Farmer got confrontational with me while on state land

[pianoman9701]

You guys seem to agree on a common point, that being,  you all have some specific right to use that land even though it was leased by the state to the farmer. 

My line of thinking is if that land was lying unused then maybe it is available for shooting.  However it was obviously leased to a farmer for agricultural purposes, therefore no longer unused land.  It just doesn't make sense to me to walk out into a man's crops and start target shooting.  I just don't get this mentality.  As a matter of courtesy I would never mess with a man's crop land no matter if it is leased, private ownership, or other types.  The simple fact that a farmer leased it and I didn't tells me he has a right to take care of the land in accordance with his agreement with the state.  I hold no such agreement so in my mind that pretty much supersedes my claim to access.

He's leasing public land. As long as someone isn't damaging his crops they get to use the land, too. If you don't want to, that's up to you.

[Knocker of rocks]

I think between the above lease agreement and the reference Big Tex posted earlier, it seems clear to me that Joe Schmo has no right of access in order to target shoot.  If I am missing something there please point it out to me. 

It vaguely seems that general recreational access is allowed

  The Premises shall be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife and other activities, unless......   

[NOCK NOCK]

 I was involved in a very similar confrontation that ended up going to trial.

State land, leased for wheat, intermingled with sage, clear boundary lines, extremely confrontational farmer screaming, cursing, yelling, especially when we told him we had an accurate map(pre onX days)
My wife  was rifle hunting, I was accompanying her with a spotting scope on a tripod,  we were targeting a freaky cactus buck.

Spent the morning creeping through the sage draws,  never stepping foot on cultivated land.  As we got back to the pick up another truck came flying down the gravel road and screeched to a stop.  Out jumps the farmer cursing and yelling that we are trespassing on private ground.  I told him I knew exactly where I was at, I have a map, when I pulled that out he went ballistic.  He came running up to our truck with what I belived was wanting to call me out into a fist fight.  The wife does not like confrontation so we put it in drive and pulled away.  The farmer proceeded to chase us down the gravel road at speeds up to 30+ miles an hour.  He stop chasing us as we turned onto the cement road and got out of there.

 We reported this behavior to the county sheriff. The sheriff contacted us several hours later  after he had talked with the farmer.  The farmer was told that he was in the wrong and all that this couple wants to do was hunt the state leased land and that was there right, if the farmer continued to harass us the following day the sheriff would then charge him with harassing a lawful hunt.
 Sunday we were there again and as we walked up through the draws,  The farmer was on a dirtbike just ahead of us pushing Deer out of the draws before we got to the next one.  After watching this happen for three or four small draws we headed back to the truck and left,  then called the sheriff again and told him what it happened.
 The sheriff contacted the farmer and charged him with obstructing a lawful Hunt.  Several months later we were subpoenaed for the trial (St of WA. Vs Farmer)
High dollar lawyer got him off. They played that we were party hunting( farmer said he saw a rifle in both our hands) NOT. I showed the court my archery license, and told the jury I was carrying a  spotting scope on a tripod that he mistook for a rifle. They evidently  did not believe me, or that a pretty woman like my wife would be a Deer Hunter.

 A couple years later I found out from an acquaintance who lives near there why this farmer  was so hard fighting on this issue.
 The farmer also owned land adjecent to this area, And he would charge tresspass fees to other hunters  for access to deer hunt. The deer Are worth money to him so he does not want Joe public to be out there shooting “his” bucks.

[Bill W]

I suspect that a hunter trying to get on the farmer's deed lands will be very tough.  One needs to look at the big picture.

[NOCK NOCK]

  The Premises shall be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife and other activities, unless......   

[/quote)



 

Non consumptive wildlife and other activities......pretty sure target shooting falls into that.
As long as your not damaging the crop or land.

[pianoman9701]

Here's a copy of a DNR lease from Franklin County.

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/psl_ag_proposed_12a82173.pdf?1lbaw

Go to page 6 of 30 for the Public Hunting section.

I think between the above lease agreement and the reference Big Tex posted earlier, it seems clear to me that Joe Schmo has no right of access in order to target shoot.  If I am missing something there please point it out to me.  The section on waste clearly makes clean up of the land the responsibility of the lease holder, to include returning it to the state in which it was issued. 

Beyond that, I still hold the opinion that if someone goes to the cost and effort of leasing land from the state for the purpose of agriculture or whatever, then why be that guy and decide you are going to go use that land too?  You can take the time and energy to research your GPS app, and look at the county property lines, why not go one step further and simply ask the farmer if he minds you shooting on the edge of his leased field. 

Why not lease it yourself if you feel the desire.  Just another example of our community getting a reputation for being bad neighbors and bad stewards of the environment.   

You are indeed missing something. We don't need to lease something we all already own unless we intend to make a profit from it. And even then, we have no right to exclude other individuals from that public land. The law is quite clear that we all have access to that land. Read the statute that's been posted several times. "The Premises shall be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife and other activities, unless...... "

I have no problem with farmers and ranchers having land leases on public lands, just as long as they have no problem with the general public having recreational activities on it as allowed by law. Grazing and agriculture usually have positive benefits for underused public lands. However, if all of the lands that are open to public grazing and agriculture were made of limits to the public, we'd lose a very large chunk of public land on which to recreate.

[KFhunter]

In the future I will avoid green wheat fields.  I can understand the common courtesy in that. I would assume that this does not apply later in in the year when the wheat is not actively growing?

Yes this was near the tri cities and yes I did have a discover pass in response to earlier questions.

Walking through the wheat between the planted rows wouldn't bug me, if I knew that's what you were doing. 

Thing is a lot of folks want to drive way down yonder to drop off and check their target (through the field) then drive back to the bench, rinse, repeat. 

Also, if a range gets established it gets used over and over and more people driving on the wheat.

The farmer pays DNR for the right to grow a crop on leased land, so the margins are thinner than growing a crop on their own property.

The farmer has probably had a lot of past problems with folks that think "DNR land is open for public use PERIOD"  and while it is mostly if people are driving on the field to shoot DNR will allow no trespassing signs be put up and the people could get charged (thanks Bigtex)

I had friends in Pomeroy, learned quite a bit about CRP land and DNR leased land for crops and every one of my Pomeroy local friends all made sure I knew not to drive on a growing crop PERIOD.   Not that I ever would, as I grew up farming too, but they made sure I knew anyways 

The farmer that confronted you could have done a lot better job informing you instead of freaking out, you weren't driving on his field as you stated so he could have just informed you not to do so.

He already stated he wasn't hurting the crops. I can only assume that means he wasn't driving down to his target, so not really a point. Leasing is actually far more economical that purchasing land, keeping it up, and paying taxes on it. Even if the margins are tighter, which I doubt, he has no right to harass someone using public land.

If the shoot went down as described, and I have no reason to doubt the OP, the farmer was being a jerk and has an inflated view of his rights with regards to farming public lands.

He's paying $133,912.82 for rent, helluva lot more than property taxes.

[KFhunter]

this

3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.

give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.

[pianoman9701]

this

3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.

give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.

That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.

[KFhunter]

I didn't disagree with you, other than property taxes being equal too rent.


the rest was me playing devils advocate trying to illuminate a possibility on the farmers part, that's he's probably had people driving on his crops and pointing out that when one person sets up a shooting range others follow.

It's like going to an empty lake to fish, then all the sudden 15 boats park next to you and drop anchor.

[jackelope]

this

3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.

give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.

That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.

But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?

I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)

[pianoman9701]

this

3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.

give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.

That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.

But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?

I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)

Target shooting would be non-consumptive. He's not harvesting anything or taking anything from the land. He's just shooting. I can empathize with the farmer if he's had problems in the past. That doesn't mean he gets to change the rules.

[jackelope]

this

3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.

give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.

That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.

But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?

I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)

Target shooting would be non-consumptive. He's not harvesting anything or taking anything from the land. He's just shooting. I can empathize with the farmer if he's had problems in the past. That doesn't mean he gets to change the rules.

Target shooting is a nonconsumptive wildlife activity? I took that as something like bird watching or something like that.  I'm not challenging you or anything...really just trying to learn.
 

[Knocker of rocks]

“....and other activities “  allows a lot.

[pianoman9701]

this

3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.

give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.

That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.

But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?

I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)

Target shooting would be non-consumptive. He's not harvesting anything or taking anything from the land. He's just shooting. I can empathize with the farmer if he's had problems in the past. That doesn't mean he gets to change the rules.

Target shooting is a nonconsumptive wildlife activity? I took that as something like bird watching or something like that.  I'm not challenging you or anything...really just trying to learn.

The allowances seem to be quite broad as to what the general public is allowed to do. I can't believe they'd single out target shooting when they allow hunting, fish and an undefined list of other outdoor activities.