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

[Ray]

I have not read any of this but thought I would pass it along anyway.....


http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/land_line/land_use_wac_3-30-07.pdf

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

May 1, 2007
Contact: Mark Quinn, 360-902-2402

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

OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking comment through May 23 on proposed rules for public conduct on department-managed lands.   

The proposals, available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/land_line/ or at WDFW regional offices, include rules affecting camping, the use of aircraft, dumping, firearms and target practice, commercial uses, road closures, livestock, pets and vehicle use on more than 900,000 acres of wildlife areas and water access sites across the state.

Once adopted, the proposals will become part of the Washington Administrative Code.

"We want to ensure that activities occurring on WDFW lands are consistent with fish and wildlife management goals, and that regulations support habitat and species conservation while allowing a variety of users to enjoy fish- and wildlife-related recreational opportunities," said Mark Quinn, WDFW lands program manager.

Comments should be mailed by May 23 to: Wildlife Program Commission Meeting Public Comments, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091 or submitted by e-mail to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov .

The public also will have an opportunity to comment during the June 1-2 meeting of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in Spokane, where the proposals will be discussed. Adoption of the proposed rules will be considered by the commission during its Aug. 3-4 meeting in Anacortes. See http://wdfw.wa.gov/com/meetings.htm for meeting agendas and locations.   

[boneaddict]

Excellent information....most of it seems fairly reasonable except for at least one or two possibilities that might affect horse people.

"It is unlawful for any person to allow livestock to be unattended or to graze or utilize department owned or controlled public lands, waters or access area without a permit from the director."

Wouldn't that mean you would need a permit to ride your horse on state land.

I'd also be a little concerned with the new pets section for all of those that like their dogs on their duck hunt.  "The department may prohibit or regulate pets, except for bonafide service dogs for persons with disabilities, on department owned or controlled public lands, waters, or access area."

The rest of the pet one seems very reasonable about pets running free on state land harassing wildlife.

[boneaddict]

ooooops missed a page. and this one.  Except for down dead wood collected for camping on department lands, it is unlawful to remove timber, wood, soils, minerals, fossils, plants and plant seeds SO MUCH FOR ROCK COLLECTING WITH YOUR KIDS

oh yeah and IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COLLECT SHED ANTLERS ON DEPARTMENT OWNED OR CONTROLLED PUBLIC LANDS<FROM FEB 15 to APRIL 30

[boneaddict]

By the way, unless I read it wrong they say comments need to be made by May 2, 2007 to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov

[Ray]

I'm always worried about the bureacrats instituting new legislation when things are generally working. Particularly hunters using the land and allowing these sort of changes to go by unchecked or unchallenged in good faith that they will not be abused or harassed with their inception. I'd love to hear some skeptical views. That part about rock collecting and shed collecting seems bad to me already. I have not read about the dogs unleashed yet..

[boneaddict]

I rarely get involved in this, but this steams me.....  Here is a quick note I just sent off
To whom it may concern;
Although my opinion is just one of many, I was saddened or alarmed by a couple of the proposed rules changes.  Specifically the proposed shed antler season being closed until April 30th.  I think you have all done well by having specific closed areas around the elk feeding stations until the April 30th, but I believe the universal closure is a poor response to a problem that will occur anyway.  I believe that harassment laws should be enforced and that just to close an area to shedding is ridiculous.  Just this weekend I was out and watched two people park next to a closed area and jump the fence right in front of a closure sign.  Also, I called in a report of a person who went behind a closed gate with a jeep  tearing up the hillside in doing it. I reported him from his license number and   I have yet to hear back from the game department on that.  My point is that those that will break the law will now reap the benefits that law abiding citizens will be at home instead of enjoying the hills.  Do you propose to shut the woods down to photography, snowmobilers, nature lovers etc, or are you just targetting one group or following the pack because another state may have taken that route.  If someone is harassing the wildlife, prosecute them, don’t infringe on our other freedoms.  Poachers and other law breakers will have the run of the woods while law abiding citizens will be locked at home.  My other concern was the rock gathering.  Are you proposing that if out hiking with my daughters as I was this weekend where the other idiot broke the law, where I was teaching them about the outdoors instead of playing Nintendo, or being involved in gangs etc, that when we found a piece of petrified wood, I am not allowed to bring it home.  Are you kidding me?  Again, this is only one opinion from a guy who rarely writes letters as he believes it does nothing, but believes strong enough in the outdoors to know that we are beginning to be regulated out of many of our natural rights.  What good is public land if you can’t enjoy it.  Many of us do just that without infringing on others rights or by destroying it.

 Thanks for listening to this one man’s opinion,

Douglas Kikendall

[Ray]

It says comments should be mailed by may 23rd. Unless I missed the May 2nd somewhere else there is still time to get people sending in letters.

[boneaddict]

I saw the May 2nd date on page one of your link under Submit written comments to: (right of page 1/3 down.  Its says by May 2nd.  I may totally have misread that, and feel its never too late to comment.  I just don't read this stuff much, but it has beenpointed out we need to be more aware of what is happening in our government.

[Ray]

we need to be more aware of what is happening in our government

Agreed 

[billythekidrock]

Most of those are resonable in my mind, but what and how are they thinking? We need to stay on top of this.

[Ray]

Most of those are resonable in my mind, but what and how are they thinking? We need to stay on top of this.

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.

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.

[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]

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

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.