Proposed Legislation: Increase Authority of DNR Law Enforcement

[Knocker of rocks]

How can you say they are ineffective simply by how many officers they have? There are only 2 BLM LE Rangers in all of WA, does that mean they are ineffective?

And there is only one Chuck Norris. 

[christopheri]

DNR officers should patroll DNR lands and not be used to patroll lands outside of the DNR boundries. Prime example is the Capital forest. They need more enforcement there. The DIscover pass has helped get some of the crack heads out but it is still a mess up there. I almost never see an officer there and if they are given more authority in other jurisdictions wouldnt that take away from enforcment on DNR lands?

Capital Forest probably gets the most DNR Enforcement of any DNR lands in the state. What this will really do is increase the laws DNR can enforce. Does it mean that if they are traveling down I-5 and see a DUI they could arrest? Yes it does. However I don't think you'll start seeing DNR doing routine traffic enforcement on I-5

 If the Capital forest gets more DNR enforcement than any other DNR lands in the state then in my opinion there isnt enoughf enforcment officers for the DNR land in this state. As we all know the WDFW does not have enoughf officers either.
 Increasing authority is not going to reslolve that issue. Managing tax dollars so these agencys can hire more officers will.

[Elkaholic daWg]

It serves one purpose and only one purpose, and that is to enable them to write more citations.......create/generate revenue for the poor mismanaged state.  They cant afford to increase man power so they are attemptimg to maximize the man power they have.  I personally prefer game wardens to focus on fish and wildlife.....not be out there looking for any and every type violation they can.  They imparticularly need to focus on their primary job description.  Same goes for DNR and any other agency.......the stinkin state just wants something for nothing from everyone.  Why not enlist a bunch of folks to serve as eyes in the woods but let them run around town and anywhere else they want and squeal like pigs about everything.  All that costs them is an occassional special permit or some points......

So if your out on your local DNR Forest and run into an underage kegger how would you feel if you heard the DNR Officer standing right next to you has no authority to cite those violators? Because right now under state law DNR cannot enforce RCW 66 (liquor laws) and many other laws which are commonly violated in state forests.

 Ah the Good ole days!!! Sure am glad to have experienced them! I have made my feelings known to my legislators and  Senator. " May we see your papers?"

[Special T]

I think this issue come down to  do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. 

[bigtex]

I think this issue come down to  do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. 

Agree 100%
And some of the current DNR-County SO agreements do allow DNR to act as deputies throughout the entire county, and some simply restrict the additional authority to DNR lands.

[ICEMAN]

I think this issue come down to  do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. 

I also agree. Just for the sake of efficiency, I feel the move would equal more enforcement of laws for the same investment of dollars.

[Humptulips]

I think this issue come down to  do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. 

Yea, If you want more enforcement in the woods this is a bad idea. Now, that is the only place they can enforce laws. Pass this and they will be everywhere but the woods.

Took a couple WDFW agents up to the Matheny once. They had to stop and make a traffic stop and then stop and question some guy that it turned out was locking a gate on a along the HWY.
Last year they had a safety check station checking trucks at Promise Land park USFS cop working it.
Keep them in the woods. If they find someone doing something they don't have authority for and it amounts to anything they can call the Sherriffs department.

[bigtex]

I think this issue come down to  do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. 

Yea, If you want more enforcement in the woods this is a bad idea. Now, that is the only place they can enforce laws. Pass this and they will be everywhere but the woods.

Took a couple WDFW agents up to the Matheny once. They had to stop and make a traffic stop and then stop and question some guy that it turned out was locking a gate on a along the HWY.
Last year they had a safety check station checking trucks at Promise Land park USFS cop working it.

Two things here. DNR Officers right now are very limited in what they can enforce, it is basically fish/wildlife, ORV/snowmobile, forest products, and traffic laws on DNR lands. So even other crimes that occur on DNR lands are outside of their authority, unless given authority by the county. Whereas Park Rangers for example can enforce all laws on State Park lands.

As far as USFS goes, they are not officers that are there to enforce natural resource laws like most people think. USFS (and other feds like BLM, NPS, USFWS) enforce EVERYTHING on federal lands. Basically if it occurs on federal lands then the federal officer is there to enforce it, doesn't matter if it's a DUI or poaching. Feds can get authority to enforce laws off federal lands by getting this authority from the sheriff.

[Humptulips]

I think this issue come down to  do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. 

Yea, If you want more enforcement in the woods this is a bad idea. Now, that is the only place they can enforce laws. Pass this and they will be everywhere but the woods.

Took a couple WDFW agents up to the Matheny once. They had to stop and make a traffic stop and then stop and question some guy that it turned out was locking a gate on a along the HWY.
Last year they had a safety check station checking trucks at Promise Land park USFS cop working it.

 DNR Officers right now are very limited in what they can enforce, it is basically fish/wildlife, ORV/snowmobile, forest products, and traffic laws on DNR lands. So even other crimes that occur on DNR lands are outside of their authority, unless given authority by the county.

Exactly, That keeps them working and patroling DNR lands instead of spending their time elsewhere. Again they see something they can't enforce they can call for the Sheriff.

[bigtex]

I think this issue come down to  do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. 

Yea, If you want more enforcement in the woods this is a bad idea. Now, that is the only place they can enforce laws. Pass this and they will be everywhere but the woods.

Took a couple WDFW agents up to the Matheny once. They had to stop and make a traffic stop and then stop and question some guy that it turned out was locking a gate on a along the HWY.
Last year they had a safety check station checking trucks at Promise Land park USFS cop working it.

 DNR Officers right now are very limited in what they can enforce, it is basically fish/wildlife, ORV/snowmobile, forest products, and traffic laws on DNR lands. So even other crimes that occur on DNR lands are outside of their authority, unless given authority by the county.

Exactly, That keeps them working and patroling DNR lands instead of spending their time elsewhere. Again they see something they can't enforce they can call for the Sheriff.

So it is perfectly fine according to you for an underage kegger or people using drugs to be on DNR lands and DNR Officers not be able to cite/arrest the violators?

[Humptulips]

Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.

[iusmc2002]

Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.

+1
If the sheriff doesn't feel he needs a DNR officer's help in upholding the laws of his county, why should the state be able to come in and force him to?  If the sheriff believes a DNR officer should stick to Department of NATURAL RESOURCEs issues ("basically fish/wildlife, ORV/snowmobile, forest products, and traffic laws on DNR lands"),  that's his perogative.  If the Sheriff's Association has already expressed disdain for having them be part of WSP, which would give them carte blanche to enforce all laws in a sheriff's jurisdiction, why are they introducing legislation that amounts to the same thing? 

Why do you NOT have a problem with MORE people having MORE authority over you?  Not only that, but the state would be usurping a locally elected official's power over his county!

IHRE PAPIERE, BITTE

[JLS]

The state wouldn't be forcing the sheriff to allow anything.  DNR still couldn't enforce county ordinances without being commissioned by the local SO.  We are talking state law, i.e. RCW that don't belong to the sheriff.

How would you guys feel if a tweaker, who a DNR guy was unalbe to detain because of limited jurisdiction, went on a spree and hurt someone?  Maybe a family member of yours?

So much for government efficiencies.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.

+2

[bigtex]

Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.

If the Sheriff's Association has already expressed disdain for having them be part of WSP, which would give them carte blanche to enforce all laws in a sheriff's jurisdiction, why are they introducing legislation that amounts to the same thing? 

Before you go saying why the Sheriff's association is against a WDFW/DNR - WSP merger you may want to look into the facts.

They are not against it because it would give DNR more authority. They are against it because they don't want the WA St Patrol to be the WA St Police. By moving DNR/WDFW to WSP, WSP would now be the lead for traffic, fish/wildlife, forests, fire marshal, and crime lab. Look at Oregon for example, they have a Oregon State Police, why? Because they do traffic, fish/wildlife, and gambling.