Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access

WDFW seeking comment on proposed rules for public conduct on wildlife lands

<< < (3/11) > >>

Ray:

--- Quote from: billythekidrock on May 01, 2007, 06:53:16 PM ---Most of those are resonable in my mind, but what and how are they thinking? We need to stay on top of this.

--- End quote ---

Now please correct me if I am wrong here but this basically says you cannot pick a mushroom or flower and take it with you. Unless of course you get a note from the director. I am sure it would not be an easy matter to get that note from big brother.


--- Quote ---Except for down dead wood collected for camping on department lands, it is unlawful to remove timber, wood, soils, minerals, fossils, plants, plant seeds or other property or artifacts from department-owned or controlled public lands, waters, or access areas without a permit from the director.
--- End quote ---

billythekidrock:
I knew I should have responded a little better....I was in a hurry.

WAC 232-13-180 (and parts of a couple others) is of concern to me as it can be viewed in a very broad sense. I think this WAC in particular needs reworking, and as it stands, is very dangerous to anyone who enjoys the outdoors.
Most of the WACs (Camping, Aircraft, Fireworks..etc) , as I read them, seem fine. Again, that is the way I read them.
What I am wondering is how do they (F&G) read or interpert them?

I agree....you will have a hard time getting a permit for anything.....join this list, apply here,....we will send it, email, post, call.....we all know about that..

Make no mistake I am concerned and I have posted this on a couple other NW and National hunting forums. Today I will be contacting a woodturning group that is in the Oly area (they are currently fighting a nasty bill right now) as well as contacting a few mushroom clubs around the state.

Dman:
 I would bet if you talk to Quinn, he would say that the key for forest product removal is the language 'in excess of $250 value". If you harvest a few shrooms, etc. no one will get their shorts in a wad. That statement of the value associated with forest products is geared primarily towards illegal harvest/ sales activity of large quantities of resources, not the average guy who goes out and finds a few Morels in the woods. I do like the section regarding pets and dogs in particular, though I did have some suggestions on additions, we'll see....

Ray:
Yes I see that but the way it is written states that you might face one charge for forest removal and then if it exceeds $250 you are also a thief according to 9A.56 RCW. They are mutually exclusive in the proposal. If they had used an "and" or an "or" in the right spot and then lumped them both together it might be different.

My experience is that we should not trust the current official's interpretation to be the same as the next official who comes in. The courts will most likely interpret it completely different than what you describe even though it may have a good natured intent from Quinn or anyone else behind the proposal.

jackelope:

--- Quote ---My experience is that we should not trust the current official's interpretation to be the same as the next official who comes in
--- End quote ---

or 1 game warden from the next for that matter.
no offense to any LEO's out there at all, my stepfather is retired LEO, but it seems that everyone has a different take on everything.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page