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

[Ray]

Give 'em an inch and they will take a mile.

I remember the Fee Demo for NW Trail Park passes that was supposed to be a temporary phase. Now to park your car they mandate those passes. I found out a while back that they were also using some of that revenue for example to buy new movie projector systems in the Mt St Helens park for visitors to watch. I'd say that isn't exactly putting the money back into the users' interests. Keep in mind that was not the WDFW.. but it was big goverment no less.

[Dman]

 I agree with you the wording is not the greatest for the forest product removal portion. I'm going ask that question of Mark, who believe me will be the guy that can clarify as the point man for the legislation. I really believe from reading the whole document that they are trying to preserve the quality of the NF for everyone. Not too long ago there was a thread about dogs on a hunting blog in which everyone complained about them running down deer on public lands. This would really help with that (if as Ridge stated, enforcement is provided) -another question I'll ask of Mark. Let you know what he says. The other restrictions as far as use limited to 14 days, trash, parking, nuisances, etc.., I guess I just don't see how that would negatively impact hunter's usage of State ground. The hunting specific initiatives, like the authority to close grounds to hunting for specific reason's actually already exists, a little redundant and not sure why it's even listed under the "new" WAC's. The State has always had the authority to close whatever lands they deem appropriate, for a variety of reasons. I don't really see much change with regard to hunting usage.

[billythekidrock]

By NF I am assuming you mean National Forest. My understanding is this is about more than the NF, it is about all State Land as well as land managed by the State.

My concern is that we already have rules/laws pertaining to most of these issues, but there seems to be no enforcement. I know for a fact that if you find trash (with names/addresses/etc) it will not result in a ticket or fine. I know for a fact that if you catch someone in the act of dumping and they pick up the trash while enforcement is in route they will not recieve a ticket.

We already have a wood permit system as well as rules for harvesting mushrooms or similar materials. Do we really need to get permission from a director/commissioner? Let's enforce the current rules before we change anything.

[brush hunter]

 

[bobcat]

My understanding is this does NOT include National Forest, and not all state land either, only WDFW lands. Dman, did you see something in there that I didn't? I see no mention of National Forest lands.

[billythekidrock]

Maybe I am wrong Bob. When I read, "department-owned or controlled public lands" I am worried about the word "controlled". The fact that F&W controls hunting, does that mean they can control the CF, which is managed by DNR?

Maybe I am over reacting?

[bobcat]

No, I guarantee you the WDFW has no control over what happens on DNR lands, other than possibly those lands they lease from the DNR. That's probably what the word "controlled" is in there for...they do have some lands leased from the DNR for wildlife habitat and/or recreational purposes.

[Dman]

 Any public lands within the State are subject to State regulation, including DNR and NF lands. As you know the State already set's the hunting season's for DNR/NF lands. 

[bobcat]

This is not about hunting seasons. If you read the proposals, you'll see this:  "department-owned or controlled public lands, waters, or access areas."  From this it is obvious that none of these proposals are referring to National Forest lands, or any state lands (such as DNR) not owned or "controlled" (leased) by the WDFW. I just read through all the proposals and they all seem very reasonable to me. And again, these are only regulating the use of WDFW lands.

[Ray]

To me the word controlled in that statement means that any land that will be regulated by the WDFW means they are in control of it; and that these regulations would all be the law according to that.

[Ray]

Under New Definitions see number 9 as the definition of "land". It pretty much says a piece of soil, water, road or trail which is  under management of the WDFW.

[bobcat]

I did read the definition of "land."  Since the WDFW does not manage any public lands other than their own, these rules will only apply to WDFW lands. The other federal and state lands may already have many of the same rules already in place anyway. I think you're trying to read between the lines, when there is nothing written there.

[Ray]

I disagree. Lawyers are snakes and if a LEO from WDFW harasses you for whatever and then there comes a time to defend yourself in court they will use it against you.

[bobcat]

I guess what we need here is an "official" definition of the words "managed" and/or "controlled." 

[boneaddict]

If I poach a deer on state land, who enforces the law.  Is it the WDFW, DNR, State paterol, County Sheriff.  What defines control.  WAC codes are not just WDFW, but state laws, therefore these aren't necessarily WDFW only, am I correct?