Post by: fireweed on December 24, 2015, 12:31:49 PM
This fall, WDFW heard broad support for:
•Expanded and restored recreational access: Many comments have focused on (1) addressing restrictions imposed by private landowners, especially industrial timberland owners, (2) preserving and improving access to public lands, and (3) expanding opportunities for people who do not fish or hunt.
Post by: Wacenturion on December 24, 2015, 01:04:51 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 24, 2015, 01:05:24 PM
Did find a few things that had me wondering, too many to cut-n-paste.
Quote
The relative weight of science and community
preferences: Some Wild Future commenters
believe science alone should drive fish and wildlife
management decisions. Others believe additional
factors, such as public acceptance of coexistence with
predator species, must also be considered.
Quote
Relatively few hunters attended, in part
because the event took place during the
general deer hunting season.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 31, 2015, 04:42:11 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 31, 2015, 05:06:11 PM
We, as hunters, argue for days about things that have nothing to do with us. Private property access is a huge one. It's not your property.
Agreed. Since they want to be stingy with it, they can pay the same property tax rate as the rest of us.
Post by: Landowner on December 31, 2015, 05:12:10 PM
We, as hunters, argue for days about things that have nothing to do with us. Private property access is a huge one. It's not your property.
Agreed. Since they want to be stingy with it, they can pay the same property tax rate as the rest of us.
Buy a significant sized piece of ground that contributes to the general welfare of the public's clean water, air, the world's food supply and then endure the volatile market and costs of farming--then come talk to me about Open Space taxation and the "Stingy" landowners.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 31, 2015, 05:19:30 PM
We, as hunters, argue for days about things that have nothing to do with us. Private property access is a huge one. It's not your property.
Agreed. Since they want to be stingy with it, they can pay the same property tax rate as the rest of us.
Buy a significant sized piece of ground that contributes to the general welfare of the public's clean water, air, the world's food supply and then endure the volatile market and costs of farming--then come talk to me about Open Space taxation and the "Stingy" landowners.
It's still not the publics property. Talk to the people in Olympia who allow these types of tax breaks. I certainly didn't do it, but still, it's not the publics lands...sorry, but that's what it is. I feel for you, but farmers get huge tax breaks too, I bet.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 31, 2015, 05:26:21 PM
We, as hunters, argue for days about things that have nothing to do with us. Private property access is a huge one. It's not your property.
Agreed. Since they want to be stingy with it, they can pay the same property tax rate as the rest of us.
Buy a significant sized piece of ground that contributes to the general welfare of the public's clean water, air, the world's food supply and then endure the volatile market and costs of farming--then come talk to me about Open Space taxation and the "Stingy" landowners.
Contributes to clean water? Actually with the use of defoliants and the issues of erosion and warming of streams, modern industrial tree farming contributes to the degradation of our forests and water and contributes to the loss of native fish species including salmon and cutthroat trout. Not to mention the practice of mono culture on such a large scale causes problems in the ecosystem. Then there's the jobs they sent overseas since the 80s by exporting logs which harmed local economies.
And that's all beside the point. Why should other land holders pay more so industrial land owners who make money off their land can turn a tidy profit?
Post by: fireweed on January 04, 2016, 10:50:04 AM
Post by: JLS on January 04, 2016, 11:13:33 AM
We, as hunters, argue for days about things that have nothing to do with us. Private property access is a huge one. It's not your property.
Thank you Captain Obvious. It certainly doesn't mean we can't examine ways to negotiate public access to those properties. So yes, it does have something to do with us.
Post by: birddogdad on January 04, 2016, 11:41:58 AM
How about we prioritize getting access to our public lands that are blocked by private lands? Does the public have any recourse or is private land so holy that it can block tens of thousands of acres of our public lands, and we the people can do nothing but continue to dole out tax breaks?
to me, this should be a simple process of federal defined easements for public access to these properties.. no different than they do to take property in towns toward the good of the people. the "land" is still private, but the mandated "access route" thru it is public, maintained by the public services...