Input Needed RE: Improving Access in Washington

[GUscottie]

I like it BigTex    Make it happen lol  .Seriously though how could we get something like you suggest to come about?

It would have to come from the legislature. There aren't many in the WA legislature in favor of mandatory minimum criminal penalties and I don't know why. I think if you got enlough big landowners to request they remove the ability of the court to remove the cleanup restitution it could pass, but you would need the big names (Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc) to come out and ask for it.

My  about this (being a city LEO)...It is incredibly difficult to get businesses to do anything with or for the courts. I can get one or two businesses here and there to ask for things from my city council, but try this at the state level and it gets much more difficult. I think that it would take some serious peddling at the big companies doors and then us beating the emails of our legislators pretty darn hard. I'll send an email to my legislator and see what I get...

[bigtex]

I like it BigTex    Make it happen lol  .Seriously though how could we get something like you suggest to come about?

It would have to come from the legislature. There aren't many in the WA legislature in favor of mandatory minimum criminal penalties and I don't know why. I think if you got enlough big landowners to request they remove the ability of the court to remove the cleanup restitution it could pass, but you would need the big names (Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc) to come out and ask for it.

My  about this (being a city LEO)...It is incredibly difficult to get businesses to do anything with or for the courts. I can get one or two businesses here and there to ask for things from my city council, but try this at the state level and it gets much more difficult. I think that it would take some serious peddling at the big companies doors and then us beating the emails of our legislators pretty darn hard. I'll send an email to my legislator and see what I get...

The big timber companies have been in support and even testified in favor of two recently enacted laws regarding natural resources and private lands. The timber industries were big backers of the law that took effect several days ago banning the use of exploding firearms targets. They were also big backers of the hunting while trespassing law that took effect in 2012.

Now that being said, even if the mandatory minimum laws are enacted and the restitution suspension is repealed, it still falls on the prosecutor to actually file the gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor charges. You can have stiff penalties, but if the prosecutor isn't filing charges then we are back to sqaure 1 

[stevemiller]

Agreed,I guess we need to put more pressure on prosecuters to do their jobs instead of always complaining they dont have the funding or the staff.I would think that they would be all for manditory min.

[SCRUBS]

Cut our loses and hunt out of state














 

[bigtex]

Agreed,I guess we need to put more pressure on prosecuters to do their jobs instead of always complaining they dont have the funding or the staff.I would think that they would be all for manditory min.

Agreed. WA penalties are actually pretty stiff. A misdemeanor at up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail and a gross misdemeanor at up to $5,000 and 364 days in jail are stiff penalties. The problem is prosecutors don't use those penalties. And in my opinon, that's when it's time to come in and force their hand... Mandatory minimums.

[fireweed]

I believe lack of access is the main reason for a decrease in all types of outdoor recreation, not just hunting.  And to improve the situation we need to use all the tools in the toolbox and get as many folks involved as possible.

Who to get involved: all the usual groups (USFS, DNR, WDFW, non-profits,) Don't forget county road departments that can provide access to landlocked areas or the DOT. Ports often have a recreation component, and even Metropolitian Park districts can develop "parkways" or easements to public lands. The WFPA (Washington Forest Protection Agency) should be brought on board, too. and elected officials)

Issues that cause decrease: less federal logging leading to less road revenue; Conversion of timberlands to REITS only interested in shareholders, not communities; tweekers; difficulty getting easements; weak politicians in the pockets of Big Timber that haven't the guts to bring up the tax breaks timber gets; environmental groups pushing to close roads

To improve access to private lands:  Our biggest opportunity to improve access, by far, is to re-vamp the Opens Space and Forest land tax breaks to directly tie access to the tax break (see Wisconsin and Minnesota's laws);

Other ways to improve on private land-- lots and lots of negative PR in the form of letters to editor, TV stories etc. coupled with "feel good" stories from companies that do not charge like Port Blakely ; Formal complaints and Challenges to their SFI certification by communities and leaders (they must provide public recreation and they are supposed to support healthy communities); take the garbage dumping excuse off the table (develop a mechanism so that it costs them ZERO to clean-up garbage);  improve the recreational immunity law by removing or tightening the definition of "known, artificial, latent condition";  Damage permits for big game MUST only be issued to large landowners that have free, open public access during the general season for the damaging animal (this may need to go through the legislature, but it is a no-brainer); Special hunts to benefit landowners (spring bear, cow elk, extra deer) should only be issued if the land can be accessed by licensed hunters for free;  and don't forget old school political pressure;

To improve access to public lands:
acquire easements through private land to public land; catalog public lands with access issues as proposed in current 2015-2021 game Plan; Challenge the closure of public land to the public (watersheds, etc) improve the grant process and add access projects specifically to RCO grants;   use imminent domain if necessary to acquire access to key public lands (WDFW can use this tool for public access DNR can't); add imminent domain to acquire public access to DNR lands, if necessary; work with county and state road Depts to acquire access;  Stop turning old roads into un-walkable jungles--keep the road bed and turn roads to trails; More LWCF money (I think 1% was proposed recently) to access federal lands; Key acquisitions for access; find old easements and resurrect them; cost share with private landowners on roads (it is more efficient for the private partner to be the main guy in charge of major projects on a joint road); re-write REIT law so it that tax break doesn't reward companies for charging for access to public wildlife; work with other groups besides hunting; add specific goals concerning access to every plan that comes along-county, city, wildlife, etc.  Getting the issue in a "plan" as a goal or objective is the first step to funding.  Increase logging to increase funding and keep roads open;

Funding:  more federal logging, 1% of Land/water Conservation Fund; partnerships have worked wonders like Trust for Public Lands and RMEF on key acquisitions; redirect some NOVA fund for access as was discussed in last NOVA update; simplify and redirect some WWRP funds to basic easement access from fancy water parks and costly lamp posts; cost sharing and private public partnership on key roads; re-evaluate how much non-highway driving we do to boost NOVA and non-highway road fund; county road departments should play larger role maintaining roads; tax on income from recreational leases and permit fees directed to access; existing excise tax on outdoor equipt could be expanded include hunting access as a use.

Access is complicated and means different things to different folks.  take away message is that many tools are going to be needed to improve the situration.  There is no silver bullet.

[Special T]

The # 1 thing to push IMO to increase access is QUIT FUNDING ROAD DECOMMISSIONS!  They are PAYING to destroy a resource That Hikers, Bikers, and sportsmen could use.
While at the same time they are converting old rail road beds to trails in many places! 

It still provides some access, costs NOTHING! Should be the easiest to sell. The main detractors are the wacko Enviro's and Water quality nuts

[bearpaw]

The # 1 thing to push IMO to increase access is QUIT FUNDING ROAD DECOMMISSIONS!  They are PAYING to destroy a resource That Hikers, Bikers, and sportsmen could use.
While at the same time they are converting old rail road beds to trails in many places! 

It still provides some access, costs NOTHING! Should be the easiest to sell. The main detractors are the wacko Enviro's and Water quality nuts

I know the USFS is decommissioning and removing roads, are there any state agencies doing this?

[Special T]

I dont think its very common for DNR to do so since that land is so interlaced with private forrestry land every time there would be a timber sale the road would have to be rebuilt. There may be isolated cases.

There are a LOT of side effects to stopping logging on USFS land. Less Brows for the deer and elk, but also no $ and less need for the roads that acess them.

[Dhoey07]

I think that it's time to start charging large timber companies/ land owners property taxes in the same way everyone else is. Maybe it's time to repeal or amend the Open Space Act?  If they allow free access, they should be charged differentely since the benefit of their open space provided is different.

I think that there is plenty of access for national forests in this state, although I would like to see some active logging.

State parks has turned me off so much, it's pretty much irreparable.

One entity that I would love to see involved more is the army corps of engineers. They have done some really good stuff with the land they manage on the Snake.  They might have a more reliable revenue source    seems to me that they might. Create an act, where they make a sizable chunk of land and try and see how productive they can make it.  Just an idea.

One more thing, I think the hunt by reservation is a great program, I'm not sure how it's funded or what the land owners get in return, but.....

[washelkhunter]

Privatize 80% of the state parks and the entire ferry system. Eliminate the grotesquely huge tree farms via eminent domain if they continue to price people out and off their vast holdings. Encourage road decoms on NFS public lands. Put a damage surcharge on the sale of atv/utv's to $2000 along with $300,000 liability coverage and restrict the use to current areas and developed roads only. Eliminate all market/commercial fishing in the states waters and within 50 miles of the shoreline.

[huntrights]

The # 1 thing to push IMO to increase access is QUIT FUNDING ROAD DECOMMISSIONS!  They are PAYING to destroy a resource That Hikers, Bikers, and sportsmen could use.
While at the same time they are converting old rail road beds to trails in many places! 

It still provides some access, costs NOTHING! Should be the easiest to sell. The main detractors are the wacko Enviro's and Water quality nuts

I know the USFS is decommissioning and removing roads, are there any state agencies doing this?

DNR has been decommissioning roads; this was evident around the Ashford area (GMU 654 Mashel).  Ask the locals in Ashford about road closures and decommissioning methods in that area; there are apparently several roads in the area that have been subjected to decommissioning/destruction.  The locals do not appear to be very happy about their access being blocked.  Places where families camped for decades can no longer be accessed because of the road destruction.  WDFW has closed roads in some areas like the LT Murray unit, but WDFW would need to be asked directly if they destroy roads when/if they decommission roads. Both agencies should be asked directly about their road closure and decommissioning policies and practices.  A question to ask is why must a road path be completely destroyed by ripping it up, spreading huge boulders along the path, crisscrossing small tree trunks and branches along the road path, etc.?  Motorized access can be easily blocked without destroying the roads to the point where it is hazardous for a person to walk on the old path.  Leave the road paths alone (i.e. roads to trails philosophy) so they can still be used by human beings (hikers, hunters, anglers. mountain bikers, horseback riders, campers, etc.).  Nature will take over quickly without any agency having to spend our money for needless destruction.  There are many benefits to adopting the "roads to trails" approach to road closures, but little, if any, benefit to completely destroying the old road paths.  It seems the primary purpose of road destruction is to destroy access which will obviously tend to keep people out. 

Roads to trails is a far better approach to closing roads versus road decommissioning/destruction.

[fireweed]

DNR and WDFW and all private landowners (not federal) are required to map and manage all of their roads through a process called RMAP (road maintenance and abandonment plan).  This is part of our forest practice rules.  Private companies doing this end up putting in lots of culverts, but digging up and removing the roadbed of few roads.  Public seems to just put their roads to bed by obliterating the whole road bed.  The RMAP law is to prevent sedimentation and road washouts that can lead to slides.  For private, the law actually has saved the industry money by preventing road failures.  USFS doesn't have to do this, so it doesn't add culverts, so its roads wash out more.

[csaaphill]

One thing I've encountered with landowners is that they think were only there to shoot up things and kill everything in sight. People that own cows for instance, think all we do is shoot first and ask questions later! I've never mistaken a cow for deer, or Elk. So teaching landowners a different perception would help!
We have a local owner here that owns Thousands of acres in our Mountains here and always has no tresspassing signs, It's in some really prime deer and Elk area, but can never get in because of the no tresspasisng. I've talked to the old guy once because I was driving up he road and there was one spot that was feel free to hunt so I did. I drove to the end and then turned around, but while up there he and his Grandson came up there, and if he wasn't so adament about hunters shooting his cows he would probably let us hunt, but no not until we can prove we know what the heck were looking at.
The old guy was actually kind of cool I expained what and why I was there and told him there was a feel free to hunt sign down below so I was using that. he just said to not kill a cow I said ok!

[Landowner]

One thing I've encountered with landowners is that they think were only there to shoot up things and kill everything in sight. People that own cows for instance, think all we do is shoot first and ask questions later! I've never mistaken a cow for deer, or Elk. So teaching landowners a different perception would help!
We have a local owner here that owns Thousands of acres in our Mountains here and always has no tresspassing signs, It's in some really prime deer and Elk area, but can never get in because of the no tresspasisng. I've talked to the old guy once because I was driving up he road and there was one spot that was feel free to hunt so I did. I drove to the end and then turned around, but while up there he and his Grandson came up there, and if he wasn't so adament about hunters shooting his cows he would probably let us hunt, but no not until we can prove we know what the heck were looking at.
The old guy was actually kind of cool I expained what and why I was there and told him there was a feel free to hunt sign down below so I was using that. he just said to not kill a cow I said ok!

You make a good point.  Too many landowners use the ol' "shooting up my stuff" as a cop out to deny access.  I can't think of anyone in the past 20 years in my area who had a cow shot by a hunter.