Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
WDFW plans public meeting in Tonasket on plan to restore Sinlahekin Wildlife Are
woodswalker:
Kain and shootmore...
I'd much rather spend my volunteer hours working on thinning and controlled burns to manage a WLA that is reserved so we HAVE places to hunt while the WDFW spends the $$ that they DO have on managers of Dale's caliber and LAND AQUISITIONS. Look around you and see how many acres are being closed off - NO HUNTING/NO TRESPASSING - and think that through really carefully.
If we as hunters were able to somehow track our hours AND GET MATCHING P&R monies that the Legislature cannot TOUCH as a way of improving our WLAs and expanding them...i'm all for it and would GLADY spend some weekends in the late winter preparing for early fall burns.
Pull your heads out and put your animosity for the WDFW aside, FIND a way for us to have more and better hunting. Bend your backs AND get your kids outside!
I know for a fact that carefull controlled burns do WONDERS for forbs, shrubs and grasses to feed for the deer and elk.
If the department has limited funds...lets spend it on purchasing land...WE as hunters can earn matching funds that the legislature cannot steal from us and improve and increase the lands we have. Sure beats a Wal-Mart or a subdivision.
Kain:
What makes more sense, taking money out of local counties by having another government agency buy up private land or making a deal with state, federal, timber co and private land owners to provide management for wildlife and enforcement against abuse if they leave the land open to the public.
Over 17 million acres of forest lands alone that could be managed without buying anymore land up. Land that is being stolen from us already. We are spending money to buy land by one government agency while other government agencies are selling it off or closing it down. The reason most of the land is being close up is because of lack of enforcement. To much abuse going on.
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/forest/timber.aspx
--- Quote ---Facts About Forest Lands in Washington
The area of Washington State is 66,582 square miles (42,612,480 acres).
Map of State Timber Areas - Washington State Association of Counties
From Future of Washington Forests: Economic Section, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2007
Approximately 21 million acres in Washington are forested
Eighteen million acres are classified at "timberland" of which 2 million are dedicated to nontimber production such as parks and wilderness areas
Major owners of Washington commercial forest lands from
National forests (federal) - 5 million acres
Tribal-owned forest land - 1.38 million acres
Timber industry owned lands - 4.61 million acres
Non-industrial private forest landowners (also referred to small forest land owners and small tree farmers) - 2.96 million acres
State and local - 2.23 million acres
Trust lands - Washington state Department of Natural Resources - 2.1 million acres of forest trust lands
--- End quote ---
MtnMuley:
I sure hope that this time when they thin, that they cut the reprod less than 6" and don't leave those 12" slant cut stumps that can puncture a deers hoof in the middle of winter. >:( Great way to roll an ankle while out hiking in the snow also. I'd be curious to also know the costs on building the new "scenic nature" trail through the valley. With the new top of the line bridge and several warming/resting huts.
Kain:
Definitely need to bring back burning. WDFW biologists could be very helpful if they would fight to allow burning again. It is very good for habitat and wildlife and to manage invasive species to burn.
Shootmoore:
--- Quote from: woodswalker on March 01, 2010, 02:59:03 PM ---Kain and shootmore...
I'd much rather spend my volunteer hours working on thinning and controlled burns to manage a WLA that is reserved so we HAVE places to hunt while the WDFW spends the $$ that they DO have on managers of Dale's caliber and LAND AQUISITIONS. Look around you and see how many acres are being closed off - NO HUNTING/NO TRESPASSING - and think that through really carefully.
If we as hunters were able to somehow track our hours AND GET MATCHING P&R monies that the Legislature cannot TOUCH as a way of improving our WLAs and expanding them...i'm all for it and would GLADY spend some weekends in the late winter preparing for early fall burns.
Pull your heads out and put your animosity for the WDFW aside, FIND a way for us to have more and better hunting. Bend your backs AND get your kids outside!
I know for a fact that carefull controlled burns do WONDERS for forbs, shrubs and grasses to feed for the deer and elk.
If the department has limited funds...lets spend it on purchasing land...WE as hunters can earn matching funds that the legislature cannot steal from us and improve and increase the lands we have. Sure beats a Wal-Mart or a subdivision.
--- End quote ---
My angst here is not directed towards the WDFW, and it is not towards the upkeep of currently owned WDFW land. My angst is against the overall spending of the State of Washington and a refusal intstead of paying for core programs they continue to spend as if we were in a good economic climate while having 75 tax increase bills in the senate. While I think Dale is a good manager, and I want the state to improve the wildlife habitat, fish habitat etc, I think instead of continueing to spend perhaps they should hold off on all of these extras to make sure they can continue basic services without increasing all of these taxes which will continue to put downward pressure on our economy.
Fiscal Year General Funds Expenditures % Change from Previous Year
1997-1999 $39,397,275,000 --%
1999-2001 $44,535,542,000 13.0%
2001-2003 $49,527,904,000 10.1%
2003-2005 $53,463,296,000 7.9%
2005-2007 $60,517,243,000 13.2%
2007-2009 $69,176,280,000 14.3%
They have been making cuts according to them, but where is the savings? They are cutting from one end and adding to the other.
I've bent my back for the WDFW for a number of years to include wildlife feeding programs in the Methow Valley. First they tried to cut the program by cutting the storage fee budget. We found donated storage for the feed. They then cut the budget for the feed, we found donations to continue to purchase feed. They finally ordered us to end the program. Claiming that winter kill was healthier for the deer herds even though the program was costing the state $0. I would arguee that the state was saving money as the deer being fed were not causing issues in the orchards. If you notice the funding for this program is not coming from the the WDFW budget, the direction of the WDFW is a whole different issue.
Shootmoore
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version