Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2015, 10:45:41 PM
(1) A person engaged in hunting on privately owned forest land is not subject to enforcement action under this chapter related to the hunting activities if:
(a)The person is a member of a tribe that has a right to hunt reserved by treaty or through other agreement with the United States;
(b) The tribe has hunting regulations in place that apply to tribal member hunters accessing privately owned forest land;
(c) The tribe has entered into a written access agreement with the private forest landowner and provided a copy of the agreement to the regional office of the department where the land is located;
(d) The person has utilized the privately owned forest land consistent with the forest landowner's terms and conditions; and
(e) The privately owned forest land is within the recognized territory that the tribe ceded to the United States or the established aboriginal hunting grounds of the tribe.
(2) For purposes of this section, "forest land" and "forest landowner" have the same meanings as defined in RCW 76.09.020.
(3) Nothing in this section or in private landowner access agreements referenced in this section may be construed to expand, define, or limit the rights of tribal members to hunt according to their treaty rights on private forest land. The legislature intends that this section narrowly authorize enforcement jurisdiction over hunting activities when the specific conditions outlined in subsection (1)of this section are met.
(4)Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the discretion of private forest landowners to allow access to tribal 11
members for hunting activities.
(5) Nothing in this section affects the definition of "open and unclaimed lands" under tribal treaties.
Bill sponsors: Representatives Sawyer, Appleton, Stanford, and Pollet
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1261.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1261.pdf)
Post by: Tbar on January 16, 2015, 11:14:07 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 16, 2015, 11:15:30 PM
Post by: Tbar on January 16, 2015, 11:17:42 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2015, 11:20:04 PM
If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 16, 2015, 11:20:42 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 16, 2015, 11:25:02 PM
Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.Unreal, almost speechless.. Can't even believe what your telling us. And how did this become even something to talk about as a new law???
If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.
Post by: mfswallace on January 16, 2015, 11:26:10 PM
Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.Unreal, almost speechless.. Can't even believe what your telling us. And how did this become even something to talk about as a new law???
If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.
See this post
This must have been submitted by the tribal senator I'm guessing?Rep. Sawyer is a Tulalip member
Post by: trophyhunt on January 16, 2015, 11:26:20 PM
Not a senator but he was the guy I was thinking about.This must have been submitted by the tribal senator I'm guessing?Rep. Sawyer is a Tulalip member
Post by: Tbar on January 16, 2015, 11:30:32 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2015, 11:34:33 PM
Bigtex, would this eliminate state jurisdiction on public safety?This law would be added to chapter RCW 77.15. As subsection 1 states "(1) A person engaged in hunting on privately owned forest land is not subject to enforcement action under this chapter related to the hunting activities if:"
So basically tribal members would be exempt from any law under RCW 77.15 if they are hunting in an area that meets the previously stated stipulations.
Post by: Tbar on January 16, 2015, 11:36:13 PM
I know for fact this has been pursued. Is there any actual cases that a RCW 77.15 (that wasn't a public safety issue) been successfully prosecuted when an agreement was reached with the landowner prior to the infraction?
Post by: trophyhunt on January 16, 2015, 11:41:55 PM
Those voting no care to give reasons?I'm curious why you are for it? If I'm reading you correctly?
Post by: Tbar on January 16, 2015, 11:51:54 PM
I see this as clarification. Like I said this has been investigated and argued by tribes vs state, it is also (as I, an outsider, see it) a point of contention amongst the ranks of the WDFW. If you commit a field officer to investigate and process a case, you expect a conviction (correct? ). If past is an indicator, you are not getting desired results, even evidence to the contrary.Those voting no care to give reasons?I'm curious why you are for it? If I'm reading you correctly?
Post by: Tbar on January 17, 2015, 12:03:27 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 17, 2015, 12:09:45 AM
Post by: Tbar on January 17, 2015, 12:40:34 AM
Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.I think this could be a requested amendment (to keep jurisdiction when it's a public safety violation) to the bill. For one it is reasonable and two it follows current enforcement guidelines outside industrial timberlands on open lands.
If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.
Post by: mfswallace on January 17, 2015, 08:12:13 AM
Courts have said that a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle offense (RCW 77.15.460) is a public safety offense, not just a hunting offense. Because of this WDFW Officers can cite tribal members for having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.I think this could be a requested amendment (to keep jurisdiction when it's a public safety violation) to the bill. For one it is reasonable and two it follows current enforcement guidelines outside industrial timberlands on open lands.
If this law was to take effect, officers could no longer cite for an offense that the courts have said is okay to do so.
Dump the whole thing before other legal avenues to prosecute violations of law are negated :twocents:
Post by: Westside88 on January 17, 2015, 08:22:32 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 17, 2015, 09:20:56 AM
I could be wrong, but it looks like a tribe could enter into an exclusive access agreement with a private timber company and do whatever they wish there.that is how I'm reading it.
Post by: Tbar on January 17, 2015, 09:37:39 AM
The tribes already enter into access agreements, some dating back decades. There has been much debate on interpretation of Chambers and Timberlands. This will eliminate that debate. Even without this bill, in the eyes of most (general populous), the access agreement itself will suffice, this actually changes very little in reality. That said I think public safety violations should be an added amendment.I could be wrong, but it looks like a tribe could enter into an exclusive access agreement with a private timber company and do whatever they wish there.that is how I'm reading it.
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 09:21:35 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 22, 2015, 04:33:23 AM
Thanks for bringing this up BT.Looks like Sawyer is looking out for his instead of all of the people. :twocents:Can't argue with that!
Post by: grundy53 on January 22, 2015, 05:01:01 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 22, 2015, 05:42:18 AM
Post by: Man Tracker on January 22, 2015, 08:21:36 PM
Post by: scudmaster on January 30, 2015, 02:09:59 AM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on January 30, 2015, 09:28:15 AM
Post by: Jingles on January 30, 2015, 09:55:37 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2015, 10:34:30 PM
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2015010188#start=3707&stop=6363 (http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2015010188#start=3707&stop=6363)
There was a heated soapbox type argument from Committee Chair Sherry Appleton towards WDFW LE Chief Steve Crown. Appleton basically said WDFW's current policy is racist.
Rep Norm Johnson (Yakima) had his own soapbox moment towards the Puyallup Tribe hunt program manager regarding seasons, limits, and Johnson mentioned the Hanford Monument and Naches feed station incidents.
Post by: Naches Sportsman on February 11, 2015, 11:13:19 PM
The following link is from the committee hearing on this bill:Mr Johnson knows that his supporters want change in tribal hunting and is well aware of the stance non erolled hunters have on native hunters over here.
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2015010188#start=3707&stop=6363 (http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2015010188#start=3707&stop=6363)
There was a heated soapbox type argument from Committee Chair Sherry Appleton towards WDFW LE Chief Steve Crown. Appleton basically said WDFW's current policy is racist.
Rep Norm Johnson (Yakima) had his own soapbox moment towards the Puyallup Tribe hunt program manager regarding seasons, limits, and Johnson mentioned the Hanford Monument and Naches feed station incidents.
Post by: onetrapper on February 12, 2015, 08:12:17 AM
Post by: Jingles on February 12, 2015, 09:10:20 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 12, 2015, 09:26:18 AM
I could be wrong, but it looks like a tribe could enter into an exclusive access agreement with a private timber company and do whatever they wish there.
Bingo! I was thinking the same thing. And said private company could basically set their own bag limits and laws which may be contrary to State laws and management strategies.
Post by: huntinguy on February 12, 2015, 11:35:11 AM
where does it say that the tribal regulations have to be similar to state regulations? I mean they could say something like, "any tribal member can take two elk, deer, whatever, per year." That would technically be their regulations... so, just how would that impact heard size? I still remember the green river fiasco....
I suppose you feel that there is too much land to hunt on then... ya, it is a good deal.
Post by: NoBark on February 12, 2015, 11:47:09 AM