HB 1261 Limiting Enforcement of Hunting Laws Against Tribal Members

[bigtex]

HB 1261 would limit the applicability of RCW 77.15 (fish and wildlife enforcement code) against tribal members on privately owned forest land if the following specifications are met:

(1) A person engaged in hunting on privately owned forest land is not subject to enforcement action under this chapter related to the hunting activities if:
(a)The person is a member of a tribe that has a right to hunt reserved by treaty or through other agreement with the United States;
(b)  The tribe has hunting regulations in place that apply to tribal member hunters accessing privately owned forest land;
(c)  The tribe has entered into a written access agreement with the private forest landowner and provided a copy of the agreement to the regional office of the department where the land is located;
(d)  The person has utilized the privately owned forest land consistent with the forest landowner's terms and conditions; and
(e)  The privately owned forest land is within the recognized territory that the tribe ceded to the United States or the established aboriginal hunting grounds of the tribe.
(2)  For purposes of this section, "forest land" and "forest landowner" have the same meanings as defined in RCW 76.09.020.
(3)  Nothing in this section or in private landowner access agreements referenced in this section may be construed to expand, define, or limit the rights of tribal members to hunt according to their treaty rights on private forest land. The legislature intends that this section narrowly authorize enforcement jurisdiction over hunting activities when the specific conditions outlined in subsection (1)of this section are met.
(4)Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the discretion of private forest landowners to allow access to tribal 11
members for hunting activities.
(5)  Nothing in this section affects the definition of "open and unclaimed lands" under tribal treaties.

Bill sponsors: Representatives Sawyer, Appleton, Stanford, and Pollet

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1261.pdf

[Tbar]

Well this can be viewed as a clarification (in a good way) and possibly not take an enforcement officers time.  I think the majority of the time this occurs (even if viewed as illegal) it is seldom, if ever, pursued by the legal system.  On the flip side it can be viewed as already illegal by the findings of Chambers.

[MtnMuley]

Hell no.

[Tbar]

Those voting no care to give reasons? 

[bigtex]

Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.

If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.

[trophyhunt]

A big F no, they already have a golden ticket to do what they want, the way I read this it gives them even more protection? If that's even possible! This must have been submitted by the tribal senator I'm guessing?

[trophyhunt]

Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.

If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.

Unreal, almost speechless.. Can't even believe what your telling us.  And how did this become even something to talk about as a new law???

[mfswallace]

Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.

If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.

Unreal, almost speechless.. Can't even believe what your telling us.  And how did this become even something to talk about as a new law???

 

See this post

This must have been submitted by the tribal senator I'm guessing?

Rep. Sawyer is a Tulalip member

[trophyhunt]

This must have been submitted by the tribal senator I'm guessing?

Rep. Sawyer is a Tulalip member

Not a senator but he was the guy I was thinking about. 

[Tbar]

Bigtex,  would this eliminate state jurisdiction on public safety?

[bigtex]

Bigtex,  would this eliminate state jurisdiction on public safety?

This law would be added to chapter RCW 77.15. As subsection 1 states "(1) A person engaged in hunting on privately owned forest land is not subject to enforcement action under this chapter related to the hunting activities if:"

So basically tribal members would be exempt from any law under RCW 77.15 if they are hunting in an area that meets the previously stated stipulations.

[Tbar]

Bigtex or any other natural resource LEO-
I know for fact this has been pursued.  Is there any actual cases that a RCW 77.15 (that wasn't a public safety issue) been successfully prosecuted when an agreement was reached with the landowner prior to the infraction?

[trophyhunt]

Those voting no care to give reasons?

I'm curious why you are for it? If I'm reading you correctly?

[Tbar]

Those voting no care to give reasons?

I'm curious why you are for it? If I'm reading you correctly?

I see this as clarification.  Like I said this has been investigated and argued by tribes vs state, it is also (as I, an outsider, see it) a point of contention amongst the ranks of the WDFW.  If you commit a field officer to investigate and process a case, you expect a conviction (correct? ). If past is an indicator, you are not getting desired results, even evidence to the contrary. 

[Tbar]

Industrial timberlands are quite complex and constantly in a state of change.  I think you will be hard pressed to get a jury conviction when you have an area, even if interpreted as a violation of Chambers,  that is turned into a grey area in a hurry.  When you have established access agreements it muddles views even more.  This bill could provide clarification.

[trophyhunt]

If your or we are not getting results, I don't see a reason to just give up.  I think most officers try to get the prosecutor to go through with charges on most people, I wonder if they just don't pursue cases against tribal members because they feel it's pointless.?  I just see no sense if making it any easier for the few bad apples to get away with even more, even though they will most the time anyway.   

[Tbar]

Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.

If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.

I think this could be a requested amendment (to keep jurisdiction when it's a public safety violation) to the bill.  For one it is reasonable and two it follows current enforcement guidelines outside industrial timberlands on open lands.

[mfswallace]

Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.

If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.

I think this could be a requested amendment (to keep jurisdiction when it's a public safety violation) to the bill.  For one it is reasonable and two it follows current enforcement guidelines outside industrial timberlands on open lands.

Dump the whole thing before other legal avenues to prosecute violations of law are negated 

[Westside88]

I could be wrong, but it looks like a tribe could enter into an exclusive access agreement with a private timber company and do whatever they wish there.

[trophyhunt]

I could be wrong, but it looks like a tribe could enter into an exclusive access agreement with a private timber company and do whatever they wish there.

that is how I'm reading it.

[Tbar]

I could be wrong, but it looks like a tribe could enter into an exclusive access agreement with a private timber company and do whatever they wish there.

that is how I'm reading it.

The tribes already enter into access agreements, some dating back decades.  There has been much debate on interpretation of Chambers and Timberlands.  This will eliminate that debate.  Even without this bill, in the eyes of most (general populous), the access agreement itself will suffice, this actually changes very little in reality.  That said I think public safety violations should be an added amendment.

[stevemiller]

Thanks for bringing this up BT.Looks like Sawyer is looking out for his instead of all of the people. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

Thanks for bringing this up BT.Looks like Sawyer is looking out for his instead of all of the people. 

Can't argue with that!

[grundy53]

I think this bill would be setting a horrible precedent.

[Skyvalhunter]

Not only no but HELL NO

[Man Tracker]

Proposed bill is flawed in several respects.  Often you get tribal members from different tribes hunting together.  Or you have non-tribal members hunting w/tribal members.  Until changed (even tho sometimes ignored) CHAMBERS is law of the land.  This legislation cause all LEO's issues with folks claiming tribal affiliation (sometimes w/o ID) while hunting on private timberland.  Having an "agreement" on file at a regional office may not make it available to an officer on weekends/holidays.  (How would a deputy/DNR officer know?)  I could go on and on...and yes to the earlier question as to whether or not non-safety violations have been successfully prosecuted against tribal members in violation of 77.15.  We ran about 50/50 during my time afield.

[scudmaster]

To add to this, The Muckleshoots just purchased over 100,000 acres of this forest land last year.  Could this be the motivator to make sure they keep WDFW out.  Makes me wonder.

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

for sure

[Jingles]

One State  Laws apply to all in that state equally.

[bigtex]

The following link is from the committee hearing on this bill:

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2015010188#start=3707&stop=6363

There was a heated soapbox type argument from Committee Chair Sherry Appleton towards WDFW LE Chief Steve Crown. Appleton basically said WDFW's current policy is racist.

Rep Norm Johnson (Yakima) had his own soapbox moment towards the Puyallup Tribe hunt program manager regarding seasons, limits, and Johnson mentioned the Hanford Monument and Naches feed station incidents.

[Naches Sportsman]

The following link is from the committee hearing on this bill:

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2015010188#start=3707&stop=6363

There was a heated soapbox type argument from Committee Chair Sherry Appleton towards WDFW LE Chief Steve Crown. Appleton basically said WDFW's current policy is racist.

Rep Norm Johnson (Yakima) had his own soapbox moment towards the Puyallup Tribe hunt program manager regarding seasons, limits, and Johnson mentioned the Hanford Monument and Naches feed station incidents.

Mr Johnson knows that his supporters want change in tribal hunting and is well aware of the stance non erolled hunters have on native hunters over here.

[onetrapper]

Oh yea and let's make sure the tribal police can arrest us off reservation. not

[Jingles]

If this passes time to re establish the MoWhite Tribe

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I could be wrong, but it looks like a tribe could enter into an exclusive access agreement with a private timber company and do whatever they wish there.

Bingo! I was thinking the same thing. And said private company could basically set their own bag limits and laws which may be contrary to State laws and management strategies.

[huntinguy]

well considering all the land the tribes are buying up and the fact that they could enter in agreements with other timber companies... I could easily see most of the hunting land in Washington become open to only tribal members.

where does it say that the tribal regulations have to be similar to state regulations? I mean they could say something like, "any tribal member can take two elk, deer, whatever, per year." That would technically be their regulations... so, just how would that impact heard size? I still remember the green river fiasco....

I suppose you feel that there is too much land to hunt on then... ya, it is a good deal.

[NoBark]

So, what ever happened to the "States own the animals" argument?  Landowners are not the owners but apparently that's only true if your non-tribal. Hmmm