Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 07:22:51 PM
Yet another reason to be an RMEF member. :tup:
Post by: Humptulips on October 06, 2014, 09:14:28 PM
They threw trappers under the bus and I was one of the guys that got ran over.
Post by: bigtex on October 06, 2014, 09:36:00 PM
Only Utah has passed such legislation, and even their Attorney General has said it probably is unconstitutional.
It is a very hot topic in Montana right now. The interesting thing is that it is believed that if Montana were to somehow take over those certain federal lands (21.6 million acres) it would cost the State of Montana $367,000,000 a year to manage those lands. http://www.capitalpress.com/State/Montana/20140902/montana-officials-study-federal-land-takeover-idea (http://www.capitalpress.com/State/Montana/20140902/montana-officials-study-federal-land-takeover-idea)
To show just how big that $367 Million is, the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks yearly budget is about $75 Million a year.....
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 09:44:23 PM
WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.
Post by: bigtex on October 06, 2014, 09:47:51 PM
I'm very leery of the state taking over federal lands in WA, actually I'm dead against it.:yeah:
WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.
No state could afford it
Post by: jasnt on October 06, 2014, 09:48:21 PM
I'm very leery of the state taking over federal lands in WA, actually I'm dead against it.exactly. They can't hardly patrol what they got adequately. And the budget is stretched pretty hard as it is already
WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.
Post by: stuckalot on October 06, 2014, 09:58:25 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 06, 2014, 10:11:41 PM
I'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?Let's just compare DNR and BLM in WA.
DNR has over 3,000,000 acres in WA. BLM has about 430,000 acres in WA, about 99% of it is in eastern WA.
Up until 2013 there were 9 DNR field officers in WA and one Chief. This meant an average of 333,333 acres per DNR Officer. In 2013 the state provided DNR with funding for 2 DNR officers. This brought the number of field officers to 11 and the amount of acres per officer down to about 272,727 acres. Up until 2013 there were two DNR LEOs in eastern WA, there are now three.
BLM has two LEOs in eastern WA. So essentially one officer covers 215,000 acres.
Obviously both the feds and state need more coverage. But one difference between the state and feds is for the most part federal lands are consolidated into chunks (with the exception of BLM.) You don't have random Forest Service lands in Moses Lake or Othello, but you do have random DNR lands in those places. Up until 2013 the DNR Officer in Ellensburg was alone responsible for DNR lands in 15 eastern WA counties.....
Post by: csaaphill on October 06, 2014, 10:17:11 PM
I'm very leery of the state taking over federal lands in WA, actually I'm dead against it.:yeah:
WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.
:bdid:
then they would sell it and then we'd be screwed so ya no thanks!
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 10:22:46 PM
:dunno: Not so sure I would agree with that. We don't need an LEO behind every tree...public eyes and ears in the woods will stop more crime than an army of fed. officers.I'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?Obviously both the feds and state need more coverage.
Post by: bigtex on October 06, 2014, 10:28:57 PM
You mean those same "public eyes and ears in the woods" who love saying on here they would never report any violation?:dunno: Not so sure I would agree with that. We don't need an LEO behind every tree...public eyes and ears in the woods will stop more crime than an army of fed. officers.I'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?Obviously both the feds and state need more coverage.
I never said we need an LEO behind every tree. There's a whopping 2 BLM LEOs in WA, about 5 USFWS LEOs in WA and a couple vacancies, and USFS have seen their LEO numbers in WA decline by nearly half in the past three years. I don't think you will ever get to a point in WA where you are saying "damn there's a lot of BLM LEOs here." At full staffing the USFS in WA is at about 25, in comparison BLM in California is at about 65 full staffing. So at full staffing there are more BLM LEOs in CA then there are BLM, USFS, and USFWS combined in WA. Idaho has about 25-30 USFS LEOs, about 12 BLM LEOs and at least 1 USFWS, so those three agencies combined in Idaho have more officers then in WA....
And FYI, most of the agencies/officers I just listed are deputized in WA and the cases they do make are using their county deputy authority, not their federal authority....
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 10:36:13 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 06, 2014, 10:38:57 PM
I think as long as it doesn't involve a wolf the folks on here would report it...some good self-policing on trashed camps etc. :dunno:There have been a ton of threads on here where people would say they would rather look the other way then report something...
I even posted a thread on here earlier this year simply saying DNR wanted individuals to report people illegally using ORVs in a closed area in King County. There were several individuals who said the last thing they would do is report the violator, they even said if it they were poaching.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 10:40:54 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 06, 2014, 10:43:30 PM
Sad.Here is the DNR thread I was talking about: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153228.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153228.0.html)
Post by: stuckalot on October 06, 2014, 11:02:47 PM
Sorry I can't figure out how to post the links but here are a couple graphs.
Good story in the Yakima herald about the Snag Creek fire and the role logging played in stopping it. And different agencies approaches to management.
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2014, 12:14:37 AM
If there was better management I would not feel this way but the situation is pretty self explanatory. State lands benefit us all while federal lands cost us all. :twocents:
Post by: turbo on October 07, 2014, 05:32:43 AM
Another reason I don't support the RMEF!
Post by: bigtex on October 07, 2014, 08:28:31 AM
I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.
Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?
Post by: idahohuntr on October 07, 2014, 08:33:24 AM
:yeah:I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.
Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?
I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! :chuckle:
Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen. RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 07, 2014, 08:36:08 AM
I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.
Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?
there are other types of access besides foot bigtex
Post by: bigtex on October 07, 2014, 08:38:32 AM
So we should be okay with inaccessible DNR land because hey, we can all go rent a helicopter/plane to drop us off?I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?
there are other types of access besides foot bigtex
Post by: bigtex on October 07, 2014, 08:39:35 AM
Don't you know there's a lot of timber value in sagebrush? :chuckle::yeah:I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?
I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! :chuckle:
Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen. RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 07, 2014, 08:45:06 AM
Post by: fireweed on October 07, 2014, 08:46:27 AM
Clearly, the feds are trapped in a cycle of paperwork, litigation, study to get a single tree cut. They lose money logging because of all the administrative/enviro/red tape costs. The debate about transferring land to states is valuable because it might spur Congress to fix analysis paralysis on Fed lands (wishful thinking??). Access problems exist in both: the feds want access but don't have the $ for easements, the state doesn't care as much about public access and doesn't want the extra costs even if it could afford it.
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2014, 09:03:44 AM
:yeah:I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.
Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?
I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! :chuckle:
Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen. RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.
There are also very large tracks of USFS being proposed as parks that will be closed to hunting if approved. :twocents:
Quote
There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA.
So has DNR actually closed those lands or are they simply landlocked? Big difference! Apples and Oranges
:yeah:I see better access and opportunities for all types of recreation on state land than on USFS which is increasingly locked up from citizen use.
Really? There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA. There is more DNR land in WA closed to target shooting in WA then there is USFS. There are DNR lands in WA completely closed to hunting, there is no USFS land in WA closed to hunting. Should I go on?
I would also add that even the most aggressive state logging plans would not produce many board feet on many millions of acres of BLM ground...where there are no trees!! :chuckle:
Overall, it would be a disaster if these states got what they asked for...thankfully it will never happen. RMEF was just taking a stand on the rhetoric.
BLM is usually more grazing type land. :rolleyes: But aren't they trying to shut that down too! :twocents:
Much of the USFS used to be logged and was productive land. Now the USFS land has become nothing more than unhealthy forests full of wildfires that cost taxpayers (you and I) money due to the enviro extremists who mismanage it and want to turn it into wilderness and parks. If turned over to the states that land could become productive land again that contributes to America's economy and no longer costs taxpayers money to keep in a state of little or no use with increasing wildfire hazards. You may be right that USFS land will never become state land, but you cannot dispute the fact that the USFS is costing taxpayers millions while at the same time state forests are allowing multiple use and making money for states and contributing to economies.
If any land exchange did happen I would of course agree that the net acreage could not be sold off. Trades might be good for making management easier, but I don't think any of us want our public lands sold off, we just want better management. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on October 07, 2014, 09:31:22 AM
My fear is the unknown, what the state would do with it 10, 20, 100 years or more down the road? Will my great grand-kids have unfettered access to the CNF?
timber prices would fall out the bottom if all fed lands were turned over all at once and states forced to log it for revenue
Post by: bearpaw on October 07, 2014, 09:40:13 AM
They do need better management that's for sure.
My fear is the unknown, what the state would do with it 10, 20, 100 years or more down the road? Will my great grand-kids have unfettered access to the CNF?
timber prices would fall out the bottom if all fed lands were turned over all at once and states forced to log it for revenue
I also share some of your concerns. I don't think we will see a sudden land exchange in all the states so I doubt we need to worry about timber prices.
Post by: Special T on October 07, 2014, 09:48:14 AM
It should be obvious to anyone is the REASON why certain states want control. They see how the USFS does NOT manage the lands in the best interests of the citizens of that state. I think the Cost of management stated for USFS lands is bloated with inefficiency and political workings instead of boots on the ground management.
Here is the Kicker. Since a wave of the magic wand won't prevent Nazi Green groups from suing and getting injunctions THAT portion of the cost wont go away, OR make it any easier to Log or keep roads open. I am NO fan of the USFS, but if you don't take away some/all of the frivolous BS they have to deal with your trading the devil you know for the one you don't. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on October 07, 2014, 09:34:38 PM
There is no land in WA that the USFS has flat out said "No Entry." DNR has a ton of land in WA that you can't even get into without some type of helicopter/airplane.There is more acreage of DNR land that is inaccessible (landlocked, etc) then there is USFS land in WA.So has DNR actually closed those lands or are they simply landlocked? Big difference! Apples and Oranges
DNR owns a good portion of the Green River watershed. Illegal to access per the City of Tacoma, illegal to hunt without a very few special permits, etc.
Post by: Stein on October 14, 2014, 08:34:48 AM
Yah, the feds do a better job... Riiiiiighhht. :bash: :bash:
Another reason I don't support the RMEF!
For me, the question isn't just about management. Each state would then start making their own rules about what you could and couldn't do on it, shooting, hunting, access, etc. It is far more likely for a lefty state to start going nuts then it is for the federal government, at least today. They could also sell it off when the next Olympia budget crisis happens. Or, they could exclusively lease it for timeber or decide that we need more wildlife preserve areas.
The same people bashing WDFW now want to give them more power and land?