WA DNR Seeking Approval to Transfer Thousands of Acres to Tribes

[bigtex]

Under DNRs Trust Land Transfer program DNR is authorized to transfer (at no cost) DNR lands to other governmental agencies. As part of the process the legislature will then allocate funding to DNR to replace the lands they have transferred. The idea is to get rid of low performing and low timber value DNR lands to acquire higher performing and higher timber value lands. Essentially if DNR transfers away $5,000,000 of lands, then the legislature will give DNR to buy $5,000,000 of new lands.

Typically, these transfers aren't controversial as the lands are given to WDFW, counties, cities, etc. However, this year of the 8 approved transfers 6 will be to several tribes poised to get DNR lands. Including:

-Tulalip Tribe receiving 676 acres along Beckler River Road worth $4M
-Colville Tribe receiving 42 acres along the Methow River worth $450,000
-Yakama Tribe receiving three separate transfers of the Ahtanum State forest totalling 9,936 acres worth $14.9M
-Quillete Tribe receiving 372 acres worth $8.9M

WDFW will receive 1,071 acres of DNR land that is already part of the Quincy Lakes Wildlife Area
DNR's Natural Area Program will receive 95 acres

At the end of the day it comes down to $. You may lose some of your hunting lands because it isn't economical to DNR..

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/em_bc_bnr_tltpres_09042024.pdf

[Alan K]

Surprised they don't have to take them to the open market to ensure they're getting adequate value.

Would be nice to see them saddle the lands with a conservation easement for public access beforehand too, though that would diminish the value.

[Alan K]

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?

[Rainier10]

Interesting

[bigtex]

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?

Exactly

[Rainier10]

It makes sense if it is government agency to government agency and stays open to public but giving it to the tribes with no stipulation that public retains access is not a good idea in my opinion.

[Caseyd]

Seems that an argument could be made that it would no longer be accessed by the owners/tax payers.

[duckmen1]

I have been saying it since we started the discover pass. Pay to access our lands and get more and more taken away.

[bkaech]

Part of the issue is DNR land is not and has no stipulations to be managed for public access. Its sole purpose (or maybe I should say primary purpose) is to make money on those lands. We take for granted that we can access and recreate on DNR lands, but that is not how they are managed. It would be nice to get the legislature to write in law that public access to state owned land should be maintained and integral to the well-being of our state in a way that money can not quantify, so that we can try to maintain access to DNR lands. ...Just a thought.

I can understand moving these lands from state agency to other state agencies, but once it leaves a state agency it should be the same as any sale.

[Bareback]

DNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer. 

[bigtex]

DNR 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

[MeepDog]

So... Our agency is giving away our land for free to another nation,
So that we can buy more land with our money?

[Slamadoo]

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/news/trust-land-transfer-funding-request-approved-board-natural-resources

[Slamadoo]

Maps

[Slamadoo]

Seems foolish for a state department to be selling public land and resources to a sovereign nation. Would we sell this land to Canada?

[Bareback]

DNR 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

Some might consider 38 million in the red as neutral.

Does the expenditures include payroll, benefits and retirement payouts too?

[bigtex]

DNR 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

Some 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.

[Caseyd]

DNR 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

Some 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.

Liquor and Cannabis board collects cannabis excise tax from retailers. One could argue they have an tremendous budget surplus

[hunter399]

If it's landlocked,with no possibility of corner crossing.
Then ya give it to the tribe .
If it's accessible to the public ,then give it to Forest service, BLM,or some other organizations that will keep public access available.

On the other side of the coin,was this land profitable,"clear-cut".
Then disregarded and throw away dumpster baby. Cause it's easy to to buy and sell/trade/giveaway vs reforestation.

I'm on the side of keeping lands open to the public vs a buying and selling/trade /giveaway monopoly with the tribe.

[hughjorgan]

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.

[JimmyHoffa]

Any stipulations as if it can/can't go into tribal trust for petition for rez land?

[huntingfool7]

The tribes are "sovereign nations".  How does this qualify?  Essentially DNR is giving land to a foreign, separate nation.

[bigtex]

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.

There's three different applications for the Yakama in three different sections. Two of the applications are for checkerboarded DNR-Tribe lands, the other is completely blocked up DNR land that is 100% open to the public.

[bigtex]

Any stipulations as if it can/can't go into tribal trust for petition for rez land?

No

[boneaddict]

Should get the language correct.  NOT selling to a sovereign nation.  GIVING

[boneaddict]

Do we have any say in the matter?

[Skyvalhunter]

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.

[boneaddict]

Do you know what parcel they are talking about on the Methow?

[Skyvalhunter]

I sure don't at least not yet.

[boneaddict]

https://methowvalleynews.com/2024/09/19/dnr-riverfront-parcel-south-of-twisp-could-go-to-colville-tribes/

[Elkaholic daWg]

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?

Exactly

This IS Washington! Remember when you vote!
Don't we hand over enough money at their casinos yet?

[bigtex]

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.

You're talking about different land. Look at OnX and the Beckler Road there's only one DNR parcel on it just south of the King County line, that's what they're proposing to get rid of. It's also in the presentation link in the original post. DNR can only transfer lands they actually own.

You're talking about land the Tulalips have already purchased.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

Do we have any say in the matter?

Only thru the legislature. They have to approve the transfer and the required funding to backfill the $ behind the replacement purchases.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Skyvalhunter]

I was looking at the county assessor web page a couple months ago and notice the tribe has ownership of some property just upriver from where the Methow dumps in.

[boneaddict]

There’s a “tribal”cemetery there just out of Pateros(across river) on the left going up the hiway.