Post by: csaaphill on October 30, 2017, 10:03:34 PM
Contact: Commission Office, 360-902-2267
Commission adds 1,300 acres of wildlife land east of Cascades
OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission approved the purchase of approximately 1,300 acres of land to protect wildlife habitat and support outdoor recreation east of the Cascade crest at a public meeting here Oct. 27-28.
The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), also took action on issues ranging from a land transfer at Wells Hatchery to new rules for commercially caught seafood.
The Simcoe Mountains property, the largest of two land acquisitions approved at the meeting, includes 1,150 acres off Highway 97 near Goldendale in Klickitat County. Reaching an elevation of 3,500 feet, the property includes stands of Oregon white oak and ponderosa pine, and supports a variety of species including mule deer, burrowing owls, and threatened western gray squirrels.
WDFW will pay Western Pacific Timber, LLC the assessed market value of $851,000 for the property, which is part of a multi-phased plan to acquire 18,745 acres from the company in the Simcoe Mountains area.
"This addition to the Klickitat Wildlife Area will permanently protect prime wildlife habitat and provide public access to hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities for the people of our state," said Cynthia Wilkerson, WDFW land manager.
Wilkerson said the department is also working with area conservation districts to ensure that the land will continue to include compatible timber and grazing activities that benefit the local community.
Farther north, the commission also approved the purchase of 142 acres in Kittitas County as part of the "Heart of the Cascades" project, a partnership formed in 2007 by WDFW and the Nature Conservancy to restore timberlands in central Washington for wildlife and outdoor recreation.
The department will pay the private owner $142,000 for the wooded parcel, which is part of a migration corridor for elk and includes a forest road that provides public access to thousands of acres previously acquired through the partnership.
In other action, the commission authorized WDFW to:
Transfer two acres of land, including three employee housing units, at Wells Fish Hatchery to Douglas County PUD in transitioning to a new management structure at the facility.
Align WDFW rules for buying and selling seafood with new state legislation scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2018.
Move forward on a forest restoration plan at the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in Thurston County, where a wildfire burned across 345 acres in August.
In addition, commissioners received an update on state and tribal efforts to control the spread of invasive northern pike into the upper Columbia Basin. They also received a briefing on the results of a two-year study by the Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) on the operation of an experimental fish trap in the lower Columbia near Cathlamet.
Banned in Washington state since 1934, fish traps can play an important role in future fisheries, said Adrian Tuohy, a WFC biologist involved in the study. Preliminary results presented to the commission showed that the experimental trap was highly effective in catching fall-run salmon and steelhead and releasing them unharmed.
Commissioners expressed a high degree of interest in the study, but agreed that additional feasibility studies – and policy deliberations – would be needed before they could consider supporting the return of fish traps to Washington waters.
"There's a lot to think about," said Commission Chair Brad Smith.
Minutes and audio recordings of the meeting are available on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/minutes.html.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/
Post by: bigtex on October 31, 2017, 06:53:26 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2017, 07:39:54 AM
Post by: millerwheeler on November 22, 2017, 12:56:15 PM
Post by: Curly on November 22, 2017, 01:40:17 PM
:yeah: It all sounds positive. That purchase in Klickitat is a welcomed addition to the wildlife area there.
:yeah:
Great news!
Post by: Stein on November 22, 2017, 05:03:27 PM
They'll just make it special draw like the last purchase , I find it hard to understand they use funding provided from use then make it draw only
Sure beats not having the land public. They manage the herds according to population objectives.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 23, 2017, 10:48:08 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 23, 2017, 02:31:45 PM
No mention as to whether or not they budgeted for the new (and ongoing) PILT expenses associated with this property.PILT is a federal program managed by DoI for federal lands...not state owned land.
Post by: csaaphill on November 23, 2017, 03:19:58 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 23, 2017, 04:02:26 PM
WDFW does pay a state version of PILT, in fact they also call it PILT.No mention as to whether or not they budgeted for the new (and ongoing) PILT expenses associated with this property.PILT is a federal program managed by DoI for federal lands...not state owned land.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on November 23, 2017, 04:04:58 PM
No mention as to whether or not they budgeted for the new (and ongoing) PILT expenses associated with this property.PILT is a federal program managed by DoI for federal lands...not state owned land.
In the context of this and other WDFW and DNR land holdings, would you bet your life on that statement?
Hint: Don’t. :chuckle:
Google WDFW and PILT.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 23, 2017, 04:23:15 PM
Post by: slavenoid on November 23, 2017, 04:29:45 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 24, 2017, 06:53:30 PM
I stand corrected. Just when I think this state couldn't be any dumber...I learn of more wasteful spending named identically to the same wasteful federal program managed by DoI :chuckle:How is it wasteful? Counties get money from the feds/state in return for the feds/state having land they can't tax.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 24, 2017, 08:07:50 PM
I stand corrected. Just when I think this state couldn't be any dumber...I learn of more wasteful spending named identically to the same wasteful federal program managed by DoI :chuckle:How is it wasteful? Counties get money from the feds/state in return for the feds/state having land they can't tax.
How is it wasteful? Well, for starters...it’s supposedly already OUR public land. How many government paper pushers are we the taxpayers paying to move money from one pocket to the other on the same pair of pants? It’s a shell game, nothing more.
Post by: bigtex on November 25, 2017, 12:16:40 PM
So counties should just suck it up? PILT is largely a conservative/republican supported program as it mainly benefits rural/poorer counties. Okanogan County gets almost $2.5 million a year from the feds, should we just say sorry it's fed land so you guys need to come up with $2.5M elsewhere?How is it wasteful? Well, for starters...it’s supposedly already OUR public land. How many government paper pushers are we the taxpayers paying to move money from one pocket to the other on the same pair of pants? It’s a shell game, nothing more.I stand corrected. Just when I think this state couldn't be any dumber...I learn of more wasteful spending named identically to the same wasteful federal program managed by DoI :chuckle:How is it wasteful? Counties get money from the feds/state in return for the feds/state having land they can't tax.
Post by: Bob33 on November 25, 2017, 12:25:58 PM
“The policy is not the issue. It’s budgetary,” Berg said. “When they’re looking to save money for education, they’ll cut anywhere.”
That has created some tension between counties and the Wildlife Department and its partners, such as The Nature Conservancy, which in many cases purchase land and deed it to the state.
Officials in Asotin and Okanogan counties have been adamant about not wanting the state to acquire any more land in their counties, and the state has agreed to a moratorium on purchases there.
Post by: bigtex on November 25, 2017, 12:29:17 PM
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/state-fleecing-counties-payments-in-lieu-of-taxes-frozen-since/article_6872bca4-be73-11e5-aeb0-cfc22eba9094.html (http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/state-fleecing-counties-payments-in-lieu-of-taxes-frozen-since/article_6872bca4-be73-11e5-aeb0-cfc22eba9094.html)It's been about 10 years since the WA Legislature fully funded PILT. In the past 10 years only eastern WA counties have been getting PILT and its appropriated from the legislature and not how the state law requires the actual calculation to be. WDFW in partnership with counties have asked for PILT to be revamped but the legislature declines to do so.
“The policy is not the issue. It’s budgetary,” Berg said. “When they’re looking to save money for education, they’ll cut anywhere.”
That has created some tension between counties and the Wildlife Department and its partners, such as The Nature Conservancy, which in many cases purchase land and deed it to the state.
Officials in Asotin and Okanogan counties have been adamant about not wanting the state to acquire any more land in their counties, and the state has agreed to a moratorium on purchases there.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 25, 2017, 04:33:39 PM
So counties should just suck it up? PILT is largely a conservative/republican supported program as it mainly benefits rural/poorer counties. Okanogan County gets almost $2.5 million a year from the feds, should we just say sorry it's fed land so you guys need to come up with $2.5M elsewhere?How is it wasteful? Well, for starters...it’s supposedly already OUR public land. How many government paper pushers are we the taxpayers paying to move money from one pocket to the other on the same pair of pants? It’s a shell game, nothing more.I stand corrected. Just when I think this state couldn't be any dumber...I learn of more wasteful spending named identically to the same wasteful federal program managed by DoI :chuckle:How is it wasteful? Counties get money from the feds/state in return for the feds/state having land they can't tax.
I don’t give a rip if CINO’s and RINO’s support it. It’s absurd on principle. The whole algorithm can be reduced down to this...A small fraction of the populance is forced to pay the vast majority of the taxes that go to pay taxes on public land that the public already owns. It’s friggin’ ludicrous!
Let me ask the question again...How many government paper pushers are We the Taxpayers paying to move money from one public pocket to another public pocket on the same damn pair of public pants?
If they can’t figure it out then maybe we need to reconsider who the land actually belongs to and who should have the final say in how it’s managed. The farther we get it away from absentee centralized federal and state government the better off it will be. I’m sick and damn tired of King and Pierce counties dictating how the rest of the state should (mis)manage local renewable resources. In the meantime, the PILT is just another Big Government Welfare Tit that everyone lines up to suckle on.
WDFW is passing the buck on this. They lobby their butts off for administrative cost increases (don’t think they don’t!) but hardly a peep when it comes to paying something they are actually on the hook for. It’s easier to juat blame it on the legislature.
Post by: olyguy79 on November 25, 2017, 05:24:41 PM
If you take away PILT (at either the state or federal level) the counties will advocate for those public lands to be private property. That's the whole point of PILT.So counties should just suck it up? PILT is largely a conservative/republican supported program as it mainly benefits rural/poorer counties. Okanogan County gets almost $2.5 million a year from the feds, should we just say sorry it's fed land so you guys need to come up with $2.5M elsewhere?How is it wasteful? Well, for starters...it’s supposedly already OUR public land. How many government paper pushers are we the taxpayers paying to move money from one pocket to the other on the same pair of pants? It’s a shell game, nothing more.I stand corrected. Just when I think this state couldn't be any dumber...I learn of more wasteful spending named identically to the same wasteful federal program managed by DoI :chuckle:How is it wasteful? Counties get money from the feds/state in return for the feds/state having land they can't tax.
I don’t give a rip if CINO’s and RINO’s support it. It’s absurd on principle. The whole algorithm can be reduced down to this...A small fraction of the populance is forced to pay the vast majority of the taxes that go to pay taxes on public land that it already owns. It’s friggin’ ludicrous!
Let me ask the question again...How many government paper pushers are We the Taxpayers paying to move money from one public pocket to another public on the same damn pair of public pants?
If they can’t figure it out then maybe we need to reconsider who the land actually belongs to and who should have the final say in how it’s managed. The farther we get it away from absentee centralized federal and state government the better off it will be. I’m sick and damn tired of King and Pierce counties dictating how the rest of the state should (mis)manage local renewable resources. In the meantime, the PILT is just another Big Government Welfare Tit that everyone lines up to suckle on.
WDFW is passing the buck on this. They lobby their butts off for administrative cost increases (don’t think they don’t!) but hardly a peep when it comes to paying something they are actually on the hook for. It’s easier to juat blame it on the legislature.
Look at California, they haven't paid their version of PILT for CDFW lands for about a decade and now counties are speaking out against further land acquisitions. So essentially hunters are losing access to would-be public lands.
I'm not a big fan of government agencies giving other agencies money, but PILT is one I do support.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on November 26, 2017, 10:51:11 AM
If you take away PILT (at either the state or federal level) the counties will advocate for those public lands to be private property. That's the whole point of PILT.So counties should just suck it up? PILT is largely a conservative/republican supported program as it mainly benefits rural/poorer counties. Okanogan County gets almost $2.5 million a year from the feds, should we just say sorry it's fed land so you guys need to come up with $2.5M elsewhere?How is it wasteful? Well, for starters...it’s supposedly already OUR public land. How many government paper pushers are we the taxpayers paying to move money from one pocket to the other on the same pair of pants? It’s a shell game, nothing more.I stand corrected. Just when I think this state couldn't be any dumber...I learn of more wasteful spending named identically to the same wasteful federal program managed by DoI :chuckle:How is it wasteful? Counties get money from the feds/state in return for the feds/state having land they can't tax.
I don’t give a rip if CINO’s and RINO’s support it. It’s absurd on principle. The whole algorithm can be reduced down to this...A small fraction of the populance is forced to pay the vast majority of the taxes that go to pay taxes on public land that it already owns. It’s friggin’ ludicrous!
Let me ask the question again...How many government paper pushers are We the Taxpayers paying to move money from one public pocket to another public on the same damn pair of public pants?
If they can’t figure it out then maybe we need to reconsider who the land actually belongs to and who should have the final say in how it’s managed. The farther we get it away from absentee centralized federal and state government the better off it will be. I’m sick and damn tired of King and Pierce counties dictating how the rest of the state should (mis)manage local renewable resources. In the meantime, the PILT is just another Big Government Welfare Tit that everyone lines up to suckle on.
WDFW is passing the buck on this. They lobby their butts off for administrative cost increases (don’t think they don’t!) but hardly a peep when it comes to paying something they are actually on the hook for. It’s easier to juat blame it on the legislature.
Look at California, they haven't paid their version of PILT for CDFW lands for about a decade and now counties are speaking out against further land acquisitions. So essentially hunters are losing access to would-be public lands.
I'm not a big fan of government agencies giving other agencies money, but PILT is one I do support.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Uh, oh....there’s the private sector boogeyman again! :rolleyes:
How do you know counties would push for that? Maybe they’d be better stewards of the public lands within their borders if they had more local oversight of those land holdings. I am 100% certain that the folks in Stevens county know more about what is going on in their county than a handful of PowerPoint presenters in Olympia, but right now the county's hands are tied.
Question: If you had the choice, would you rather:
- Pay whatever it is you pay now in combined taxes and fees to a non-accountable hierarchy of pass-the-buck government agencies that don’t effectively manage the renewable resources on those lands....just so you can walk around on “your public land” and not see huntable populations of game that should otherwise be there?
- Or, would you rather pay the same amount (or less!) to a county that hires a local private company (via a fully transparent bidding process) to manage that land for the maximum effective sustainable harvest of ALL renewable resources on those public lands...and have a much higher likelihood of coming home with a buck, bull, pheasants, ducks or whatever?
- Or, pay the exact same amount as above with the same positive outcome, but to a private property owner who still has to pay property taxes to the county on those landholdings?
My guess is that you’d (correctly) opt for #2 or #3.