Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: asmith on January 25, 2016, 04:57:28 PM


Advertise Here
Title: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: asmith on January 25, 2016, 04:57:28 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/acquisitions/

Just curious as to what everyone's thoughts on this are?  Is it a good thing the state is buying up land or will they just turn it into a sanctuary with no hunting or fishing allowed?  I personally would like to see more land access to outdoors people, just am not sure if this is the right way to go about it.  Especially when WDFW say the following, "Threats: Fragmentation of a large ranch into small hobby ranches and private recreation"!  So when did private recreation and hobby farms become a threat to land and animals? 
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: bobcat on January 25, 2016, 05:10:29 PM
Subdivision of land into smaller parcels is a big problem, especially in areas where many animals are migratory.

Smaller parcels along with more people and residential areas means more fences, dogs, cats, traffic, etc.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: heronblu on January 25, 2016, 05:17:38 PM
More public land is a good thing. The thing that is threatened is our access as sportsmen and the WDFW is trying to protect that. I don't always agree with the way the DFW manages things but in this case I can find little fault. Every property states some form of fishing or hunting as a value so its highly doubtful to me that they would turn it into a preserve or a "sanctuary" where the public couldn't responsibly manage wildlife and recreate.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: asmith on January 25, 2016, 05:23:43 PM
What worries me the most is the lake creek property.  It is just south of Coffee Pot, which is a preserve.  So why wouldn't they just make that the same.  I too am all for more recreation opportunities.  I just don't know if this is the way to go about it. 

Subdivision of land into smaller parcels is a big problem, especially in areas where many animals are migratory.

Smaller parcels along with more people and residential areas means more fences, dogs, cats, traffic, etc.

So, owning your own piece of land, farming, ranching or recreating said piece of land is a threat?  Then hell, nobody should own any land.  Better hand it all over to the state then, so they can manage it better.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: bobcat on January 25, 2016, 05:44:30 PM
Yes, basically a higher population of people in any particular area is always going to be detrimental to wildlife in one way or another.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: fisheral87 on January 25, 2016, 06:00:36 PM
It sound like you are tying to make this black and white, which it is not. 

Someone should kick those fellas out of the refuge.  :twocents:

Al
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: nwwanderer on January 25, 2016, 06:08:17 PM
Very broad subject. Our state does not even have an accurate inventory of what they own, recent DNR heads have attempted to understand their holdings but gave up before completing the I-5 corridor.  Payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) is a current legislative problem.  Healthy wildlife in our state is often dependent on human activity, farming.  Money spent on land reduces  other management needs.  The current public ownership in Washington exceeds what can be managed with current budgets.
I am not against all land purchases but each must be evaluated for merit.
Title: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: bobcat on January 25, 2016, 06:38:26 PM
This topic is about WDFW land, not DNR. And I'm pretty sure DNR knows how much land they own and where it's located.

When the WDFW acquires land, what is the cost of managing it? They don't necessarily need to spend any money to manage it. They simply need to buy it before it's sold to a developer who will subdivide it and sell it off in smaller parcels.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Man Tracker on January 25, 2016, 06:43:35 PM
One problem DFW encounters is that money is available to purchase (grants/matching/etc) but rarely does it include money for operation/maintenance.  So they end up robbing funds elsewhere to do basic operations.  Whenever land is purchased, money needs to be included for O & M. (IMHO)
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 25, 2016, 07:18:04 PM
I agree with that.  Often the land needs burned or sprayed to fight weed infestation, fence building or removal, trees/shrubs planted/removed....
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: dreamunelk on January 25, 2016, 07:20:23 PM
This topic is about WDFW land, not DNR. And I'm pretty sure DNR knows how much land they own and where it's located.

When the WDFW acquires land, what is the cost of managing it? They don't necessarily need to spend any money to manage it. They simply need to buy it before it's sold to a developer who will subdivide it and sell it off in smaller parcels.

 :yeah:

Or would you rather a timber company buy it and charge for access?
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 25, 2016, 07:21:00 PM
$850K went to the wolf meeting guru...thousands go to the Wild Fish Conservancy to settle out of court before a lawsuit is even filed...didn't WDFW just have to pay out due to Cenci's misbehavior?
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Man Tracker on January 25, 2016, 07:30:50 PM
130K for the civil rights violation
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: nwwanderer on January 25, 2016, 07:31:50 PM
Unfortunately the governor pulls the strings on both so dividing them is somatics.
Probably unfairly I tend to lump the BLM and FS in the same in the same category.
Out of private hands the rules change, often negative. 
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Stein on January 25, 2016, 07:41:11 PM
So, right now it is private land with presumably no access and likely not managed to benefit wildlife.

WDFW buys it and the worst case scenario is that it is managed for wildlife with no access.

Worst case still has better wildlife habitat and the potential for greater access.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: dreamunelk on January 25, 2016, 07:51:10 PM
So, right now it is private land with presumably no access and likely not managed to benefit wildlife.

WDFW buys it and the worst case scenario is that it is managed for wildlife with no access.

Worst case still has better wildlife habitat and the potential for greater access.

Exactly!

look at them.
In my area it include purchasing access to the 7400 line on the Wynoochee river.  Currently the gate is locked all because some fools decided it was okay to leave there trucks block the road.  Cost an entire days worth of operations to the landowner.

Other areas include wetlands next to wdfw lands that are good waterfowl habitat.

Not sure of any bad that comes from these acquisitions.  Also many need to understand that much of the funds used come from grants that if the WDFW does not apply for and use someone else will.  In some case NGO's like The Audubon Society could acquire and shut down for hunting.  Many of these grants come from taxes yet other organizations have access to them.  Take a look at some of the trusts that are purchasing lands with these dollar.  They are not public friendly at all.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Halo on January 25, 2016, 08:01:21 PM
This will be interesting. I own 80 acres next to the land they propose to buy in Pacific County. I would sure like to know some details.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: dreamunelk on January 25, 2016, 08:05:13 PM
This will be interesting. I own 80 acres next to the land they propose to buy in Pacific County. I would sure like to know some details.

What details?  Have you called and asked them?  Depending on the land you may find they will be good neighbors that you seldom see.  With occasional hunters whom most will respect your property rights.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Stickerbush on January 25, 2016, 08:09:36 PM
The proposals look good to me, like it was said earlier this is better than some group buying it that doesn't allow hunting
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 25, 2016, 08:10:10 PM
This will be interesting. I own 80 acres next to the land they propose to buy in Pacific County. I would sure like to know some details.

What details?  Have you called and asked them?  Depending on the land you may find they will be good neighbors that you seldom see.  With occasional hunters whom most will respect your property rights.
Total dice roll.  It could be as you describe, or it could have a nice parking lot and portapotties becoming the new high school kegger hangout or tweeker campground for thieving the area or lots of trespassers.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Tbar on January 25, 2016, 08:12:11 PM
So, right now it is private land with presumably no access and likely not managed to benefit wildlife.

WDFW buys it and the worst case scenario is that it is managed for wildlife with no access.

Worst case still has better wildlife habitat and the potential for greater access.

Exactly!

look at them.
In my area it include purchasing access to the 7400 line on the Wynoochee river.  Currently the gate is locked all because some fools decided it was okay to leave there trucks block the road.  Cost an entire days worth of operations to the landowner.

Other areas include wetlands next to wdfw lands that are good waterfowl habitat.

Not sure of any bad that comes from these acquisitions.  Also many need to understand that much of the funds used come from grants that if the WDFW does not apply for and use someone else will.  In some case NGO's like The Audubon Society could acquire and shut down for hunting.  Many of these grants come from taxes yet other organizations have access to them.  Take a look at some of the trusts that are purchasing lands with these dollar.  They are not public friendly at all.
:yeah:
The conservation easments do not require public access even if purchased with "public" money. It has happened in my area.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Halo on January 25, 2016, 08:14:41 PM
It may be a good thing, but I am leary. Right now the land is leased out and off limits for me because I refuse to pay to hunt land I have hunted on since I was old enough to hunt. I have a picture of my mom with a cow elk she shot there in 1965 while pregnant with me, so I have been hunting that area for a long time. :-)
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 25, 2016, 08:29:48 PM
Better the State than the Nature Conservancy. I am seeing more and more land bought by the NC and that is not a good thing.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Halo on January 25, 2016, 08:43:08 PM
I agree better the State than the Nature Conservancy. I have been contacted by one of those organizations wanting to buy my land a few years ago.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: fisheral87 on January 25, 2016, 09:56:53 PM
Quote
When the WDFW acquires land, what is the cost of managing it? They don't necessarily need to spend any money to manage it. They simply need to buy it before it's sold to a developer who will subdivide it and sell it off in smaller parcels.

There are maintenance cost to any piece of property. I imagine there are laws and rules that drive those costs up to ensure the ground is managed in accordance with whatever agenda is in play.

Spot on about buying it before the builders get round to it.

Al
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2016, 11:28:33 PM
It's ok, but I notice one parcel is out between Walla Walla and Touchet. Why not in the foot hills where plenty of deer hunting would benefit more?
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: bobcat on January 25, 2016, 11:32:55 PM

It's ok, but I notice one parcel is out between Walla Walla and Touchet. Why not in the foot hills where plenty of deer hunting would benefit more?

Looks like they have their reasons:

(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F16%2F01%2F25%2F5ab87e3f1638944378ee190c27bcbdc4.jpg&hash=572c3a020b92bbafbdfc051aae5085e503b7d0e2)
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2016, 11:55:29 PM

It's ok, but I notice one parcel is out between Walla Walla and Touchet. Why not in the foot hills where plenty of deer hunting would benefit more?

Looks like they have their reasons:

(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F16%2F01%2F25%2F5ab87e3f1638944378ee190c27bcbdc4.jpg&hash=572c3a020b92bbafbdfc051aae5085e503b7d0e2)
ya wasn't' disagreeing with it just saying.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Gringo31 on January 26, 2016, 08:38:58 AM
We have a corrupt system with corrupt "leaders".  Or....at least leaders who don't seem to take action to improve transparency, accountability or professionalism.  They continue to want more money and my stance is NO.

No more until you can manage what you have.  They don't need anything more on their plate as it seems clear to me they can't handle what they have.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Stein on January 26, 2016, 09:06:43 AM
We have a corrupt system with corrupt "leaders".  Or....at least leaders who don't seem to take action to improve transparency, accountability or professionalism.  They continue to want more money and my stance is NO.

No more until you can manage what you have.  They don't need anything more on their plate as it seems clear to me they can't handle what they have.

I fully support any WDFW action to secure more public land and provide better access for recreation and better wildlife habitat.  Sure, they could be better but I don't want to sit around until perfection arrives before the access/habitat situation improves.
Title: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: bobcat on January 26, 2016, 09:12:57 AM
:yeah:

Acquiring land for wildlife habitat and more hunting opportunities is something that just can't be put off until some time in the future.

I look at all the money that's wasted and think about how much land that could have been purchased with that money instead.

First thing that comes to mind is the $850,000 being paid to one person for being a mediator at the Wolf Advisory Group meetings.  :bash:
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: bigtex on January 26, 2016, 09:29:14 AM
Acquiring land for wildlife habitat and more hunting opportunities is something that just can't be put off until some time in the future.
I don't want to see us like Texas and states east of the Dakotas where basically everyone is forced to fork out money to hunt private lands or are jammed into a few public chunks of land.

We can all hate the politics and policies of the state/federal land management agencies, but I like knowing that just about every year I can hunt some new piece of public land (typically state acquired).

I live in a county with a ton of urban sprawl, in the past 10 years the county has bought a ton of forested/riparian lands (mainly smallish parcels) that otherwise would've been sold to developers. The downside is they don't allow hunting, however I would rather see trees in an area provided wildlife habitat then a two story $350,000 house that the only "habitat" is a mowed green yard  :twocents:
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 26, 2016, 09:44:52 AM
Acquiring land for wildlife habitat and more hunting opportunities is something that just can't be put off until some time in the future.
I don't want to see us like Texas and states east of the Dakotas where basically everyone is forced to fork out money to hunt private lands or are jammed into a few public chunks of land.

We can all hate the politics and policies of the state/federal land management agencies, but I like knowing that just about every year I can hunt some new piece of public land (typically state acquired).

I live in a county with a ton of urban sprawl, in the past 10 years the county has bought a ton of forested/riparian lands (mainly smallish parcels) that otherwise would've been sold to developers. The downside is they don't allow hunting, however I would rather see trees in an area provided wildlife habitat then a two story $350,000 house that the only "habitat" is a mowed green yard  :twocents:
Washington is FAR from being like the states you fear becoming.  There is so much public land out here, I doubt anyone could ever hunt it all in their lifetime.  What generally seems to be the issue is the more productive land is private and it is also generally located closer to the population centers; so the hunters that want more animals and closer to the house are the ones inconvenienced most.  But still nothing like some of those other states.  And to add, we have to pay $35 for DNR pass and $30 for Forest Circus pass.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: bigtex on January 26, 2016, 09:52:53 AM
Acquiring land for wildlife habitat and more hunting opportunities is something that just can't be put off until some time in the future.
I don't want to see us like Texas and states east of the Dakotas where basically everyone is forced to fork out money to hunt private lands or are jammed into a few public chunks of land.

We can all hate the politics and policies of the state/federal land management agencies, but I like knowing that just about every year I can hunt some new piece of public land (typically state acquired).

I live in a county with a ton of urban sprawl, in the past 10 years the county has bought a ton of forested/riparian lands (mainly smallish parcels) that otherwise would've been sold to developers. The downside is they don't allow hunting, however I would rather see trees in an area provided wildlife habitat then a two story $350,000 house that the only "habitat" is a mowed green yard  :twocents:
Washington is FAR from being like the states you fear becoming.  There is so much public land out here, I doubt anyone could ever hunt it all in their lifetime.  What generally seems to be the issue is the more productive land is private and it is also generally located closer to the population centers; so the hunters that want more animals and closer to the house are the ones inconvenienced most.  But still nothing like some of those other states.  And to add, we have to pay $35 for DNR pass and $30 for Forest Circus pass.
Well, if some have their way of turning federal lands into state who knows what will happen. DNR sells state land to private owners all the time. I doubt it will happen, but there's people out there that want it.

Oregon has a $30 fee for ODFW lands, it's free for those who get hunting licenses and combo fishing licenses. But if you don't get a combo fishing license (freshwater only) you gotta pay up. At least WDFW gives you a WDFW pass for free if you buy a license.

California DFW has two passes, their Type A (best wildlife areas) is $160 and isn't free to license holders...

We in WA aren't the only ones who have to pay up to access public lands, but it's not as bad as some states....
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Gringo31 on January 26, 2016, 09:55:27 AM
I hear what you are saying Bigtex....

BUT

Why do we have to pay to access our own land?   
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 26, 2016, 10:15:40 AM
I hear what you are saying Bigtex....

BUT

Why do we have to pay to access our own land?   
Couldn't pay for all their state parks, so had to find a different user group to pay into the giant shell game of government monies.
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Gringo31 on January 26, 2016, 10:28:00 AM
This is the way it goes....  Each answer being asked "Why". 

Usually after about 4-5 rounds of it you start getting to the real answer.



Why can't they pay for their state parks?  Why/how do they have this kind of money to spend if they don't have any?
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: timberfaller on January 26, 2016, 11:32:46 AM
Acquisitions needs to STOP at least until they start taking care of what they already have.  BUT as long as they are a "government" agency THAT will not happen.   They lack the personal who aren't afraid of working HARD MANUAL labor and long hours(no overtime pay)!

Having been involved with "purchases" the OTHER problem is, paying more then fair market value for what they purchase.  Also having "good" advise from the "powers that be"! :bash:  Once they get involved it goes downhill from there!

Question, Which is more important, green pastures or winter range??  Endangered species or raptors??  I can site two purchases where the correct answer was not taken into consideration!! :bash:

And that is just with State agency's,  don't even get me started on Federals!! :yike: 
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: NoBark on January 26, 2016, 12:10:27 PM
Like most budgets they have different areas of money set aside for different things, not just one big pot if you will.  In some, maybe most, of these acquisitions, the land is actually bought with money provided by a conservation org. with the understanding that the Department will reimburse those funds over a certain time period. It allows them to secure property before it's sold to the private sector before the Department actually has the cash to do so.

RMEF, DU, and many other groups do this across the country.   I may actually get to hunt a few of these places, or my kids and grandkids. I am certain of this,  if it went private, that would NOT happen. 
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: Gringo31 on January 26, 2016, 12:51:31 PM
Quote
I may actually get to hunt a few of these places, or my kids and grandkids. I am certain of this,  if it went private, that would NOT happen.

The question I have is AT WHAT COST???
Title: Re: WDFW land acquisition
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 26, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
What worries me the most is the lake creek property.  It is just south of Coffee Pot, which is a preserve.  So why wouldn't they just make that the same.  I too am all for more recreation opportunities.  I just don't know if this is the way to go about it. 

Subdivision of land into smaller parcels is a big problem, especially in areas where many animals are migratory.

Smaller parcels along with more people and residential areas means more fences, dogs, cats, traffic, etc.

So, owning your own piece of land, farming, ranching or recreating said piece of land is a threat?  Then hell, nobody should own any land.  Better hand it all over to the state then, so they can manage it better.

Not necessarily, but sometimes. Buying a parcel of land out in the country is different from buying a waterfront property in an estuary like Willapa Bay or Grays Harbor. If you were to do nothing with the waterfront property, to include any kind of building or development, then there's little problem or effect on the wetland. The WDFW is planning on managing these wetlands to improve/maintain habitat and create public access for outdoor recreation, including hunting, fishing, and boating. They're currently owned mainly by Hancock Timber, unless I'm mistaken, and access is pay to play, not to mention the logging operations. Taking them under state ownership and WDFW management is a good thing and gives us more access.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal