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?