Is WDFW working for Weyerhaeuser?

[fireweed]

So last night after elk hunting leaving Big W permit area, Weyerhaeuser security and WDFW game warden, together, were posted to check permits.  That was what BOTH were doing.  In our hunting party were two adult men and a teenager.  Both adults provided Weyerhaeuser permit information, but the teenager was the ONLY one in our vehicle hassled by WDFW.  The teenager was the only one asked to provide his hunting license!  Why?  Because he might be TOO OLD to not have is own $350 permit. (He wasn't). The Gamie, with Weyerhaeuser security directing, asked for his license, not to check to see if he had one, but to check his age for Weyerhaeuser!  My question is, does anyone know if Weyerhaeuser or other timber companies are hiring WDFW employees to enforce their corporate policies?

 I know that sheriff departments used to do this: get paid overtime by private companies to patrol private lands.  The practice was controversial in Cowlitz County, with some pushback from the public.  The sherriff vowed he would not enforce corporate policy and only respond to requests from the landowner.  This year the whole contracting practice was nixed by the county risk manager.  I'm wondering if Big W didn't just switch which agency it was writing checks to.  Are they now paying the WDFW to patrol for them, and with them?  Convenient to have the an LEO in your back pocket.  Anyone know?

[Tbar]

Several timber companies do overtime contracts with wdfw/ sheriff for patrols. @bigtex
  https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153483.0.html

[Spuddieselwwu]

They did it during modern deer, also... 500 line entrance off 1900 line exit from spirit lake hwy.  The GW was checking licenses while Weyco security was checking for permit holders on his iPad.

[Alan K]

Several timber companies do overtime contracts with wdfw/ sheriff for patrols. @bigtex
  https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153483.0.html

 

[bigtex]

Several timber companies do overtime contracts with wdfw/ sheriff for patrols. @bigtex
  https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153483.0.html

I cannot confirm that WDFW has been contracted by Weyerhaeuser but WDFW has contracts with several timber companies and other landowners. It's done by all sorts of organizations, big and small. In fact if you had enough money you too could contract with WDFW or any other agency for dedicated patrols on your lands. It's essentially no different than the school district paying for LEOs to be at the football games, dances, etc. Klickitat County has a "timber/woods deputy" fully funded by the private timber companies in that county. Contracts with law enforcement agencies for dedicated coverage is not new.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[WoolyRunner]

Several timber companies do overtime contracts with wdfw/ sheriff for patrols. @bigtex
  https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153483.0.html

I cannot confirm that WDFW has been contracted by Weyerhaeuser but WDFW has contracts with several timber companies and other landowners. It's done by all sorts of organizations, big and small. In fact if you had enough money you too could contract with WDFW or any other agency for dedicated patrols on your lands. It's essentially no different than the school district paying for LEOs to be at the football games, dances, etc. Klickitat County has a "timber/woods deputy" fully funded by the private timber companies in that county. Contracts with law enforcement agencies for dedicated coverage is not new.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Right, but football games, dances, etc are part of the public school system that taxpayers pay for. I know individuals who personally have asked a WDFW Ofc if they work for weyco or the state since said WDFW ofc kept hasseling them about cutting firewood from an old landing.

[bobcat]

I'm just glad to hear the laws/rules are being enforced. 

[Bullkllr]

I'm just glad to hear the laws/rules are being enforced. 

[fireweed]

Like I mentioned, I knew Cowlitz County did this.  This year however, they were ordered to stop these contracts by the county risk manager.  I need to find out why.  If it's risky for a county it must be also for the state.

Also, I know FOR A FACT that the 1901 road(big gate) has a DNR easement on it that goes to DNR land up the 500 line.  Look at the lock box: it has three spots "Weyco" "Rec" and "DNR"
 This easement is very broad and was written that way on purpose in response to pro-recreation legislation that passed in 1967.  If I was a Washington state WDFW officer I would be very uneasy enforcing Weyerhaeuser rules on many of these roads that go to state land especially for walk-in.  The WDFW is actually helping Weyerhaeuser prevent legal access to public land!  The easement is online in Lewis County and the purpose is to provide access to and from the lands of the parties.  The governor's office is looking into this, as is the WDFW and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.  These easements are real folks and Big W (and others) are bluffing bigtime on many roads that lead to state land.

[rackattack]

i was thinking the same question this weekend as well but regarding hoof rot.  The WDFW and Weyco should be ashamed of what has happened to the St Helens elk herd.

[HntnFsh]

It seems like last year, but maybe it was the year before. That gate was left open fairly often on weekends.  I thought it was odd. But didn't know about the easement. Maybe that was the reason. Is there any chance there is an easement from the Winston creek road side?

[buckfvr]

Like I mentioned, I knew Cowlitz County did this.  This year however, they were ordered to stop these contracts by the county risk manager.  I need to find out why.  If it's risky for a county it must be also for the state.

Also, I know FOR A FACT that the 1900 road(big gate) has a DNR easement on it that goes to DNR land up the 500 line.  Look at the lock box: it has three spots "Weyco" "Rec" and "DNR"
 This easement is very broad and was written that way on purpose in response to pro-recreation legislation that passed in 1967.  If I was a Washington state WDFW officer I would be very uneasy enforcing Weyerhaeuser rules on many of these roads that go to state land especially for walk-in.  The WDFW is actually helping Weyerhaeuser prevent legal access to public land!  The easement is online in Lewis County and the purpose is to provide access to and from the lands of the parties.  The governor's office is looking into this, as is the WDFW and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.  These easements are real folks and Big W (and others) are bluffing bigtime on many roads that lead to state land.

You 100% lost me with "the governors office".

[bigtex]

Several timber companies do overtime contracts with wdfw/ sheriff for patrols. @bigtex
  https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153483.0.html

I cannot confirm that WDFW has been contracted by Weyerhaeuser but WDFW has contracts with several timber companies and other landowners. It's done by all sorts of organizations, big and small. In fact if you had enough money you too could contract with WDFW or any other agency for dedicated patrols on your lands. It's essentially no different than the school district paying for LEOs to be at the football games, dances, etc. Klickitat County has a "timber/woods deputy" fully funded by the private timber companies in that county. Contracts with law enforcement agencies for dedicated coverage is not new.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I know individuals who personally have asked a WDFW Ofc if they work for weyco or the state since said WDFW ofc kept hasseling them about cutting firewood from an old landing.

While I understand what you're saying however removing firewood without authorization is not just a Weyco rule, it's state law. So they weren't just being hassled over a company rule. It's actually law.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

Like I mentioned, I knew Cowlitz County did this.  This year however, they were ordered to stop these contracts by the county risk manager.  I need to find out why.  If it's risky for a county it must be also for the state.

Law enforcement contracts with private entities is done probably by just about every law enforcement agency in the state. And it's done nationwide. Heck I was in Fred Meyer yesterday and there was a city cop in full city uniform working overtime on behalf of Fred Meyer.

The agreement between Cowlitz SO and Weyco has been a touchy subject the last few years. Could it be that they just caved to the political pressure...

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[fireweed]

If the WDFW is taking money from Big Timber they better do some research ahead of time, and make sure they aren't breaking the law themselves, don't you think?  Many logging roads are cost-shared and jointly used, jointly owned and co-managed, but the companies charging for access want us to forget that.  There needs to be a MAPact for Washington state, with roads like the 1901/500 line identified.  It passes through Weyco and goes to the DNR and has a legal state of Washington easement on it with of broad and simple purpose of providing access to and from lands of the parties.  Weyco has it gated and posted like they have exclusive control of that road.  Behind the sediment dam, the gated/posted road to public land has TWO public easements (one federal, one state) neither of which limit the use of the road in any way.
 
Weyco paying the WDFW could be a good thing in this situation.  Money creates leverage.  If the WDFW is really serious about improving public access to public land, here's their chance!  The WDFW just needs to identify these roads, and not enforce permit requirements on roads with broad state easements to public land. They can still be gated, IF the DNR agrees, but walk-in should always be allowed. Trespassing ON LAND is still enforceable, but staying on an easement enroute to public land is not a crime. WDFW taking a stand here would demonstrate that.

Its hard to understand but here is the easement on the 1900, 1901, 500 line road system to state land:

https://quickdocs.lewiscountywa.gov/recorder/eagleweb/viewAttachment.jsp?docName=00051D37.TIF&id=DOCCLF-173903.A0&parent=DOCCLF-173903

[HntnFsh]

Just takes me to the log in page

[X-Force]

I don’t see the problem.

I’d imagine WDFW may not ask for a license unless there was a dead animal in the back or if they suspected someone didn’t have a permit… riding around in the woods doesn’t mean you have to have a hunt license.

[fireweed]

Just takes me to the log in page

From the Lewis County Auditor online records document search page type  720413 into the AFN box and hit search.

[bbarnes]

They are for a fact being paid by timber company’s call WDFW OR ASK FOR PUBLIC DICLOSURE ........ I’ve had a huge concern about this for years WHO ARE THE SERVING........ Secondly no different than the Pinkertons of yesteryear........Thirdly our tax dollars are paying to train state employees that have now became private security guards ......... the list goes on and on of why it’s a conflict of interest no different the there biologist sitting on boards blocking your access to hunt........   

[fireweed]

I called and emailed.  Here's the answer:
Good afternoon.  I received your email regarding WDFW Officers patrolling private lands under contract, I want to provide you with the current status of those efforts.  WDFW Police has multiple Law Enforcement Service contracts throughout the State with large industrial timber owners to provide patrol services on certain properties.  These contracts, paid for by the landowner/timber company, are at an overtime rate and also reimburse vehicle mileage and other mandatory items.  I don’t know the specifics of all the contracts Statewide, but I oversee or manage patrol contracts with Weyerhaeuser, Green Diamond and Rayonier here in Region 5.
Regarding your question about working as a team, there are times when the landowner or their representative request our presence at a particular location or gate and, if it fits in with patrol priorities, we will try to work with the landowner.  At other times we are patrolling these properties individually to check for compliance with entry rules and permit requirements, among other things.  This relationship has proven to be mutually beneficial to WDFW and the landowners regarding closed season/illegal hunting activity as well as trespass and other types of criminal conduct discovered during our time there that affects the property owner.  These contracts allow my staff, as well as staff elsewhere in the State, to be present at locations and times we might otherwise not be there.  As these patrols are overtime, we are on the landscape for extended periods of time and can spend general patrol hours on public lands and rivers, locations that are a priority for us to be present.

I emailed a follow up question about check stations, since this sounded like the joint effort between WDFW/Weyerhaeuser that had happened over the weekend :

 We work hard to not mix a wildlife check station, that being a staffed location along a road (not a highway/interstate) where hunters/anglers are required to stop and be checked for compliance with hunting or fishing regulations, licenses requirements and/or harvested species, and a private land permit check.  Non-hunters/anglers are not required to stop at ourcheck stations and can continue past.  As this is the case, we try hard to not mix a landowner checkpoint and our wildlife check stations since it would be viewed we are stopping everyone, something that is not allowed.  If a landowner such as Weyerhaeuser has an employee checking access permits at a gate, it is simply that, and they check to ensure a person is supposed to be there – we can do that too.  It’s like a person going to a concert, they need a ticket to get in and proof of entrance, and landowners are allowed to check for certain items if there were conditions on the person/persons entering and remaining on the premise – legal stuff here, I won’t go any further than that limited comparison.  If we observe a subject is hunting or engaged in a hunting activity during a gate check, we can ask some questions at that point and inspect required items.  There are a number of occasions where individuals using a Weyco permit are doing nothing related to hunting or fishing, therefore our inspection authority cannot be used to temporarily stop them (Firewood collection, sight-seeing, just driving around, etc.), but we can check for a Weyco permit and adherence to their rules. 

[fireweed]

I also had a follow-up phone call and brought up the fact that many of these roads where they are enforcing corporate policy have PUBLIC EASEMENTS on them, many going to public land.  He was very aware of that fact.  I offered to send a list of all the roads I know of that have legal easements to state or federal land. I proposed a "what if" scenario of someone walking on a road with a copy of the easement in their pocket and being checked by a game warden.    He said "When we get into these gray areas, we don't act, because its the right thing to do."  (yes this is a direct quote) Whether or not the message gets sent down to the on-the-ground ranks is another question.

The take-away is that the WDFW is being hired to check permits FIRST, and game regulations SECOND and on private land they can stop anyone, while in other circumstances this practice is banned.  The political pressure BigTex referred to is real!  The Cowlitz County sheriff refused to check permits while on Weyerhaeuser land, stating his office was not corporate security, but the practice was still controversial.  The County Commissioners refused to renew the contract and now apparently, the risk manager nixed the practice over liability and insurance concerns. 

The truth is that the road easement situation is too complicated for WDFW to sort out on the ground. WDFW should have a policy of NOT checking for access permits when they are on any road that can or could be used to access public land. 

I'm all for WDFW enforcing Hunting and Fishing Regulations, but not being a Mall Cop for Big Timber!