Post by: bigtex on December 05, 2016, 06:52:15 PM
HB 1008 sponsored by Representatives Shea, Taylor, Short, and McCaslin (all Republicans) would require that if DNR/WDFW/State Parks was to acquire lands in a county, they MUST then sell land in that same county that contains equal to or a greater amount of acreage.
Example: WDFW wants to acquire 5 acres to provide access to a lake in Whitman County. WDFW would then be required to sell 5 or more acres of WDFW currently owned land in Whitman County.
It is essentially an "acre in, acre out" policy which would essentially stop the increase in the amount of state land in WA.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1008&Year=2017
Post by: Curly on December 05, 2016, 07:00:44 PM
Post by: PastorJoel on December 05, 2016, 07:25:04 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 06, 2016, 07:26:17 AM
Hell no should be an option. :twocents::yeah:
For those that want the feds to give states federal lands what does this say??
The interesting thing is this group of legislators is basically saying WDFW/DNR/Parks shouldn't acquire new lands because of $, yet every year some of these same individuals push for a bill demanding the feds turn over federal lands in WA to the state :dunno: It'd be nice if someone lived in one of these legislator's district and emailed them a letter outlining their disagreement with the bill to see what their response is.
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2016, 07:56:48 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 06, 2016, 11:48:31 AM
Post by: Curly on December 06, 2016, 12:02:04 PM
Hell no should be an option. :twocents::yeah:
For those that want the feds to give states federal lands what does this say??
The interesting thing is this group of legislators is basically saying WDFW/DNR/Parks shouldn't acquire new lands because of $, yet every year some of these same individuals push for a bill demanding the feds turn over federal lands in WA to the state :dunno: It'd be nice if someone lived in one of these legislator's district and emailed them a letter outlining their disagreement with the bill to see what their response is.
I have to admit I used to like the idea of transfer of Federal lands to the State. I'm still on the fence but heavily leaning toward not liking the idea anymore. Seems the states can't be trusted to do the right thing with the lands.
I figured there should be a way to work out a stipulation where the land could only be transferred if there was some sort of legal document written up where the land could never be sold to private ownership unless it is swapped for other land somewhere else that would become public. And it could only be transferred if the land would have public access is provided.
With that said, it seems that politicians are wanting the land so that the State can sell it off and make money. So, if they aren't wanting the land in order to mange the resources (like timber sales or provide recreation) then even if the Feds are doing a poor job of managing the land, then maybe it is best to just leave it as federal land and hope that someday management of the land will get better. I don't want to lose any public lands.
Post by: Stickerbush on December 06, 2016, 12:18:14 PM
Post by: andersonjk4 on December 06, 2016, 12:39:51 PM
My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership. It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly
:yeah: I bet this is exactly what they would argue. There was some backlash in Asotin County when the state purchased a large piece of private land because the county was loosing out on tax revenue. I thought I remembered a proposal that the state would pay the county some percentage to make up for lost tax revenue. That is a bill I would support.
Post by: Gringo31 on December 06, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Of all the things out there that are broken.....this is the fix of priority? :bash:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 06, 2016, 12:43:37 PM
Voted no...
Of all the things out there that are broken.....this is the fix of priority? :bash:
:yeah:
Post by: Stein on December 06, 2016, 12:46:05 PM
Post by: Cougartail on December 06, 2016, 12:48:08 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 06, 2016, 12:50:39 PM
Tax money is still coming from some group of citizens.My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership. It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly
:yeah: I bet this is exactly what they would argue. There was some backlash in Asotin County when the state purchased a large piece of private land because the county was loosing out on tax revenue. I thought I remembered a proposal that the state would pay the county some percentage to make up for lost tax revenue. That is a bill I would support.
Post by: JLS on December 06, 2016, 12:53:18 PM
My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership. It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly
:yeah: I bet this is exactly what they would argue. There was some backlash in Asotin County when the state purchased a large piece of private land because the county was loosing out on tax revenue. I thought I remembered a proposal that the state would pay the county some percentage to make up for lost tax revenue. That is a bill I would support.
The state pays the counties PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) for land that they own. Typically, the amount of PILT is higher than the taxation rate that a landowner would pay under agricultural status. Ironically, during the budget cuts of recent legislative sessions, the legislature took away monies that were appropriated for PILT. So, instead of getting mad at state agencies, maybe folks should have been asking their legislators why the state was not making its payments.
Post by: fireweed on December 06, 2016, 07:18:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 06, 2016, 08:02:16 PM
My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership. It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly
+1
Post by: csaaphill on December 06, 2016, 09:33:33 PM
Hell no should be an option. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: Vees on December 09, 2016, 01:08:06 PM
Federal - cut the forest service budget so they can't effectively manage the land, and then use that as a reason to transfer to the states.
State - cut the PILT funding so the state can't meet their obligations, and then use that as a reason to limit state land ownership.
The fight to privatize OUR public lands will show many different faces, but the end goal is all the same. Less public lands and less public access for you and I to enjoy. The arguments used by legislators for public land transfers are dishonest and the tactics are deceitful. All sportsman should flat out reject these kind of proposals.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2017, 05:13:10 PM
Post by: fisheral87 on January 11, 2017, 07:09:33 PM
Thanks,
Al
Post by: JasonG on January 11, 2017, 07:47:56 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on January 11, 2017, 08:10:26 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 11, 2017, 08:17:40 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 11, 2017, 08:20:57 PM
bigtex, the other bill wants fed land transferred to the state so I'm guessing not technically 'sold'. Would these two bills conflict in anyway? I assume the other bill would take a National Forest and give it to DNR, but as long as it isn't paid for DNR doesn't have to give up equal acreage.Isn't it odd that basically the same legislators who sponsor a bill that says WDFW/DNR/Parks has too much land and cant manage it, then turn around and sponsor another bill saying that all federal lands should be turned over to WA and as a result would be managed by those same state agencies??
After reading 1008 again it actually says when an agency "acquires" property they must then identify lands in that county to be sold. So there may very well be a conflict between the two bills sponsored by the same exact people...