Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 10:59:53 AM
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?bill=1849&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?bill=1849&year=2013)
Just some background knowledge:
DNR Officers have full law enforcement authority on DNR lands, off DNR lands their authority comes from the sheriff. Obviously, the main role/responsibility for DNR LE is enforcing laws on DNR lands. Compared to WDFW where they essentially enforce all laws everywhere. Prior to the Discover Pass WDFW Officers could only enforce DNR criminal laws such as shooting in a prohibited area or discharging fireworks. After the Discover Pass WDFW Officers were given the authority to also enforce DNR civil laws such as camping regs and ORV regs.
Also, there are about 80 or so DNR employees with limited enforcement authority for only DNR land use violations. Under this bill these individuals would only be able to enforce ORV and some serious/rare fire laws. The authority to enforce all other DNR rules would be eliminated.
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 01:48:55 PM
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on February 12, 2013, 01:52:55 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on February 12, 2013, 01:54:25 PM
Post by: mfswallace on February 12, 2013, 02:01:36 PM
The bureacrats and higher levels will be much more inundated with blustering and infighting thus waisting the same amount of time and money :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 02:16:25 PM
For those that think WDFW Officers should just do fish and wildlife enforcement (seems like there are fewer people thinking this way every year) this gets even further away from this. While WDFW Officers already do patrol DNR lands, they will now have to be the only state officers patrolling those lands. Means a lot more WDFW time spent doing ORV and snowmobile enforcement, more enforcement in DNR campgrounds, more time spent dealing with forest product regulations, more time dealing with littering on DNR lands. Which may mean less time doing fish and wildlife enforcement. The Beverly Dunes ORV area in Grant County is DNR owned and DNR LE spends quite a bit of time there, that will now be WDFW. Means more WDFW time spent enforcing Discover Pass regs at DNR trailheads, lands, etc.
This would move the 10 or so DNR Officers to WDFW.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 12, 2013, 02:23:18 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on February 12, 2013, 02:23:45 PM
Post by: Special T on February 12, 2013, 02:28:51 PM
You mentioned some thing in the spotlighting thread that caught my attention. There seems to be little cross over training about laws to be enforced. Game laws for sherrifs etc.
Isn't cross training officers that work a given area the best use of resorces?
So if you have 2 WDFW agents and 1 DNR agent working the same area, if they were all cross trained in both sets of rules and regs doesn't that give us/the state better coverage?
Here is the only down side that i can come up with... WDFW will become the "woods police" that deals with all the catch all issues that are non game realted. This seems to be the trend to move the WDFW away from thier core misson. the state often comes up with some new "enforcement" action and just thows it out there for some agency to "take care of"
I am all for effeciency, but i HATE how we can go out for a good time anywhere with no illintent or really bad behavior and still break multipal laws....
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 02:30:03 PM
Bigtex, you say that the WDFW officers would be doing more DNR work instead of doing just WDFW work, but there will be more WDFW enforcement, isn't that correct? Are they eliminating any positions or just moving the personnel?
Yes there would be more WDFW Officers with the addition of the 10 or DNR Officers. Basically the guys who wear a DNR uniform today would be wearing WDFW uniforms.
Look at it this way. There are numerous events at the Beverly Dunes every year, DNR typically brings in officers from all over the state to work it considering there are only 2 DNR Officers in E WA. Sometimes WDFW may send an officer there to help, but they aren't required to do so. But if this bill were to happen it would be WDFW that would have to man/work the event, and they would probably most likely use the local officers instead of relying on officers from other areas, which could mean less officers working fish and wildlife duties in that area. This type of situation could be seen at other DNR areas that have "events" throughout the state.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 12, 2013, 02:32:04 PM
Bigtex, you say that the WDFW officers would be doing more DNR work instead of doing just WDFW work, but there will be more WDFW enforcement, isn't that correct? Are they eliminating any positions or just moving the personnel?
Yes there would be more WDFW Officers with the addition of the 10 or DNR Officers. Basically the guys who wear a DNR uniform today would be wearing WDFW uniforms.
Look at it this way. There are numerous events at the Beverly Dunes every year, DNR typically brings in officers from all over the state to work it considering there are only 2 DNR Officers in E WA. Sometimes WDFW may send an officer there to help, but they aren't required to do so. But if this bill were to happen it would be WDFW that would have to man/work the event, and they would probably most likely use the local officers instead of relying on officers from other areas, which could mean less officers working fish and wildlife duties in that area. This type of situation could be seen at other DNR areas that have "events" throughout the state.
Wouldn't this also require the re-categorization of DNR lands to now be WDFW lands? How does that work?
Post by: Special T on February 12, 2013, 02:35:27 PM
This bill fits in nicely to the DP, and the past failed attempt to merge DNR, Parks, and WDFW... Why not make them all Park rangers? Don't park rangers know all the fishing laws? I kinda see this a one bite at atime ot make the 3 merge but couldnt get it done the first time because they wanted to do it too quick.
Post by: Jingles on February 12, 2013, 02:37:11 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 02:37:16 PM
There are only 10 DNR officers in the state?
You mentioned some thing in the spotlighting thread that caught my attention. There seems to be little cross over training about laws to be enforced. Game laws for sherrifs etc.
Isn't cross training officers that work a given area the best use of resorces?
So if you have 2 WDFW agents and 1 DNR agent working the same area, if they were all cross trained in both sets of rules and regs doesn't that give us/the state better coverage?
I am all for effeciency, but i HATE how we can go out for a good time anywhere with no illintent or really bad behavior and still break multipal laws....
Yes only about 10 DNR Officers in WA.
DNR Officers know fish and wildlife laws, and they enforce them because hunting/fishing is a popular activity on their lands. In fact I have heard people receiving tickets from a WDFW Officer when it was actually DNR. A lot of people just think if it’s a fishing/hunting ticket then it must be from WDFW, not true.
Outside of the state and federal natural resource law enforcement agencies you are correct there is very little training regarding fish and wildlife laws. Your “typical” deputy may not know a single fish/wildlife law, or he may actually write fish and wildlife tickets. It just really depends on the deputy/trooper/officer and the agency. You need to remember it is not the sheriff’s dept or city PD’s job to actively enforce fish and wildlife laws, in some depts the policy is actually to call WDFW, don’t even try to handle the case themselves.
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 02:38:20 PM
Bigtex, you say that the WDFW officers would be doing more DNR work instead of doing just WDFW work, but there will be more WDFW enforcement, isn't that correct? Are they eliminating any positions or just moving the personnel?
Yes there would be more WDFW Officers with the addition of the 10 or DNR Officers. Basically the guys who wear a DNR uniform today would be wearing WDFW uniforms.
Look at it this way. There are numerous events at the Beverly Dunes every year, DNR typically brings in officers from all over the state to work it considering there are only 2 DNR Officers in E WA. Sometimes WDFW may send an officer there to help, but they aren't required to do so. But if this bill were to happen it would be WDFW that would have to man/work the event, and they would probably most likely use the local officers instead of relying on officers from other areas, which could mean less officers working fish and wildlife duties in that area. This type of situation could be seen at other DNR areas that have "events" throughout the state.
Wouldn't this also require the re-categorization of DNR lands to now be WDFW lands? How does that work?
No. DNR lands would still be DNR. All this does is move the DNR law enforcement function to WDFW. WDFW Officers can already enforce all DNR laws on DNR lands.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 12, 2013, 02:39:00 PM
Bigtex, you say that the WDFW officers would be doing more DNR work instead of doing just WDFW work, but there will be more WDFW enforcement, isn't that correct? Are they eliminating any positions or just moving the personnel?
Yes there would be more WDFW Officers with the addition of the 10 or DNR Officers. Basically the guys who wear a DNR uniform today would be wearing WDFW uniforms.
Look at it this way. There are numerous events at the Beverly Dunes every year, DNR typically brings in officers from all over the state to work it considering there are only 2 DNR Officers in E WA. Sometimes WDFW may send an officer there to help, but they aren't required to do so. But if this bill were to happen it would be WDFW that would have to man/work the event, and they would probably most likely use the local officers instead of relying on officers from other areas, which could mean less officers working fish and wildlife duties in that area. This type of situation could be seen at other DNR areas that have "events" throughout the state.
Wouldn't this also require the re-categorization of DNR lands to now be WDFW lands? How does that work?
When I've seen the Discovery Pass being enforced at Mt. Si. it was the WDFW writing the tickets.
I'm positive Mt Si is DNR, and not WDFW
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 02:40:25 PM
If all they are going to do is change the name of the LEO"S from DNR to WDFW where is the cost savings. Just taking the money from one empty checkbook to put it in another empty check book. Now if they were going to eliminate the positions all together I'd be in favor of it
This bill isn't about cost savings but more about a "one-stop" for natural resource law enforcement. Basically instead of having someone call WDFW to complain about someone dumping on DNR lands and then being transfered over to DNR law enforcement, WDFW would be the agency.
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 02:40:55 PM
Bigtex, you say that the WDFW officers would be doing more DNR work instead of doing just WDFW work, but there will be more WDFW enforcement, isn't that correct? Are they eliminating any positions or just moving the personnel?
Yes there would be more WDFW Officers with the addition of the 10 or DNR Officers. Basically the guys who wear a DNR uniform today would be wearing WDFW uniforms.
Look at it this way. There are numerous events at the Beverly Dunes every year, DNR typically brings in officers from all over the state to work it considering there are only 2 DNR Officers in E WA. Sometimes WDFW may send an officer there to help, but they aren't required to do so. But if this bill were to happen it would be WDFW that would have to man/work the event, and they would probably most likely use the local officers instead of relying on officers from other areas, which could mean less officers working fish and wildlife duties in that area. This type of situation could be seen at other DNR areas that have "events" throughout the state.
Wouldn't this also require the re-categorization of DNR lands to now be WDFW lands? How does that work?
When I've seen the Discovery Pass being enforced at Mt. Si. it was the WDFW writing the tickets.
I'm positive Mt Si is DNR, and not WDFW
That's correct.
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 02:43:55 PM
I think it would work like it does now where it is WDFW managed lands...
This bill fits in nicely to the DP, and the past failed attempt to merge DNR, Parks, and WDFW... Why not make them all Park rangers? Don't park rangers know all the fishing laws? I kinda see this a one bite at atime ot make the 3 merge but couldnt get it done the first time because they wanted to do it too quick.
There have been a lot of legislation over natural resource law enforcement. In the past 5 years there has been:
-Move WDFW LE to State Patrol
-Move WDFW and DNR LE to State Patrol
-Create a state natural resource police agency, basically remove DNR and WDFW LE and create their own agency
-Merge all functions of DNR, WDFW, State Parks (not just LE)
-Eliminate WDFW, DNR, and State Parks LE and have the Sheriff handle it.
Under state law state "park rangers" only have authority on State Park lands.
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 02:53:54 PM
Here is the only down side that i can come up with... WDFW will become the "woods police" that deals with all the catch all issues that are non game realted. This seems to be the trend to move the WDFW away from thier core misson. the state often comes up with some new "enforcement" action and just thows it out there for some agency to "take care of"
In a way I disagree with you. WDFW just doesn't decide they are going to start enforcing/"take care of" a new law, they are required to do so under state law. WDFW is now required to regulate the pet store industry, cold storage areas, aquatic invasive species, etc. And typically they don't receive any additional funding for it. The legislature basically says WDFW enforce this new subject area with what you have.
Another state agency that gets treated like this is the Liquor Control Board. Why were they tasked with marijuana regulation? The Dept of Health regulates tobacco/cigarettes, to me that seems like a better agency. But then again, while the DOH sets the policies for tobacco, the Liquor Control Board is the one enforcing it. The Dept of Revenue sets the policies for tobacco taxing, but the Liquor Control Board enforces it.
Post by: Special T on February 12, 2013, 04:14:27 PM
Here is the only down side that i can come up with... WDFW will become the "woods police" that deals with all the catch all issues that are non game realted. This seems to be the trend to move the WDFW away from thier core misson. the state often comes up with some new "enforcement" action and just thows it out there for some agency to "take care of"
In a way I disagree with you. WDFW just doesn't decide they are going to start enforcing/"take care of" a new law, they are required to do so under state law. WDFW is now required to regulate the pet store industry, cold storage areas, aquatic invasive species, etc. And typically they don't receive any additional funding for it. The legislature basically says WDFW enforce this new subject area with what you have.
Another state agency that gets treated like this is the Liquor Control Board. Why were they tasked with marijuana regulation? The Dept of Health regulates tobacco/cigarettes, to me that seems like a better agency. But then again, while the DOH sets the policies for tobacco, the Liquor Control Board is the one enforcing it. The Dept of Revenue sets the policies for tobacco taxing, but the Liquor Control Board enforces it.
Your words in red point out what i mean. the STATE makes them a catch all agency. what i like LEAST about that is the fact that the state then shirks more reponcibilty to SPORTSMEN for NON sportsman related issues.
Post by: coyotecrazy on February 12, 2013, 05:15:33 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 07:41:13 PM
WDFW officers are state officers. They have law enforcement powers anywhere in the state just like state patrol. They can even write speeding tickets on county roads etc. several WDFW units in eastern wa have radar units in their rigs. Looks like WDFW would get 10 more officers and I don't see what they are currently doing changing much. :twocents:
What changes is WDFW Officers would now be required to enforce the DNR laws on DNR lands. If there is a big ORV run/event in a DNR area right now WDFW probably wouldn't be there, DNR LE would be there. Under this bill WDFW would be the agency responsible for what occurs on DNR lands.
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 07:43:47 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 12, 2013, 07:50:19 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 07:56:20 PM
I think we have enough enforcement when it comes to Fish & wildlife ...we need more officers on the street and get the drug dealers off the street ..I see alot of wardens and DNR officers in skagit co :dunno: :chuckle:
Well stats are against you. A study done in 2008 found the amount of WDFW Officers needw to double, there have been about 7 or so new officer positions created since.
DNR only has one officer to cover Snohomish County to the Canadian border.
Post by: christopheri on February 12, 2013, 07:59:15 PM
Thoughts?Im all for it! :tup: That sounds like it would up the buget of the WDFW.
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 08:08:02 PM
(2)The legislature further finds that the state can most effectively and efficiently protect the state's natural resources and the recreating public by combining the enforcement authorities and personnel of the department of natural resources with those of the department of fish and wildlife. In particular, the existing enforcement staff of the department of natural resources is far too constrained to effectively respond to the challenges facing state lands and would benefit greatly from a merger with the enforcement staff of the department of fish and wildlife.
(3) It is the intent of the legislature for the merger of enforcement agencies to enhance the state's enforcement capability in regards to both fishing and hunting laws and laws historically enforced by the department of natural resources. In carrying out this intent, the legislature expects the department of fish and wildlife to take seriously the new enforcement areas being given to its officers and consult frequently with the commissioner of public lands to ensure that the enforcement needs of the department of natural resources are being satisfied.
Post by: Mudman on February 12, 2013, 08:13:17 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 12, 2013, 08:15:07 PM
Well I wonder how that works in Skagit Co ... I see Dnr officers everyday ....Maybe because their office is right next door :chuckle: :chuckle:I think we have enough enforcement when it comes to Fish & wildlife ...we need more officers on the street and get the drug dealers off the street ..I see alot of wardens and DNR officers in skagit co :dunno: :chuckle:
Well stats are against you. A study done in 2008 found the amount of WDFW Officers needw to double, there have been about 7 or so new officer positions created since.
DNR only has one officer to cover Snohomish County to the Canadian border.
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 02:40:33 PM
Post by: Special T on February 13, 2013, 02:41:40 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 02:44:12 PM
Big Tex isn't that also known as the WSP? :chuckle:
No. Washington State Patrol is not the Washington State Police.
Whereas Oregon and Alaska have the State Police which do traffic, fish and wildlife, and gambling.
Sheriff's see it as a slippery slope. One year WSP picks up fish and wildlife...then liquor enforcement...then gambling enforcement..and so on.
Post by: Special T on February 13, 2013, 02:50:51 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 02:57:55 PM
So explain the division to us all... States that have state police have no sheriff's? how and why the difference?
Look at WA. You have city PD's, County SO's, and multiple state level LE agencies which each have their own function.
Oregon: You have city PD's, County SO's, and the Oregon State Police which does traffic, fish/wildlife, and gambling.
Basically in Oregon one state LE agency does it all, which is why they are called the "State Police". In WA you have WDFW, WSP, DNR, LCB, Parks, and Gambling each have their own role. You give WSP another role, that makes them more powerful in the view of the State Sheriff's Association
Alaska and Conneticut do not have Sheriffs. Alaska doesn't have counties and CT doesn't have county governments.
Post by: Special T on February 13, 2013, 03:01:36 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 03:03:58 PM
So does it become a "jurisdiciton" fight, or just a internal power stuggle? For example many of our court hearing are at the county level so the county can look out for what is best for themselves... IE Stevens county and the wolves...
It's nothing to do with jurisdiction but is a complete power struggle.
In their view its a bigger more powerful WDFW or WSP, since their role/responsibility will be getting bigger.
Post by: bearpaw on February 13, 2013, 03:15:49 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 03:42:29 PM
I'm still not sure what I think of this one....
I agree, there are still a lot unanswered questions, such as:
-Will the funding for these DNR Officers be switched over to WDFW?
-Will WDFW simply gain these new officers and no additional funding?
-Will WDFW be required to work X amount of hours on DNR lands?
-Who determines how much time should be spent at X location?
In Oregon (unless it has changed) the DFW pays the State Police for fish and wildlife enforcement. The budget for fish and wildlife enforcement is not included in the OSP budget made by the state.
Right now WDFW gets the equivalent of half an Officer to patrol Bureau of Reclamation lands in the Columbia Basin, BOR pays for this officer. BLM and the US Army Corps of Engineers give WDFW Overtime funding to patrol their agency lands. PacifiCorp pays for one officer in the Clark/Cowlitz County area. So landowners paying WDFW (and countys) to patrol their lands is not new.
However there are still a lot of questions with this one.
Post by: Curly on February 13, 2013, 03:46:13 PM
Post by: HoofsandWings on February 13, 2013, 03:46:22 PM
In talking to wdfw officers, they now have the same authority as other officers, such as sherriffs.
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 03:49:15 PM
However with DNR you only have 10 or so officers. That essentially means they don't get a whole lot of support/backing from the public, a lot easier to change things for 10 officers then the 130 for WDFW or 90 or so for Liquor Control. In my view DNR LE will either a) they eventually get general/full law enforcement authority or b) they will move to WDFW.
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 03:51:51 PM
My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea. Wouldn't it be best to keep DNR enforcement focused on what they know best? :dunno: They can always call the WDFW guys if they see something fishy.
DNR LE Officers have full authority on DNR lands, they can do fish and wildlife enforcement, drugs, traffic, just like a WDFW Officer or Sheriff. In addition in about 25-30 counties they can act as deputies off DNR lands. In terms of experience, there isn't much a difference between DNR and WDFW Officers. Yes WDFW Officers do more fish and wildlife enforcement, but DNR does it as well. You could also say DNR Officers do more ORV enforcement, but WDFW does do it as well.
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
This will broaden the authority of those exisiting dnr officers to the level of wdfw.
In talking to wdfw officers, they now have the same authority as other officers, such as sherriffs.
That is correct. WDFW Officers are general authority officers meaning they can enforce all state laws. Under state law DNR Officers are limited authority in that they can enforce all state laws, but only on DNR lands. In about 25-30 counties the Sheriff grants DNR Officers authority to enforce laws off DNR lands.
Post by: Mudman on February 13, 2013, 03:55:50 PM
Post by: Curly on February 13, 2013, 04:25:45 PM
My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea. Wouldn't it be best to keep DNR enforcement focused on what they know best? :dunno: They can always call the WDFW guys if they see something fishy.
DNR LE Officers have full authority on DNR lands, they can do fish and wildlife enforcement, drugs, traffic, just like a WDFW Officer or Sheriff. In addition in about 25-30 counties they can act as deputies off DNR lands. In terms of experience, there isn't much a difference between DNR and WDFW Officers. Yes WDFW Officers do more fish and wildlife enforcement, but DNR does it as well. You could also say DNR Officers do more ORV enforcement, but WDFW does do it as well.
But, WDFW LEO's don't go out checking on timber thieves, do they? Seems like DNR LEO's would be out there concentrating on issues dealing with DNR land resources and WDFW is concentrating on wildlife issues. Would timber issues become a lower priority if DNR LEO's are moved over to WDFW? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 13, 2013, 04:30:49 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 04:36:20 PM
My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea. Wouldn't it be best to keep DNR enforcement focused on what they know best? :dunno: They can always call the WDFW guys if they see something fishy.
DNR LE Officers have full authority on DNR lands, they can do fish and wildlife enforcement, drugs, traffic, just like a WDFW Officer or Sheriff. In addition in about 25-30 counties they can act as deputies off DNR lands. In terms of experience, there isn't much a difference between DNR and WDFW Officers. Yes WDFW Officers do more fish and wildlife enforcement, but DNR does it as well. You could also say DNR Officers do more ORV enforcement, but WDFW does do it as well.
But, WDFW LEO's don't go out checking on timber thieves, do they? Seems like DNR LEO's would be out there concentrating on issues dealing with DNR land resources and WDFW is concentrating on wildlife issues. Would timber issues become a lower priority if DNR LEO's are moved over to WDFW? :dunno:
Actually they do. WDFW is listed as an agency responsible for forest product theft. WDFW and WSP are the only state agencies with statewide authority to investigate forest product theft, obviouly WSP doesn't do it. DNR and USFS under state law can only do it on their lands. So if someone is violating forest product laws off of DNR or USFS lands it will most likely go to WDFW. In some cases WDFW may even take it if it is on DNR lands if it is an "open and shut" caught red handed case, investigations would probably go to the DNR Officer.
Your question of would timber theft become a lower priority is basically what I asked in my last post. Would WDFW be required to work so many hours on DNR lands? Whats a higher priority someone fishing closed season or illegally cutting wood? And so on.
Post by: bigtex on February 13, 2013, 04:39:01 PM
IMHO, centralization of law enforcement takes the judgment of local LE out of the equation and is not good for democratic process. These officers can be deputized by the county sheriff if the sheriff needs their help. By centralizing, we're allowing the jurisdiction of more and more law enforcement where it's not needed, locally in our individual communities. We should be against centralization.
This really has nothing to do with deputizing or the sheriff. More about moving these officers to WDFW, because according to the sponsors WDFW has more resources to assist with LE on DNR lands, simply because they have more officers. Supposedly more about protecting DNR lands.
And actually under state law the only law enforcement personnel that can enforce the civil (infractions) violations of DNR and State Park laws are the LE personnel of WDFW, DNR and Parks. For example, a Deputy or Trooper cannot cite someone on DNR lands with failing to obey DNR signs or entering a State Park after hours. However, any officer can enforce WDFW land use violations.
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2013, 07:20:28 PM
Bjork basically said each agency has their own function and is best served by their own employees. Sounds like he is against this bill