weeds at the cost of the landowner when the landowner does not. However, when the state is the landowner, the county cannot recover the cost. This bill will allow a county to place a lien on the state land and collect the cost it spent to control the noxious weeds.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5754.pdf

[headshot5]

It will be interesting when this makes the state up the amount of herbicide they spray.

[pianoman9701]

Making the state pay means more taxes. I'm unsure this is a good idea. 

[bigtex]

I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.

If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.

[Curly]

I'd gladly pay more if they would increase the amount of prescribed burns and reduce the amount of spraying of clear-cuts.  Sadly I doubt that would be in the cards. 

There are tons of tansy on DNR lands.  Would be interesting to here what the cost would be to control tansy.

[Thefishguy77]

There is a red moth that eats tansy and only tansy. In the late 80's you could get it in Oregon for controlling tansy weed. I believe it was found in feed/agriculture stores. It took care of the problem in one summer in our area and there are still a few moths around. Had a bloom of tansy about 3 years ago and then the moth population grew tansy died back. Easy natural fix. Couldn't get the moth in Washington at the time.

Just looked it up. It's the cinnabar moth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.

If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.

The state doesn't have the capacity to "eat" the cost of anything. Regardless of the cost, the funds come from the taxpayer. It's why it's so hard to sue the federal government - just doesn't make sense. It's like suing yourself.

[garrett89]

Flash burn, same goes with the clear cuts before replant. It'll burn out all seed, shoot, vine, root out of the soil.

[bigtex]

I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.

If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.

The state doesn't have the capacity to "eat" the cost of anything. Regardless of the cost, the funds come from the taxpayer. It's why it's so hard to sue the federal government - just doesn't make sense. It's like suing yourself.

Obviously the funds come from the taxpayer my point was they won't pay for it with existing funds but rather via fee increases.

[olyguy79]

I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.

If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.

The state doesn't have the capacity to "eat" the cost of anything. Regardless of the cost, the funds come from the taxpayer. It's why it's so hard to sue the federal government - just doesn't make sense. It's like suing yourself.

Obviously the funds come from the taxpayer my point was they won't pay for it with existing funds but rather via fee increases.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.

If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.

The state doesn't have the capacity to "eat" the cost of anything. Regardless of the cost, the funds come from the taxpayer. It's why it's so hard to sue the federal government - just doesn't make sense. It's like suing yourself.

Obviously the funds come from the taxpayer my point was they won't pay for it with existing funds but rather via fee increases.

Yes, that's precisely why I'm not sure I would support this.

[dreamunelk]

Funny to me how so many landowners blame others for the weeds.  Yes, some do a great job controlling.  Most do not.  Noxious weeds are definitely a concern.  Unfunded mandates don't help.

[csaaphill]

I voted unsure as well it sounds good and I know there's a big issue with star Thistle etc.... But

[Wacenturion]

If WDFW is going to tout the fact that they manage so much land as a benefit for wildlife and the public, then be a good steward and manage it properly.  If that means you divest yourself of some meaningless programs that do absolutely nothing and redirect those funds, then do so.

Just another excuse....we have no money.  Fact is even if they did, it would go somewhere else....snail reseach, whatever.  As I have mentioned many times over the years the wildlife area program is no more than custodial in nature.  That's not what I would call land management or even wildlife management.  It's neglect plain and simple. 

So...I vote yes, although I believe that ability by the counties has been inplied for years.  Might be wrong.

[pianoman9701]

I guess I don't completely understand why WDFW wildlife land should be maintained at all.  Except for problems which negatively affect habitat or improvements to habitat, why shouldn't they leave it alone and let what grows grow?

[Curly]

The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.

(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)

If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?

[Blacktail Sniper]

Sounds like pulling weeds and picking up garbage in places other than parks and along the hiway would be good use of inmate work crews. 

[pianoman9701]

The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.

(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)

If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?

Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.

[bigtex]

I did a little more research on this bill.

The three state land management agencies are already required to control noxious weeds on their lands. Realistically this bill is nothing more than a "feel good" bill that will likely cause more controversy then anything. The controversy being one of the agencies (say DNR for example) saying that they eliminated noxious weeds in one of their areas, if this bill were to get signed into law the county could then come in and say oh no you didn't look at that weed over there! Then the county can move in with their legal power granted to them. I think it'll set up some controversial management issues in maybe some parts of the state where state lands aren't as liked as in other parts of the state.

When agencies purchase lands noxious weeds control are part of the maintenance budget, so it's not like it's a new task being given to them, although I'm sure there will be more pressure, and thus more $ needed to get rid of every single noxious weed everywhere at every time. Because if they don't, the county will be on them.

[Curly]

The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.

(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)

If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?

Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.

But they can still be held accountable for what is on their land and use volunteers to take care of it.

[Wacenturion]

The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.

(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)

If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?

Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.

What conservation?  As an example, have you seen a pheasant revival in this state in the past 35 years or so?  Corral volunteers to to clean up Scotch broom and other weeds?  Do you understand just how much work and equipment is involved in doing that.  I do.  I ran a crew that spent weeks during the 90's trying to get Scatter Creek in shape with 90 hp JD Tractors and mowers.  Volunteers don't have the equipment nor do they have that much time....fact.

Conservatiuon....or better yet wildlife managment is making the best out of what you have.  Another example.  Back in 1992 the same crew in the program I managed showed up at Scotch Creek for a week  We planting endless rows of shrubs, and more importantly, water birch, which sharptailed grouse depended on in that location historically.  Before...nothing...declining sharptail population.  Fast forward a couple years, sharptail numbers stabalized and have improved.  Deer and other wildife use the are now, where before nothing existed after the native habitat was eridicated.  You could park a fleet of truck in there and never see them.

That is what wildlife mangement is all about.  Not ignoring past habitat degredations, of which there are countless examples in this state, like most other states.  I can honestly tell you that if we didn't have that program back then, Scotch Creek would essentially be the same today.  No water birch, no use by sharptails as they probably would have disappeared there.

Unfortunately, WDFW reorganized after a new director came in from Alaska and powers to be thought that program was unneccessary and too much work.  Fact is, it's results showed just how inept meeting going biologists in the agency were.  All their arguments about how we couldn't do things because of funding etc., went out he window.  Enough said regarding so called conservation by WDFW.........

[Special T]

The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.

(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)

If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?

Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.

What conservation?  As an example, have you seen a pheasant revival in this state in the past 35 years or so?  Corral volunteers to to clean up Scotch broom and other weeds?  Do you understand just how much work and equipment is involved in doing that.  I do.  I ran a crew that spent weeks during the 90's trying to get Scatter Creek in shape with 90 hp JD Tractors and mowers.  Volunteers don't have the equipment nor do they have that much time....fact.

Conservatiuon....or better yet wildlife managment is making the best out of what you have.  Another example.  Back in 1992 the same crew in the program I managed showed up at Scotch Creek for a week  We planting endless rows of shrubs, and more importantly, water birch, which sharptailed grouse depended on in that location historically.  Before...nothing...declining sharptail population.  Fast forward a couple years, sharptail numbers stabalized and have improved.  Deer and other wildife use the are now, where before nothing existed after the native habitat was eridicated.  You could park a fleet of truck in there and never see them.

That is what wildlife mangement is all about.  Not ignoring past habitat degredations, of which there are countless examples in this state, like most other states.  I can honestly tell you that if we didn't have that program back then, Scotch Creek would essentially be the same today.  No water birch, no use by sharptails as they probably would have disappeared there.

Unfortunately, WDFW reorganized after a new director came in from Alaska and powers to be thought that program was unneccessary and too much work.  Fact is, it's results showed just how inept meeting going biologists in the agency were.  All their arguments about how we couldn't do things because of funding etc., went out he window.  Enough said regarding so called conservation by WDFW.........

Your example and history are exactly why so many of us frown on the WDFW.

instead of complaining about needing more land the kind of time you spent AND the kind of effort Happy Gilmore's retriever club put into mowing & improving Cherry Valley should be expanded.

[pianoman9701]

The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.

(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)

If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?

Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.

What conservation?  As an example, have you seen a pheasant revival in this state in the past 35 years or so?  Corral volunteers to to clean up Scotch broom and other weeds?  Do you understand just how much work and equipment is involved in doing that. I do.  I ran a crew that spent weeks during the 90's trying to get Scatter Creek in shape with 90 hp JD Tractors and mowers.  Volunteers don't have the equipment nor do they have that much time....fact.

Conservatiuon....or better yet wildlife managment is making the best out of what you have.  Another example.  Back in 1992 the same crew in the program I managed showed up at Scotch Creek for a week  We planting endless rows of shrubs, and more importantly, water birch, which sharptailed grouse depended on in that location historically.  Before...nothing...declining sharptail population.  Fast forward a couple years, sharptail numbers stabalized and have improved.  Deer and other wildife use the are now, where before nothing existed after the native habitat was eridicated.  You could park a fleet of truck in there and never see them.

That is what wildlife mangement is all about.  Not ignoring past habitat degredations, of which there are countless examples in this state, like most other states.  I can honestly tell you that if we didn't have that program back then, Scotch Creek would essentially be the same today.  No water birch, no use by sharptails as they probably would have disappeared there.

Unfortunately, WDFW reorganized after a new director came in from Alaska and powers to be thought that program was unneccessary and too much work.  Fact is, it's results showed just how inept meeting going biologists in the agency were.  All their arguments about how we couldn't do things because of funding etc., went out he window.  Enough said regarding so called conservation by WDFW.........

Yes, I've done it. It takes a pulling tool, a lot of strong backs, and truck with a sprayer.

[ghosthunter]

I manage a gas station ,Bordered on 2 sides by State Hwy lands.
I was trying to get the state out to mow their 8 ft high weeds just across the fence, but they wouldn't. I got my state Rep involved and still no dice.
I went down to the court house and found a little old women in the Noxious weed program.

She gave me a list of all the weeds that had to be controlled.  The area in question held Tansy and Thistle .

She called up the Hwy super and gave him ten days to mow or spray the weeds. He wanted to spray. But it rained for 8 days so they had to mow.
Once mowed it has to be kept mowed. That was twenty years ago.

They gave me some song and dance about mowing last year. But this year I am ready for them.

This has been a rule for a long time.

[fireweed]

It's either tons of spray or lots of weeds.  Some of these weeds have simply won the war so we need to think more strategically with control.

[pianoman9701]

I manage a gas station ,Bordered on 2 sides by State Hwy lands.
I was trying to get the state out to mow their 8 ft high weeds just across the fence, but they wouldn't. I got my state Rep involved and still no dice.
I went down to the court house and found a little old women in the Noxious weed program.

She gave me a list of all the weeds that had to be controlled.  The area in question held Tansy and Thistle .

She called up the Hwy super and gave him ten days to mow or spray the weeds. He wanted to spray. But it rained for 8 days so they had to mow.
Once mowed it has to be kept mowed. That was twenty years ago.

They gave me some song and dance about mowing last year. But this year I am ready for them.

This has been a rule for a long time.

So, if there's already a rule,...?

[ghosthunter]

I manage a gas station ,Bordered on 2 sides by State Hwy lands.
I was trying to get the state out to mow their 8 ft high weeds just across the fence, but they wouldn't. I got my state Rep involved and still no dice.
I went down to the court house and found a little old women in the Noxious weed program.

She gave me a list of all the weeds that had to be controlled.  The area in question held Tansy and Thistle .

She called up the Hwy super and gave him ten days to mow or spray the weeds. He wanted to spray. But it rained for 8 days so they had to mow.
Once mowed it has to be kept mowed. That was twenty years ago.

They gave me some song and dance about mowing last year. But this year I am ready for them.

This has been a rule for a long time.

So, if there's already a rule,...?

Just week I was contacted by hwy Dept. That they intended to spray ,not mow the area adjacent to the store this year.
I am reviewing options to force them to mow.
We are right on. The border of two maintenance areas. A different super controls the south side of the exit. We are on the north side. The south side may be mowed while the north will not.
Stupid.

[csaaphill]

One thing I know they've been using around here for a few years are Goats. Once in a while they let them free roam and the eat the Star thistle. Only true down side I've seen is goat road blocks.
As what was said about Prison or Jail crews, Ok, but how viable is it to have jail crews out in the mountains and range lands?

[Blacktail Sniper]

One thing I know they've been using around here for a few years are Goats. Once in a while they let them free roam and the eat the Star thistle. Only true down side I've seen is goat road blocks.
As what was said about Prison or Jail crews, Ok, but how viable is it to have jail crews out in the mountains and range lands?

Having inmates out in the woods is not exactly a new idea:

http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/inmate-crews-celebrated-work-summer-fires

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/25/fire-and-punishmentinmatefirefightersonthefrontlines.html

[csaaphill]

One thing I know they've been using around here for a few years are Goats. Once in a while they let them free roam and the eat the Star thistle. Only true down side I've seen is goat road blocks.
As what was said about Prison or Jail crews, Ok, but how viable is it to have jail crews out in the mountains and range lands?

Having inmates out in the woods is not exactly a new idea:

http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/inmate-crews-celebrated-work-summer-fires

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/25/fire-and-punishmentinmatefirefightersonthefrontlines.html

Cool ok yeah guess I forgot that they do use them to fight fires. So I guess picking weeds off a hillside wouldn't be much different, besides the adrenaline rush if fighting a fire that is.