Cherry Valley, Stillwater, Cresent Lake and Ebey Island

[luvmystang67]

We had a discussion about the greatness of WDFW/State land a while back.  This is the kind of thing I was talking about, where it isn't always rainbows and butterflies.  I doubt anyone that was on that thread will see this one, but once gov takes it away its unlikely to return.  At least when a private landowner takes stuff away it isn't gone forever.

I do love state land, but this is one of the many shortcomings.

That's actually not true. There's a lot of concern these days about more and more farm and ranch land being locked up by private land owners, land that hunters used to frequent but is now leased to the highest bidder. A land owner can make money leasing to an outfitter and have game managed on their property through them in much the same way that common hunters just asking permission to hunt did.

Think very carefully about changing who owns the land. Hunting in much of Europe is a private land affair and insanely expensive.

The problem with public land is it has to make everyone happy, not just one group, and as such it can be a victim of politics.

The state of Washington has become a victim of politics, private land avoids more of this than public.  In the South you pay to hunt, A TON OF PEOPLE HUNT, there's a lot of private land, a lot of people pay to hunt it, a lot of non-wealthy people have found ways to join forces to make hunting possible.

Private land is really not the enemy.

As far as what is true or not, nothing is "true" in the game of opinion. 

[Happy Gilmore]

I have a friend that sits on the WAG and these pieces of property have been neglected on purpose for quite some time until the recent manager (that happy worked with) started. There have always been BS reasons why the land could not be mowed, share cropped etc. I know for a fact that a bunch of small trees were planted on the still water unit as a salmon habitat improvement project that filled up a bunch of the open pockets that made great duck hunting when the river flooded.

No point in mowing and making open usable land unless it is usable by all groups. Not just for one month a year. The lands were purchased around 1964 with a grant which was endowed to get people outside recreating. It is NOT just hunting as the WDFW tries to proclaim. Also, because the Salmon club spent some money on a creek that doesn't give the right to let the place turn into a "natural area" of complete overgrowth like the route King County has followed. They have the wheels turning towards a specific direction. Our interest as the general public wanting to preserve land for long term recreation and open spaces is not being honored nor acknowledged as a factor in the management decision making processes.

[Stickerbush]

I have a friend that sits on the WAG and these pieces of property have been neglected on purpose for quite some time until the recent manager (that happy worked with) started. There have always been BS reasons why the land could not be mowed, share cropped etc. I know for a fact that a bunch of small trees were planted on the still water unit as a salmon habitat improvement project that filled up a bunch of the open pockets that made great duck hunting when the river flooded.

Your right at least stillwater and pretty sure cherry valley have had a lot of habitat improvement. I worked on a lot of it at stillwater through non profit groups. BTW the manager Brian boehm is a solid guy he used to be my boss and I can't imagine a better person to managing our public lands

[Happy Gilmore]

Please explain what improvements you have experienced as a user.

[Happy Gilmore]

By habitat improvements do you mean corn planting or mowing of invasive species?

[Happy Gilmore]

I have a friend that sits on the WAG and these pieces of property have been neglected on purpose for quite some time until the recent manager (that happy worked with) started. There have always been BS reasons why the land could not be mowed, share cropped etc. I know for a fact that a bunch of small trees were planted on the still water unit as a salmon habitat improvement project that filled up a bunch of the open pockets that made great duck hunting when the river flooded.

Where did you work before? Was it a private group with a special interest in a particular species? With fins?

Your right at least stillwater and pretty sure cherry valley have had a lot of habitat improvement. I worked on a lot of it at stillwater through non profit groups. BTW the manager Brian boehm is a solid guy he used to be my boss and I can't imagine a better person to managing our public lands

[AspenBud]

We had a discussion about the greatness of WDFW/State land a while back.  This is the kind of thing I was talking about, where it isn't always rainbows and butterflies.  I doubt anyone that was on that thread will see this one, but once gov takes it away its unlikely to return.  At least when a private landowner takes stuff away it isn't gone forever.

I do love state land, but this is one of the many shortcomings.

That's actually not true. There's a lot of concern these days about more and more farm and ranch land being locked up by private land owners, land that hunters used to frequent but is now leased to the highest bidder. A land owner can make money leasing to an outfitter and have game managed on their property through them in much the same way that common hunters just asking permission to hunt did.

Think very carefully about changing who owns the land. Hunting in much of Europe is a private land affair and insanely expensive.

The problem with public land is it has to make everyone happy, not just one group, and as such it can be a victim of politics.

The state of Washington has become a victim of politics, private land avoids more of this than public.  In the South you pay to hunt, A TON OF PEOPLE HUNT, there's a lot of private land, a lot of people pay to hunt it, a lot of non-wealthy people have found ways to join forces to make hunting possible.

Private land is really not the enemy.

As far as what is true or not, nothing is "true" in the game of opinion.

Thank God this isn't the South.

Private property can be equally subject to politics. All it takes is a well connected land owner who wants to sell off their land for housing developments, resource development, or any number of non hunter friendly uses. Then there are the ones who don't want sportsmen on their lands, Montana has had all sorts of arguments about that in recent years.

Here's what private property gets you. Want to hunt Weyco land on their St Helens Tree farm? Hope you have $160 handy (look at that, they raised the price this year!), want to hunt each of their Pe Ell lands? Be prepared to fork over $225 and $275 respectively. Aberdeen? 75.00. Vail? $250. There is no joining forces to make that price cheaper. You get the honor of paying the lords at Weyco almost $1000 if you want to try each of those areas for so much as a day.

My understanding is they have taken the wonderful model used in the South and applied it to their lands up here. What a deal.   

[Stickerbush]

By habitat improvements do you mean corn planting or mowing of invasive species?

I'm talking about the spraying and mowing of mostly blackberry. And planting of native species, primarily for salmon but benefiting birds as well

[Special T]

Some of the great low land pockets of grass in the timber @ stillwater were planted with trees screwing up some of the best flooded timber hunting ive had.

[Stickerbush]

Some of the great low land pockets of grass in the timber @ stillwater were planted with trees screwing up some of the best flooded timber hunting ive had.

  can't please everybody. Hunting timber sounds cool though, probably hard to do in wa

[scottr]

I'm just seeing this thread now but was familiar with the issue of dogs causing issues out at Stillwater.

I had the opportunity to talk with one of our area WDFW LEOs yesterday at my sons Hunter Safety class at Issaquah Sportsmen's Club. I asked him about the signs posted at Stillwater and dog training. He said that during hunting season there were a few instances of people walking their dogs (non-hunters) having their dogs run out into decoys spreads, chasing upland birds, and generally being a nuisance.  He encouraged me to use theses areas for training.

He was very open to talking about various issues and gave me his phone number. I'm sure he would be open to talking to anyone about concerns with these state lands in his area.

[Happy Gilmore]

I get it during hunting season. That is a small fraction of a window. What you are told and what is shared behind the scenes in emails I got through the public information act doesn't support what the WDFW is doing or saying. There are far more formal complaints about hunters on record. There are only complaints by two guys about dog walkers interfering. The WDFW has blow up the issue to promote their desire to limit recreation. There is no record within WDFW (which I obtained again through public information act) of complaints of dog walkers or peoples dogs training running through decoy spreads. It's all almost fabricated except for the WDFW managers putting it on paper that they have repeated complaints of dog / hunter/ people negative interactions. The only documentation of it is the letters that were written and posted. I think that might be a little dirty work which the Director should be shown evidence of impartiality and management practices based upon personal biases.

They say one thing then, behind the scenes are taking actions to do another. For this reason, myself and some others are beginning to get organized to protect our ability to use the  public, open spaces which were purchased under a federal grant formed in 1963 to buy open spaces to get people outside to recreate. The WDFW is currently not honoring the terms of the grant by the letter of the law. However, they are quick to go through all the WAC law and use and cite minor reference law to restrict access.

We need to hold the State accountable to the Laws and use the laws in the same way they use them to exclude us from what is legally ours to recreate upon.

[scottr]

I am confused as to what you're claiming WDFW is trying to do? Are they trying to ban dog training on all WDFW lands, on the properties in Snoqulamie Valley, or something else?

Also is there somewhere I can read these email acquired through the FOA?

[scottr]

Ran my setter and did some training work at Stillwater this morning. Didn't see anyone who looked to be running the use survey but did have a person (bird watcher) ask me if I was dog training. Politely told him yes and went on my way.

Also saw the signs indicating the pending rule changes today and have a clearer picture of the concern. Agree this new rule proposal needs to be public facing with comment period etc like they do with other WDFW rules (eg major & minor rule cycles).

[Happy Gilmore]

I'll start sharing these for you guys....

Someone call Kim and tell him how much money you made the last time you won a hunt test..  ..

From: Chandler, Kim (DFW)
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 12:26 PM
To: Boehm, Brian J (DFW)
Cc: Link, Russell E (DFW)
Subject: RE: cherry valley dog groups

Brian,
Yeah, just too many things going on last week and I’m in Oly this week for training.  Anyway, once again, I’m not real excited about dog training on our lands anyway. What’s in it for us?  We don’t get much of the Discover Pass $$ and very few of them actually are hunters and buy our licenses.  If we are going to allow it, it needs to be understood that it’s only on the designated, signed area of Cherry Valley.  One thing that may discourage them is the fact that the place isn’t mowed and the grass gets pretty high.  I don’t see where we should make a whole lot of effort to mow just for commercial dog training.  Commercial training also raises some concerns.  These guys make a lot of $$ from winning hunt tests and field trials and many times are actually out there on the property with a customer who is interested in buying one of their dogs.  Very difficult to prove but something that all of them should be made aware of.  They need a commercial use permit from us to do anything of that sort.  One guy just out tossing a dummy for his dog from time to time, although technically training, probably isn’t of much concern to us.  When some of the big outfits move in there, they pretty much take the place over and get pretty testy when anyone else shows up just wanting to walk their dog.  That isn’t going to be tolerated.  If they have a trial permit, it still does not allow for exclusive use according to the wording on the permit. 
Just some thoughts.  You can email me back today with anything further and I should be able to reply during a break in this VERY exciting training.
K


   Sergeant
Kim Chandler
       
       WDFW
    Detachment 10
      King County