Game Warden in Hancock Eatonville opening morning

[fishngamereaper]

A lot of companies/school's etc pay off duty Leo for security details. Part of the agreement is that they are in uniform. Most if not all Leo agencies have policies/ procedures for off duty work.  Most of the time it doesn't cost the tax payer a dime. And with private security you don't get enforcement powers. Private security are simply observers that still have to call Leo.

Its kind of funny people complain when they don't see or hear of active wdfw enforcement but then when they do, they complain about how it's being done.

[trophyhunt]

It was probably Jeff Summit, nice guy with a porn mustache. 

[Stein]

Their job is to enforce the fish and game laws.  If a landowner is experiencing problems like trespassing, they have every right to place a call and have it enforced.  If they want more, they can pay for even more attention.  I don't like the timber companies policies, but they have the same rights as a landowner that I do.

[pianoman9701]

Their job is to enforce the fish and game laws.  If a landowner is experiencing problems like trespassing, they have every right to place a call and have it enforced.  If they want more, they can pay for even more attention.  I don't like the timber companies policies, but they have the same rights as a landowner that I do.

I agree. That doesn't mean that our LEO should be patrolling their property or putting up checkpoints. They should only be responding to calls for specific violations, like they do for any private landowner.

[pianoman9701]

A lot of companies/school's etc pay off duty Leo for security details. Part of the agreement is that they are in uniform. Most if not all Leo agencies have policies/ procedures for off duty work.  Most of the time it doesn't cost the tax payer a dime. And with private security you don't get enforcement powers. Private security are simply observers that still have to call Leo.

Its kind of funny people complain when they don't see or hear of active wdfw enforcement but then when they do, they complain about how it's being done.

I've never complained about seeing DFW LEO doing their job for us on public lands. My interactions have always been positivie and I appreciate what LEO do. And when we don't see them working, is it because the resource is spread too thin by sending them onto private property to patrol and set up check points during hunting season? I also understand LEO need to feed their families by working overtime and I have no problem with that. But what happens when they're in a WDFW enforcement uniform or a WSP uniform and vehicle, and something happens which creates liability? An officer shot or injured, a vehicle accident, etc. Does Hancock assume the liability or is it the state which pays? I bet it's the state.

[Stein]

Their job is to enforce the fish and game laws.  If a landowner is experiencing problems like trespassing, they have every right to place a call and have it enforced.  If they want more, they can pay for even more attention.  I don't like the timber companies policies, but they have the same rights as a landowner that I do.

I agree. That doesn't mean that our LEO should be patrolling their property or putting up checkpoints. They should only be responding to calls for specific violations, like they do for any private landowner.

We had an issue in our neighborhood that was recurring and the local police set up extra patrols through here, sometimes as many as three times a night until the problem was resolved.

The point is that we don't know what prompted their attention, whether it was on or off duty or basically any other fact other than they were there enforcing the law and apparently caught at least one guy.

[pianoman9701]

I would assume your neighborhood is public, is it not?

[jackmaster]

I am all for game wardens, the more the better, but I believe their time would be better spent on public land, Scott turner would be a grand spot all the way to ashford and then head on up to skate creek, if they can catch a few poachers and all out scum bags then they aren't doing their job very well!! I believe the state needs to bring on a bunch more and fire a few politicians to pay their salaries glad you guys had a good experience rob

[MLhunter1]

I got checked last year in the kapowsin side.  Opening day last year the warden was pulling guys over that went in too early and Clyde was removing their pass.  Guess I should start packing an actual copy of my pass with me.  I never have that on me up there.

[trophyhunt]

I used to go in at 3 am to get to the place I wanted to get to by light, guess I won't be doing that anymore.  I think that 1.5 hours before light rule sucks, but I'm all for the wildlife police.

[Old Man Yager]

It was probably Jeff Summit, nice guy with a porn mustache. 

that's the guy

[MLhunter1]

Jeff summit checked me on a river last week.  He was rude at first, thought he had me fishing closed waters.  He didn't even know the regs.  We walked back to his truck and he realized he was wrong and apoligized.

[fireweed]

Game wardens need to stick to game rules, and not be corporate security guards.  This is what the sheriff of Cowlitz County has decided.  Our sheriff will not check permits or enforce corporate policy while on private timberlands.  They are only there to respond to calls and look for crimes.  The county sheriff's policy is to only approach someone and ask them to leave for trespassing after the company security calls them because someone has refused to leave.  It should be the same with game wardens--they check game, licenses, tags, but not enforce corporate policy on access.   Imagine the slippery slope with the multi-layers of rules that these companies put in place--rules about family relationships, photo id and paper permits, shovels, fire extinguishers, firewood collection procedures, berries, mushroom limits, open/closed roads and walk-in areas, motorized vs. non-motorized permits, hangtag visibility, different company permits in different areas. Heck, Rayonier even proposed that nobody under 18 could be on their land.   It is not the job of state employees to enforce all this random corporate  gobbly-gook.   It's should not be a warden's job to keep all this straight and be the hired enforcers for these companies (the game laws are confusing enough all by themselves).  That is a security guards job, and if they find a violation then they can call a LEO. 

Just like citizens in Cowlitz County have done, contact the WDFW law enforcement and insist that state-taxpayer funded LEOs are NOT corporate security guards. 

[pianoman9701]

  That's what I'm talking about.

[floatinghat]

 

Game wardens need to stick to game rules, and not be corporate security guards.  This is what the sheriff of Cowlitz County has decided.  Our sheriff will not check permits or enforce corporate policy while on private timberlands.  They are only there to respond to calls and look for crimes.  The county sheriff's policy is to only approach someone and ask them to leave for trespassing after the company security calls them because someone has refused to leave.  It should be the same with game wardens--they check game, licenses, tags, but not enforce corporate policy on access.   Imagine the slippery slope with the multi-layers of rules that these companies put in place--rules about family relationships, photo id and paper permits, shovels, fire extinguishers, firewood collection procedures, berries, mushroom limits, open/closed roads and walk-in areas, motorized vs. non-motorized permits, hangtag visibility, different company permits in different areas. Heck, Rayonier even proposed that nobody under 18 could be on their land.   It is not the job of state employees to enforce all this random corporate  gobbly-gook.   It's should not be a warden's job to keep all this straight and be the hired enforcers for these companies (the game laws are confusing enough all by themselves).  That is a security guards job, and if they find a violation then they can call a LEO. 

Just like citizens in Cowlitz County have done, contact the WDFW law enforcement and insist that state-taxpayer funded LEOs are NOT corporate security guards.