Let’s Stand Up and Play Offense in 2025

[SAJ-99]

No state should be viewed as being able to better deal with the land than the federal government. Highlighted below. This is a case where the state land was in city limits but didn't generate enough revenue and the DNR has a huge hole in its budget. Sound familiar? The largely natural forested land was exchanged for and was exchanged for 4 acres on the other side of the state with a commercial building and parking lot (higher rent revenues). Taxes and housing are the themes of the year.

Board of Natural Resources Approves Spokane County Land Exchange | WA - DNR

192 Acres of State Trust Land to be Improved for Housing, Parks The state Board of Natural Resources has approved a land exchange to increase revenue for K-12 education funding and provide new housing options in Spokane County. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) property is in the Latah...

www.dnr.wa.gov

 

[Treeshark]

No state should be viewed as being able to better deal with the land than the federal government.

I don’t understand this- states are able to manage the wildlife on federal land just fine, and yet they become incompetent when it comes to managing the land itself?

That doesn’t make sense.

 

[ismith]

No state should be viewed as being able to better deal with the land than the federal government. Highlighted below. This is a case where the state land was in city limits but didn't generate enough revenue and the DNR has a huge hole in its budget. Sound familiar? The largely natural forested land was exchanged for and was exchanged for 4 acres on the other side of the state with a commercial building and parking lot (higher rent revenues). Taxes and housing are the themes of the year.

Board of Natural Resources Approves Spokane County Land Exchange | WA - DNR

192 Acres of State Trust Land to be Improved for Housing, Parks The state Board of Natural Resources has approved a land exchange to increase revenue for K-12 education funding and provide new housing options in Spokane County. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) property is in the Latah...

www.dnr.wa.gov

Who's going to pay for the roads and schools if we don't sell public lands?

 

[SAJ-99]

I don’t understand this- states are able to manage the wildlife on federal land just fine, and yet they become incompetent when it comes to managing the land itself?

That doesn’t make sense.

You keep bringing up this argument and it seems disingenuous because I know you smart enough to see the points of the debate. First, you are mixing directives. Game agencies manage wildlife on the landscape, public and private. The animals don't know who owns the land they are standing on, and the vast majority won't cross state lines, so it makes sense. Managing animal numbers is different than managing a Game agency budget. State land agency (in the case of WA, the DNR- yes the name might be confusing) is directed to create cash flow on the land for the benefit of schools. See description for WA below. State agencies across the country have budgetary problems and do many Game agencies. Most of this is because people don't want pay for anything. If you have to manage the land to a monetary benefit, switching out 200 acres of pine for 4 acres commercial/industrial property is a positive thing. The people that like to go for a walk in nature are the only ones that lose.

Below this, an interesting tidbit from BLM that may be a sign of things to come...

From the BLM

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don’t understand this- states are able to manage the wildlife on federal land just fine, and yet they become incompetent when it comes to managing the land itself?

That doesn’t make sense.

Are you for the public getting 17% of the tags in your state?

 

[Treeshark]

Are you for the public getting 17% of the tags in your state?

Yes.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Yes.

LIar

 

[TOGIE]

I don’t understand this- states are able to manage the wildlife on federal land just fine, and yet they become incompetent when it comes to managing the land itself?

That doesn’t make sense.

i agree with SAJ.

you know enough to know you shouldn't conflate these two things. and i believe you know enough to know that conflating wildlife agencies and landboards is silly.

the state land boards are perfectly competent to manage the land should they get it and that's EXACTLY the problem. they will do with the land exactly all the things they should, competently, do with it. those things, by and large, aren't going to be good things from the perspective of public access, habitat, and conservation.

 

[BigHornRam]

I don’t understand this- states are able to manage the wildlife on federal land just fine, and yet they become incompetent when it comes to managing the land itself?

That doesn’t make sense.

If you are going to continue to argue on the the internet about these matters, you need to learn when it is politically convenient to dump on the states, and when it is politically convenient to dump on the federal government.

 

[Treeshark]

they will do with the land exactly all the things they should, competently, do with it. those things, by and large, aren't going to be good things from the perspective of public access, habitat, and conservation.

So what you’re saying is the only thing preventing competent land management is the Federal government? You’re probably right in many cases, but thats making a point that I don’t think you wanted to make.

I can’t say that agree with the premise that competent land management is necessarily at odds with public access and conservation 100% of the time. Not all development is good, but not all is bad either.

If a state finds that these decisions being made without consideration towards those things, the residents of those states should probably address this with their land boards.

 

[Treeshark]

you need to learn when it is politically convenient to dump on the states, and when it is politically convenient to dump on the federal government.

Thanks for the advice… I think I found the sweet spot on that one

 

[TOGIE]

I don’t agree with the premise that competent land management is necessarily at odds with public access and conservation 100% of the time. Not all development is good, but not all is bad either.

If a state finds that these decisions being made without consideration towards those things, the residents of those states should probably address this with their land boards.

competent land management is different depending on who is managing the land. that's intuitively obvious.

i think CPW does a damn find job managing the land they lease and own when it comes to managing for habitat, fishing, winter range, and hunting.

i wouldn't be able to say the land board does a bad job either. but they manage for something else. that something else is cash flow basically.

pretending managing for cash flow is not at odds with "those things" is willful ignorance, purposeful misdirection, or trolling, if there's even a difference.

we end up in a worse spot if we now have to petition our legislatures to get the landboards to change their statutory charges. it would obviously be an uphill battle and battles in the legislature always result in compromise, if we even get anywhere on it. so at best we end up worse than status quo and at worst we end up more worse than status quo.

 

[Treeshark]

I understand your point.

I think the perspective on that changes sometimes when the land in question is down the road a few miles vs a few thousand miles.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I understand your point.

I think the perspective on that changes sometimes when the land in question is down the road a few miles vs a few thousand miles.

Its unfortunate we live in iranistan and you cant change where you live huh.

 

[Treeshark]

Its unfortunate we live in iranistan and you cant change where you live huh.

You’re getting weird again dude.

It’s ok for us to not have the same opinion.

 

[TOGIE]

I understand your point.

I think the perspective on that changes sometimes when the land in question is down the road a few miles vs a few thousand miles.

but don't you think americans thousands of miles away from the lionsshare of these lands would develop some consternation at the idea seeing all this massive wealth owned by each and every citizen now becoming the wealth of only the residents?

sure, they get their payout upon divestiture or transfer potentially. but in the worst case scenario suddenly i become the sole trustee, along with my fellow residents, of 24 million acres of land that benefits me and my schools and my state and you now get none of it. but one still needs to look at it from a pro rata perspective - that 24 million acres used to be shared by 335 million, now it's shared by 6 million. i lose my access but i gain some considerable wealth on a pro rata basis from a trustee perspective. you get 1 dollar paid to you, so do I, and then i gain another 56 on paper by virtue of being a co resident.

raw deal it would seem for everyone else.

that on top of the loss of access to it that you and everybody else once had.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You’re getting weird again dude.

It’s ok for us to not have the same opinion.

Youre GAF about public land - only thats within your proximity is weird.

Im not sure what causes you to drag every post into privatizing wildlife - but it wont and doesnt work for conservation, preservation, and wildlife.

 

[BigHornRam]

Thanks for the advice… I think I found the sweet spot on that one

State ownership of land is not all gloom and doom, like some here like to argue.

 

[Treeshark]

that on top of the loss of access to it that you and everybody else once had.

I personally place immense value on that access- but most people don’t. From a purely financial perspective (which is exactly how many would view the issue), this would be a net win for most people.

Also- I don't think it’s reality to claim that this would threaten all federal land.

 

[Treeshark]

State ownership of land is not all gloom and doom, like some here like to argue.

You’re 100% right. Some states do it better than others.

My recommendation to those in states who do it poorly: work to fix the problem in your own state soon, because this is coming eventually.