HB1192 Would Prohibit WDFW From Requiring Requiring Hunting on Damage Claims

[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