06-13-2014, 04:18 AM
1. [quote castnshoot]Is there any fishable water on these parcels? I can't see that there is, but I could be wrong.
[/quote]
The parcel is away from the lake so no, but there are more recreational activities that take place in WMA's besides fishing.
2. [quote castnshoot]The DWR retains wildlife easements on theses types of sales that gives them alot of say so on how the land is used. [/quote]
Do you know this is the case? I haven't read that it is. This is from the newspaper article;
"It’s disheartening the division is selling it without contacting anglers," said George Sommer, former chairman of the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Advisory Council. "The part that gets me about the policy [to return state-owned real estate to the private sector] is the public loses access to land."
It would seem that the Blue Ribbon fisheries person (who helped make the project work originally) quoted in the article would seem to disagree with you.
3. [quote castnshoot] There is a local need for funds to keep good teachers and services and what not. It has to come from some where. [/quote]
I assume you are referring to county property taxes and not SITLA or State funds. Somehow, I suspect that the property taxes accrued from this will be a drop in the bucket. I would suspect more local $$$ could be obtained by a state oil or gas lease and I wouldn't have a problem with that. The bigger picture is clear though. If the State were to somehow to acquire Federal lands as they dream to do, the monies acquired from the Feds in PILT payments by the local counties (I assume you know what those are) would be lost and it is a guarantee that the land would be quickly sold. Very bad for the States sportsmen.
4.[quote castnshoot]Maybe the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Advisory Council can get the Federal Government to give it some more money to buy the land at auction. [/quote]
That would one heck of a racket. Get the Feds to help you buy the land for you a second time that the State could turn right around and sell again. Yeah, right. IMO, the biggest problem I have with this sale is that either the Feds, conservation organizations, private landowners wanting to donate, and others will be reluctant to work with the DWR in the future on land projects if they see evidence that the State will just turn around and sell it off. Again, potentially very bad for the States sportsmen and the DWR.
[signature]
[/quote]
The parcel is away from the lake so no, but there are more recreational activities that take place in WMA's besides fishing.
2. [quote castnshoot]The DWR retains wildlife easements on theses types of sales that gives them alot of say so on how the land is used. [/quote]
Do you know this is the case? I haven't read that it is. This is from the newspaper article;
"It’s disheartening the division is selling it without contacting anglers," said George Sommer, former chairman of the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Advisory Council. "The part that gets me about the policy [to return state-owned real estate to the private sector] is the public loses access to land."
It would seem that the Blue Ribbon fisheries person (who helped make the project work originally) quoted in the article would seem to disagree with you.
3. [quote castnshoot] There is a local need for funds to keep good teachers and services and what not. It has to come from some where. [/quote]
I assume you are referring to county property taxes and not SITLA or State funds. Somehow, I suspect that the property taxes accrued from this will be a drop in the bucket. I would suspect more local $$$ could be obtained by a state oil or gas lease and I wouldn't have a problem with that. The bigger picture is clear though. If the State were to somehow to acquire Federal lands as they dream to do, the monies acquired from the Feds in PILT payments by the local counties (I assume you know what those are) would be lost and it is a guarantee that the land would be quickly sold. Very bad for the States sportsmen.
4.[quote castnshoot]Maybe the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Advisory Council can get the Federal Government to give it some more money to buy the land at auction. [/quote]
That would one heck of a racket. Get the Feds to help you buy the land for you a second time that the State could turn right around and sell again. Yeah, right. IMO, the biggest problem I have with this sale is that either the Feds, conservation organizations, private landowners wanting to donate, and others will be reluctant to work with the DWR in the future on land projects if they see evidence that the State will just turn around and sell it off. Again, potentially very bad for the States sportsmen and the DWR.
[signature]