B
bennysbuddy
Your right, forget the fish,we can use the rivers as our sewage system & save the money for building sewage treatment plants for the education system,
State trust land management
- Thread starter Smalma
- Start date
Guy Gregory
Active Member
DNR is of course tasked with using state lands, (all of 'em) to make money for schools. With respect to those in the important forest products industry, that's way more than just timber. It's ag, and lots of it. DNR has been working years to swap lands of marginal income value (or changing land use, aka urban-rural interface lands ) consolodating to larger blocks of more valuable land..irrigated ag in the central Washington basins. To date they've not announced achieving a surplus of revenue for schools.
WDFW owns many acres of wildlife land. I've no idea how much on the west side...of course the original federal land at statehood was modified by railroad grants and timber company grants in the early 1900's/late 1800's, but a lot of that wildlife land is acquired. It's a favorite way of military ground to be returned to the state, and I wonder if anyone has looked at mililtary reservations around puget sound to see if they'd like to propose swaps or something to again consolodate large tracts of land which can be managed more effectively for fish, or trees, or whatever.
Thoughtful proposal, but I would not like to see DNR's mission change, nor would I like to see further fractionation of land management efforts. I'd much rather see consolidation, and more creative management within larger tracts to accomplish the several objectives required of public land managers.
WDFW owns many acres of wildlife land. I've no idea how much on the west side...of course the original federal land at statehood was modified by railroad grants and timber company grants in the early 1900's/late 1800's, but a lot of that wildlife land is acquired. It's a favorite way of military ground to be returned to the state, and I wonder if anyone has looked at mililtary reservations around puget sound to see if they'd like to propose swaps or something to again consolodate large tracts of land which can be managed more effectively for fish, or trees, or whatever.
Thoughtful proposal, but I would not like to see DNR's mission change, nor would I like to see further fractionation of land management efforts. I'd much rather see consolidation, and more creative management within larger tracts to accomplish the several objectives required of public land managers.
Guy -
Understand where you are coming from however the harsh reality of the fix we find our ESA Chinook and Steelhead is that each of the "H" are taking pieces of the resources overall productivity. In the habitat arena those productivity come from agriculture, forestry, hydro, water withdrawal, urban sprawl etc. In a prefect world there would be a more or less equally sharing of the burden of address those adverse impacts to assure the recovery. In practice it is much easier to address some aspects than others. For example changing the forest management of the "Trust Lands" than say moving the towns of Arlington and Stanwood out of the flood plan or reduce the waters rights within a given basin. This of course will place an higher burden on those more assessable/cheaper options. Fair - of course not but if there is going to significant actions some sort of prioritization must occur. My proposal was an attempt to do just that; which maybe one of the more creative proposals I have seen. If we can not make those kinds of decisions that the resource is truly doomed.
You mentioned WDFW lands on the westside. In the Skagit/Stillaguamish estuaries they hold a significant acreage the majority of which has been or is being convert to salmon habitat. Again one of the reason is the State all ready owned the land so the conversion is much cheaper than acquiring comparable acreage from private land holdings. Something similar occurred at the mouth of the Nisqually on a federal refuge. Some the model has been established. Though I suppose it is easier to take away from recreationalists than loggers.
Curt
Understand where you are coming from however the harsh reality of the fix we find our ESA Chinook and Steelhead is that each of the "H" are taking pieces of the resources overall productivity. In the habitat arena those productivity come from agriculture, forestry, hydro, water withdrawal, urban sprawl etc. In a prefect world there would be a more or less equally sharing of the burden of address those adverse impacts to assure the recovery. In practice it is much easier to address some aspects than others. For example changing the forest management of the "Trust Lands" than say moving the towns of Arlington and Stanwood out of the flood plan or reduce the waters rights within a given basin. This of course will place an higher burden on those more assessable/cheaper options. Fair - of course not but if there is going to significant actions some sort of prioritization must occur. My proposal was an attempt to do just that; which maybe one of the more creative proposals I have seen. If we can not make those kinds of decisions that the resource is truly doomed.
You mentioned WDFW lands on the westside. In the Skagit/Stillaguamish estuaries they hold a significant acreage the majority of which has been or is being convert to salmon habitat. Again one of the reason is the State all ready owned the land so the conversion is much cheaper than acquiring comparable acreage from private land holdings. Something similar occurred at the mouth of the Nisqually on a federal refuge. Some the model has been established. Though I suppose it is easier to take away from recreationalists than loggers.
Curt
Similar threads
Support WFF | Remove the Ads
Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works.
Info
