Post by: whacker1 on March 01, 2010, 10:42:26 AM
Contact: Dale Swedberg, (509) 223-3358
WDFW plans public meeting in Tonasket
on plan to restore Sinlahekin Wildlife Area
TONASKET - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled a public meeting March 18 to discuss a wide-ranging plan to reduce fire danger and restore the health of forestlands in the Sinlahekin Wildlife Area.
Dale Swedberg, who manages the 14,314-acre wildlife area in Okanogan County, will outline WDFW's restoration plan and answer questions from those attending the meeting from 6-7:30 p.m. at the Tonasket High School Commons, 35 HS Highway 20 E, Tonasket.
"This is a major project with long-term benefits for both the wildlife area and the people living nearby," Swedberg said. "But restoring these lands will involve a fair amount of controlled burning and we want to give people a chance to ask any questions and share any perspectives they might have."
During the coming winter, WDFW plans to begin thinning dense stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir on 1,833 acres of the wildlife area to preserve older, more fire resistant pines and foster growth of vegetation that benefits native wildlife.
Controlled burning may begin as early as this fall in grassy areas to remove the buildup of old vegetation and promote germination of shrubs, forbs and grasses, Swedberg said.
"The Sinlahekin Wildlife Area is long overdue for a major forest fire," he said. "Thinning and controlled burning now can help prevent the kind of devastation we've seen in other Okanogan County forestlands in recent years."
Working in partnership with the Nature Conservancy, WDFW plans to complete work on the Sinlahekin Ecosystem Restoration Project in 2012. Funding for the project was recently provided through grants from the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Post by: CP on March 01, 2010, 11:17:39 AM
Post by: Shootmoore on March 01, 2010, 12:19:16 PM
While I am all for wildlife habitat rehab, is todays economy and budget cuts the time to be handing out this money?
Shootmoore
Post by: wolfbait on March 01, 2010, 02:14:09 PM
Post by: Kain on March 01, 2010, 02:44:55 PM
Another thing they could do is have a program where you could work for your licenses and tags on WDFW managed lands.
Post by: woodswalker on March 01, 2010, 02:59:03 PM
I'd much rather spend my volunteer hours working on thinning and controlled burns to manage a WLA that is reserved so we HAVE places to hunt while the WDFW spends the $$ that they DO have on managers of Dale's caliber and LAND AQUISITIONS. Look around you and see how many acres are being closed off - NO HUNTING/NO TRESPASSING - and think that through really carefully.
If we as hunters were able to somehow track our hours AND GET MATCHING P&R monies that the Legislature cannot TOUCH as a way of improving our WLAs and expanding them...i'm all for it and would GLADY spend some weekends in the late winter preparing for early fall burns.
Pull your heads out and put your animosity for the WDFW aside, FIND a way for us to have more and better hunting. Bend your backs AND get your kids outside!
I know for a fact that carefull controlled burns do WONDERS for forbs, shrubs and grasses to feed for the deer and elk.
If the department has limited funds...lets spend it on purchasing land...WE as hunters can earn matching funds that the legislature cannot steal from us and improve and increase the lands we have. Sure beats a Wal-Mart or a subdivision.
Post by: Kain on March 01, 2010, 03:47:43 PM
Over 17 million acres of forest lands alone that could be managed without buying anymore land up. Land that is being stolen from us already. We are spending money to buy land by one government agency while other government agencies are selling it off or closing it down. The reason most of the land is being close up is because of lack of enforcement. To much abuse going on.
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/forest/timber.aspx (http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/forest/timber.aspx)
Quote
Facts About Forest Lands in Washington
The area of Washington State is 66,582 square miles (42,612,480 acres).
Map of State Timber Areas - Washington State Association of Counties
From Future of Washington Forests: Economic Section, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2007
Approximately 21 million acres in Washington are forested
Eighteen million acres are classified at "timberland" of which 2 million are dedicated to nontimber production such as parks and wilderness areas
Major owners of Washington commercial forest lands from
National forests (federal) - 5 million acres
Tribal-owned forest land - 1.38 million acres
Timber industry owned lands - 4.61 million acres
Non-industrial private forest landowners (also referred to small forest land owners and small tree farmers) - 2.96 million acres
State and local - 2.23 million acres
Trust lands - Washington state Department of Natural Resources - 2.1 million acres of forest trust lands
Post by: MtnMuley on March 01, 2010, 04:13:39 PM
Post by: Kain on March 01, 2010, 04:47:46 PM
Post by: Shootmoore on March 01, 2010, 05:01:08 PM
Kain and shootmore...
I'd much rather spend my volunteer hours working on thinning and controlled burns to manage a WLA that is reserved so we HAVE places to hunt while the WDFW spends the $$ that they DO have on managers of Dale's caliber and LAND AQUISITIONS. Look around you and see how many acres are being closed off - NO HUNTING/NO TRESPASSING - and think that through really carefully.
If we as hunters were able to somehow track our hours AND GET MATCHING P&R monies that the Legislature cannot TOUCH as a way of improving our WLAs and expanding them...i'm all for it and would GLADY spend some weekends in the late winter preparing for early fall burns.
Pull your heads out and put your animosity for the WDFW aside, FIND a way for us to have more and better hunting. Bend your backs AND get your kids outside!
I know for a fact that carefull controlled burns do WONDERS for forbs, shrubs and grasses to feed for the deer and elk.
If the department has limited funds...lets spend it on purchasing land...WE as hunters can earn matching funds that the legislature cannot steal from us and improve and increase the lands we have. Sure beats a Wal-Mart or a subdivision.
My angst here is not directed towards the WDFW, and it is not towards the upkeep of currently owned WDFW land. My angst is against the overall spending of the State of Washington and a refusal intstead of paying for core programs they continue to spend as if we were in a good economic climate while having 75 tax increase bills in the senate. While I think Dale is a good manager, and I want the state to improve the wildlife habitat, fish habitat etc, I think instead of continueing to spend perhaps they should hold off on all of these extras to make sure they can continue basic services without increasing all of these taxes which will continue to put downward pressure on our economy.
Fiscal Year General Funds Expenditures % Change from Previous Year
1997-1999 $39,397,275,000 --%
1999-2001 $44,535,542,000 13.0%
2001-2003 $49,527,904,000 10.1%
2003-2005 $53,463,296,000 7.9%
2005-2007 $60,517,243,000 13.2%
2007-2009 $69,176,280,000 14.3%
They have been making cuts according to them, but where is the savings? They are cutting from one end and adding to the other.
I've bent my back for the WDFW for a number of years to include wildlife feeding programs in the Methow Valley. First they tried to cut the program by cutting the storage fee budget. We found donated storage for the feed. They then cut the budget for the feed, we found donations to continue to purchase feed. They finally ordered us to end the program. Claiming that winter kill was healthier for the deer herds even though the program was costing the state $0. I would arguee that the state was saving money as the deer being fed were not causing issues in the orchards. If you notice the funding for this program is not coming from the the WDFW budget, the direction of the WDFW is a whole different issue.
Shootmoore
Post by: woodswalker on March 01, 2010, 05:10:39 PM
Post by: Shootmoore on March 01, 2010, 05:21:46 PM
Shootmore...The Gov's idea of a cut is to only spent 10% more than last year...instead of the 20% she WANTED!
That my friend is something we can agree on. I think we also agree that this project is a good deal for wildlife. I think my only issue is timing and where the money is coming from.
Shootmoore
Post by: villageidiot on March 01, 2010, 05:23:36 PM
Post by: Shootmoore on March 01, 2010, 05:27:06 PM
Shootmoore
Post by: Kain on March 01, 2010, 05:39:44 PM
Post by: bonkellekter on March 01, 2010, 06:14:42 PM
Maybe it is wolf money. ;)
That was the first thing that came to my mind - I would not be surprised to find out that this is part of the "wolf recovery" plan
Post by: yelp on March 05, 2010, 10:17:36 PM
While I am glad to hear that they are planning on doing this, I have to question how the state is coming up with the funds now during the economic recession and budget deficits? When there is a big push by the state to raise taxes they have the funds to do this kind of thing? When they are talking about closing prisons, raising taxes etc etc etc they have the money to provide grants for habitat restoration?
While I am all for wildlife habitat rehab, is todays economy and budget cuts the time to be handing out this money?
Shootmoore
I know Dale too and he is always applying for outside funding sources...several grants..RCO grants..WWRP grants..
Post by: wolfbait on March 06, 2010, 07:54:49 AM
Post by: KillerMiller on March 06, 2010, 09:33:11 AM
Funding for the project was recently provided through grants from the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Looks like WDFW found a source of funding this project. Not all WDFW is funded by the state $$$. Many hatcheries and Wildlife lands/projects get local, federal, tribal, club, grants, and foundation dollars not to mention the countless hours of volunteers to get their jobs done.