Post by: bigtex on January 11, 2017, 06:47:46 PM
Interesting tidbit, most of these Representatives also sponsored a bill saying WDFW, DNR, and Parks own too much land in WA...... :dunno:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1103&Year=2017
Post by: JasonG on January 11, 2017, 06:50:03 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 11, 2017, 06:53:55 PM
Post by: Mark251 on January 11, 2017, 07:00:58 PM
Post by: fisheral87 on January 11, 2017, 07:04:09 PM
Thanks,
Al
Post by: Vees on January 17, 2017, 01:01:29 PM
David Taylor 360-786-7874
Matt Shea 360-786-7984
Bob McCaslin 360-786-7820
Mike Volz 360-786-7922
Cary Condotta 360-786-7954
Shelly Short 360-786-7908
Vincent Buys 360-786-7854
-Vees
Post by: wooltie on January 24, 2017, 02:06:19 PM
We need to fight back.
Post by: Stickerbush on January 27, 2017, 12:50:46 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 27, 2017, 01:25:59 PM
Quote
Dear Honorable State Representatives,
We are writing to express our strong opposition and sincere concern regarding legislation you recently sponsored that threatens, undermines and unnecessarily constrains public lands on which Washington’s hunters, anglers and outdoor recreationists depend.
House Bills 1103 (Concerning the transfer of federal land to the state) and 1008 (Concerning the acquisition of land by state natural resources agencies) go against the desires of your constituents in our communities. If passed, these measures would unnecessarily jeopardize both our wild places and public access to Washington’s rich natural heritage.
Put plainly, hunters and anglers rely on both public lands and state lands. Without them, the activities we cherish, local economies, and fish and wildlife would be severely impacted.
HB 1008 would significantly constrain the ability of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources and other public agencies to acquire new lands for fish, wildlife and people. We recognize that Washington’s Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program is in need of refinement. However, indefinitely hamstringing these agencies is not an appropriate response.
Our state’s population is growing. Yet even with more than 7 million Washingtonians today we have fewer areas available for outdoor recreation than other Western states. Washington’s current public lands are overcrowded and insufficient. Visit a popular trailhead on a Saturday or a state wildlife area during deer season and see the hundreds of users utilizing these lands.
We call on you to support our state’s outdoor heritage by working closely with county and local officials to ensure that state land acquisitions are conducted in a collaborative and thoughtful manner for the benefit of your constituents, including sportsmen.
HB 1008 would set severe and unnecessary restrictions on growing our state lands endowment, exacerbating problems of overcrowding and degrading future experiences on state lands.
HB 1103 would establish the transfer of public lands act, putting at risk our national forests, parks, wildlife refuges and other American public lands. Backcountry Hunters & Anglers members, as well as dozens of other hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation organization and businesses, strongly oppose the transfer, sale or giveaway of America’s public lands.
Sportsmen and women see the “state control” movement for what it is: a smokescreen for a land grab. States do not have the funding to manage American public lands operated by the federal government. Studies show that the costs of wildfire response alone would overrun state agencies. We do not need further studies or committees; we know that public land transfers would quickly lead to states selling off these lands and waters. “No trespassing” signs would follow. This is unacceptable for our organization, our chapter and our members, as well as for the legacy we leave future generations.
Not only do schemes to transfer or privatize America’s federal public lands endanger our cherished wild places; they also carry no legal weight. Recently, 11 Western states’ attorneys general endorsed a report stating that the agenda of seizing America’s shared forests, parks, refuges and other public lands has virtually no legal merit and is a waste of lawmakers’ critical time and taxpayers’ dollars. The same is true of HB 1103.
Public lands provide significant economic activity for our region, as well. Studies show that rural counties in the West with the most public lands fare better economically than other counties. Those counties saw faster growth in population, employment, personal income and per capita income growth (Headwaters Economics).
Access to state lands and public lands is also a keystone of a multi-billion dollar outdoor economy. The outdoor recreation industry alone generates 6.1 million jobs per year and $646 billion in consumer spending nationwide (Outdoor Industry Association). In Washington state nearly 200,000 jobs are supported directly or indirectly by outdoor recreation – more than our state’s technology or aerospace industries. Recreation and trails programs draw Washingtonians to the outdoors an average of 56 days per year and churn $21.6 billion into our state’s economy annually (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office).
Public and state lands provide opportunities for people of all means and backgrounds to hunt, fish, ski, camp, watch wildlife and much more. Without this public access, these opportunities would be relegated to private, wealthy interests. We, and you as our elected leaders, have a responsibility to protect that legacy and preserve our public and state lands and outdoor heritage for future generations.
As a chapter representing hundreds of passionate sportsmen and public landowners in Washington state and as representatives of national organization representing hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts nationwide, we stand ready to vocally oppose this legislation.
We respectfully urge you to reconsider these bills and instead support conserving both our public lands and our state lands.
Signed,
Bart George, Co-Chair
Washington State Chapter
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Timothy Brass, State Policy Director
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Andres Orams, Co-Chair
Washington State Chapter
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Chase Gunnell, Conservation Committee
Washington State Chapter
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/washington_bha_letter_on_land_transfer_legislation
Post by: Bean Counter on January 29, 2017, 11:36:05 PM
If you support this bill could you please explain your position?
Thanks,
Al
:hello:
We need more states rights and less power at the federal level. :twocents: Easy enough? :dunno:
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 07:58:08 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 30, 2017, 08:33:26 AM
So what does that mean when the state unloads the land to developers and rich dudes? Who lost rights then??If you support this bill could you please explain your position?
Thanks,
Al
:hello:
We need more states rights and less power at the federal level. :twocents: Easy enough? :dunno:
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 08:40:09 AM
Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?
Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 30, 2017, 08:41:36 AM
I'm for it. Why because if the usfs was doing its job there would be plenty of cash to support itself and then some. Instead they have embraced sue and settle tactics with bunny huggers. The usfs was once a great promoter of multiple use that funded itself. In addition to not logging to generate revenue they are ripping roads out making it harder for us to access OUR land.
What will keep the sue happy bunny huggers from suing the States. Look at the Elliot State forest in Oregon. Oregon got the forest from the feds, could never get any logging done due to the constant litigation from Enviros so they were loosing tons of money on the land and have decided to sell it. What would keep that happening in our state?
Post by: Bob33 on January 30, 2017, 08:48:47 AM
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?
Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?
Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 30, 2017, 08:53:47 AM
shortsightedness for sure. If the states get the land and the politicians that are sponsoring this bill get their way the land will become private property.If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?
Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?
Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 08:57:22 AM
If I have to hike more than 10 miles to get to a lake I used to be able to hike a mile or 2 are they my friends? No.
The difference I see is that people are pro porting a possibility as a fact. It's also a possibility we will be at war with China or get struck by a meteor in the next year.
Do I want it sold to a private company? No. Besides if it can't be logged who would buy the land?
If all the bunny huggers don't want the land sold you think they won't have an impact on our liberal govenor?
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 09:01:14 AM
Or they could add it to the DNR holdings and use that timber $ to come up with the extra cash they need to fund schools. Wouldn't that be a great battle. School funding against bunny huggers on loggable land.shortsightedness for sure. If the states get the land and the politicians that are sponsoring this bill get their way the land will become private property.If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?
Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?
Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?
Let's also keep in mind that the land we are talking about does not include wilderness areas... I've hiked them plenty.
Operating from a position of fear is how we have arrived here.
Post by: jackelope on January 30, 2017, 09:05:49 AM
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!
Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?
Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?
It has happened.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2015/05/oregons_state_parkland_sale_to.html
Quote
.....But approached with an increasingly appealing offer from the Chicago-based developer, and pressure from Oregon's former governor John Kitzhaber, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has agreed to privatize 280 acres of the state's public coast so Keiser can turn it into a golf course......There are more. Google is your friend.
Post by: jackelope on January 30, 2017, 09:06:59 AM
Or they could add it to the DNR holdings and use that timber $ to come up with the extra cash they need to fund schools. Wouldn't that be a great battle. School funding against bunny huggers on loggable land.shortsightedness for sure. If the states get the land and the politicians that are sponsoring this bill get their way the land will become private property.If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?
Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?
Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?
Let's also keep in mind that the land we are talking about does not include wilderness areas... I've hiked them plenty.
Operating from a position of fear is how we have arrived here.
Is it only about what can be logged? I see a repetition in your posts.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 30, 2017, 09:18:23 AM
Well that's fantastic, since the DNR pretty much sucks at actually managing land, I'm not interested. I would rather keep working to push the FS to log and do more active management than watch the land get over logged and wash downstream...then get sold.Or they could add it to the DNR holdings and use that timber $ to come up with the extra cash they need to fund schools. Wouldn't that be a great battle. School funding against bunny huggers on loggable land.shortsightedness for sure. If the states get the land and the politicians that are sponsoring this bill get their way the land will become private property.If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas!You really don't see a difference between having access to public land without some roads, and land that was previously public that is privately held now and denies all access?
Could happen now but guess what it hasn't. If I'm not benefiting from acces roads and timber revenue does it matter if the state or federal owns it?
Why should I care who does when the feds are ripping out roads?
Let's also keep in mind that the land we are talking about does not include wilderness areas... I've hiked them plenty.
Operating from a position of fear is how we have arrived here.
BTW- managing land is more than logging, it's managing recreation, spraying weeds, fixing fish barriers, managing fire....
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 10:06:06 AM
I'm not surprised a park was sold. I'm not in the loop on Oregon parks but the ones here have to steal money from sportsmen (who largely dont use them) to support the state parks. There is a winning formula for parks but they (parks/state) aren't willing to make the changes.
How many posts have I seen on here in the last year people calling attention that some usfs knucklehead is closing a road down with very thin or BS reasoning? I can think of a couple on either side of the mountain.
I remember calling and writing everyone I could to prevent a merger of the wdfw and DNR and parks. What did we/me get for our sucessful effort? A kick in the balls. Do you think we will be treated better by another organisation that doesn't hold our interests at heart?
Post by: Stein on January 30, 2017, 10:12:04 AM
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 10:18:16 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 30, 2017, 10:36:04 AM
Quote
Dear Representative Short,
Hi Shelly, I want to thank you for doing such a great job of representing our district in Olympia over the years. As you may or may not know my wife Tara and I operate a hunting business based near Colville and I own an online hunting forum with thousands of members who live and hunt here in Washington. Many of the members on the forum are concerned about access to public lands and potential sell off of public lands if the state takes over ownership of federally owned lands, I know several of them are sending letters to you opposing HB 1103, so I though perhaps I would try to find out more about HB 1103.
Generally I am in favor of more local control over our public lands but I have a few questions regarding HB 1103.
1. Is there language to prohibit the sell off of our public lands if the state did get ownership of federal lands? Language to prevent any net sell off of public lands would make this legislation more palatable to sports folks. I understand the federal agencies currently trade lands at times with timber companies when it’s considered beneficial, but the biggest concern for me (and others) is that the state would not be able to sell off lands like has happened in some other states resulting in less public land available for public use.
2. In NE WA I think the state does a far better job of managing our lands than the USFS. There is logging, easy public access, and essentially the state lands benefit the public as a whole far more than the USFS lands which do not allow logging, burn up in forest fires, and which are continually becoming tougher to access due to more and more road closures. But some sports folks have claimed the state has closed access to some state lands in other parts of Washington. I don’t know how true that is, but could you please find out if public access has been limited to any state owned lands and could you make sure that no loss of public access can happen through this legislation or through state actions once they gain ownership of federal lands through this legislation?
Sell off of public lands and access to public lands are extremely important issues so any clarification and language you can provide may make this legislation more acceptable to those who are concerned.
Respectfully,
Dale Denney
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 10:50:31 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 30, 2017, 10:57:03 AM
Well I happen to live and recreate mostly on the west side.Oregon sold a state forest (equivalent of a DNR state forest like Capitol or Colockum) not a park.
I'm not surprised a park was sold. I'm not in the loop on Oregon parks but the ones here have to steal money from sportsmen (who largely dont use them) to support the state parks. There is a winning formula for parks but they (parks/state) aren't willing to make the changes.
How many posts have I seen on here in the last year people calling attention that some usfs knucklehead is closing a road down with very thin or BS reasoning? I can think of a couple on either side of the mountain.
I remember calling and writing everyone I could to prevent a merger of the wdfw and DNR and parks. What did we/me get for our sucessful effort? A kick in the balls. Do you think we will be treated better by another organisation that doesn't hold our interests at heart?
Post by: haus on January 30, 2017, 11:18:22 AM
I'm for it. Why because if the usfs was doing its job there would be plenty of cash to support itself and then some. Instead they have embraced sue and settle tactics with bunny huggers. The usfs was once a great promoter of multiple use that funded itself. In addition to not logging to generate revenue they are ripping roads out making it harder for us to access OUR land.All facts T. They've essentially worked themselves out of relevance through their own actions and decisions. Then they turn around and complain they are understaffed and underfunded, which is entirely true, but they don't understand why. We're going onto 20 years now of limiting and consolidating access to our national forests combined with going from a cut it all land management focus to don't touch a thing. It's left the national forests with thousands of acres of land where the tree's are all the same age resulting in significant impacts on ungulate populations. The majority of massive uncontrollable wildfires in the drier regions of the west can be attributed to the lack of managing the national forest timber regrowth cycles and direct limitations of accessibility by destroying and/or not maintaining roads. Also, despite going from 8 years of Dem to 8 of repub and back to 8 of dem the USFS has basically operated the same throughout.
That all being said, and yes at one time I was of the same conclusion as you, but do we collectively believe as hunters that the best solution to address the USFS shortcomings is to kick them out and put all of our hopes into our states DNR and WDFW managers? I don't know, we don't know 100% if that's the right direction to go. Right now on the surface on many points it seems better, but will those points stick? We do know that the volatility of change in management increases at the state level. Our state agencies policies will fluctuate sooner and faster with the voting mood of the majorities desires in WA. Fluctuations at the national level in voting direction have a slower less volatile affect on the management of our lands, that has been consistent for about 23 years now.
We do know that historically states have a rather crappy track record overall when it comes to what they do with land they receive from the federal government. That's a blanket statement though, some states hold on and do well for public access and don't target the elimination of specific outdoor user groups while others have sold off vast amounts of acreage and/or severely limit who where when and how one can access the public land.
My view at this time is that it comes down to a lesser of two evils decision. My hope is that DT, with consideration to the fact that he has a son who seems well versed on what impact the USFS management has had upon us, will overhaul the whole agency from top to bottom and completely reverse its course. That is the easiest way forward, lowest risk, direction to go here. Wish in one hand...well you know the rest, but I'd rather do that then roll the dice on the DNR/WDFW today. 4 years from now if we haven't seen any improvement or change at the USFS then okay, but until then we gotta give the new chief a chance here.
Post by: grundy53 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:20 AM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 30, 2017, 11:25:14 AM
Post by: haus on January 30, 2017, 11:29:15 AM
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 11:31:40 AM
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.
Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.
I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.
Post by: jmscon on January 30, 2017, 11:40:02 AM
Over the years federal funding that has gone to the dept of agricultural for the usfs has been slowly hacked away at. The price of timber has gone down significantly as well. Also the cost of fighting forest fires is taking up over half the budget. This has also lead to a decrease in none fire personnel (according to a report in 2015) by 39%! https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Rising-Cost-Wildfire-Operations.pdf This is creating a hands off management of forest service property. And a huge reduction in road management, hence closures.
If the costs to fight the forest fires in this state were to come solely from our state budget we would see those lands get sold off so fast it would make your head spin!
If you think the state is going to maintain the roads and access better, go drive a green dot road system! The non green dot roads have been closed to reduce the cost of "maintaining" the green dot roads! In L. T. Murry, Wenas wildlife areas some green dot roads are impassable. The Naneum State forest is a little better but not by much.
The consequences with privatizing the once federal land doesn't just end with access. If those lands start to get developed then there will be huge fights over water rights as has happened in kittitas and skagit counties.
:twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on January 30, 2017, 11:46:22 AM
You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.A lot of federal land isn't timber. You also have to think outside of Washington. Colorado doesn't allow hunting on state land. New Mexico doesn't allow camping on state land. Many state's versions of DNR have a profitability mandate. If the land doesn't show a profit they are mandated to sell it. Nevada was given a ton of land at statehood. They have sold off virtually all of it. Texas has virtually zero public lands. I think we would be better served by changing the USFW then we would be by changing the ownership of the land. Once it's gone it's gone forever. I'm hoping Trump guts the USFW and reorganizes it.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.
Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.
I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: wooltie on January 30, 2017, 11:50:28 AM
You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.
Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.
I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.
Read the bill. The Bill requires WA state to transfer 95% of the net proceeds received from any sale of land to the FED.gov. WA state retains 5% to be deposited into a rainy day school fund. This is shell game designed to make transferring public land into private hands that much easier, using the States as the vehicle.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) On or before December 31, 2017, the
15 United States shall:
(a) Extinguish title to all public lands; and16
17 (b) Transfer title to public lands to the state of Washington.
18 (2) If the state subsequently transfers title to any public lands
19 received under subsection (1) of this section, the state shall:
20 (a) Retain five percent of the net proceeds the state receives
from the transfer of title; and21
22 (b) Transfer ninety-five percent of the net proceeds the state
23 receives from the transfer of title to the United States.
24 (3) In accordance with the Washington state Constitution, the
25 amount the state retains in accordance with subsection (2)(a) of this
26 section must be deposited into the permanent common school fund
created in RCW 28A.515.300.
Post by: haus on January 30, 2017, 11:59:46 AM
CO does on 99% that falls under CPW lands, its the trust lands where it gets sideways. CPW has to pay the state land board to get access for hunting and fishing, which due to cost leaves the majority of the trust lands inaccessible. It's largely locked up by the O&G industry and cattle ranching, the majority of the workers being hunters and fisherman makes the whole situation rather frustrating.You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.A lot of federal land isn't timber. You also have to think outside of Washington. Colorado doesn't allow hunting on state land. New Mexico doesn't allow camping on state land. Many state's versions of DNR have a profitability mandate. If the land doesn't show a profit they are mandated to sell it. Nevada was given a ton of land at statehood. They have sold off virtually all of it. Texas has virtually zero public lands. I think we would be better served by changing the USFW then we would be by changing the ownership of the land. Once it's gone it's gone forever. I'm hoping Trump guts the USFW and reorganizes it.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.
Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.
I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on January 30, 2017, 12:05:59 PM
CO does on 99% that falls under CPW lands, its the trust lands where it gets sideways. CPW has to pay the state land board to get access for hunting and fishing, which due to cost leaves the majority of the trust lands inaccessible. It's largely locked up by the O&G industry and cattle ranching, the majority of the workers being hunters and fisherman makes the whole situation rather frustrating.You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.A lot of federal land isn't timber. You also have to think outside of Washington. Colorado doesn't allow hunting on state land. New Mexico doesn't allow camping on state land. Many state's versions of DNR have a profitability mandate. If the land doesn't show a profit they are mandated to sell it. Nevada was given a ton of land at statehood. They have sold off virtually all of it. Texas has virtually zero public lands. I think we would be better served by changing the USFW then we would be by changing the ownership of the land. Once it's gone it's gone forever. I'm hoping Trump guts the USFW and reorganizes it.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.
Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.
I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Their trust land is the equivalent of our DNR land. The CPW land is the equivalent of our WDFW lands. The federal land would fall under the trust land not CPW.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on January 30, 2017, 12:11:57 PM
There you go. It's patently clear the state can sell the property once it has title.You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.
Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.
I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.
Read the bill. The Bill requires WA state to transfer 95% of the net proceeds received from any sale of land to the FED.gov. WA state retains 5% to be deposited into a rainy day school fund. This is shell game designed to make transferring public land into private hands that much easier, using the States as the vehicle.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) On or before December 31, 2017, the
15 United States shall:
(a) Extinguish title to all public lands; and16
17 (b) Transfer title to public lands to the state of Washington.
18 (2) If the state subsequently transfers title to any public lands
19 received under subsection (1) of this section, the state shall:
20 (a) Retain five percent of the net proceeds the state receives
from the transfer of title; and21
22 (b) Transfer ninety-five percent of the net proceeds the state
23 receives from the transfer of title to the United States.
24 (3) In accordance with the Washington state Constitution, the
25 amount the state retains in accordance with subsection (2)(a) of this
26 section must be deposited into the permanent common school fund
created in RCW 28A.515.300.
Post by: wooltie on January 30, 2017, 02:11:31 PM
There you go. It's patently clear the state can sell the property once it has title.You would think that DT 3rd would have something to say on this issue.
I look forward to representative Shorts reply. I don't have all the answers but what I do know is the USFS ignores reasonable requests and tears out roads while crying about having no funds.
Perhaps I focus too much on timber, but from the many discussions on here and elsewhere it appears that the DNR understands how to make $ with timber sales. I find it difficult to belive that the State would pass up a bunch of land that has mature timber on it doing what they currently do with it.
I have no doubt they would piss much of this revenue away but have a really hard time believing that they would sell off a BIG money making endowment.
Read the bill. The Bill requires WA state to transfer 95% of the net proceeds received from any sale of land to the FED.gov. WA state retains 5% to be deposited into a rainy day school fund. This is shell game designed to make transferring public land into private hands that much easier, using the States as the vehicle.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) On or before December 31, 2017, the
15 United States shall:
(a) Extinguish title to all public lands; and16
17 (b) Transfer title to public lands to the state of Washington.
18 (2) If the state subsequently transfers title to any public lands
19 received under subsection (1) of this section, the state shall:
20 (a) Retain five percent of the net proceeds the state receives
from the transfer of title; and21
22 (b) Transfer ninety-five percent of the net proceeds the state
23 receives from the transfer of title to the United States.
24 (3) In accordance with the Washington state Constitution, the
25 amount the state retains in accordance with subsection (2)(a) of this
26 section must be deposited into the permanent common school fund
created in RCW 28A.515.300.
And HB 1008, also sponsored by some of the same politicians sponsoring HB 1103, prevents WDFW and DNR from increasing the amount of land these agencies can acquire. Additional land acquisitions must be essentially "acreage neutral". If you buy five acres, then you also need to sell five acres for example.
So if these bills pass, then WA State would suddenly have title to all this new land but the agencies that would own and manage the land would not be able to acquire it.
What's the State to do with all this land and no public agency to manage it?
I mean, 1103 contains no valid state interest...WA doesn't even get the $$ from selling the land.
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 02:34:19 PM
I find at least a little comfort that 1 person haus understands where I'm coming from.
Post by: grundy53 on January 30, 2017, 02:40:07 PM
If they only get 5% why would they sell it. The annual timber harvest would eclipse a 1 time sale where you got 5%.Because they can't afford to maintain it.
I find at least a little comfort that 1 person haus understands where I'm coming from.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Nwelkhunter81 on January 30, 2017, 03:17:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 30, 2017, 03:21:14 PM
I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!
Did anyone say it was a democrat vs republican issue? I'm all for more local control, sick and tired of the USFS being run by greenies who want to lock it up and stop all access and activities. I want to hear more about the bill before I make up my mind either way.
Post by: Nwelkhunter81 on January 30, 2017, 03:24:42 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 30, 2017, 03:26:57 PM
Please re-read my statement... I said comments on other state bills not necessarily on this forum!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You said people!
However, I just saw in another topic where someone was making it a D or R issue on this forum. :dunno:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,206970.msg2772589.html#msg2772589
Post by: bigtex on January 30, 2017, 03:30:25 PM
I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 03:35:50 PM
I'm not sure why the concept of money cash flow and "cost" is so difficult to understand. You can cut costs but only to a certain level, but you can almost always increase revenue.If they only get 5% why would they sell it. The annual timber harvest would eclipse a 1 time sale where you got 5%.Because they can't afford to maintain it.
I find at least a little comfort that 1 person haus understands where I'm coming from.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
It was pointed out that the #1 cost of the usfs was fighting fires. Strangly enough logging timber and putting cattle out on the land attack the problem from both sides. They bring in $ and reduce fuel loads.
If you think it's "costs $" to maintain a wood lot, how does DNR manage it?
I'm not in the logging industry but have you ever payed an ounce of attention to Loggers posts?
@logger
Post by: bearpaw on January 30, 2017, 03:39:29 PM
I'm not sure why the concept of money cash flow and "cost" is so difficult to understand. You can cut costs but only to a certain level, but you can almost always increase revenue.If they only get 5% why would they sell it. The annual timber harvest would eclipse a 1 time sale where you got 5%.Because they can't afford to maintain it.
I find at least a little comfort that 1 person haus understands where I'm coming from.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
It was pointed out that the #1 cost of the usfs was fighting fires. Strangly enough logging timber and putting cattle out on the land attack the problem from both sides. They bring in $ and reduce fuel loads.
If you think it's "costs $" to maintain a wood lot, how does DNR manage it?
I'm not in the logging industry but have you ever payed an ounce of attention to Loggers posts?
@logger
You are exactly right. The greenies have controlled the USFS for too long. They have practically stripped the USFS of all income sources other than tax payers. State lands and private land owners make millions off forests because they have not cut off all revenue sources, they have enhanced revenue sources.
Post by: Bob33 on January 30, 2017, 03:50:46 PM
In instances like this, blindly following a party line is foolish.I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.
Post by: yakimarcher on January 30, 2017, 03:50:51 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 30, 2017, 03:52:51 PM
I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.
And damn them for championing states rights, fiscal sanity, individual liberty and limited government :bash: :mor:
Post by: Special T on January 30, 2017, 03:55:55 PM
You can tell me all day long how much it costs to do maintenance. I'm sure with a little poking around logger and myself could flood you with examples of how effecient the usfs is.
Post by: bigtex on January 30, 2017, 04:44:29 PM
When my brother logged they replaced a culvert that went bad on a logging road they were using. The USFS said it would cost close ton $100k to replace and 4 months. The logging out fit did it them selves for less than $10k in one day with an oversized culvert.The problem isn't the agency it's the laws behind it which have been enacted by Congress and then even more regulated by court decisions. The fact that a federal agency (any) has to do a natural resource study, cultural resource study, etc to put up a stop sign or new mailbox is ridiculous. Yet we see Congress blame the agencies for doing this when it is in fact a former session of Congress who enacted things like NEPA, and other study requirements
You can tell me all day long how much it costs to do maintenance. I'm sure with a little poking around logger and myself could flood you with examples of how effecient the usfs is.
Post by: haus on January 30, 2017, 09:38:18 PM
[/quote]
Their trust land is the equivalent of our DNR land. The CPW land is the equivalent of our WDFW lands. The federal land would fall under the trust land not CPW.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Their DNR is the umbrella agency, CPW operates within the DNR and is responsible for managing all of the states wildlife areas and state parks, the later being managed in an equivalent manner to our DNR state forests, nothing like the WDFW here. Being a washingtonian this threw me off the first time my coworkers suggested we go hunt elk in a state park; within the DNR is the state land board which manages the trust lands provided by the federal government, of those trust lands that involve O&G we're managed by the COGCC. CPW has to pay the state land board for what equates to 20% of the total trust acreage. 5% is leased by outfitters and clubs. The other 75% goes to O&G and farming.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 31, 2017, 05:40:04 AM
When my brother logged they replaced a culvert that went bad on a logging road they were using. The USFS said it would cost close ton $100k to replace and 4 months. The logging out fit did it them selves for less than $10k in one day with an oversized culvert.I don't disagree that the feds need to do some things very differently.
You can tell me all day long how much it costs to do maintenance. I'm sure with a little poking around logger and myself could flood you with examples of how effecient the usfs is.
Post by: Nwelkhunter81 on January 31, 2017, 05:55:12 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on January 31, 2017, 06:02:09 AM
If you think the greenies want to lock it up just wait until it's privately owned...I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!
Did anyone say it was a democrat vs republican issue? I'm all for more local control, sick and tired of the USFS being run by greenies who want to lock it up and stop all access and activities. I want to hear more about the bill before I make up my mind either way.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on January 31, 2017, 06:07:07 AM
I'm not sure why the concept of money cash flow and "cost" is so difficult to understand. You can cut costs but only to a certain level, but you can almost always increase revenue.If they only get 5% why would they sell it. The annual timber harvest would eclipse a 1 time sale where you got 5%.Because they can't afford to maintain it.
I find at least a little comfort that 1 person haus understands where I'm coming from.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
It was pointed out that the #1 cost of the usfs was fighting fires. Strangly enough logging timber and putting cattle out on the land attack the problem from both sides. They bring in $ and reduce fuel loads.
If you think it's "costs $" to maintain a wood lot, how does DNR manage it?
I'm not in the logging industry but have you ever payed an ounce of attention to Loggers posts?
@logger
First of all, I come from a logging family and a logging community. So I'm well aware. You seem to fail to realize that the DNR is a government agency. They are not as bad as the USFS but they are nowhere as efficient as a private company. They are not as good at managing their lands as you seem to think they are. Once again I'll point out there is a lot of federal land that isn't timberland.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on January 31, 2017, 06:12:34 AM
What the heck does this have to do with state's rights, individual liberty or limiting government? You do realize state governments are still governments right?I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.
And damn them for championing states rights, fiscal sanity, individual liberty and limited government :bash: :mor:
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on January 31, 2017, 11:43:33 AM
Forget the R vs. D discussion and explain to me the benefits this bill holds for DIY hunters, hikers, fishermen, general outdoorspeople. If you're feeling spunky, explain to me the downsides this bill holds for the same user groups.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 31, 2017, 12:18:53 PM
What the heck does this have to do with state's rights, individual liberty or limiting government?I keep reading about other states that have the same bills coming to the house and the biggest thing I have noticed is the division. People are making this a Democrat VS Republican thing, which IMO this should be about all of us. This is one issue we cannot afford to be divided on!I think people are making it a partisan issue largely because it appears to be. I think you would be hard pressed to find any democratic legislator in any state in support of these types of bills. In reality, these bills are often sponsored by the far right tea party types. So when you look and constantly see these bills only being sponsored by the Rs it looks like it's a partisan effort, when in reality it's really just the far right.
And damn them for championing states rights, fiscal sanity, individual liberty and limited government :bash: :mor:
Maybe if some of us who really like free stuff (I do) tried exercising a little more impartiality we'd realize that people who are politically aligned with us but don't hunt are opposed to our free subsidy on a variety of moral reasons.
Quote
You do realize state governments are still governments right?
A state government where my representative lives in my district and I can just bounce a stupid question off him any time I want? Where the legislators work part time and have real jobs instead of year round and yet only working half time? Where I can drive less than an hour and witness their delibrations? Where they're competing against a handful of votes of only semi-libertard legislators from places like Flagstaff and Tucson as opposed to full-tilt flag burning, baby killing districts like San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle? Yeah, I'll take door #2.
Post by: baldopepper on January 31, 2017, 12:28:41 PM
How does the future this bill holds directly benefit hunters and outdoorsmen?makes me think of the old adage "if it aint broke, don't fix it". The user groups you mention have absolutely nothing to gain from this bill, and the thread has set out numerous possibilities of what we could loose. I've seen several references that seem to say "he's a hunter and he's for it, therefore it must be ok". Important to keep in mind that many thousands of acres of public access land have been lost to fellow hunters who've leased, bought, or pushed for raffles and auctions on public areas that most of us can't afford to participate in. Just because they hunt, doesn't mean they have any desire to be out with the general public when they do it. There is no upside to this bill for the basic everyday outdoors person and a whole lot of downside possibilities.
Forget the R vs. D discussion and explain to me the benefits this bill holds for DIY hunters, hikers, fishermen, general outdoorspeople. If you're feeling spunky, explain to me the downsides this bill holds for the same user groups.
Post by: jackelope on January 31, 2017, 01:10:07 PM
How does the future this bill holds directly benefit hunters and outdoorsmen?makes me think of the old adage "if it aint broke, don't fix it". The user groups you mention have absolutely nothing to gain from this bill, and the thread has set out numerous possibilities of what we could loose. I've seen several references that seem to say "he's a hunter and he's for it, therefore it must be ok". Important to keep in mind that many thousands of acres of public access land have been lost to fellow hunters who've leased, bought, or pushed for raffles and auctions on public areas that most of us can't afford to participate in. Just because they hunt, doesn't mean they have any desire to be out with the general public when they do it. There is no upside to this bill for the basic everyday outdoors person and a whole lot of downside possibilities.
Forget the R vs. D discussion and explain to me the benefits this bill holds for DIY hunters, hikers, fishermen, general outdoorspeople. If you're feeling spunky, explain to me the downsides this bill holds for the same user groups.
Kinda what I was thinking.
Anyone else?
@bearpaw
@Bean Counter
Bueller??
Post by: Stein on January 31, 2017, 01:30:47 PM
WA in particular is headed into a monster budget crisis. So, we want to give them an asset that requires even more money to maintain in hopes that the group in Olympia (who doesn't even want you to own a gun) will take a step back and say, "yeah, let's spend a bunch of money so a few dudes can go shoot their deer." Let's not sell it to one of our billionair constituents so we can keep up our insane social spending, let's watch out for the hunters.
Post by: jackelope on January 31, 2017, 01:34:44 PM
(insert sarcasm here)
Post by: Nwelkhunter81 on January 31, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on January 31, 2017, 03:49:11 PM
http://sportsmensaccess.org
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely someone will find fault with one of the groups that Sportsmen's Access is partnered with.
Post by: Nwelkhunter81 on January 31, 2017, 03:50:52 PM
http://sportsmensaccess.org
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely someone will find fault with one of the groups that Sportsmen's Access is partnered with.
Maybe Old Milwaukee Beer 😂
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 31, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
How does the future this bill holds directly benefit hunters and outdoorsmen?makes me think of the old adage "if it aint broke, don't fix it". The user groups you mention have absolutely nothing to gain from this bill, and the thread has set out numerous possibilities of what we could loose. I've seen several references that seem to say "he's a hunter and he's for it, therefore it must be ok". Important to keep in mind that many thousands of acres of public access land have been lost to fellow hunters who've leased, bought, or pushed for raffles and auctions on public areas that most of us can't afford to participate in. Just because they hunt, doesn't mean they have any desire to be out with the general public when they do it. There is no upside to this bill for the basic everyday outdoors person and a whole lot of downside possibilities.
Forget the R vs. D discussion and explain to me the benefits this bill holds for DIY hunters, hikers, fishermen, general outdoorspeople. If you're feeling spunky, explain to me the downsides this bill holds for the same user groups.
Kinda what I was thinking.
Anyone else?
@bearpaw
@Bean Counter
Bueller??
Our Representative, Shelly Short has been chosen to replace our Senator Dansel who has been hired by the Trump Administration. I know Shelly is very busy but she sent a short message from her phone stating she would never support sales of our public lands, I believe her! She said she would forward my concerns to the prime sponsor for consideration. I suspect it's possible they don't realize their may be a loophole whereby lands could be sold, but as SpecialT stated that doesn't make much sense for 5%?
I would definitely consider state control of access to our lands over federal control which sucks, the state would certainly do more logging and less wilderness. I'm not so sure BHA can be trusted about this legislation, it could be a ploy by them to retain the best chances they have of getting more wilderness. That is the foremost reason BHA was originally created, more wilderness! I firmly believe there is a fair amount more game on state land than USFS. I'm just thinking out loud, I'm not taking a position until I know more.
As someone said, if Trump will restructure the USFS perhaps that agency will be more likeable! :twocents:
Post by: wooltie on January 31, 2017, 09:15:30 PM
Passing this bill adds costs to the State.gov because the State would have to fund/manage the lands. Moreover, HB 1008 prevents WDFW and DNR from acquiring additional lands (many of the same folks sponsor this bill and 1103).
The State gains no benefit from selling the lands, so why would the State sell the lands?
If a politician sponsors this bill yet opposes selling public lands, then what in the hell is the reason for this bill in the first place? Increasing State.gov costs seems irresponsible when no mechanism to pay for those additional costs has been considered and proposed (this happens all the time), but this move doesn't sound like something limited .gov, balanced budget republicans would support.
I personally don't care whether state or FED manage the lands; the lands need to be managed better and they need to remain public. That's what matters. And i think everyone agrees on this point.
But this bill doesn't achieve either of those objectives.
So again, what the hell is the point of 1103?
Post by: Bean Counter on January 31, 2017, 09:22:14 PM
So again, someone please tell me: what is the valid state interest in this bill?
...
How about unshackling the tentacles of the federal government from your life and giving you more influence on how your forests are managed ?
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2017, 09:35:43 PM
Ah yes because DNR has been so receptive of the interests of citizens in WA. Which is why I can't target shoot on DNR land in King County. Or why every DNR parcel in King County has a gate except for the main line roads. There's less regulations on USFS lands in this area than DNR lands.So again, someone please tell me: what is the valid state interest in this bill?How about unshackling the tentacles of the federal government from your life and giving you more influence on how your forests are managed ?
...
Post by: Bean Counter on January 31, 2017, 09:38:36 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 31, 2017, 09:38:48 PM
http://sportsmensaccess.org
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely someone will find fault with one of the groups that Sportsmen's Access is partnered with.
Maybe Old Milwaukee Beer 😂
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well done.
I did see the TRCP listed. Oh the horror.
Post by: NumaJohn on January 31, 2017, 10:17:38 PM
It seems to me what we have in this thread--and most of the others on this topic--is a fundamental difference of opinion about individual rights and collective good. It seems some of the "Yes" voters here have very little concern for the hunting futures of most hunters in our country. Sad. Personal liberty trumps all, right? And financial independence. And your interpretation of the Constitution? It's as if you see no upside to what we have been provided by the visionary architects of the North American Conservation model. Had they subscribed solely to the "every man for himself" perspective, none of us would even be having this discussion now, as there would be no federal land left. The "individuals-before-all" proponents would be happily hunting leases and private parcels and paying for access to land-locked state land. Many hunters, including me, actually prefer to hunt public land, prefer to know there are vast swaths of forest where hunters and their families can go. I get the sense some of you really couldn't care less about hunters and other recreationists who depend on public land for access, and again, I think that's sad. Pathetic, even, in my view. Every post you offer reiterates that it's all about you and yours--and that's it.
I am not looking for handouts, mind you, just reiterating that the federal land belongs to ALL OF US. If the federal land gets transferred to the states, then--perhaps out of fiscal necessity--sold to private interests, most of us will be shut out. We will never get OUR land back. Yes, the USFS is and has been out of balance for years, but let's not trust what belongs to ALL OF US in this great country to the individual states. I just don't get how you got to think like you do. With all due respect, it strikes me as wildly out of step with the very legacy from which we all have so uniquely benefited. I still have yet to read anything approaching a compelling argument for transferring OUR land into a situation where it would be more vulnerable to the whims of states and the deep pockets of the Koch brothers and their billionaire cronies.
We must fight for what is OURS. Band together, hunters, and don't let our land slip away.
John
Post by: kentrek on January 31, 2017, 10:37:30 PM
On our DNR equivalent, State Trust Land, I cannot "target shoot." but I can "zero my rifle in" while possessing a hunting license :)
And your okay with that ?
Post by: Special T on February 01, 2017, 07:20:39 AM
Post by: grundy53 on February 01, 2017, 07:34:48 AM
The choice isn't quite as binary are many of you state. Public/ private. It could remain public with more logging or grazing. Fees could go up and more logging could occur. The usfs could have prevented this action by not pushing us out of the forest. Kept to the multiple use model that Pinchot made popular. But instead work to make all the land defecto wilderness.There is a ton of FS land that is open. Where I hunt there is way more state land that is gated or the roads put to bed.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: wsmnut on February 01, 2017, 07:46:29 AM
The choice isn't quite as binary are many of you state. Public/ private. It could remain public with more logging or grazing. Fees could go up and more logging could occur. The usfs could have prevented this action by not pushing us out of the forest. Kept to the multiple use model that Pinchot made popular. But instead work to make all the land defecto wilderness.
Trouble is it likely won't stop there. As soon as the state has a budget shortfall a developer will whisper to a legislator and before you can blink there will be a bill in the state house to sell off enough land to offset the shortfall.
What will really be aggravating is when some of these sales will land lock remaining public ground.
I don't know how any hunter could be for this kind of change. Blindly following any idealism is a path to ruin.
Post by: grundy53 on February 01, 2017, 07:50:59 AM
Honestly, this isn't about BHA. Whatever you think their motives are. This is about all public land hunters. Whether backcountry or road hunter and everyone in between. For the most part where I hunt on the Westside it's either private industrial timberland where you are required to buy an access permit (pay to play) or it's state land that is gated at the pavement. Whereas where I hunt on the eastside it's mostly FS land where I can drive all day and not hit pavement or worry about a gate. Which would you prefer?How does the future this bill holds directly benefit hunters and outdoorsmen?makes me think of the old adage "if it aint broke, don't fix it". The user groups you mention have absolutely nothing to gain from this bill, and the thread has set out numerous possibilities of what we could loose. I've seen several references that seem to say "he's a hunter and he's for it, therefore it must be ok". Important to keep in mind that many thousands of acres of public access land have been lost to fellow hunters who've leased, bought, or pushed for raffles and auctions on public areas that most of us can't afford to participate in. Just because they hunt, doesn't mean they have any desire to be out with the general public when they do it. There is no upside to this bill for the basic everyday outdoors person and a whole lot of downside possibilities.
Forget the R vs. D discussion and explain to me the benefits this bill holds for DIY hunters, hikers, fishermen, general outdoorspeople. If you're feeling spunky, explain to me the downsides this bill holds for the same user groups.
Kinda what I was thinking.
Anyone else?
@bearpaw
@Bean Counter
Bueller??
Our Representative, Shelly Short has been chosen to replace our Senator Dansel who has been hired by the Trump Administration. I know Shelly is very busy but she sent a short message from her phone stating she would never support sales of our public lands, I believe her! She said she would forward my concerns to the prime sponsor for consideration. I suspect it's possible they don't realize their may be a loophole whereby lands could be sold, but as SpecialT stated that doesn't make much sense for 5%?
I would definitely consider state control of access to our lands over federal control which sucks, the state would certainly do more logging and less wilderness. I'm not so sure BHA can be trusted about this legislation, it could be a ploy by them to retain the best chances they have of getting more wilderness. That is the foremost reason BHA was originally created, more wilderness! I firmly believe there is a fair amount more game on state land than USFS. I'm just thinking out loud, I'm not taking a position until I know more.
As someone said, if Trump will restructure the USFS perhaps that agency will be more likeable! :twocents:
I don't care if they pinky promise they won't sell the land. One large fire would change everything. Or when they are backed into a corner about funding education (like they already are) the liberals would find some easy money selling off all that extra timberland.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2017, 07:56:51 AM
Our Representative, Shelly Short has been chosen to replace our Senator Dansel who has been hired by the Trump Administration. I know Shelly is very busy but she sent a short message from her phone stating she would never support sales of our public lands, I believe her!What happens when she is longer a representative? Will her predecessor feel the same way? Does her one vote prevent the sale of public land?
If you follow what the governor is saying and attempting to do recently, he wants a massive $11 billion tax increase. You can only squeeze a turnip (the public) so much to gain more tax revenue. When he (or his most likely Democratic successor) still doesn't have enough for his pet projects, where will he turn?
Post by: Special T on February 01, 2017, 08:25:41 AM
We need some rough numbers to compare. Apparently some people think that the state is likely to sell land that they can generate revenue for a 5% stake of the sale.
What is the average value for timberland an acre, ie what it's likely to sell for. What is the average yield that DNR produces via harvesting timber?
Make similar comparisons to blm style grazing ranching land.
It's possible that these 2 land types are not equil as I remember some one saying on here DNR has been doing sales and trades for more timberland.
Prove me wrong that it's more profitable for the state to sell than harvest and multiple use.
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2017, 08:26:26 AM
As far as I know, every state other than Utah which has actually commissioned a study to look into if their state could manage the federal lands in their state has found that the transfer would essentially bankrupt the state. I think Wyoming and Montana were the two most recent to publish similar studies.
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2017, 08:34:32 AM
Make similar comparisons to blm style grazing ranching land.WA DNR is there to make $. Because of this they have been selling off their smaller parcels, parcels on islands, and desert parcels since the best way to make $ is through timber harvest. In fact there is at least one current state law supporting such move, it has an interesting title....:
It's possible that these 2 land types are not equil as I remember some one saying on here DNR has been doing sales and trades for more timberland.
Prove me wrong that it's more profitable for the state to sell than harvest and multiple use.
RCW 79.11.310
Sale of lands with low-income potential
(1) The purpose of this section is to provide revenues to the state and its various taxing districts through the sale of public lands which are currently used primarily for grazing and similar low priority purposes, by enabling their development as irrigated agricultural lands.
(2) All applications for the purchase of lands of the foregoing character, when accompanied by a proposed plan of development of the lands for a higher priority use, shall be individually reviewed by the board. The board shall thereupon determine whether the sale of the lands is in the public interest and upon an affirmative finding shall offer such lands for sale. However, any such parcel of land shall be sold to the highest bidder but only at a bid equal to or higher than the last appraised valuation thereof as established by appraisers for the department for any such parcel of land. Further, any lands lying within United States reclamation areas, the sale price of which is limited or otherwise regulated pursuant to federal reclamation laws or regulations thereunder, need not be offered for sale so long as such limitations or regulations are applicable thereto.
(3) The department shall adopt appropriate rules defining properties of such irrigated agricultural potential and shall take into account the economic benefits to the locality in classifying such properties for sale.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2017, 08:35:08 AM
Apparently some people think that the state is likely to sell land that they can generate revenue for a 5% stake of the sale.It's not only revenue from the sale; it's also the decrease in expenses to own and manage it.
Post by: grundy53 on February 01, 2017, 08:36:49 AM
I know there are some land assessors, folks that work for DNR and timber guys on here.You are assuming that the only reason they would sell the land is to make a profit. I think the main reason they would sell it is because they can't afford to maintain it. Also to a lesser degree some developers or industrial timber companies aka large campaign donors would whisper in someone's ear.
We need some rough numbers to compare. Apparently some people think that the state is likely to sell land that they can generate revenue for a 5% stake of the sale.
What is the average value for timberland an acre, ie what it's likely to sell for. What is the average yield that DNR produces via harvesting timber?
Make similar comparisons to blm style grazing ranching land.
It's possible that these 2 land types are not equil as I remember some one saying on here DNR has been doing sales and trades for more timberland.
Prove me wrong that it's more profitable for the state to sell than harvest and multiple use.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 01, 2017, 08:40:44 AM
Let's be honest, most people on here vote republican. I think some people have a hard time going against their party. Public land transfers/sales is essentially a republican idea. Some people are so partisan that if a republican legislator/congressmen is behind the bill, or even better if their own legislator is behind the bill then they must think it's a good idea so I their constituent believe them and also think it is a good idea. I've seen it many times on here regarding legislation on here, people will say "well Jon Smith is my Senator and he's a good dude, I don't like this legislation but I believe in him, I'm behind him, so there must be something good about this! :tup: "I agree. I'm admittedly an R voter. I have never voted for anyone that didn't have one next to his name. I also vote conservative on initiatives. But this is too big a deal for me to just toe the party line. I am adamantly opposed to this.
As far as I know, every state other than Utah which has actually commissioned a study to look into if their state could manage the federal lands in their state has found that the transfer would essentially bankrupt the state. I think Wyoming and Montana were the two most recent to publish similar studies.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on February 01, 2017, 08:43:00 AM
Post by: Special T on February 01, 2017, 08:44:19 AM
Let's be honest, most people on here vote republican. I think some people have a hard time going against their party. Public land transfers/sales is essentially a republican idea. Some people are so partisan that if a republican legislator/congressmen is behind the bill, or even better if their own legislator is behind the bill then they must think it's a good idea so I their constituent believe them and also think it is a good idea. I've seen it many times on here regarding legislation on here, people will say "well Jon Smith is my Senator and he's a good dude, I don't like this legislation but I believe in him, I'm behind him, so there must be something good about this! :tup: "I think those studies would be quite informative. Do you have links?
As far as I know, every state other than Utah which has actually commissioned a study to look into if their state could manage the federal lands in their state has found that the transfer would essentially bankrupt the state. I think Wyoming and Montana were the two most recent to publish similar studies.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 01, 2017, 08:44:57 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 01, 2017, 08:48:25 AM
Ah yes because DNR has been so receptive of the interests of citizens in WA. Which is why I can't target shoot on DNR land in King County. Or why every DNR parcel in King County has a gate except for the main line roads. There's less regulations on USFS lands in this area than DNR lands.So again, someone please tell me: what is the valid state interest in this bill?How about unshackling the tentacles of the federal government from your life and giving you more influence on how your forests are managed ?
...
I think that's a reflection of your local government. It's exactly the opposite in our area, USFS lands are far more regulated and far fewer activities are allowed on the forest! State lands are used far more. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
bigtex, do you know of any instances of national park land ever being 'downgraded' to regular wilderness or forest circus land such that it is huntable again? I've heard about fed land being sold off and heard of feds buying up private, but not recall NPS land ever being sold off.Well first off NPS land is exempt in these types of bills in every state. So if this bill were to pass and the federal lands were given to WA NPS lands would not be transferred. Wilderness areas would also not be transferred since they are congressionally designated.
There hasn't been a NPS park downgraded since WWII. There have been small land deals done where the NPS may swap a couple acres of land with another entity to fix a border issue. However, that doesn't mean there hasn't been efforts to do so. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers has sponsored bills in the past to sell NPS lands at Lake Roosevelt.
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2017, 08:55:26 AM
It's not local government (county) it's the DNR. DNR is starting to enact no target shooting areas and put up more gates across the state. It may not be in the NE yet, but just last year DNR was talking about target shooting "problems/issues" across several of the state forests in SW WA and what to do with them.I think that's a reflection of your local government. It's exactly the opposite in our area, USFS lands are far more regulated and far fewer activities are allowed on the forest! State lands are used far more. :twocents:Ah yes because DNR has been so receptive of the interests of citizens in WA. Which is why I can't target shoot on DNR land in King County. Or why every DNR parcel in King County has a gate except for the main line roads. There's less regulations on USFS lands in this area than DNR lands.So again, someone please tell me: what is the valid state interest in this bill?How about unshackling the tentacles of the federal government from your life and giving you more influence on how your forests are managed ?
...
Post by: bearpaw on February 01, 2017, 09:01:11 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 01, 2017, 09:03:31 AM
It's not local government (county) it's the DNR. DNR is starting to enact no target shooting areas and put up more gates across the state. It may not be in the NE yet, but just last year DNR was talking about target shooting "problems/issues" across several of the state forests in SW WA and what to do with them.I think that's a reflection of your local government. It's exactly the opposite in our area, USFS lands are far more regulated and far fewer activities are allowed on the forest! State lands are used far more. :twocents:Ah yes because DNR has been so receptive of the interests of citizens in WA. Which is why I can't target shoot on DNR land in King County. Or why every DNR parcel in King County has a gate except for the main line roads. There's less regulations on USFS lands in this area than DNR lands.So again, someone please tell me: what is the valid state interest in this bill?How about unshackling the tentacles of the federal government from your life and giving you more influence on how your forests are managed ?
...
I certainly understand your concerns, they are very similar to my concerns with the current status of the USFS and BLM. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on February 01, 2017, 09:10:00 AM
We all want public lands and the ability to use them. The real problem is increasing mismanagement by the USFS and BLM, that's the reason I am so opposed to the USFS and ranchers are so opposed to BLM. Both agencies have been taken over by the greenies and are shutting down access and activities. There's a good chance Trump is going to revamp both of these agencies. Trump is a businessman, once he secures our borders he is going to look at saving dollars and making government more efficient. I think that translates into more logging on USFS and continued grazing on BLM which will put much of this movement to rest. Hopefully Trump will change USFS and BLM policies and settle these issues. :twocents:
You almost touched on why I was opposed to the transfer from the get go. Once transferred it's forever, administrations come and go and BLM/USFS will fall into mismanagement and disrepair and eventually we'll see another Trump in the future to possibly fix it. If the states get their hands on all this federal land it's a bullet that can't be recalled, land will be transferred, sold and resold until we see more checkerboard and less access than we had before. Landlocked state lands surrounded by mega timber.
Post by: grundy53 on February 01, 2017, 09:14:35 AM
:yeah: not to mention we probably won't ever see a conservative governor in Washington.We all want public lands and the ability to use them. The real problem is increasing mismanagement by the USFS and BLM, that's the reason I am so opposed to the USFS and ranchers are so opposed to BLM. Both agencies have been taken over by the greenies and are shutting down access and activities. There's a good chance Trump is going to revamp both of these agencies. Trump is a businessman, once he secures our borders he is going to look at saving dollars and making government more efficient. I think that translates into more logging on USFS and continued grazing on BLM which will put much of this movement to rest. Hopefully Trump will change USFS and BLM policies and settle these issues. :twocents:
You almost touched on why I was opposed to the transfer from the get go. Once transferred it's forever, administrations come and go and BLM/USFS will fall into mismanagement and disrepair and eventually we'll see another Trump in the future to possibly fix it. If the states get their hands on all this federal land it's a bullet that can't be recalled, land will be transferred, sold and resold until we see more checkerboard and less access than we had before. Landlocked state lands surrounded by mega timber.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: fireweed on February 01, 2017, 09:24:40 AM
One big problem with outdoor access today is that the transfers or sales in the past were fee simple and didn't have the needed conditions like easements for public recreation access, trail easements, corner crossing issues. Now we have former federal land that was given to railroads and sold to private timber. 100 years ago access wasn't an issue and people, trails, roads wandered across property lines. It all still worked for the public until the timber co. sold to individuals then put fee access on the rest.
In Canada, most of all the commercial timberland is OWNED by the feds, but companies buy "timber rights" to log it and manage it. And don't forget mineral, geothermal, subsurface rights are totally separate from the land on top. Selling some lands, or certain rights to lands (mineral, timber) somewhere WITH CONDITIONS FOR PERPETUAL PUBLIC ACCESS might make sense in certain cases but it has to be done very carefully--not like in the past.
Post by: jmscon on February 01, 2017, 09:51:22 AM
In 2014 net profit from a timber sale I saw in NE was less than $1000 an acre. There is a lot dependent on those numbers, such as existing roads, distance to mills, timber age, etc. Depending on whether it's a clear cut or thinning (which that property was) will determine the how often it can be logged. 20 yrs for thinning and 40 (or more) for a clear cut.
So a square mile section might net $600k, that goes into the general fund. Then the state needs to maintain that property, fix washouts, grade the roads, etc. for 20 to 80 years (or put a gate on it like Hancock and weyerhaeuser do) until it is logged again. The difference and why those companies can make a profit and can hold on to their properties is because their profits go into a bank account instead of the state general fund.
Post by: bearpaw on February 01, 2017, 10:13:34 AM
Land sales/transfers etc. don't have to be "all or nothing". There are so many conditions that could be put on any transfers and written into the deeds.
:yeah:
Post by: Special T on February 01, 2017, 10:17:48 AM
The problem I have with your second statement is your comparing state to private. Bad comparison. Why because it's more important to compare usfs to its state equivalent. I would assume that is DNR.
To me there is a drastic difference between the 2 gov agencies. One has a mandate to manage for profit while providing for some recreation. The other is supposed to follow multiple use, and if they did we would be singing the praises of the USFS. Instead we see posts on here to call our state reps and senators because the Greenies are going to close and or rip out a road bed.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 01, 2017, 10:59:06 AM
Land sales/transfers etc. don't have to be "all or nothing". There are so many conditions that could be put on any transfers and written into the deeds.
Of course they COULD be, but are they? I don't think that's typical. Reserving easements or placing other restrictions on land before it's sold decreases the value to the buyer, and therefore the price to the seller. If/when the State is desperate to raise funds to cover a budget shortfall, why would they want to take less $$?
As other's have pointed out, the problem with putting it in the hands of local government is you're assuming (hoping?) that EVERY single rendition of that government for the rest of time will have hunters rights and mixed use access in mind. It only takes one time for that to not be the case and your ability to use that land is gone forever.
Post by: bearpaw on February 01, 2017, 10:59:19 AM
Hello, All.
It seems to me what we have in this thread--and most of the others on this topic--is a fundamental difference of opinion about individual rights and collective good. It seems some of the "Yes" voters here have very little concern for the hunting futures of most hunters in our country. Sad. Personal liberty trumps all, right? And financial independence. And your interpretation of the Constitution? It's as if you see no upside to what we have been provided by the visionary architects of the North American Conservation model. Had they subscribed solely to the "every man for himself" perspective, none of us would even be having this discussion now, as there would be no federal land left. The "individuals-before-all" proponents would be happily hunting leases and private parcels and paying for access to land-locked state land. Many hunters, including me, actually prefer to hunt public land, prefer to know there are vast swaths of forest where hunters and their families can go. I get the sense some of you really couldn't care less about hunters and other recreationists who depend on public land for access, and again, I think that's sad. Pathetic, even, in my view. Every post you offer reiterates that it's all about you and yours--and that's it.
I am not looking for handouts, mind you, just reiterating that the federal land belongs to ALL OF US. If the federal land gets transferred to the states, then--perhaps out of fiscal necessity--sold to private interests, most of us will be shut out. We will never get OUR land back. Yes, the USFS is and has been out of balance for years, but let's not trust what belongs to ALL OF US in this great country to the individual states. I just don't get how you got to think like you do. With all due respect, it strikes me as wildly out of step with the very legacy from which we all have so uniquely benefited. I still have yet to read anything approaching a compelling argument for transferring OUR land into a situation where it would be more vulnerable to the whims of states and the deep pockets of the Koch brothers and their billionaire cronies.
We must fight for what is OURS. Band together, hunters, and don't let our land slip away.
John
Myself I haven't voted either way, I like the idea of more local control but I would want to see additional language in the bill to assure that the land stays public land one way or another. I think you are off-base , first, the reason I think some support the legislation is because they are tired of USFS taking away access and limiting usage, they are hoping the state would allow more usage. Secondly, you seem to be assuming people want this land sold off, I don't think that is the case! :twocents:
Post by: westside103147 on February 02, 2017, 12:24:51 AM
DNR already doesn't have the resources to properly manage state owned land.
I have honestly met very few people within the USFS that are opposed to logging (including myself). Public perception is everything these days, unfortunately we are pandering to people who most likely will never step foot on this land. In my opinion if we would have managed logging better in the past this wouldn't be an issue, it's a classic case of paying for the sins of our fathers.
Post by: Nwelkhunter81 on February 02, 2017, 04:59:50 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 02, 2017, 05:02:34 AM
Sounds like as of today HR621 is dead. Question is will WA follow suit?Hopefully this sends a message. Need to also get rid of HR622.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2017, 07:24:47 AM
Sounds like as of today HR621 is dead. Question is will WA follow suit?No HR 621 would've sold about 3 million acres to any willing seller, none of the lands were in WA. This bill demands the transfer of federal lands in WA to the state.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: fisheral87 on February 02, 2017, 07:48:03 AM
Quote
Myself I haven't voted either way, I like the idea of more local control but I would want to see additional language in the bill to assure that the land stays public land one way or another. I think you are off-base , first, the reason I think some support the legislation is because they are tired of USFS taking away access and limiting usage, they are hoping the state would allow more usage. Secondly, you seem to be assuming people want this land sold off, I don't think that is the case! :twocents:
The difficulty I have with this is the shifting of fiscal responsibility from a tax base of the entire population of the US to a tax base of WA. I don't understand how transferring land to WA puts it in the hands of a more capable agent. if WA had demonstrated itself to be wildly successful at maintaining access and sustaining fiscally responsible management then then maybe this would makes sense.
Does anyone have examples of this being the case?
Al
Post by: grundy53 on February 02, 2017, 07:58:19 AM
AgreedQuoteMyself I haven't voted either way, I like the idea of more local control but I would want to see additional language in the bill to assure that the land stays public land one way or another. I think you are off-base , first, the reason I think some support the legislation is because they are tired of USFS taking away access and limiting usage, they are hoping the state would allow more usage. Secondly, you seem to be assuming people want this land sold off, I don't think that is the case! :twocents:
The difficulty I have with this is the shifting of fiscal responsibility from a tax base of the entire population of the US to a tax base of WA. I don't understand how transferring land to WA puts it in the hands of a more capable agent. if WA had demonstrated itself to be wildly successful at maintaining access and sustaining fiscally responsible management then then maybe this would makes sense.
Does anyone have examples of this being the case?
Al
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: wsmnut on February 02, 2017, 08:10:44 AM
Post by: baldopepper on February 02, 2017, 08:23:26 AM
Post by: Nwelkhunter81 on February 02, 2017, 12:04:32 PM
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Enter your address, select your rep and select HB 1103 to voice any concerns
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2017, 04:11:32 PM
I can see where the next attempt will be a transfer bill that requires public access to any lands sold. BUT, that public access has to be carefully analyzed. Is public access just guided hikes in the summer, a few public picnic areas open to the public, open trails only in fringe areas etc., etc. All of these with no other access qualifies as public access. Utahs CWMU idea was pushed with the claim that it would allow general hunting access to the lands involved. Yea, it sure does-10% of the allocated permits to each unit are open to the public on a special drawing basis. That technically qualifies as public access. Watch for this type of Trojan Horse bill to come up next.
Some people bitch about anything! That's 10% on private lands that residents didn't have before. ;)
FYI - Washington already has something similar which has also opened up private lands to a few lucky applicants. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2017, 04:16:36 PM
AgreedQuoteMyself I haven't voted either way, I like the idea of more local control but I would want to see additional language in the bill to assure that the land stays public land one way or another. I think you are off-base , first, the reason I think some support the legislation is because they are tired of USFS taking away access and limiting usage, they are hoping the state would allow more usage. Secondly, you seem to be assuming people want this land sold off, I don't think that is the case! :twocents:
The difficulty I have with this is the shifting of fiscal responsibility from a tax base of the entire population of the US to a tax base of WA. I don't understand how transferring land to WA puts it in the hands of a more capable agent. if WA had demonstrated itself to be wildly successful at maintaining access and sustaining fiscally responsible management then then maybe this would makes sense.
Does anyone have examples of this being the case?
Al
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
If Trump can change things in the USFS I would agree, until then I feel more local control is needed. This bill didn't have the language needed to keep the land public land one way or another, but it's a learning process to build on in the future.
Post by: Russ McDonald on February 03, 2017, 04:44:19 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2017, 04:54:12 PM
I was thinking last night and was wondering if this bill has anything to do with HR 621 that died in congress the other day. With that bill trying to see millions of acres of Federal land maybe the state was trying to get into that with their own bill. :dunno: Just a thought and no I don't think that the state could take on more land. I think they have a bad enough time managing their own land.No. This state bill comes up every year for about the past 3+ years. It is actually a template bill which has been introduced in every state legislature in the west, they just change the names of the parks in them that are exempt.
HR 621 was about as extreme as it gets as it would've sold federal land to the highest bidder. It wasn't simply selling land to state governments, transferring lands to states, etc. It was an outright sale bill.
Post by: baldopepper on February 03, 2017, 06:48:17 PM
whoa rough response. Only partially true, rather extensive list of current CWMU units that have in the past allowed unlimited public access for a nominal access fee. Why would they hassle with that when they can make much more money under the CWMU system. As I've said in the past, I don't blame them. If my occupation were the same as yours I'd like the system also. Do you offer and use any of the CWMU permits? Heck, I can't even start to name all the areas in Utah we hunted growing up there that are now off limits - guess that's not entirely true either, most of them are still accesible if you can come up with enough money. Doesn't effect me much, I'm an old guy, not that many hunts left, but I sure wonder what the future of hunting will look like.I can see where the next attempt will be a transfer bill that requires public access to any lands sold. BUT, that public access has to be carefully analyzed. Is public access just guided hikes in the summer, a few public picnic areas open to the public, open trails only in fringe areas etc., etc. All of these with no other access qualifies as public access. Utahs CWMU idea was pushed with the claim that it would allow general hunting access to the lands involved. Yea, it sure does-10% of the allocated permits to each unit are open to the public on a special drawing basis. That technically qualifies as public access. Watch for this type of Trojan Horse bill to come up next.
Some people bitch about anything! That's 10% on private lands that residents didn't have before. ;)
FYI - Washington already has something similar which has also opened up private lands to a few lucky applicants. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 11, 2017, 03:59:24 PM
whoa rough response. Only partially true, rather extensive list of current CWMU units that have in the past allowed unlimited public access for a nominal access fee. Why would they hassle with that when they can make much more money under the CWMU system. As I've said in the past, I don't blame them. If my occupation were the same as yours I'd like the system also. Do you offer and use any of the CWMU permits? Heck, I can't even start to name all the areas in Utah we hunted growing up there that are now off limits - guess that's not entirely true either, most of them are still accesible if you can come up with enough money. Doesn't effect me much, I'm an old guy, not that many hunts left, but I sure wonder what the future of hunting will look like.I can see where the next attempt will be a transfer bill that requires public access to any lands sold. BUT, that public access has to be carefully analyzed. Is public access just guided hikes in the summer, a few public picnic areas open to the public, open trails only in fringe areas etc., etc. All of these with no other access qualifies as public access. Utahs CWMU idea was pushed with the claim that it would allow general hunting access to the lands involved. Yea, it sure does-10% of the allocated permits to each unit are open to the public on a special drawing basis. That technically qualifies as public access. Watch for this type of Trojan Horse bill to come up next.
Some people bitch about anything! That's 10% on private lands that residents didn't have before. ;)
FYI - Washington already has something similar which has also opened up private lands to a few lucky applicants. :twocents:
I started outfitting Utah in 1996 or 1997, can't remember which year for sure. At that time the CWMU program was pretty new. Most of my first leases were leases of private ranch property during regular season, most of the property I leased was already closed to public hunting. CWMU's have certainly increased in quantity since then but I don't think the CWMU program is the reason private property was closed to public hunting, I think the real reasons are like every other state, landowners are tired of slob hunters cutting fences, leaving gates open, littering, shooting livestock, and in many cases landowners need another revenue stream. The CWMU program and similar programs in other states at least get access for some public hunters verses just a regular lease where no public hunters are allowed. The reason I like the CWMU program is that the season dates vary, I can hunt the regular seasons and then add additional hunting days with the CWMU at a different time of the month, but the cost is in giving up 10% of the tags to the public.
Post by: KFhunter on February 11, 2017, 06:07:35 PM