Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2014, 11:55:45 PM
Some things I saw of note:
- In Fiscal Year 2013 DNR received $189,000,000 in revenue, of that $40,200,000 was from leasing the remainder was from timber
- DNR lands in eastern WA continue to fall below the state goal of timber sales for E WA
- They reported on sustainable harvest levels. Levels exceeded target in Clark, Cowlitz, Lewis, Mason, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Levels were near or on-target with levels in Capitol Forest, and Jefferson, Kitsap, Pacific, Skagit, Thurston and Whatcom Counties. Levels were below near/on-target in Clallam, King, Skamania and Wahkiakum Counties
- In terms of leasing revenue. Over 50% of DNR revenue from leases came from agricultural leasing, followed by commercial real estate, communication sites, and property leases. On the lower end, minerals, oils and gas leasing brought in about $69K, rock, sand, and gravel about $908K, and grazing about $897K
- In FY 2013 DNR acquired 811 acres to be managed as trust lands
- In FY 2013 DNR transferred or sold 865 acres of trust lands. Of those, 82 acres were sold to private entities or other government agencies, 783 acres were transferred out of trust land status and still remain under DNR management
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_bc_bnr_stateofthestatelandsreport_presentation.pdf (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_bc_bnr_stateofthestatelandsreport_presentation.pdf)
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 12:32:24 PM
But essentially DNR has land which purpose is to bring in $, but hasn't brought in a dime to the agency. DNR's main purpose is not to create recreational opportunities. If recreational opportunities occur as a result of the lands they purchase then great, but generating $ via logging will always be #1.
I was recently looking at the Lake Roosevelt area and there are about 1,300 acres of DNR land in Lincoln County with no active leasing (thus not generating revenue) occurring that borders NPS land. Those that know Lake Roosevelt knows how development as skyrocketed in that area. Personally I think it would be a great move for DNR to sell those lands to the NPS. By law DNR has to use that money to acquire lands that will generate revenue. To me this is a no-brainer. And quite honestly in terms of regulation, the regs for these DNR lands are almost the same as the NPS lands in that area.
There are DNR lands surrounded by BLM or USFWS lands, again not bringing in revenue. Why not have those lands sold/exchanged with the feds?
BLM has said their mission in WA is to create recreational opportunities. If they can lease land out for grazing, mining and so on then great, but their purpose in WA is recreation, so essentially the opposite of DNR. In the mid 1990s BLM exchanged about 10,000 acres in NE WA for 90,000 acres of desert lands. BLM has continuously said they want to get themselves out of NE WA which is mainly landlocked timberland for them.
Hmm, which agency in WA wants timberland? DNR. Which agency in WA has a lot of desert land not generating revenue? DNR. Which agency is known for managing desert land? BLM. Sounds like an exchange of DNR desert land and BLM timber land is needed!
Post by: Special T on February 04, 2014, 12:51:06 PM
WDFW does the same thing promoting "watchable wildlife" above hunting despite the fact that hunting provides all the cash.
WA Parks have great facilities but refuse to change with the times and realize that CAR CAMPING is what people want and are willing to pay for.
There are plenty of hard choices being made by all of us, buck up and get it done. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 01:06:37 PM
One of the things that upsets me with many of our state agencies is that they fail their mission/mandate. Often times they make moves trying to find another role for their agency instead of getting better at what they do, or providing more focus.
WDFW does the same thing promoting "watchable wildlife" above hunting despite the fact that hunting provides all the cash.
I don't think it's so much the agency just deciding overnight they are going to get involved in another subject area as much as it is the state legislature telling the agency they are going to cover something else. As an example, there was a bill recently introduced in the legislature that would bring back the program in WA of turning bottles in for money. Under the bill the Liquor Control Board would be responsible for it. So suddenly the LCB would be responsible for bottle recycling :dunno:
We all know of State Parks as simply the Parks, but the actual agency name is the State Parks and Recreation Commission. The agency obviously manages state parks but also is the statewide manager for boating, snowmobiles, sno-parks, and downhill skiing facilities (thus the "recreation" part of the name.) Most people don't know that their local ski-lifts are regulated by state parks.
Again, it's another one of those things where the legislature just decides to give some random agency another responsibility which many times has no role to their true mission.
Post by: Special T on February 04, 2014, 01:58:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 04:08:34 PM
So who needs a swift kick in the behind to get this DNR issue resolved?There have been several large WDFW-DNR land swaps in the past 10 years regarding lands on the eastside, the last one ended up with DNR creating the Naneum Ridge State Forest in the Colockum. The land swap eliminated a good amount of the checkerboarding in the area however there is still quite a bit in the Colockum.
The issue with federal acquistions/exchanges is it almost always needs to involve one thing...Congress passing a bill
So you can see where this can get political. It's not uncommon for an entire state's congressional delegation to want to expand a park boundary or do any other type of land swap with USFS/BLM and it doesn't even get a hearing or doesn't get to a full vote.
I recently read an article where the Arizona congressional delegation has sponsored a bill to expand the boundary for Saguaro Natl Park in Tucson. All the bill would do is simply expand the boundary, which simply means in coming years the Park Service could acquire those lands within the boundary if it wanted to. So the bill is simply a boundary moving bill. The bill was introduced a year ago and hasn't had a hearing. The committee chair is Washington's own Doc Hasting's who has historically been against federal land management, which is interesting because Hasting's wants to create a new National Historical Park in his district. :dunno:
It's all political. In a perfect world if the state's delegation wanted something they should be able to get it, but you have members of Congress that will hold it up and the state never gets it.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 04:22:44 PM
In a perfect world if State Parks had good funding I would say Mt Si should be under State Parks and there has been talks about this dating back to the 1970s. Mt Si is a day use unit and basically no hunting can occur there because of the restrictions in place so there wouldn't be a loss of hunting opportunity.
I am willing to bet the large majority of the surrounding community and it's users already think Mt Si is a State Park.
The Mt Si NRCA is 12,676 acres and I believe it is the largest NRCA in the state. So that is 12,676 acres of DNR land that is not bringing in revenue other then Discover Pass.
The DNR "Snoqualmie Corridor" which is DNR lands in the I-90 and SR 18 corridors consists of 52,831 acres, of which 27,359 in in NRCA or "Scenic Area" status. So more then 50% of the DNR Snoqualmie Corridor doesn't bring in revenue (other then Discover Pass) to the state.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_rec_snoqualmie_rec_plan_acres_map.pdf (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_rec_snoqualmie_rec_plan_acres_map.pdf)
Post by: Special T on February 04, 2014, 09:00:44 PM
Post by: logger on March 27, 2014, 07:56:47 PM
Post by: timberfaller on March 28, 2014, 03:20:47 PM
You might want to ask Mitch Friedman, isn't he the one who helped get the logging STOPPED on the Loomis Forest??
I see he lost his anti-ATV fight on the Twisp/Winthrop districts!!!!
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 28, 2014, 03:49:41 PM
"I personally think it is time for DNR on the eastside to look at their lands and essentially ask themselves if they really need that parcel of land. DNR's purpose is to generate $ for the state and they do so via logging,..."
You might want to ask Mitch Friedman, isn't he the one who helped get the logging STOPPED on the Loomis Forest??
I see he lost his anti-ATV fight on the Twisp/Winthrop districts!!!!
We refer to the Loomis Forest as the, Paul Allen Forest. ( Microsort Paul Allen ) Don't ask me why, but we can imagine why.
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2014, 03:54:22 PM
Post by: logger on March 30, 2014, 11:40:26 AM
"I personally think it is time for DNR on the eastside to look at their lands and essentially ask themselves if they really need that parcel of land. DNR's purpose is to generate $ for the state and they do so via logging,..."I remeber all that loomis hoopla, my family logged in the okanogan for years, that was a major blow for the locals who didn't have good even when things were good.
You might want to ask Mitch Friedman, isn't he the one who helped get the logging STOPPED on the Loomis Forest??
I see he lost his anti-ATV fight on the Twisp/Winthrop districts!!!!
Post by: timberfaller on March 30, 2014, 02:16:33 PM