Hunting access on BLM & State land that is leased for grazing, yes or no???

[b23]

I've had or heard this come up in conversation multiple times and always get a variety of answers so I thought maybe someone/s here may know what the, real, correct answer is to, hunting access on State or BLM land that has been leased out to a private individual or entity.  Can the lease holder legally keep you out/off of State or BLM land while they have it leased???

If this has been answered before would someone point me in that direction.

[Curly]

I think you'd have to read the wording in the lease to know for sure.  Some leases they probably can't legally keep you out, others they probably can. 

[bobcat]

I'm not 100% sure on BLM land, but DNR land, no, the leasee cannot deny access for hunting. There are exceptions but they need to have a good reason and they need permission from DNR if they want to keep the public out. If you want to be sure, call up the regional DNR office. For the SE region it would be the Ellensburg office, and NE region is Colville.

[Bob33]

Here you go: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.10.125

Contact info is here: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/recreation

[b23]

Here you go: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.10.125

If I'm reading that correctly and the lessee gets permission to post it, then "In the event any such lands are so posted it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt or fish, or pursue nonconsumptive wildlife activities, on any such posted lands." 

My interpretation of that verbiage would mean there can be no hunting or fishing done by ANYONE, including the lessee, when the lessee posts it.  Would that be consensus or am I reading it wrong?   I suppose that would be the only fair way to do it.  Then again, when is anything ever fair.

[Bob33]

Here you go: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.10.125

If I'm reading that correctly and the lessee gets permission to post it, then "In the event any such lands are so posted it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt or fish, or pursue nonconsumptive wildlife activities, on any such posted lands." 

My interpretation of that verbiage would mean there can be no hunting or fishing done by ANYONE, including the lessee, when the lessee posts it.  Would that be consensus or am I reading it wrong?   I suppose that would be the only fair way to do it.  Then again, when is anything ever fair.

He can't post it arbitrarily.

"...unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or unless the department gives prior written approval and the area is lawfully posted by lessee..."

[birddogdad]

Here you go: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.10.125

If I'm reading that correctly and the lessee gets permission to post it, then "In the event any such lands are so posted it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt or fish, or pursue nonconsumptive wildlife activities, on any such posted lands." 

My interpretation of that verbiage would mean there can be no hunting or fishing done by ANYONE, including the lessee, when the lessee posts it.  Would that be consensus or am I reading it wrong?   I suppose that would be the only fair way to do it.  Then again, when is anything ever fair.

He can't post it arbitrarily.

"...unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or unless the department gives prior written approval and the area is lawfully posted by lessee..."

Bob, do you have any info on how to verify "legally posted"? I would imagine that there would and could be some shady posting of leased lands that don't qualify with above...

I wonder if there is a contact or list available thru state of these "approved" exceptions to the RCW?

[bobcat]

Here you go: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.10.125

If I'm reading that correctly and the lessee gets permission to post it, then "In the event any such lands are so posted it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt or fish, or pursue nonconsumptive wildlife activities, on any such posted lands." 

My interpretation of that verbiage would mean there can be no hunting or fishing done by ANYONE, including the lessee, when the lessee posts it.  Would that be consensus or am I reading it wrong?   I suppose that would be the only fair way to do it.  Then again, when is anything ever fair.

He can't post it arbitrarily.

"...unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or unless the department gives prior written approval and the area is lawfully posted by lessee..."

Bob, do you have any info on how to verify "legally posted"? I would imagine that there would and could be some shady posting of leased lands that don't qualify with above...

I wonder if there is a contact or list available thru state of these "approved" exceptions to the RCW?

You need to call the regional DNR office.

[lokidog]

I've seen lots of leased DNR land that was posted, not saying it was legal though.  Personally, I think it is a bunch of BS.  It would be nice if they had a hotline number that could be contacted at all times with a parcel location to find out if it was valid.

[Bob33]

I believe a legitimate closure is so rare that I would assume it was legal to access the property unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary.

[lokidog]

Yeah, I could understand posting grain fields against crop damage, but these all had the grassy corners and non-planted areas posted as well.   

[bobcat]

It's not really that rare to have state land closed to the public, but these are the parcels you wouldn't want to hunt anyway. Such as when the land is being used for growing grapes, apples, peaches, cherries, etc.

[b23]

The way I read RCW 79.10.125 the lessee has to have reasons, such as those covered under that RCW and has to have prior approval before the lessee can post it for no hunting or fishing and once it's posted, "it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt or fish, or pursue nonconsumptive wildlife activities, on any such posted lands." 

Wouldn't "any person" literally be, ANYONE, including the lessee???

I don't know if that's exactly how it is but IMO that's how it should be.  Otherwise someone could lease up a bunch of State or BLM land, close it to the public and have their very one hunt/fish club, courtesy of Joe tax payer.

[KFhunter]

I can't think of any legitimate reason to close it due to grazing alone without other circumstances.   I do see grazed lands closed due to winter Elk range, but typically the gates go closed after grazing season is done.

[509]

The way I read RCW 79.10.125 the lessee has to have reasons, such as those covered under that RCW and has to have prior approval before the lessee can post it for no hunting or fishing and once it's posted, "it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt or fish, or pursue nonconsumptive wildlife activities, on any such posted lands." 

Wouldn't "any person" literally be, ANYONE, including the lessee???

I don't know if that's exactly how it is but IMO that's how it should be.  Otherwise someone could lease up a bunch of State or BLM land, close it to the public and have their very one hunt/fish club, courtesy of Joe tax payer.

BLM lands are never posted closed due to grazing.

DNR lands are routinely posted as private by lessee's.  I have had a couple of DNR lessee's try to kick my off "MY PUBLIC LAND".  They back down real quick when I say "Go ahead, call the sheriff's department and I will call DNR".  One even said, as a "courtesy" I should have contacted him to hunt DNR land.  Yeah, right.

The trespass laws in the state of Washington need to be changed so that ALL Trespass signs have the owners name and and contact address.  In the case of DNR managed lands....DNR must post the closure, not the lessee and all such proposals need to go through public notice and comment.