HB1192 Would Prohibit WDFW From Requiring Requiring Hunting on Damage Claims

[bigtex]

HB 1192 sponsored by Republican Representatives Taylor, Dent, Manweller, and Shea would PROHIBIT WDFW from requiring hunters being able to access private lands in order for that landowner to get a wildlife damage claim from the department. Current law states that a landowner cannot receive a damage claim unless they have gone thru "self-help preventive measures" one of those provisions is below:

"Under certain circumstances, as determined by the department, permitting public hunting may not be a practicable self- help method due to the size and nature of the property, the property's setting, or the ability of the landowner to accommodate public access."

In the above case then WDFW can move forward with a damage claim.

Proposed language under the bill:
"Permitting public hunting on the land subject to a claim under this chapter is not considered to be a practicable self-help preventive measure and the department may not condition the receipt of compensation under this chapter on the claimant allowing or facilitating public hunting access to the land in question."

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1192.pdf

[northwesthunter84]

Makes me wonder who had a long talk with some timber company lobbyists.

[Woodchuck]

Makes me wonder who had a long talk with some timber company lobbyists.

Winner!

[mfswallace]

I'm not quite understanding this bill, can you post bill link and break it down for me?

[bigtex]

Makes me wonder who had a long talk with some timber company lobbyists.

Well just by the sponsor's names...The WA Tea Party....

[bigtex]

I'm not quite understanding this bill, can you post bill link and break it down for me?

That's basically the bill.

Here's an example: If I owned 5 acres and a herd of elk is going nuts and tearing up my property WDFW would come out and take a look at it. In order to get a damage claim payment (basically restitution for the state's animal destroying my property) I would have to show I did something in order to prevent it, such as fencing, or allowing hunting on my property. Under current law it basically says that some property may be too small to allow hunting and so if I fall in that class I can't not get a settlement check because I didn't allow hunting. What the bill does is completely takes out the hunting aspect for ALL damage claims. So it doesn't matter if you own 5 acres where hunting may not be feasible or 10,000 acres where hunting is feasible.

[olyguy79]

Makes me wonder who had a long talk with some timber company lobbyists.

Well just by the sponsor's names...The WA Tea Party....

This this is Washington tea party members trying "to protect your property rights" in their minds....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mfswallace]

I'm not quite understanding this bill, can you post bill link and break it down for me?

That's basically the bill.

Here's an example: If I owned 5 acres and a herd of elk is going nuts and tearing up my property WDFW would come out and take a look at it. In order to get a damage claim payment (basically restitution for the state's animal destroying my property) I would have to show I did something in order to prevent it, such as fencing, or allowing hunting on my property. Under current law it basically says that some property may be too small to allow hunting and so if I fall in that class I can't not get a settlement check because I didn't allow hunting. What the bill does is completely takes out the hunting aspect for ALL damage claims. So it doesn't matter if you own 5 acres where hunting may not be feasible or 10,000 acres where hunting is feasible.

Thanks, not a good bill it seems

[pianoman9701]

My Letter to Representative Paul Harris:

"Hi Paul,

In addition to rejecting any gun control legislation this session, I would ask that you vote against HB 1192. This bill, apparently a combined effort between the big timber lobbyists and the WA Tea Party, would take away any requirement for the WDFW to require private landowners to open land to public hunting for removal of problem animals before landowners are compensated. We should not take away this tool from the WDFW.

You may not be aware, Paul, that big timber has recently started selling permits to access their land for hunting and other recreational purposes. In the 1970s, tax code was changed for these timberlands to allow them to be taxed at a far lower rate than you or I pay on our property, sometimes valuations as low as $2-5/acre. This was done with the assumption that the timber companies would continue to allow unfettered public access. Within the last 5 years, many timber companies have started charging between $300-500 for access permits which include immediate family members only. Three generation of hunters who wish to continue hunting together as a tradition must now pay an additional $600-1000 for that tradition, above and beyond their hunting licenses and tags. For many, this is an insurmountable burden. Sorry Grandpa, you're out!

This bill rewards big timber further for shutting out the public, instead of encouraging them to work with the people of WA in return for their special real estate tax status. I encourage you to say "NO" on 1192. I would further encourage you to propose legislation that would increase the tax rate for timber companies who are now taking advantage of our citizens by not allowing public access without large fees but are still paying the lower rate.

I request the courtesy of your response and would welcome any questions you may have. Thanks so much for your continued service to our district.

Most Sincerely,..."
PMan

[Practical Approach]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all. 

[sumpnz]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all. 

Even so, I've got no issue wrapping that debacle into opposition to this bill.  Besides, I'm not sure that is even an accurate assessment.  It might be, but I'd be surprised of WeyCo, et al don't get compensation for bear and elk damage to their trees.

[Practical Approach]

RCW 82.04.213



"Agricultural product," "farmer," "marijuana."


(1) "Agricultural product" means any product of plant cultivation or animal husbandry including, but not limited to: A product of horticulture, grain cultivation, vermiculture, viticulture, or aquaculture as defined in RCW 15.85.020; plantation Christmas trees; short-rotation hardwoods as defined in RCW 84.33.035; turf; or any animal including but not limited to an animal that is a private sector cultured aquatic product as defined in RCW 15.85.020, or a bird, or insect, or the substances obtained from such an animal including honey bee products. "Agricultural product" does not include marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products, or animals defined as pet animals under RCW 16.70.020.

(2)(a) "Farmer" means any person engaged in the business of growing, raising, or producing, upon the person's own lands or upon the lands in which the person has a present right of possession, any agricultural product to be sold, and the growing, raising, or producing honey bee products for sale, or providing bee pollination services, by an eligible apiarist. "Farmer" does not include a person growing, raising, or producing such products for the person's own consumption; a person selling any animal or substance obtained therefrom in connection with the person's business of operating a stockyard or a slaughter or packing house; or a person in respect to the business of taking, cultivating, or raising timber.

(b) "Eligible apiarist" means a person who owns or keeps one or more bee colonies and who grows, raises, or produces honey bee products for sale at wholesale and is registered under RCW 15.60.021.

(c) "Honey bee products" means queen honey bees, packaged honey bees, honey, pollen, bees wax, propolis, or other substances obtained from honey bees. "Honey bee products" does not include manufactured substances or articles.

(3) The terms "agriculture," "farming," "horticulture," "horticultural," and "horticultural product" may not be construed to include or relate to marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products unless the applicable term is explicitly defined to include marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products.

(4) "Marijuana," "useable marijuana," and "marijuana-infused products" have the same meaning as in RCW 69.50.101.

[sumpnz]

Except nowhere in the actual text of the proposed RCW is the work "farmer" to be found.  Maybe that's defined somewhere else, but in the full text in the OP's link.

[SuperX]

Forcing one farmer land owner to pay for receiving damages by opening his land while another does not have to because of some perceived problem with public access is unfair.  The whole idea of the government being able to force you to open your private land to public hunting is ridiculous.  Public access will do way more damage than wildlife would ever do.  This is a definite yes vote from me.

[Practical Approach]

This is all on WDFW' s damage claim page.  I have just cut and pasted a few relevant sections. 

WAC 232-36-030–Definitions
Definitions used in rules of the fish and wildlife commission are defined in RCW 77.08.010, and the definitions for wildlife interactions are defined in RCW 77.36.010. In addition, unless otherwise provided, the following definitions are applicable to this chapter:
"Act of damaging" means that private property is in the process of being damaged by wildlife.
"Big game" means those animals listed in RCW 77.08.030.
"Claim" means an application to the department for compensation under this chapter.
"Claimant" means owner of commercial crop, livestock, or other property who has filed a wildlife damage claim for cash compensation.
"Commercial crop" means a commercially raised horticultural and/or agricultural product and includes the growing or harvested product, but does not include livestock, forest land, or rangeland. For the purposes of this chapter, Christmas trees and managed pasture grown using agricultural methods including one or more of the following: Seeding, planting, fertilizing, irrigating, and all parts of horticultural trees, are considered a commercial crop and are eligible for cash compensation.

[DOUBLELUNG]

No.  H to the E to the LL NO!  No private property owner is required to claim wildlife damage payments from the state.  If they do, and it is feasible to use hunters to safely do so, they absolutely should be required to allow hunting to alleviate the damage issue.  Otherwise, there is no incentive to do anything to self help, just claim damage for eternity.  I saw way to much of this abuse in Wyoming (where landowners are neither required to allow hunting or take measures to limit future damage) to not put some onus on private property owners claiming damage payments to help address the issue.

[Humptulips]

Forcing one farmer land owner to pay for receiving damages by opening his land while another does not have to because of some perceived problem with public access is unfair.  The whole idea of the government being able to force you to open your private land to public hunting is ridiculous.  Public access will do way more damage than wildlife would ever do.  This is a definite yes vote from me.

Nothing says you have to open your land to the public. Just do not expect to get paid for crop damage if you refuse to allow WDFW to take action to reduce the problem wildlife on your land.

[lokidog]

Seems like this could be a first step toward landowner permits that they can then give or sell to whomever they want.  I don't like it.

[mfswallace]

Forcing one farmer land owner to pay for receiving damages by opening his land while another does not have to because of some perceived problem with public access is unfair.  The whole idea of the government being able to force you to open your private land to public hunting is ridiculous.  Public access will do way more damage than wildlife would ever do.  This is a definite yes vote from me.

Nothing says you have to open your land to the public. Just do not expect to get paid for crop damage if you refuse to allow WDFW to take action to reduce the problem wildlife on your land.

 

[Skillet]

 

A farmer landowner that feels "forced" to open his lands to the public for hunter by extension feels "entitled" to be on this government welfare program by receiving payments for damage done, but without putting some common-sense effort into eliminating the source of the damage before getting a check from the gummint.

It's the same as requiring people on unemployment to make an effort by applying for a job prior to getting their public assistance check.  A farmer landowner shouldn't feel entitled to get a government handout without making a good faith effort to mitigate his situation first.
 

[yum tag soup]

Forcing one farmer land owner to pay for receiving damages by opening his land while another does not have to because of some perceived problem with public access is unfair.  The whole idea of the government being able to force you to open your private land to public hunting is ridiculous.  Public access will do way more damage than wildlife would ever do.  This is a definite yes vote from me.

   

[dreamunelk]

I'm not quite understanding this bill, can you post bill link and break it down for me?

That's basically the bill.

Here's an example: If I owned 5 acres and a herd of elk is going nuts and tearing up my property WDFW would come out and take a look at it. In order to get a damage claim payment (basically restitution for the state's animal destroying my property) I would have to show I did something in order to prevent it, such as fencing, or allowing hunting on my property. Under current law it basically says that some property may be too small to allow hunting and so if I fall in that class I can't not get a settlement check because I didn't allow hunting. What the bill does is completely takes out the hunting aspect for ALL damage claims. So it doesn't matter if you own 5 acres where hunting may not be feasible or 10,000 acres where hunting is feasible.

They have to qualify as a farmer. Property size does not matter if you meet the definition under RCW  If WDFW agrees that hunting is not conducive to your property then you can still file a claim if you have a damage agreement and have  worked with the department on preventative measures.

[SuperX]

so the wolf pack takes out half my herd.  I get reimbursed, and have to let public hunt on my ranch... the public then leaves my gates open, costing me the other half of my herd, shoots my favorite horse, and starts a fire on my winter grazing area.  Still think it's fair?

[Skillet]

It is until that damn public holds a burning man festival on your property, opens an Acorn branch and knocks up your daughter.
Seriously man, exaggerate much?

[dreamunelk]

so the wolf pack takes out half my herd.  I get reimbursed, and have to let public hunt on my ranch... the public then leaves my gates open, costing me the other half of my herd, shoots my favorite horse, and starts a fire on my winter grazing area.  Still think it's fair?

This is related to crops.  Totally different.  And no it does not mean a free for all.  Landowners always has control. 

[pianoman9701]

Forcing one farmer land owner to pay for receiving damages by opening his land while another does not have to because of some perceived problem with public access is unfair.  The whole idea of the government being able to force you to open your private land to public hunting is ridiculous.  Public access will do way more damage than wildlife would ever do.  This is a definite yes vote from me.

They're not forcing you to open your private lands to the public. The WDFW is saying that if you wish to receive compensation from the state for financial losses due to wildlife damage, the state wants more options as how to prevent that damage and allowing the public to hunt that wildlife is one of the options they use. However, you can choose not to participate and ask for compensation. A lot of people don't. That's up to you. In addition, allowing the public on your land is not always the requirement.

[pianoman9701]

No one has taken away your choice about who is allowed access to your property.

[bowbuild]

So what do we do when you have hunters already, you aren't open to the state's vision of public access, but you allow folks private rights?  How many hunters do I need to entertain to allow me to make a legal claim to the state for their poor game management practices?  If you feel that I should post "feel free to hunt" signs just to be entitled to a legitimate claim of damage then we are as far apart on this issue as we could get.  No way in this world I will ever allow public access to my property, never going to happen.  If it comes down to that we'll do our own thinning and suffer the consequences if convicted.

The animals were there long before you, and they are state property. (owned by us all) I strongly feel your land IS your land, and you can refuse access all you want, BUT by doing so you live with the consequences.

[Landowner]

Most farmers in my area take the depredation tags in lieu of cash claims. 

[fireweed]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??

[SCRUBS]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??

I agree fireweed, it doesn`t matter what it`s "aimed at", and of course it wasn`t a coincidence.

[bigtex]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??

Timberland access fees had been in place in some areas 10+ years before that law was enacted by the legislature

[fireweed]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??

Timberland access fees had been in place in some areas 10+ years before that law was enacted by the legislature

......From some small obscure areas to virtually all industrial timber areas in the state...you can't tell me that the extra enforcement power had nothing to do with the expansion of fees and leases that are marketing and "selling" access to our wildlife.

[bigtex]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??

Timberland access fees had been in place in some areas 10+ years before that law was enacted by the legislature

......From some small obscure areas to virtually all industrial timber areas in the state...you can't tell me that the extra enforcement power had nothing to do with the expansion of fees and leases that are marketing and "selling" access to our wildlife.

I don't think most would call the Snoqualmie, White River, Kapowsin, and Eatonville tree farms "some small obscure areas" in fact they are some of the largest and most used in the state. Their permit program has been around for probably close to 20 years if not longer and thru several different ownerships.

Lets be honest, there wasn't the level of anger regarding timberland access fees until it hit SW WA, when it was occurring in other parts of the state you didn't hear the outcry that you hear now. In fact a lot of the guys liked the permit program in those areas. For this reason (local anger not statewide) I don't think we will see state law changed.

I am honestly telling you the 'hunting while trespassing' law had nothing to do with the expansion of timberland access fees. Did they support it? Sure, as did most private landowners. It's not like they conspired to get the law passed so they could implement the permit system. Do you actually think Weyco cares if a trespasser loses his deer/elk as a result of trespass? That's the only difference between criminal trespass 2nd degree and the 'new' law, a guy can lose game/property/license, the monetary penalty and possibility of jail time is the same, both are misdemeanors. I've said it a couple times in some counties your more likely to have a prosecutor file charges under crim trespass 2 then the wildlife offense simply because some prosecutors don't want to touch anything wildlife related.

[dreamunelk]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??

Timberland access fees had been in place in some areas 10+ years before that law was enacted by the legislature

......From some small obscure areas to virtually all industrial timber areas in the state...you can't tell me that the extra enforcement power had nothing to do with the expansion of fees and leases that are marketing and "selling" access to our wildlife.

I don't think most would call the Snoqualmie, White River, Kapowsin, and Eatonville tree farms "some small obscure areas" in fact they are some of the largest and most used in the state. Their permit program has been around for probably close to 20 years if not longer and thru several different ownerships.

Lets be honest, there wasn't the level of anger regarding timberland access fees until it hit SW WA, when it was occurring in other parts of the state you didn't hear the outcry that you hear now. In fact a lot of the guys liked the permit program in those areas. For this reason (local anger not statewide) I don't think we will see state law changed.

I am honestly telling you the 'hunting while trespassing' law had nothing to do with the expansion of timberland access fees. Did they support it? Sure, as did most private landowners. It's not like they conspired to get the law passed so they could implement the permit system. Do you actually think Weyco cares if a trespasser loses his deer/elk as a result of trespass? That's the only difference between criminal trespass 2nd degree and the 'new' law, a guy can lose game/property/license, the monetary penalty and possibility of jail time is the same, both are misdemeanors. I've said it a couple times in some counties your more likely to have a prosecutor file charges under crim trespass 2 then the wildlife offense simply because some prosecutors don't want to touch anything wildlife related.

Seams rather interesting that the first use of the law was on the very fee access lands you speak of when the argument for the law was lands that were more obviously private such as a fenced pasture. 

[bigtex]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??

Timberland access fees had been in place in some areas 10+ years before that law was enacted by the legislature

......From some small obscure areas to virtually all industrial timber areas in the state...you can't tell me that the extra enforcement power had nothing to do with the expansion of fees and leases that are marketing and "selling" access to our wildlife.

I don't think most would call the Snoqualmie, White River, Kapowsin, and Eatonville tree farms "some small obscure areas" in fact they are some of the largest and most used in the state. Their permit program has been around for probably close to 20 years if not longer and thru several different ownerships.

Lets be honest, there wasn't the level of anger regarding timberland access fees until it hit SW WA, when it was occurring in other parts of the state you didn't hear the outcry that you hear now. In fact a lot of the guys liked the permit program in those areas. For this reason (local anger not statewide) I don't think we will see state law changed.

I am honestly telling you the 'hunting while trespassing' law had nothing to do with the expansion of timberland access fees. Did they support it? Sure, as did most private landowners. It's not like they conspired to get the law passed so they could implement the permit system. Do you actually think Weyco cares if a trespasser loses his deer/elk as a result of trespass? That's the only difference between criminal trespass 2nd degree and the 'new' law, a guy can lose game/property/license, the monetary penalty and possibility of jail time is the same, both are misdemeanors. I've said it a couple times in some counties your more likely to have a prosecutor file charges under crim trespass 2 then the wildlife offense simply because some prosecutors don't want to touch anything wildlife related.

Seams rather interesting that the first use of the law was on the very fee access lands you speak of when the argument for the law was lands that were more obviously private such as a fenced pasture.

What does it matter if the first time the law was used occurred on timber land or farmer joe's land? Could it be that was the first poaching that occurred on private property where the individuals were charged just happened to be on private timber? Nah that cant be, that makes too much sense, there has to be a conspiracy!

I can tell you that in the counties I work most of the 'hunting while trespassing' cases have been on private citizen property and not on timberland. Have there been some made on timberland, sure. I can also tell you that not every 'hunter' who is caught on private timber is charged with the 'hunting while trespassing' law in place of criminal trespass 2nd degree. It's easier to catch the guy who poached an elk on John Doe's front yard then driving through miles of timberland (and in the county I am in the first use of the law was for someone who shot an elk in someone's front yard...)

[dreamunelk]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??

Timberland access fees had been in place in some areas 10+ years before that law was enacted by the legislature

......From some small obscure areas to virtually all industrial timber areas in the state...you can't tell me that the extra enforcement power had nothing to do with the expansion of fees and leases that are marketing and "selling" access to our wildlife.

I don't think most would call the Snoqualmie, White River, Kapowsin, and Eatonville tree farms "some small obscure areas" in fact they are some of the largest and most used in the state. Their permit program has been around for probably close to 20 years if not longer and thru several different ownerships.

Lets be honest, there wasn't the level of anger regarding timberland access fees until it hit SW WA, when it was occurring in other parts of the state you didn't hear the outcry that you hear now. In fact a lot of the guys liked the permit program in those areas. For this reason (local anger not statewide) I don't think we will see state law changed.

I am honestly telling you the 'hunting while trespassing' law had nothing to do with the expansion of timberland access fees. Did they support it? Sure, as did most private landowners. It's not like they conspired to get the law passed so they could implement the permit system. Do you actually think Weyco cares if a trespasser loses his deer/elk as a result of trespass? That's the only difference between criminal trespass 2nd degree and the 'new' law, a guy can lose game/property/license, the monetary penalty and possibility of jail time is the same, both are misdemeanors. I've said it a couple times in some counties your more likely to have a prosecutor file charges under crim trespass 2 then the wildlife offense simply because some prosecutors don't want to touch anything wildlife related.

Seams rather interesting that the first use of the law was on the very fee access lands you speak of when the argument for the law was lands that were more obviously private such as a fenced pasture.

What does it matter if the first time the law was used occurred on timber land or farmer joe's land? Could it be that was the first poaching that occurred on private property where the individuals were charged just happened to be on private timber? Nah that cant be, that makes too much sense, there has to be a conspiracy!

I can tell you that in the counties I work most of the 'hunting while trespassing' cases have been on private citizen property and not on timberland. Have there been some made on timberland, sure. I can also tell you that not every 'hunter' who is caught on private timber is charged with the 'hunting while trespassing' law in place of criminal trespass 2nd degree. It's easier to catch the guy who poached an elk on John Doe's front yard then driving through miles of timberland (and in the county I am in the first use of the law was for someone who shot an elk in someone's front yard...)

Maybe you should go back and look at Cenci's argument for the law.  Agree much easier to catch on small private lands.  However from where I sit and see it appears the vast majority are written for fee access lands.  So if you have any stats please provide.  It would be interesting to see by county and landowner. 

Not trying to insult you.  However, some of us have a better view than others.

[Landowner]

Didn't see this new bill referenced anywhere, maybe I missed it.

House panel OKs higher pay out for deer, elk damage.....Instead of $10,000, a Washington farmer could receive up to $20,000 a year under a program administered by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.

http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20170201/house-panel-oks-higher-pay-out-for-deer-elk-damage