Post by: bigtex on October 18, 2024, 02:11:37 PM
Typically, these transfers aren't controversial as the lands are given to WDFW, counties, cities, etc. However, this year of the 8 approved transfers 6 will be to several tribes poised to get DNR lands. Including:
-Tulalip Tribe receiving 676 acres along Beckler River Road worth $4M
-Colville Tribe receiving 42 acres along the Methow River worth $450,000
-Yakama Tribe receiving three separate transfers of the Ahtanum State forest totalling 9,936 acres worth $14.9M
-Quillete Tribe receiving 372 acres worth $8.9M
WDFW will receive 1,071 acres of DNR land that is already part of the Quincy Lakes Wildlife Area
DNR's Natural Area Program will receive 95 acres
At the end of the day it comes down to $. You may lose some of your hunting lands because it isn't economical to DNR..
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/em_bc_bnr_tltpres_09042024.pdf
Post by: Alan K on October 18, 2024, 02:19:57 PM
Would be nice to see them saddle the lands with a conservation easement for public access beforehand too, though that would diminish the value.
Post by: Alan K on October 18, 2024, 02:26:04 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on October 18, 2024, 02:26:47 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 18, 2024, 02:30:06 PM
Er... Reading this again, this isn't even these entities buying these lands? It's a giveaway, and our legislature via our tax dollars will pay to make the DNR whole? So taxpayers are paying to give away public lands with no assurances of future public use available? How on Earth would that make any sense?Exactly
Post by: Rainier10 on October 18, 2024, 02:39:08 PM
Post by: Caseyd on October 18, 2024, 03:55:18 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on October 18, 2024, 08:07:43 PM
Post by: bkaech on October 18, 2024, 10:04:33 PM
I can understand moving these lands from state agency to other state agencies, but once it leaves a state agency it should be the same as any sale.
Post by: Bareback on October 19, 2024, 08:37:18 AM
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2024, 08:51:57 AM
DNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer.Actually compared to most agencies DNR is still pretty budget neutral. In FY23 they brought in $475,000,000 which almost all goes to schools. They spent $513,000,000 of which $153,000,000 was fire suppression.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: MeepDog on October 19, 2024, 10:56:58 AM
So that we can buy more land with our money?
Post by: Slamadoo on October 19, 2024, 12:35:02 PM
Post by: Slamadoo on October 19, 2024, 12:40:55 PM
Post by: Slamadoo on October 19, 2024, 12:43:34 PM
Post by: Bareback on October 19, 2024, 03:13:45 PM
DNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer.Actually compared to most agencies DNR is still pretty budget neutral. In FY23 they brought in $475,000,000 which almost all goes to schools. They spent $513,000,000 of which $153,000,000 was fire suppression.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Some might consider 38 million in the red as neutral.
Does the expenditures include payroll, benefits and retirement payouts too?
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2024, 03:27:23 PM
Yes the expenditures include payroll, benefits, etc.Some might consider 38 million in the red as neutral.DNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer.Actually compared to most agencies DNR is still pretty budget neutral. In FY23 they brought in $475,000,000 which almost all goes to schools. They spent $513,000,000 of which $153,000,000 was fire suppression.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Does the expenditures include payroll, benefits and retirement payouts too?
DNR is the only state agency that even comes close to breaking even. When the state was still in the liquor selling business the Liquor Control Board was the only agency that was truly budget neutral.
Post by: Caseyd on October 19, 2024, 05:11:03 PM
Yes the expenditures include payroll, benefits, etc.Some might consider 38 million in the red as neutral.DNR at one time was a revenue generating branch of the government. Now, with the current management regime, it’s tax sucking cancer.Actually compared to most agencies DNR is still pretty budget neutral. In FY23 they brought in $475,000,000 which almost all goes to schools. They spent $513,000,000 of which $153,000,000 was fire suppression.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Does the expenditures include payroll, benefits and retirement payouts too?
DNR is the only state agency that even comes close to breaking even. When the state was still in the liquor selling business the Liquor Control Board was the only agency that was truly budget neutral.
Liquor and Cannabis board collects cannabis excise tax from retailers. One could argue they have an tremendous budget surplus
Post by: hunter399 on October 19, 2024, 07:01:22 PM
Then ya give it to the tribe .
If it's accessible to the public ,then give it to Forest service, BLM,or some other organizations that will keep public access available.
On the other side of the coin,was this land profitable,"clear-cut".
Then disregarded and throw away dumpster baby. Cause it's easy to to buy and sell/trade/giveaway vs reforestation.
I'm on the side of keeping lands open to the public vs a buying and selling/trade /giveaway monopoly with the tribe.
Post by: hughjorgan on October 19, 2024, 08:21:45 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 19, 2024, 08:22:58 PM
Post by: huntingfool7 on October 19, 2024, 08:28:09 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2024, 09:34:01 PM
I don’t like the idea of giving the tribes public land but in this case with the yakama tribe it appears the sections being given to them are on their reservation that border the cowiche unit. Not even sure the land was accessible to the public anyways.There's three different applications for the Yakama in three different sections. Two of the applications are for checkerboarded DNR-Tribe lands, the other is completely blocked up DNR land that is 100% open to the public.
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2024, 09:34:23 PM
Any stipulations as if it can/can't go into tribal trust for petition for rez land?No
Post by: boneaddict on October 20, 2024, 06:52:55 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 20, 2024, 06:53:32 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 20, 2024, 06:55:08 AM
The part that I don't agree with is they put up a gate on a forest service road because the tribe and Skykomish resources doesn't want people driving in it. Even though the land borders USFS land which is wilderness area(wild sky). I contend it should be opened to public access because the road is an avenue to public land. Believe me I have went around with the forest service and got my area representive involved.
Post by: boneaddict on October 20, 2024, 06:56:31 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 20, 2024, 07:01:36 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 20, 2024, 07:08:55 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 20, 2024, 07:24:19 AM
Er... Reading this again, this isn't even these entities buying these lands? It's a giveaway, and our legislature via our tax dollars will pay to make the DNR whole? So taxpayers are paying to give away public lands with no assurances of future public use available? How on Earth would that make any sense?Exactly
This IS Washington! Remember when you vote!
Don't we hand over enough money at their casinos yet?
Post by: bigtex on October 20, 2024, 08:14:25 AM
The land in the Beckler drainage was originally weyco who then sold it to Campbell aka Skykomish resources. They in turn logged it and replanted it. Then it came up for sale and the Tulalips bought it up. Part of it burned in the Bolt cr fire. To say it was DNR land is not right. It is DNR monitored land as far as any forest practices/fire fighting but it was not DNR land as far as ownership.You're talking about different land. Look at OnX and the Beckler Road there's only one DNR parcel on it just south of the King County line, that's what they're proposing to get rid of. It's also in the presentation link in the original post. DNR can only transfer lands they actually own.
The part that I don't agree with is they put up a gate on a forest service road because the tribe and Skykomish resources doesn't want people driving in it. Even though the land borders USFS land which is wilderness area(wild sky). I contend it should be opened to public access because the road is an avenue to public land. Believe me I have went around with the forest service and got my area representive involved.
You're talking about land the Tulalips have already purchased.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on October 20, 2024, 08:15:56 AM
Do we have any say in the matter?Only thru the legislature. They have to approve the transfer and the required funding to backfill the $ behind the replacement purchases.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 20, 2024, 04:58:36 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 21, 2024, 05:39:36 AM