RMEF opposes transfer of federal lands

[idahohuntr]

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFOpposesSaleorTransferofFederalPublicLands.aspx

Yet another reason to be an RMEF member. 

[Humptulips]

They burned their bridges with me when they refused to support the No on Initiative 713 campaign.
They threw trappers under the bus and I was one of the guys that got ran over.

[bigtex]

There is essentially a template bill that Republican legislators have used in every western state (including WA) that would bring federal lands into state ownership. The template bill basically says all non-National Park Service, non-National Monuments, and non-Wilderness Areas managed by the feds (excluding military, energy, etc) are to be turned over to the state.

Only Utah has passed such legislation, and even their Attorney General has said it probably is unconstitutional.

It is a very hot topic in Montana right now. The interesting thing is that it is believed that if Montana were to somehow take over those certain federal lands (21.6 million acres) it would cost the State of Montana $367,000,000 a year to manage those lands. http://www.capitalpress.com/State/Montana/20140902/montana-officials-study-federal-land-takeover-idea

To show just how big that $367 Million is, the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks yearly budget is about $75 Million a year.....

[KFhunter]

I'm very leery of the state taking over federal lands in WA, actually I'm dead against it.

WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.

[bigtex]

I'm very leery of the state taking over federal lands in WA, actually I'm dead against it.

WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.

No state could afford it

[jasnt]

I'm very leery of the state taking over federal lands in WA, actually I'm dead against it.

WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.

exactly. They can't hardly patrol what they got adequately. And the budget is stretched pretty hard as it is already

[stuckalot]

I'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?

[bigtex]

I'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?

Let's just compare DNR and BLM in WA.

DNR has over 3,000,000 acres in WA. BLM has about 430,000 acres in WA, about 99% of it is in eastern WA.

Up until 2013 there were 9 DNR field officers in WA and one Chief. This meant an average of 333,333 acres per DNR Officer. In 2013 the state provided DNR with funding for 2 DNR officers. This brought the number of field officers to 11 and the amount of acres per officer down to about 272,727 acres. Up until 2013 there were two DNR LEOs in eastern WA, there are now three.

BLM has two LEOs in eastern WA. So essentially one officer covers 215,000 acres.

Obviously both the feds and state need more coverage. But one difference between the state and feds is for the most part federal lands are consolidated into chunks (with the exception of BLM.) You don't have random Forest Service lands in Moses Lake or Othello, but you do have random DNR lands in those places. Up until 2013 the DNR Officer in Ellensburg was alone responsible for DNR lands in 15 eastern WA counties.....

[csaaphill]

I'm very leery of the state taking over federal lands in WA, actually I'm dead against it.

WA can't afford to take over all that federal land let alone patrol it.

 
then they would sell it and then we'd be screwed so ya no thanks!

[idahohuntr]

I'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?

Obviously both the feds and state need more coverage.

Not so sure I would agree with that.  We don't need an LEO behind every tree...public eyes and ears in the woods will stop more crime than an army of fed. officers.

[bigtex]

I'm assuming then, that the Feds adequately patrol it?

Obviously both the feds and state need more coverage.

Not so sure I would agree with that.  We don't need an LEO behind every tree...public eyes and ears in the woods will stop more crime than an army of fed. officers.

You mean those same "public eyes and ears in the woods" who love saying on here they would never report any violation?

I never said we need an LEO behind every tree. There's a whopping 2 BLM LEOs in WA, about 5 USFWS LEOs in WA and a couple vacancies, and USFS have seen their LEO numbers in WA decline by nearly half in the past three years. I don't think you will ever get to a point in WA where you are saying "damn there's a lot of BLM LEOs here." At full staffing the USFS in WA is at about 25, in comparison BLM in California is at about 65 full staffing. So at full staffing there are more BLM LEOs in CA then there are BLM, USFS, and USFWS combined in WA. Idaho has about 25-30 USFS LEOs, about 12 BLM LEOs and at least 1 USFWS, so those three agencies combined in Idaho have more officers then in WA....

And FYI, most of the agencies/officers I just listed are deputized in WA and the cases they do make are using their county deputy authority, not their federal authority....

[idahohuntr]

I think as long as it doesn't involve a wolf the folks on here would report it...some good self-policing on trashed camps etc.   

[bigtex]

I think as long as it doesn't involve a wolf the folks on here would report it...some good self-policing on trashed camps etc. 

There have been a ton of threads on here where people would say they would rather look the other way then report something...

I even posted a thread on here earlier this year simply saying DNR wanted individuals to report people illegally using ORVs in a closed area in King County. There were several individuals who said the last thing they would do is report the violator, they even said if it they were poaching.

[idahohuntr]

Sad. 

[bigtex]

Sad.

Here is the DNR thread I was talking about: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153228.0.html