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

[bobcat]

Somebody call a lawyer. 

[boneaddict]

Thats probably who wrote this stuff.  Write it so it can be interpretted any way they like.

[Ray]

Let me put it in this perspective. If I can seemingly convince one or two other hunters here on my interpretations of the  definitions and proposal then imagine what a lawyer\prosecutor wanting a big bonus for his next BMW could do to a judge or group of jurors who don't hunt.

[boneaddict]

I've thought of that many times.  In fact, when they first closed Robinson many years back, I was pissed because I used to chase Turkeys and snakes in there and now I had to wait until the snakes were fired up and the Turkey season was aobut over.  I got over that, but the whole state shut down.  WHATEVER. 

[Dman]

 I have been involved with the drafting of policy in the past, wife also manages a law firm. By legal definition, "controlled" would include rights to which WDFW claims governance of including -hunting closures in the NF. If that is not the WDFW's intention, then they do need to clarify what lands are affected, because as you stated, the door has been left open with that regard.

[bobcat]

Sure they control the taking of fish and wildlife on ALL public lands (and private of course,) but they do not control access to public lands other than their own.

[Ray]

I think that legislating for the few bad apples and ruining it for the majority of folks is grossly irresponsible. If something is going down illegal then they shouldn't come up with punitive measures to manage the lands for society at large. That's kind of like communism where big govt. figures out what is best for everyone. What makes America so great is that we should be able to figure out ways to enjoy our freedoms and take care of the bad apples at the same time. They should figure out how to resolve the problems but it doesn't necessarily mean making broadly interpreted laws is appropriate because it is difficult to get out of the truck and look for the crooks and derelicts. This doesn't necessarily apply to all situations which were listed here.

I could go on about the dog restrictions but I'll leave it for now.

[boneaddict]

Anybody else been contacting them about this.......??

[Ray]

Yeah I sent several letters off. A couple to politicians and one directly to them. They responded and said that my examples would be considered.

[boneaddict]

I got that too, which I at least thought was considerate because I never heard back from the guy I turned in for being behind a closed gate.

[Dman]

 I had a chance to talk to my WDFW contact yesterday, this plan does include both DNR and USFS lands. They plan to edit the portion regarding recreation harvest of mushrooms, etc.. as there has been much response to that statement and they are trying to target commercial harvesting, not recreational harvesting.

 -D

[Machias]

The section on livestock has me worried.  Sounds like if I take my mules for a ride on state land I need a permit?

[jackelope]

thats the one that had me wondering the most. i have no stock, but may in the next few years.

[Ray]

It looks to me like you would need a permit to bring a mule on state land for example.

[Dman]

 Keep sending your comments to them. There's still time for them to modify anything that doesn't go over well.