Post by: bearpaw on February 28, 2017, 10:16:07 AM
SB 5754: Noxious Weeds on State Lands
Lack of state action to control noxious weeds on state lands are burdensome on adjacent landowners and local noxious weed boards. Yesterday, the Senate passed my bill, Senate Bill 5754, that would allow our counties to recover costs from the state for noxious weed control on state lands. Currently, state law allows counties to take action to control noxious weeds at the cost of the landowner when the landowner does not. However, when the state is the landowner, the county cannot recover the cost. This bill will allow a county to place a lien on the state land and collect the cost it spent to control the noxious weeds.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5754.pdf
Post by: headshot5 on February 28, 2017, 11:16:10 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 28, 2017, 11:28:20 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 28, 2017, 11:29:46 AM
If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.
Post by: Curly on February 28, 2017, 11:35:24 AM
There are tons of tansy on DNR lands. Would be interesting to here what the cost would be to control tansy.
Post by: Thefishguy77 on February 28, 2017, 11:56:10 AM
Just looked it up. It's the cinnabar moth
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 28, 2017, 12:22:32 PM
I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.
If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.
The state doesn't have the capacity to "eat" the cost of anything. Regardless of the cost, the funds come from the taxpayer. It's why it's so hard to sue the federal government - just doesn't make sense. It's like suing yourself.
Post by: garrett89 on February 28, 2017, 12:37:43 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 28, 2017, 02:54:05 PM
Obviously the funds come from the taxpayer my point was they won't pay for it with existing funds but rather via fee increases.I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.
If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.
The state doesn't have the capacity to "eat" the cost of anything. Regardless of the cost, the funds come from the taxpayer. It's why it's so hard to sue the federal government - just doesn't make sense. It's like suing yourself.
Post by: olyguy79 on February 28, 2017, 02:55:14 PM
:yeah:Obviously the funds come from the taxpayer my point was they won't pay for it with existing funds but rather via fee increases.I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.
If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.
The state doesn't have the capacity to "eat" the cost of anything. Regardless of the cost, the funds come from the taxpayer. It's why it's so hard to sue the federal government - just doesn't make sense. It's like suing yourself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 01, 2017, 06:15:34 AM
Obviously the funds come from the taxpayer my point was they won't pay for it with existing funds but rather via fee increases.I foresee the cost of the Discover Pass and fishing/hunting licenses going up with this bill.
If you think the state agencies will eat the cost of this within their current budgets you obviously don't know WA govt.
The state doesn't have the capacity to "eat" the cost of anything. Regardless of the cost, the funds come from the taxpayer. It's why it's so hard to sue the federal government - just doesn't make sense. It's like suing yourself.
Yes, that's precisely why I'm not sure I would support this.
Post by: dreamunelk on March 01, 2017, 06:37:50 AM
Post by: csaaphill on March 02, 2017, 01:42:54 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on March 03, 2017, 08:40:37 AM
Just another excuse....we have no money. Fact is even if they did, it would go somewhere else....snail reseach, whatever. As I have mentioned many times over the years the wildlife area program is no more than custodial in nature. That's not what I would call land management or even wildlife management. It's neglect plain and simple.
So...I vote yes, although I believe that ability by the counties has been inplied for years. Might be wrong.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 03, 2017, 08:46:40 AM
Post by: Curly on March 03, 2017, 08:56:16 AM
(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)
If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 03, 2017, 08:57:53 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 03, 2017, 09:01:34 AM
The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.
(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)
If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?
Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.
Post by: bigtex on March 03, 2017, 09:01:57 AM
The three state land management agencies are already required to control noxious weeds on their lands. Realistically this bill is nothing more than a "feel good" bill that will likely cause more controversy then anything. The controversy being one of the agencies (say DNR for example) saying that they eliminated noxious weeds in one of their areas, if this bill were to get signed into law the county could then come in and say oh no you didn't look at that weed over there! Then the county can move in with their legal power granted to them. I think it'll set up some controversial management issues in maybe some parts of the state where state lands aren't as liked as in other parts of the state.
When agencies purchase lands noxious weeds control are part of the maintenance budget, so it's not like it's a new task being given to them, although I'm sure there will be more pressure, and thus more $ needed to get rid of every single noxious weed everywhere at every time. Because if they don't, the county will be on them.
Post by: Curly on March 03, 2017, 09:07:59 AM
The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.
(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)
If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?
Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.
But they can still be held accountable for what is on their land and use volunteers to take care of it.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 03, 2017, 11:13:29 AM
The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.
(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)
If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?
Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.
What conservation? As an example, have you seen a pheasant revival in this state in the past 35 years or so? Corral volunteers to to clean up Scotch broom and other weeds? Do you understand just how much work and equipment is involved in doing that. I do. I ran a crew that spent weeks during the 90's trying to get Scatter Creek in shape with 90 hp JD Tractors and mowers. Volunteers don't have the equipment nor do they have that much time....fact.
Conservatiuon....or better yet wildlife managment is making the best out of what you have. Another example. Back in 1992 the same crew in the program I managed showed up at Scotch Creek for a week We planting endless rows of shrubs, and more importantly, water birch, which sharptailed grouse depended on in that location historically. Before...nothing...declining sharptail population. Fast forward a couple years, sharptail numbers stabalized and have improved. Deer and other wildife use the are now, where before nothing existed after the native habitat was eridicated. You could park a fleet of truck in there and never see them.
That is what wildlife mangement is all about. Not ignoring past habitat degredations, of which there are countless examples in this state, like most other states. I can honestly tell you that if we didn't have that program back then, Scotch Creek would essentially be the same today. No water birch, no use by sharptails as they probably would have disappeared there.
Unfortunately, WDFW reorganized after a new director came in from Alaska and powers to be thought that program was unneccessary and too much work. Fact is, it's results showed just how inept meeting going biologists in the agency were. All their arguments about how we couldn't do things because of funding etc., went out he window. Enough said regarding so called conservation by WDFW.........
Post by: Special T on March 03, 2017, 11:48:45 AM
Your example and history are exactly why so many of us frown on the WDFW.The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.
(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)
If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?
Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.
What conservation? As an example, have you seen a pheasant revival in this state in the past 35 years or so? Corral volunteers to to clean up Scotch broom and other weeds? Do you understand just how much work and equipment is involved in doing that. I do. I ran a crew that spent weeks during the 90's trying to get Scatter Creek in shape with 90 hp JD Tractors and mowers. Volunteers don't have the equipment nor do they have that much time....fact.
Conservatiuon....or better yet wildlife managment is making the best out of what you have. Another example. Back in 1992 the same crew in the program I managed showed up at Scotch Creek for a week We planting endless rows of shrubs, and more importantly, water birch, which sharptailed grouse depended on in that location historically. Before...nothing...declining sharptail population. Fast forward a couple years, sharptail numbers stabalized and have improved. Deer and other wildife use the are now, where before nothing existed after the native habitat was eridicated. You could park a fleet of truck in there and never see them.
That is what wildlife mangement is all about. Not ignoring past habitat degredations, of which there are countless examples in this state, like most other states. I can honestly tell you that if we didn't have that program back then, Scotch Creek would essentially be the same today. No water birch, no use by sharptails as they probably would have disappeared there.
Unfortunately, WDFW reorganized after a new director came in from Alaska and powers to be thought that program was unneccessary and too much work. Fact is, it's results showed just how inept meeting going biologists in the agency were. All their arguments about how we couldn't do things because of funding etc., went out he window. Enough said regarding so called conservation by WDFW.........
instead of complaining about needing more land the kind of time you spent AND the kind of effort Happy Gilmore's retriever club put into mowing & improving Cherry Valley should be expanded.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 03, 2017, 12:02:24 PM
The pheasant release sites around here are full of Scots broom. I know they mow it down every so often otherwise it wouldn't be good for pheasant hunting.
(I don't know if scots broom is noxious, but thought it relevant)
If it is illegal to have noxious weeds on your land though, why should the state not also be held accountable like the rest of us?
Because the state doesn't pay for it, we do. The more we require the WDFW to do on those lands, the less money goes into conservation. I'd rather see the state work with groups like Pheasants Forever and the RMEF to corral volunteers to clean up Scotch broom and other noxious weeds than just start writing checks.
What conservation? As an example, have you seen a pheasant revival in this state in the past 35 years or so? Corral volunteers to to clean up Scotch broom and other weeds? Do you understand just how much work and equipment is involved in doing that. I do. I ran a crew that spent weeks during the 90's trying to get Scatter Creek in shape with 90 hp JD Tractors and mowers. Volunteers don't have the equipment nor do they have that much time....fact.
Conservatiuon....or better yet wildlife managment is making the best out of what you have. Another example. Back in 1992 the same crew in the program I managed showed up at Scotch Creek for a week We planting endless rows of shrubs, and more importantly, water birch, which sharptailed grouse depended on in that location historically. Before...nothing...declining sharptail population. Fast forward a couple years, sharptail numbers stabalized and have improved. Deer and other wildife use the are now, where before nothing existed after the native habitat was eridicated. You could park a fleet of truck in there and never see them.
That is what wildlife mangement is all about. Not ignoring past habitat degredations, of which there are countless examples in this state, like most other states. I can honestly tell you that if we didn't have that program back then, Scotch Creek would essentially be the same today. No water birch, no use by sharptails as they probably would have disappeared there.
Unfortunately, WDFW reorganized after a new director came in from Alaska and powers to be thought that program was unneccessary and too much work. Fact is, it's results showed just how inept meeting going biologists in the agency were. All their arguments about how we couldn't do things because of funding etc., went out he window. Enough said regarding so called conservation by WDFW.........
Yes, I've done it. It takes a pulling tool, a lot of strong backs, and truck with a sprayer.
Post by: ghosthunter on March 03, 2017, 12:30:47 PM
I was trying to get the state out to mow their 8 ft high weeds just across the fence, but they wouldn't. I got my state Rep involved and still no dice.
I went down to the court house and found a little old women in the Noxious weed program.
She gave me a list of all the weeds that had to be controlled. The area in question held Tansy and Thistle .
She called up the Hwy super and gave him ten days to mow or spray the weeds. He wanted to spray. But it rained for 8 days so they had to mow.
Once mowed it has to be kept mowed. That was twenty years ago.
They gave me some song and dance about mowing last year. But this year I am ready for them.
This has been a rule for a long time.
Post by: fireweed on March 13, 2017, 03:55:50 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 13, 2017, 04:37:41 PM
I manage a gas station ,Bordered on 2 sides by State Hwy lands.
I was trying to get the state out to mow their 8 ft high weeds just across the fence, but they wouldn't. I got my state Rep involved and still no dice.
I went down to the court house and found a little old women in the Noxious weed program.
She gave me a list of all the weeds that had to be controlled. The area in question held Tansy and Thistle .
She called up the Hwy super and gave him ten days to mow or spray the weeds. He wanted to spray. But it rained for 8 days so they had to mow.
Once mowed it has to be kept mowed. That was twenty years ago.
They gave me some song and dance about mowing last year. But this year I am ready for them.
This has been a rule for a long time.
So, if there's already a rule,...?
Post by: ghosthunter on March 13, 2017, 05:57:54 PM
I manage a gas station ,Bordered on 2 sides by State Hwy lands.
I was trying to get the state out to mow their 8 ft high weeds just across the fence, but they wouldn't. I got my state Rep involved and still no dice.
I went down to the court house and found a little old women in the Noxious weed program.
She gave me a list of all the weeds that had to be controlled. The area in question held Tansy and Thistle .
She called up the Hwy super and gave him ten days to mow or spray the weeds. He wanted to spray. But it rained for 8 days so they had to mow.
Once mowed it has to be kept mowed. That was twenty years ago.
They gave me some song and dance about mowing last year. But this year I am ready for them.
This has been a rule for a long time.
So, if there's already a rule,...?
Just week I was contacted by hwy Dept. That they intended to spray ,not mow the area adjacent to the store this year.
I am reviewing options to force them to mow.
We are right on. The border of two maintenance areas. A different super controls the south side of the exit. We are on the north side. The south side may be mowed while the north will not.
Stupid.
Post by: csaaphill on March 14, 2017, 10:55:48 PM
As what was said about Prison or Jail crews, Ok, but how viable is it to have jail crews out in the mountains and range lands?
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 15, 2017, 12:39:36 AM
One thing I know they've been using around here for a few years are Goats. Once in a while they let them free roam and the eat the Star thistle. Only true down side I've seen is goat road blocks. :chuckle:
As what was said about Prison or Jail crews, Ok, but how viable is it to have jail crews out in the mountains and range lands?
Having inmates out in the woods is not exactly a new idea:
http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/inmate-crews-celebrated-work-summer-fires
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/25/fire-and-punishmentinmatefirefightersonthefrontlines.html
Post by: csaaphill on March 15, 2017, 10:19:13 PM
Cool ok yeah guess I forgot that they do use them to fight fires. So I guess picking weeds off a hillside wouldn't be much different, besides the adrenaline rush if fighting a fire that is.One thing I know they've been using around here for a few years are Goats. Once in a while they let them free roam and the eat the Star thistle. Only true down side I've seen is goat road blocks. :chuckle:
As what was said about Prison or Jail crews, Ok, but how viable is it to have jail crews out in the mountains and range lands?
Having inmates out in the woods is not exactly a new idea:
http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/inmate-crews-celebrated-work-summer-fires
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/25/fire-and-punishmentinmatefirefightersonthefrontlines.html