Free: Contests & Raffles.
Er... Reading this again, this isn't even these entities buying these lands? It's a giveaway, and our legislature via our tax dollars will pay to make the DNR whole? So taxpayers are paying to give away public lands with no assurances of future public use available? How on Earth would that make any sense?
DNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer.
Quote from: Bareback on October 19, 2024, 08:37:18 AMDNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer. Actually compared to most agencies DNR is still pretty budget neutral. In FY23 they brought in $475,000,000 which almost all goes to schools. They spent $513,000,000 of which $153,000,000 was fire suppression.Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Quote from: bigtex on October 19, 2024, 08:51:57 AMQuote from: Bareback on October 19, 2024, 08:37:18 AMDNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer. Actually compared to most agencies DNR is still pretty budget neutral. In FY23 they brought in $475,000,000 which almost all goes to schools. They spent $513,000,000 of which $153,000,000 was fire suppression.Sent from my SM-G973U using TapatalkSome might consider 38 million in the red as neutral.Does the expenditures include payroll, benefits and retirement payouts too?
Quote from: Bareback on October 19, 2024, 03:13:45 PMQuote from: bigtex on October 19, 2024, 08:51:57 AMQuote from: Bareback on October 19, 2024, 08:37:18 AMDNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer. Actually compared to most agencies DNR is still pretty budget neutral. In FY23 they brought in $475,000,000 which almost all goes to schools. They spent $513,000,000 of which $153,000,000 was fire suppression.Sent from my SM-G973U using TapatalkSome might consider 38 million in the red as neutral.Does the expenditures include payroll, benefits and retirement payouts too?Yes the expenditures include payroll, benefits, etc.DNR is the only state agency that even comes close to breaking even. When the state was still in the liquor selling business the Liquor Control Board was the only agency that was truly budget neutral.
I don’t like the idea of giving the tribes public land but in this case with the yakama tribe it appears the sections being given to them are on their reservation that border the cowiche unit. Not even sure the land was accessible to the public anyways.
Any stipulations as if it can/can't go into tribal trust for petition for rez land?
Quote from: Alan K on October 18, 2024, 02:26:04 PMEr... Reading this again, this isn't even these entities buying these lands? It's a giveaway, and our legislature via our tax dollars will pay to make the DNR whole? So taxpayers are paying to give away public lands with no assurances of future public use available? How on Earth would that make any sense?Exactly
The land in the Beckler drainage was originally weyco who then sold it to Campbell aka Skykomish resources. They in turn logged it and replanted it. Then it came up for sale and the Tulalips bought it up. Part of it burned in the Bolt cr fire. To say it was DNR land is not right. It is DNR monitored land as far as any forest practices/fire fighting but it was not DNR land as far as ownership. The part that I don't agree with is they put up a gate on a forest service road because the tribe and Skykomish resources doesn't want people driving in it. Even though the land borders USFS land which is wilderness area(wild sky). I contend it should be opened to public access because the road is an avenue to public land. Believe me I have went around with the forest service and got my area representive involved.
Do we have any say in the matter?