Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 30, 2016, 03:42:20 PM
Please send some emails with your feelings. Let them know what you think about keeping gates locked tightly. Let them know what you think about being restricted to only 20 acres if you like training dogs. Let them know what you think about a leash law being actively enforced in these big vast open areas. You like to take a walk with your family and your dogs? Make sure they are roped up when you get out on that 300+ acres. And, let them know if you like to recreate in corn or canary grass that is 6' tall. It's always fun to take a walk in a corn field on a sunny August day...at least that is what WDFW told me in an email. I guess some folks agree?????
NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
March 29, 2016
Contact: Jeanne Demorest, (509) 457-9313
WDFW seeks public participation
in Snoqualmie Wildlife Area plan
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will hold a public workshop April 11 to discuss the development of a new management plan for the Snoqualmie Wildlife Area.
The wildlife area consists of six separate units that cover nearly 2,774 acres in King and Snohomish counties. The management plan will address the status of wildlife species and their habitat, wildlife area restoration efforts and public recreation for all six units, said Clay Sprague, WDFW lands division manager.
"We want to encourage people who are interested in the wildlife area to help shape our plan, including how we manage habitat and public use," Sprague said.
The workshop is scheduled from 6 to 8 p.m., April 11, at the WDFW Region 4 headquarters, located at 16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek.
At the meeting, WDFW staff members will review the wildlife area’s history, discuss the planning process and ask for public comments.
As the new management plan is developed, the department will consider input from the public as well as feedback and guidance from the Snoqualmie Wildlife Area advisory committee, Sprague said. The advisory committee consists of citizens and stakeholders who review and provide input on wildlife area management activities.
Information on the wildlife area’s six units is available on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/snoqualmie/.
Those people unable to attend the April 11 meeting can submit comments to WDFW by email at SnoqualmiePlanning@dfw.wa.gov. There will be additional opportunities for public input, including at upcoming advisory committee meetings and when the draft plan is developed.
The department revises management plans for its 33 wildlife areas every eight to 10 years to reflect current conditions and identify new priorities and initiatives, Sprague said. WDFW also is updating the management plans for Sinlahekin and Scotch Creek wildlife areas in northern Washington and Klickitat Wildlife Area in south central Washington.
For more information on the wildlife area planning process, visit http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/.
Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 30, 2016, 03:48:05 PM
PART I:
OUTDOOR RECREATION FOR AMERICA - ORRRC REPORT, 1962
OUTDOOR RECREATION FOR AMERICA
A Report to the President and to the Congress by the
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
Laurance S. Rockefeller, Chairman
January, 1962
This report is a study of outdoor recreation in America—its history, its place in current American life, and its future. It represents a detailed investigation of what the public does in the out-of-doors, what factors affect its choices, what resources are available for its use, what are the present and future needs, and what the problems are in making new resources available. The investigation involves the present and to some extent the past, but its principal concern is for the future—between now and the year 2000. It is a plan for coming generations, one that must be started now and carried forward so that the outdoors may be available to the Americans of the future as it has been to those of the past.
Americans have long been concerned with the values of the outdoors. From Thoreau, Olmsted, and Muir in the middle of the past century to the leaders of today, there has been a continuing tradition of love of the outdoors and action to conserve its values. Yet one of the main currents of modern life has been the movement away from the outdoors. It no longer lies at the back door or at the end of Main Street. More and more, most Americans must traverse miles of crowded highways to know the outdoors. The prospect for the future is that this quest will be even more difficult.
Decade by decade, the expanding population has achieved more leisure time, more money to spend, and better travel facilities; and it has sought more and better opportunities to enjoy the outdoors. But the public has also demanded more of other things. In the years following World War II, this process greatly accelerated as an eager Nation, released from wartime restrictions, needed millions of new acres for subdivisions, industrial sites, highways, schools, and airports. The resources for outdoor recreation—shoreline, green acres, open space, and unpolluted waters—diminished in the face of demands for more of everything else.
In Washington, this created legislative issues in the Congress and administrative problems within the agencies responsible for providing opportunities for outdoor recreation. Similar problems were faced in many State capitals across the country. In some cases, they stemmed from conflicts among different interests vying for use of the same resources. In others, it was the matter of responsibility—who should do the job, and who should pay the bill. Private landowners were faced with problems caused by the public seeking recreation on their land. The factors which brought about the increased need for outdoor recreation grew, and each year the problems intensified.
During the 1950's, the pressing nature of the problems of outdoor recreation had become a matter of deep concern for Members of Congress, State legislators, other public leaders, and many private citizens and organizations. Numerous problems, both foreign and domestic, were making demands upon the Nation's resources and energies. But it was felt that in making choices among these priorities, America must not neglect its heritage of the outdoors—for that heritage offers physical, spiritual, and educational benefits, which not only provide a better environment but help to achieve other national goals by adding to the health of the Nation.
By 1958, Congress had decided that an intensive nationwide study should be made of outdoor recreation, one involving all levels of government and the private contribution, and on June 28 of that year it established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.
The authorizing act, Public Law 85-470, set forth the mission. It was essentially threefold:
To determine the outdoor recreation wants and needs of the American people now and what they will be in the years 1976 and 2000.
To determine the recreation resources of the Nation available to satisfy those needs now and in the years 1976 and 2000.
To determine what policies and programs should be recommended to ensure that the needs of the present and future are adequately and efficiently met.
The Commission that Congress established to carry out this task was composed of eight Congressional members, two representing each party from the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the Senate and of the House; and seven private citizens appointed by the President, one of whom was designated as Chairman.
In the fall of 1958, the Commission began recruiting a staff and in the following year launched its study program. The staff designed and coordinated the program and carried out some of the key studies, but many studies were assigned to outside contractors—Federal agencies, universities, and nonprofit research organizations—with particular skills, experience, or facilities. The reports resulting from these studies (listed in appendix C), with a full description of the techniques used in their conduct, are available in separate volumes because of their general public interest and potential value to officials at all levels of government and to others who may wish to pursue the subjects further. A few of the lines of investigation followed may be mentioned briefly.
To assess present resources for outdoor recreation, the Commission initiated an inventory of all the nonurban public designated recreation areas of the country. These numbered more than 24,000. Over a hundred items of information were analyzed in connection with 5,000 of the larger areas in order to evaluate present use and capacity and potential for development.
The Commission also carried out special studies to probe particular problems such as those connected with wilderness, water recreation, hunting and fishing, the densely populated Northeast, and sparsely populated Alaska.
To determine what the pressure is and will be on the resources, the Commission undertook a series of studies on the demand for outdoor recreation. At the base of these studies was a National Recreation Survey, conducted for the Commission by the Bureau of the Census. Some 16,000 persons were asked questions about their background, their economic status, what they presently do for outdoor recreation (if anything), what they would like to do more of, and why they do not do the things they want to do.
In further studies designed to complement and amplify the findings of the survey, the Commission investigated the effects on outdoor recreation of present and prospective changes—sectionally and nationally—in personal income, in population, in leisure time, and in travel facilities. To project future needs, the effects of such changes were applied to the present patterns as developed by the National Recreation Survey.
In order to have an effective method of working with the States, the Commission asked the Governor of each to appoint a State Contact Officer through whom it might channel all its requests. The Governors generally appointed the head of the State conservation, recreation, fish and game, or planning agency. These men and their associates made a major contribution in carrying out the inventory of State areas. This involved the laborious task of supplying detailed information on every area in the State. In other studies they provided financial, legal, and administrative data.
The Federal agencies in Washington and their field offices made available their valuable experience in the problems of outdoor recreation and provided specific data on their programs. In almost every study, the Commission began by consulting these agencies to determine what information was already available, and a great deal of valuable material was at hand.
The cooperation offered by their States and Federal agencies greatly expanded the reach of the Commission. Hundreds of people contributed significant time and effort and thus made it possible to do far more than otherwise could have been accomplished.
SOME FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
As results of the studies began flowing to the Commission, some old ideas were discarded, some were reinforced, and some new concepts evolved. The following are a few of the major conclusions.
The Simple Activities Are the Most Popular.
Driving and walking for pleasure, swimming, and picnicking lead the list of the outdoor activities in which Americans participate, and driving for pleasure is most popular of all. This is generally true regardless of income, education, age, or occupation.
Outdoor Opportunities Are Most Urgently Needed Near Metropolitan Areas.
Three-quarters of the people will live in these areas by the turn of the century. They will have the greatest need for outdoor recreation, and their need will be the most difficult to satisfy as urban centers have the fewest facilities (per capita) and the sharpest competition for land use.
Across the Country, Considerable Land Is Now Available for Outdoor Recreation, But It Does Not Effectively Meet the Need.
Over a quarter billion acres are public designated outdoor recreation areas. However, either the location of the land, or restrictive management policies, or both, greatly reduce the effectiveness of the land for recreation use by the bulk of the population. Much of the West and virtually all of Alaska are of little use to most Americans looking for a place in the sun for their families on a weekend,when the demand is overwhelming. At regional and State levels, most of the land is where people are not. Few places are near enough to metropolitan centers for a Sunday outing. The problem is not one of total acres but ofeffective acres.
Money Is Needed.
Most public agencies, particularly in the States, are faced with a lack of funds. Outdoor recreation opportunities can be created by acquiring new areas or by more intensive development of existing resources, but either course requires money. Federal, State, and local governments are now spending about $1 billion annually for outdoor recreation. More will be needed to meet the demand.
Outdoor Recreation Is Often Compatible With Other Resource Uses.
Fortunately, recreation need not be the exclusive use of an area, particularly the larger ones. Recreation can be another use in a development primarily managed for a different purpose, and it therefore should be considered in many kinds of planning—urban renewal, highway construction, water resource development, forest and range management, to name only a few.
Water Is a Focal Point of Outdoor Recreation.
Most people seeking outdoor recreation want water—to sit by, to swim and fish in, to ski across, to dive under, and to run their boats over. Swimming is now one of the most popular outdoor activities and is likely to be the most popular of all by the turn of the century. Boating and fishing are among the top 10 activities. Camping, picnicking, and hiking, also high on the list, are more attractive near water sites.
Outdoor Recreation Brings About Economic Benefits.
Although the chief reason for providing outdoor recreation is the broad social and individual benefits it produces, it also brings about desirable economic effects. Its provision enhances community values by creating a better place to live and increasing land values. In some underdeveloped areas, it can be a mainstay of the local economy. And it is a basis for big business as the millions and millions of people seeking the outdoors generate an estimated $20 billion a year market for goods and services.
Outdoor Recreation Is a Major Leisure Time Activity, and It Is Growing in Importance.
About 90 percent of all Americans participated in some form of outdoor recreation in the summer of 1960. In total, they participated in one activity or another on 4.4 billion separate occasions. It is anticipated that by 1976 the total will be 6.9 billion, and by the year 2000 it will be 12.4 billion—a threefold increase by the turn of the century.
More Needs To Be Known About the Values of Outdoor Recreation.
As outdoor recreation increases in importance, it will need more land, but much of this land can be used, and will be demanded, for other purposes. Yet there is little research to provide basic information on its relative importance. More needs to be established factually about the values of outdoor recreation to our society, so that sounder decisions on allocation of resources for it can be made. More must be known about management techniques, so that the maximum social and economic benefit can be realized from these resources.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS
After 3 years of research, and an aggregate of some 50 days of discussion among the Commissioners, the Commission has developed specific recommendations for a recreation program. The 15 members brought differing political, social and resource-use opinions to the meeting table, and proposed recommendations were put through the test of this range of opinions. During the course of the study and discussion, views of individual members developed, and the collective opinion crystallized. The final recommendations are a consensus of the Commission.
In the process of evolving recommendations, the Commission's Advisory Council played an important role. It consisted of 25 individuals representative of mining, timber, grazing, business, and labor interests as well as of recreation and conservation groups. The Council also included top-level representatives of 15 Federal agencies which have a responsibility relating to the provision of outdoor recreation. In five 2-day meetings with the Commission, the Council reviewed tentative proposals and suggested alternative courses of action on several occasions. The advice of the Council had a marked effect on the final product.
State Contact Officers also contributed to the decision-making process. In a series of regional meetings, at which the Commission sought their advice on pressing issues, they put forward practical and urgent suggestions for action.
In many cases the recommendations are general; in others they are specific. For various reasons, the recommendations tend to be more detailed and more extensive regarding the Federal Government. The Commission wishes to emphasize, however, that the key elements in the total effort to make outdoor recreation opportunities available are private enterprise, the States, and local government. In relation to them, the role of the Federal agencies should be not one of domination but of cooperation and assistance in meeting their respective needs.
The recommendations of the Commission fall into five general categories—
A National Outdoor Recreation Policy.
Guidelines for the Management of Outdoor Recreation Resources.
Expansion, Modification, and Intensification of Present Programs to Meeting Increasing Needs.
Establishment of a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Federal Government.
A Federal Grants-in-Aid Program to States.
The body of this report presents the reasoning and significance of these recommendations. To those who would like a quick over-all picture of the recommendations, the following digest will prove helpful.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 30, 2016, 03:48:35 PM
PART II
A NATIONAL OUTDOOR RECREATION POLICY
It shall be the national policy, through the conservation and wise use of resources, to preserve, develop, and make accessible to all American people such quantity and quality of outdoor recreation as will be necessary and desirable for individual enjoyment and to assure the physical, cultural, and spiritual benefits of outdoor recreation.
Implementation of this policy will require the cooperative participation of all levels of government and private enterprise. In some aspects, the government responsibility is greater; in others, private initiative is better equipped to do the job.
The role of the Federal Government should be—
1. Preservation of scenic areas, natural wonders, primitive areas, and historic sites of national significance.
2. Management of Federal lands for the broadest possible recreation benefit consistent with other essential uses.
3. Cooperation with the States through technical and financial assistance.
4. Promotion of interstate arrangements, including Federal participation where necessary.
5. Assumption of vigorous, cooperative leadership in a nationwide recreation effort.
The States should play a pivotal role in making outdoor recreation opportunities available by—
1. Acquisition of land, development of sites, and provision and maintenance of facilities of State or regional significance.
2. Assistance to local governments.
3. Provision of leadership and planning.
Local governments should expand their efforts to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, with particular emphasis upon securing open space and developing recreation areas in and around metropolitan and other urban areas.
Individual initiative and private enterprise should continue to be the most important force in outdoor recreation, providing many and varied opportunities for a vast number of people, as well as the goods and services used by people in their recreation activities. Government should encourage the work of nonprofit groups wherever possible. It should also stimulate desirable commercial development, which can be particularly effective in providing facilities and services where demand is sufficient to return a profit.
GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT
All agencies administering outdoor recreation resources—public and private—are urged to adopt a system of classifying recreation lands designed to make the best possible use of available resources the light of the needs of people. Present jurisdictional boundaries of agencies need not be disturbed, but where necessary, use should be changed in accordance with the classification.
Implementation of this system would be a major step forward in a coordinated national recreation effort. It would provide a consistent and effective method of planning for all land-managing agencies and would promote logical adjustment of the entire range of recreation activities to the entire range of available areas. Under this approach of recreation zoning, the qualities of the respective classes of recreation environments are identified and therefore more readily enhanced and protected.
The following system of classifying outdoor recreation resources is proposed—
Class I—High-Density Recreation Areas
Areas intensively developed and managed for mass use.
Class II—General Outdoor Recreation Areas
Areas subject to substantial development for a wide variety of specific recreation uses.
Class III—Natural Environment Areas
Various types of areas that are suitable for recreation in a natural environment and usually in combination with other uses.
Class IV—Unique Natural Areas
Areas of outstanding scenic splendor, natural wonder, or scientific importance.
Class V—Primitive Areas
Undisturbed roadless areas characterized by natural, wild conditions, including "wilderness areas."
Class VI—Historic and Cultural Sites
Sites of major historic or cultural significance, either local, regional, or national.
EXPANSION, MODIFICATION, AND
INTENSIFICATION OF PRESENT PROGRAMS
PLANNING, ACQUISITION, PROTECTION, AND ACCESS
1. Each State, through a central agency, should develop a long-range plan for outdoor recreation, to provide adequate opportunities for the public, to acquire additional areas where necessary, and to preserve outstanding natural sites.
2. Local governments should give greater emphasis to the needs of their citizens for outdoor recreation by considering it in all land-use planning, opening areas with recreation potential to use, and where necessary, acquiring new areas.
3. States should seek to work out interstate arrangements where the recreation-seeking public overflows political boundaries. The Federal Government should assist in meeting these interstate demand situations.
4. Systematic and continuing research, both fundamental and applied, should be promoted to provide the basis for sound planning and decisions.
5. Immediate action should be taken by Federal, State, and local governments to reserve or acquire additional water, beach, and shoreline areas, particularly near centers of population.
6. Full provision for acquiring shoreline lands for public access and use should be made in reservoir developments.
7. Surface rights to surplus Federal lands suitable for recreation should be transferred without cost to State or local governments with reversion clauses.
8. Open space programs for metropolitan areas should be continued.
9. Congress should enact legislation to provide for the establishment and preservation of certain primitive areas as "wilderness areas."
10. Certain rivers of unusual scientific, aesthetic, and recreation value should be allowed to remain in their free-flowing and natural setting without man-made alterations.
11. States should use their regulatory power to zone areas for maximum recreation benefit, maintain quality, and ensure public safety in conflicts between recreation and other uses and in conflicts among recreation uses.
12. Recreation areas should be strongly defended against encroachments from nonconforming uses, both public and private. Where recreation land must be taken for another public use, it should be replaced with other land of similar quality and comparable location.
13. Public agencies should assure adequate access to water-based recreation opportunities by acquisition of access areas, easements across private lands, zoning of shorelines, consideration of water access in road design and construction, and opening of now restricted waters such as municipal reservoirs.
14. Interpretive and educational programs should be intensified and broadened to promote appreciation and understanding of natural, scientific, and historic values.
PROMOTING RECREATION VALUES IN RELATED FIELDS
15. Outdoor recreation should be emphasized in federally constructed or licensed multipurpose water developments and thus granted full consideration in the planning, design, and construction of such projects.
16. Recreation should be recognized as a motivating purpose in programs and projects for pollution control and as a necessary objective in the allocation of funds therefor.
17. Flood-plain zoning should be used wherever possible as a method to preserve attractive reaches of rivers and streams for public recreation in addition to the other benefits from such zoning.
18. The Federal Government and the States should recognize the potential recreation values in highway construction programs and assure that they are developed.
19. Activities under watershed and other agricultural conservation programs should be oriented toward greater recreation benefits for the public.
20. The States should encourage the public use of private lands by taking the lead in working out such arrangements as leases for hunting and fishing, scenic easements, and providing protection for landowners who allow the public to use their lands.
MEETING THE COSTS
21. All levels of government must provide continuing and adequate funds for outdoor recreation. In most cases, this will require a substantial increase over present levels.
22. State and local governments should consider the use of general obligation and revenue bonds to finance land acquisition and capital improvements for outdoor recreation.
23. State and local governments should consider other financing devices such as season user fees, dedicated funds, and use of uncollected refunds of gasoline taxes paid by pleasure boat owners.
24. States should take the lead in extending technical and financial assistance to local governments to meet outdoor recreation requirements.
25. Public agencies should adopt a system of user fees designated to recapture at least a significant portion of the operation and maintenance costs of providing outdoor recreation activities that involve the exclusive use of a facility, or require special facilities.
26. In addition to outright acquisition, local governments should consider the use of such devices as easements, zoning, cluster developments, and open-land tax policies to supplement the supply of outdoor recreation opportunities.
27. Public agencies should stimulate desirable gifts of land and money from private individuals and groups for outdoor recreation purposes. The work of private, nonprofit organizations in providing and enhancing opportunities should be encouraged.
28. Government should stimulate and encourage the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities by private enterprise.
29. Where feasible, concessioners should be encouraged to provide facilities and visitor services on Federal lands under appropriate supervision. Where this is not feasible, the Federal Government should build facilities and lease them to private business for operation.
A BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
A Bureau of Outdoor Recreation should be established in the Department of the Interior. This Bureau would have over-all responsibility for leadership of a nationwide effort by coordinating the various Federal programs and assisting other levels of government to meet the demands for outdoor recreation. It would not manage any land. This would continue to be the function of the existing managerial agencies. Specifically, the new Bureau would—
1. Coordinate the recreation activities of the more than 20 Federal agencies whose activities affect outdoor recreation.
2. Assist State and local governments with technical aid in planning and administration, including the development of standards for personnel, procedures, and operations.
3. Administer a grants-in-aid program to States for planning and for development and acquisition of needed areas.
4. Act as a clearinghouse for information and guide, stimulate, and sponsor research as needed.
5. Encourage interstate and regional cooperation, including Federal participation where necessary.
To assure that recreation policy and planning receive attention at a high level and to promote interdepartmental coordination, there should be established a Recreation Advisory Council, consisting of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Defense, with the Secretary of the Interior as Chairman. Other agencies would be invited to participate on an ad hoc basis when matters affecting their interests are under consideration by the Council.
The Recreation Advisory Council would provide broad policy guidance on all matters affecting outdoor recreation activities and programs carried out by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The Secretary of the Interior should be required to seek such guidance in the administration of the Bureau.
Initially the new Bureau should be staffed where possible by transfer of experienced personnel from existing Federal agencies. It should have regional offices.
A Research Advisory Committee consisting of professional people from government, academic life, and private business should be established to advise the Bureau on its research activities.
It is urged that each State designate a focal point within its governmental structure to work with the Bureau. This focal point, perhaps one of the existing State agencies, could also serve to coordinate State recreation planning and activities and be responsible for a comprehensive State outdoor recreation plan.
A GRANTS-IN-AID PROGRAM
A Federal grants-in-aid program should be established to stimulate and assist the States in meeting the demand for outdoor recreation. This program, administered by the proposed Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, would promote State planning and acquisition and development of areas to meet the demands of the public. Projects would be approved in accordance with a statewide plan. They would be subject to review by the proposed Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to ensure conformance with Federal standards. This program would complement and would be closely coordinated with the open space aid provisions of recent legislation.
Initial grants of up to 75 percent of the total cost for planning would be made the first year and a reduced percentage thereafter. Grants for acquisition or development would be made up to 40 percent of the total cost. Federal participation could be raised to 50 percent where the State acquisition or development was part of an interstate plan.
Funds for the program would be allocated on a basis which would take into account State population, area, needs, and the amount of Federal land and Federal recreation programs in the State and region.
The grants-in-aid program should be supplemented by a program of loans to the States. This would assist in projects where the States did not have matching funds available but where the need for acquisition or development was particularly urgent, or where funds were needed beyond those available as grants-in-aid.
National Park Service Archives, Harpers Ferry, ORRRC Files, 1-10.
JFK's comments upon signing the Act.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9240
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 09:16:24 AM
Brian,
Yeah, just too many things going on last week and I’m in Oly this week for training. Anyway, once again, I’m not real excited about dog training on our lands anyway. What’s in it for us? We don’t get much of the Discover Pass $$ and very few of them actually are hunters and buy our licenses. If we are going to allow it, it needs to be understood that it’s only on the designated, signed area of Cherry Valley. One thing that may discourage them is the fact that the place isn’t mowed and the grass gets pretty high. I don’t see where we should make a whole lot of effort to mow just for commercial dog training. Commercial training also raises some concerns. These guys make a lot of $$ from winning hunt tests and field trials and many times are actually out there on the property with a customer who is interested in buying one of their dogs. Very difficult to prove but something that all of them should be made aware of. They need a commercial use permit from us to do anything of that sort. One guy just out tossing a dummy for his dog from time to time, although technically training, probably isn’t of much concern to us. When some of the big outfits move in there, they pretty much take the place over and get pretty testy when anyone else shows up just wanting to walk their dog. That isn’t going to be tolerated. If they have a trial permit, it still does not allow for exclusive use according to the wording on the permit.
Just some thoughts. You can email me back today with anything further and I should be able to reply during a break in this VERY exciting training.
K
Sergeant
Kim Chandler
WDFW
Detachment 10
King County
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 09:19:07 AM
WAC 232-13-090
Noncommercial use or activity.
It is unlawful to sponsor, conduct, or hold a private or public event, involving more than thirty people, on department lands without a permit from the director.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 77.12.210, 77.12.880. WSR 08-01-078 (Order 07-293), § 232-13-090, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08.]
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 09:48:50 AM
> From: Dahmer, Paul A (DFW)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:05 AM
> To: Link, Russell E (DFW); Sprague, Clay L (DFW)
> Cc: Larson, Ann L (DFW); Pamplin, Nathan (DFW); Everitt, Robert (DFW);
> Schirato, Greg (DFW)
> Subject: RE: off leash dogs on Snoqualmie Wildlife Area
>
> I believe we should follow Policy/Pro 6012 and complete a PAM form for signatures to address this recreation access issue. WAC 232-13-150 allows the director to restrict public access. The Policy 6012 delegates that authority from the director to others depending on the specific situation.
> Paul
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 09:52:43 AM
Again Chandler is taking broad stoke interpretations on how "HE" thinks laws should be interpreted to benefit HIS beliefs and dislike for a particular group. Is this the type of WDFW management we as citizens want?
From: Chandler, Kim K (DFW)
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 11:23 AM
To: Boehm, Brian J (DFW)
Cc: Link, Russell E (DFW)
Subject: RE: signage for dogs
You both already know my feelings about dog training on our lands. Off leash areas are certainly limited in King County and rightly so, nobody wants dogs just running around on their property. There are only a few designated off leash areas in some of the parks, otherwise dogs have to be on a leash anywhere in the county. I would think that even though the property is state land, it still would come under the county ordinances. Maybe not but we can certainly post rules……..any rules…….as to what you can and can’t do on our property. I too have had complaints of off leash dogs interrupting hunts and just plain being a nuisance. I’m all for your proposal Brian. Dogs on leash OK? Hard to enforce that when an offender looks over and sees a “hunting” dog off leash? I think the “NO DOGS EXCEPT WHEN HUNTING” would probably solve that problem. Since the 8-4 signs have been taken down now, there is lots of room on the sign boards for new signs so I say go for it.
Sergeant
Kim Chandler
<image001.jpg>
WDFW
Detachment 10
King County
I do not like it when LEO's talk about enforcing laws they "think" would apply. King Co law versus WDFW regulations? What do you guys think? " I would think that even though the property is state land, it still would come under the county ordinances." Well folks, he would "think" so now he is applying this "think" ordinance law which may or may not apply. People are being told they must walk dogs on leash. Because he has a badge nobody argues. He admits in the email above he doesn't know the law?????? WOW!!!! This surprise anyone? worry anyone?
Post by: John B on March 31, 2016, 01:41:42 PM
I do not like it when LEO's talk about enforcing laws they "think" would apply.
I agree 100%
I will make sure to be at the meeting April 11th, wearing my blaze orange hunting hat.
Thanks for posting
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 02:42:36 PM
I put an email in to Russ Link and Bob Everitt to clarify which law is being applied to the Snoqualmie Valley units. I just want to make sure all the information we share is factual. Things like the Outdoor Recreation Act and the provisions for management of the areas purchased with funds from the ORRRC.
Post by: bigtex on March 31, 2016, 04:58:33 PM
Even if the King county zone included the Snoqualmie Valley units WDFW couldn't enforce it without approval from the Sheriff. WDFW cannot enforce city/county ordinances unless authorized to do so from the sheriff/police chief.
As far as I know WDFW Officers are not authorized by the sheriff to enforce the king county ordinances. King county has had a long standing opinion on not granting authority to outside agencies. But that can change in a minute.
So this may be why Chandler doesn't know county leash laws.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on March 31, 2016, 05:01:46 PM
I put an email in to Russ Link and Bob Everitt to clarify which law is being applied to the Snoqualmie Valley units. I just want to make sure all the information we share is factual. Things like the Outdoor Recreation Act and the provisions for management of the areas purchased with funds from the ORRRC.Under the WAC WDFW can put any regulation on a sign on WDFW managed lands and then enforce the law. They could put up a sign saying no Toyota Prius' can park at this site and enforce the law.
This ability is a common regulation found amongst state and federal lands.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on March 31, 2016, 09:28:43 PM
WAC 232-13-180
Pets.
(1) The department may prohibit or regulate pets, except for bona fide service animals for persons with disabilities, on department lands.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 09:45:04 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 09:47:48 PM
I put an email in to Russ Link and Bob Everitt to clarify which law is being applied to the Snoqualmie Valley units. I just want to make sure all the information we share is factual. Things like the Outdoor Recreation Act and the provisions for management of the areas purchased with funds from the ORRRC.Under the WAC WDFW can put any regulation on a sign on WDFW managed lands and then enforce the law. They could put up a sign saying no Toyota Prius' can park at this site and enforce the law.
This ability is a common regulation found amongst state and federal lands.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Monday I will post Area Manager Brian Boehm's email requesting signs be made. Thank you for that information regarding having signs made. I have his email request. We will ask this specific question at the April 11 meeting.
Post by: dreamunelk on March 31, 2016, 09:49:22 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 09:53:22 PM
Sounds like they are just trying to keep from letting there dogs run amuck. At the same time protect the quality of the hunt. :dunno:
Actually, I proposed to put up signs for no dog training during hunting season. All dog trainers would support it. We are all hunters contrary to Chandlers claims and known bias
Post by: Happy Gilmore on March 31, 2016, 09:54:50 PM
Post by: Happy Gilmore on April 04, 2016, 09:04:44 AM
I put an email in to Russ Link and Bob Everitt to clarify which law is being applied to the Snoqualmie Valley units. I just want to make sure all the information we share is factual. Things like the Outdoor Recreation Act and the provisions for management of the areas purchased with funds from the ORRRC.Under the WAC WDFW can put any regulation on a sign on WDFW managed lands and then enforce the law. They could put up a sign saying no Toyota Prius' can park at this site and enforce the law.
This ability is a common regulation found amongst state and federal lands.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
More research on this and the regulate pets law part- both require a signature from the Director. I doubt he is going to back date any documents to cover for anyone. I've got a media outlet interested now. Getting all the fun emails together to send out for possible broader public exposure. I think there is interest because of the recent land grabs, one going on with natural resources in Spokane and of course, the Idaho deal...
Post by: Happy Gilmore on April 04, 2016, 01:53:16 PM
Mr. Gilmore,
Our Performance Division forwarded your email regarding the Cherry Valley area. I am reviewing that and other information now, and per your request plan to publish information to our website and to distribute an action alert email to our Washington State recipients. Timing will most likely lead to publishing in the morning.
If I may be of further assistance, please contact me directly as noted below.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.
Sincerely,
PHIL GUIDRY
Phil M. Guidry, JD
Senior Policy Analyst
AKC Government Relations Dept.
(919) 816-3503
pmg@akc.org
Post by: Happy Gilmore on April 05, 2016, 09:30:21 AM
That is not the message which enforcement and management has been telling people. I have that in writing. You guys have put out so many contrary remarks it is dumbfounding.
Paul Gilmore
Construction Installation Sales and Business Development
Northwest Linings & Geotextile Products, Inc.
21000 77th Ave South
Kent, WA 98032
P: 253-796-0012 Construction Office
D: 253-867-5367 Direct Line
C: 206-851-6326 Cell
F: 253-872-6953
paulg@northwestlinings.com
www.northwestlinings.com
“Helping to Protect the Environment”
Celebrating 41 Years of Service 1973-2014
From: Link, Russell E (DFW) [mailto:Russell.Link@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:23 AM
To: Paul Gilmore
Subject: RE: Leash Law Enforcement Question
See below.
From: Paul Gilmore [mailto:paulg@northwestlinings.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Link, Russell E (DFW)
Subject: RE: Leash Law Enforcement Question
How does agriculture affect nesting? Does it destroy nests? If it does not harm nests then, the public should have access to all areas in any type of agriculture without any restriction.
People are not restricted from farm fields.
Post by: Happy Gilmore on April 05, 2016, 01:19:11 PM
This would be a good link to share among dog clubs- Everyone will likely receive it anyways-
Post by: Special T on April 05, 2016, 02:03:20 PM
Post by: Old Dog on April 10, 2016, 08:31:11 PM
Post by: Carl on April 11, 2016, 12:48:41 PM
Carl
Post by: John B on April 11, 2016, 08:53:11 PM
Post by: Old Dog on April 11, 2016, 09:37:12 PM
Post by: Old Dog on April 29, 2016, 11:29:39 AM
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Management Plan Public Scoping Workshop Summary April 11, 2016
Introduction The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) hosted a public scoping workshop on Monday, April 11, 2016, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the WDFW Region 4 headquarters in Mill Creek. The purpose of the workshop was to share information about the wildlife area (WLA) planning process and to solicit public and stakeholder input.
The workshop began the planning process for developing a new management plan for the Snoqualmie WLA, one of 33 plans the department will revise over the next six to eight years. Plans are updated every two years to reflect changes in landscape and management priorities. The current plan for Snoqualmie was developed in 2006, and was updated in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014. These plans and updates are available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/
In this process, the plans will be expanded to include new agency initiatives, progress towards goals identified in earlier plans, and new WLA priorities. The plans will consider the interests and impacts of stakeholders and user groups; set goals for assessing and monitoring ecological integrity; outline forest management priorities; identify appropriate public use, recreation area and facility improvements; as well as weed control and other operations and maintenance activities.
Attendance 68 people attended and signed in at the workshop including interested parties from the communities of Seattle, Mill Creek, Fall City, Lynwood, Snohomish, Tacoma, Arlington, Issaquah, Mercer Island, Sultan, Stanwood, Redmond, Kirkland, Kent, North Bend, Sammamish Everett, Bothell, Carnation, Duvall, Woodinville, Bellevue, Lake Stevens, Auburn, and Shoreline. Stakeholder groups included Sound Salmon Solutions, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Water Dog University, Audubon, WRC, GRC, RHRC, GSP of Washington, American Kennel Club, MHAG, EGRC, WSOTC, NWPLC, Mountains to Sound Greenway, WWA, TRC, GSPCWA, WRTC.
Workshop Format The workshop was designed in a combination open house/presentation format. Maps of the wildlife area were posted, and participants were encouraged to share specific and general feedback after the presentation and at breakout stations.
Staff presentation Russ Link, Regional Wildlife Program Manager, welcomed the group and introduced member of the Wildlife Area Advisory Committee (WAAC) that were present: Martha Jordan, Audubon/NW Swan Conservation Organization Brent Hackney, Leque Island Stakeholder Group, Business Owner Troy Rahmig, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust
Each member spoke briefly about being a member of the WAAC.
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Public Scoping Meeting May 11, 2016 P a g e | 2
Russ also introduced the following staff members: Russ Link, Regional Wildlife Program Manager Brian Boehm, Wildlife Area Manager Ruth Milner, Wildlife Biologist Jeanne Demorest, Planning Project Manager Melinda Posner, Planning, Recreation & Public Outreach Section Manager Jamie Bails, Habitat Biologist Loren Brokaw, Restoration Projects Coordinator Ericka Thomas, Customer Service Specialist Sergeant Kim Chandler Captain Alan Myers Sergeant Jennifer Maustad
Melinda Posner, facilitator for the meeting, emphasized the early stage in the planning process and the desire to hear from the public and stakeholders about interests, issues, and potential priorities for these WLAs areas. She noted multiple methods for providing comments including written comment sheets that can be turned in at the end of the meeting or emailed to SnoqualmiePlanning@dfw.wa.gov . Questions and comments can also be directed to: Jeanne Demorest: jeanne.demorest@dfw.wa.gov Brian Boehm: brian.boehm@dfw.wa.gov
She also noted the number of comments the agency has received regarding dog training on the wildlife area and indicated that agency staff agree that this is a topic that will require more discussion, which may include scheduling additional meetings or other outreach.
Melinda reviewed the department’s overall process for updating all state wildlife area plans. She shared that the following new topics the plan will consider: Property history & funding obligations Resource management & environmental integrity Recreation management Expanded public outreach including public workshops, information materials and Wildlife Area Advisory Committee meetings
She summarized the planning process for the Snoqualmie Wildlife Area; staff expects a draft plan by the fall of 2016, and the final plan by the end of the year. Melinda introduced Brian Boehm, Wildlife Area Manager. Brian described the current activities at each of the six units that make up the wildlife area and emphasized the importance of volunteers.
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Public Scoping Meeting May 11, 2016 P a g e | 3
Comments Recorded at the Meeting Overall: Keep access open Collaborate with dog/hunt groups for upkeep on training areas What are the results of dog use study – last year and this How did having field trial/tests effect study Mowing for dog training What about tracking or search and rescue Not allow pro-trainers to use the area w/o permit or ban At dog meeting must have maps for people to draw where they want dog training to be at Cherry Valley and Crescent Lake Resolve conflict of use between retriever, field trial, upland bird trainers – they all have different needs Cherry Valley and Stillwater: more shallow ponds for waterfowl hunting Acquisition for dog training – Pepper’s .003% of wildlife land in state to serve 38% of the population Put ponds in other places Hunting hours are not good for deer/elk hunting Breed pheasants with gills Solar powered outhouses? Not enough outhouses and not clean enough Brian is doing a great job Better signs so bikers can get to the river and enjoy more of the WLA Signs on parking lots that designate the N vs S parking lots – better signs in general More shallow ponds for bird watching Why are ag activities allowed during nesting season when dog running is not allowed? Car break-ins: need more enforcement presence – may be coordinated with the sheriff. DuVall High School or other schools are good sites for holding meetings. Ebey Island: Improve roads for volunteer access for pheasant release and public access Shallow ponds and access improvements Develop master plan for the Island o Incorporate agriculture & moist soil management where practical Stillwater: Eradicate Himalayan blackberry – there is a lot and it is a noxious weed Crescent Lake: There is water available here for dog training Keep access open year around Clarification on Crescent Lake sign to show dog training area. Zoom out & show “you are here” Bring back the bridge @ Crescent from south to center area Cherry Valley: After hunting season open the gates Maintain access for dog training
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Public Scoping Meeting May 11, 2016 P a g e | 4
Keep access open year around Open gate to pond area Mowing to increase human access for hiking Increase dog training area from 10 to 60/80 acres Open pond area up & control vegetation so people can use for training dogs Place to train dogs is critical – pond is important Water features for dog training Dog events Grant was for hunting and dog training Paid for with P/R funds Parking/traffic danger Parking & 20 acre site too far removed from each other Open the gates Use dog trainers to help with maintenance Need 60+ acres of land with ponds available More access for disability users Hunting above Cherry Valley wetland too deep no shallow ponds in ag plots put ponds in other places
Other input: ADA concerns – need to have access Older people can’t walk long distances especially with training equipment Stakeholders/users are interested in working together Feels the manager manages for personal preference; not sure what the issues are; guesses are: Trash Fish Nesting birds Need safe access – not having to unload dogs on a busy highway; parking lot is constrained Maintain access Short memory in state; historical leaves with ongoing manager; e.g. no funds to mow but dog trainers came out to help For future meetings, post info on the signs at Cherry Valley parking lot Conflict with off-leash dog parks folks – is enforcement driving decisions? Concerns about what is being sprayed on crops? Farmer practices might not be following the rules for spraying pesticides Retriever training folks would like to have water access What triggered the closure (smaller area for dog training) decision? It’s never been clear to recreation users. As a result there are many speculations – economic downturn leading to less resources for O&M; not a clear answer as to what management problem is being solved Other dog training needs to be addressed that are not currently being met: Pointers Field trials
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Public Scoping Meeting May 11, 2016 P a g e | 5
Tracking Consider “contract farmer” invest in habitat that supports hunting Contradictions about nesting birds and mowing Protecting high quality habitat and having enough space for dog training can all work at Cherry Valley – one example was expanding the current area bounded by Lateral A and keeping all other land in quality habitat Need to create designated area for those simply walking dogs on leash – there is room for them at Cherry Valley too; current practice has folks walking right through the training area Non-hunting dog training vs. hunting dog training: most of those doing dog training also hunt (and do the non-hunting activities during non-hunting season) but not everyone; the types of training activities include: Field trials Tracking Hunt tests Search and rescue (not related to hunting) Falconry Interesting fact: 1948 – the very first trial event was held in WA state – and this occurred at Snoqualmie Wildlife Area –68 years of history; should be part of the area
Next steps in the planning process: Internal meetings to discuss public input – May 2016 Stakeholder meeting(s) to follow-up on input from initial public scoping meeting – summer 2016. Invitations for the meeting will be sent to the mailing list
Post by: Old Dog on April 29, 2016, 11:31:54 AM
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Management Plan Comment Sheets Summary of Responses April 25, 2016
Question 1: What interests you about the Snoqualmie Wildlife area? Hiking and Birding (6) Pheasant Hunting (2) Duck Hunting (3) Goose Hunting Bird Hunting (5) General Hunting (9) Dog Training (28) Dog competitions/trials (4) Dog exercise area (2) “Future Uses” Enjoyment of diverse ecosystem abutted to urban space (6) Exercising (4) Wildlife Observation Photography (2) Family outings (2) Youth Mentoring Habitat Enhancement (2) Wood Duck nesting boxes Duck nest tubes Preservation of bird area Opportunity to enjoy various outdoor activities Suggestion: “Fill in deep ponds to attract more waterfowl.
Question 2: Please check the boxes that correspond to the areas you visit and indicate how often you visit.
Areas Visited # of visits per season Spring Summer Fall Winter Cherry Valley 258 266 246 150 Corson Natural Area 1 1 Crescent Lake 64 360 103 85 Ebey Island 22 22 42 42 Spencer Island 10 10 22 12 Stillwater 199 180 230 199
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Comment Card Summary P a g e | 2
Question 3: What recreation activities do you pursue at this wildlife area?
Cherry Valley
Corson Crescent Lake
Ebey Island
Spencer Island
Stillwater
Hunting 25 17 10 5 18 Fishing 9 1 2 Wildlife Viewing 12 2 8 5 2 8 Dog Walking 27 1 8 3 2 13 Dog Training 12 1 18 7 2 13 Exercise 4 7 7 Hiking 3 1 5 3 1 5 Photography 3 2 4 3 5
Other: Cherry Valley: Dog "events" - 2, Youth Mentoring - 1, Dog "tracking" - 2, Restoration Work - 1, Wildlife Survey - 1, Take new friends to show how to train dogs – 1 Corson: None Crescent Lake: Wildlife Survey - 1, Trumpeter Swan Observation -1 Ebey Island: Wildlife Survey - 1 Spencer Island: None Stillwater: Restoration Work - 1, Dog "tracking" - 2, Wildlife Survey - 1
Question 4: What particular wildlife and/or fish species, and/or habitats are you interested in? Forest (1) Grassland (12) Wetland (16) Agricultural area (6) River/Stream (4) Riparian (3) Pheasant (8) Ducks (6) Geese (4) Swans (1) Dogs (11) Elk (1) Salmon (3) Other fish (1) Upland game (2) Songbirds and other species for bird watching (1)
Question 5: What changes or improvements would you like to see on the Snoqualmie Wildlife Area?
Cherry Valley: Re open area to dog training (12) Consistent mowing through spring and summer (7) Remove blackberries (2) Less corn planted (3) General access
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Comment Card Summary P a g e | 3
Open up 60-80 acres for grass and wetlands for dog events (no region given, but probably Cherry Valley, based on other comments given). Expand training areas (2) Limited access to back of property (2) Access to training ponds (3) Plant grass (other than canary grass) Open both gates from HWY 203 Allow volunteers to maintain grounds for dog training Allow volunteers to mentor youth in upland hunting Tell Chandler and Boehm to stop harassing dog trainers Increase restoration of native habitats Increase user friendly features such as walking trails Fewer season restrictions Make signage that is easier to read (although commenter says it is better this year) Make a level setback Increase community involvement (commenter admits that this has significantly improved recently). Flood control for better access Gravel road
Stillwater and Chinook Bend Maintain parking lots Stillwater: mow out areas, remove blackberries, continue agriculture (3) Open area to dog training (3) Year-round access for dog training Flood control for better access Beaver management
Crescent Lake Open areas for dog training (4) Mowing dog areas (2) Year-round access for dog training.
Unknown (no units specified) Open dog training area (2) Times allocated for dog training Less agriculture and more open grassland (2) Leave as is, but better access and safety near Ro… (couldn’t read the rest because cut off during copying) Road? Reinstate dog training area to original size so that more than one small group can be training Open gates so users can drive in (2) Would like to see more places to train bird dogs instead of having them taken away. Ponds are too deep to hunt waterfowl; use Ducks Unlimited to improve ponds Increase waterfowl Habitat Would like to see more cover left in open fields for wildlife
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Comment Card Summary P a g e | 4
All Units Create shallow ponds in back areas as well as in areas that have crops planted. Observe most waterfowl in Snoqualmie Valley are on private lands with a combination of crops, grass, and shallow waters Consistent management practices that enhance game and wildlife species as well as providing useable space for training. Mowing, crop rotation, moderate grazing are a few of the practices which could help facilitate a balance. Replace bridges and access to all areas Several people (3) commented that they would like larger areas open for dog training to make the property more meaningful for that purpose.
Question 6: What land management activities are you most interested in/concerned about? Hunting (13) Habitat Restoration (14) Farming (2) Mixture of habitats (2) Dog training (23) Grassland (1) Bird nesting (4) Parking/access (2) General use (1) Hiking with dogs (1) Fishing (1) Pheasant release program (1) Use of ponds (1)
Question 7: Provide any additional feedback: Questions, suggestions or other input about the Snoqualmie Wildlife Area and/or the planning process: Please include dog training at all wildlife areas (6) It is important for us not to just preserve habitat for wild fish, but to also provide open spaces for people to hunt, train our dogs and take our kids (3) Keep ponds open for dog training (4) Keep areas open for habitat Important that decision makers listen and respond to the wishes of the communities who use the areas Restrict dog trainers to amateurs only; no commercial/professional trainers Ability to park near training areas in order to protect valuables and dogs Keep grass mowed for hunting and dog training (4) Unlock gates and provide access to training/hunting areas (4) Somehow limit non-hunting dogs from the wildlife areas; perhaps by requiring a hunting license rather than a Discover Pass. Approach owners of wetlands adjacent to Cherry Valley, Crescent Lake, & Stillwater about purchasing their properties Create additional shallow ponds to help disperse hunters Areas should be open to all dogs and their owners, as dog parks are less ideal. Have areas open during the season when birds are not nesting Dog training areas need to be significantly larger, and include ponds in order for them to be meaningful training grounds for hunting dogs.
Snoqualmie Wildlife Area Comment Card Summary P a g e | 5
Plant communities are currently being encouraged at Cherry Valley, through management, that are more detrimental to native plant and animal survival than dog training is. Dog trainers police the areas by picking up trash (because it can injure dogs who ingest it). This also helps protect the wildlife from illness or injury from trash which would have otherwise been left unattended. (2) Hunting and licensing fees should go towards maintaining properties. Habitat at Cherry Valley and Stillwater are in very poor condition Why have Mr. Chandler and Mr. Boehm worked so hard to prevent dog trainers use at Cherry Valley? Dog clubs would be happy to volunteer to help maintain How does farming the land at Cherry Valley NOT affect the wildlife? Consider full dog access outside of pheasant and waterfowl sesons: this could solve dog/hunter conflicts Please keep community updated on improvements More duck hunting More corn planted More flooded property Control the off leash dogs and owners – better education and enforcement “Regarding the planning meeting – I was most interested in hearing audience interests. They were expressed within “stations”, but I thought it would be more informative to hear people’s opinions expressed in the larger group. I felt the stations were informative, but everyone in the station is “preaching to the choir.”” Don’t let salmon mitigation block access to any of these units A reasonable access plan developed based on desired beneficial uses, community values and equity WDFW has a long history of supporting multi-use and especially dog training/trialing activities on WDFW land. What has changed in the Department to cause such restriction on SVWA? What evidence exists that dog training at any of the SVWA properties is detrimental to the long term goals of WDFW? Why has it been determined that dog training activity is targeted as the root of the problems that exist on the SVWA? I have been told by people outside WDFW who are involved in the decision making process for other WDFW lands that there is a procedural process within the department which requires the department wildlife managers to conduct three year studies on the property prior to making policy changes that directly affect the public. Why has the policy restricting dog training/trialing changed without more public input? I think it should be clear to WDFW that the access issues surrounding SVWA are very important to the unit’s primary user group and additional public forum should be available to the amateur dog training community in order to achieve a viable resolution to the current operating status. I would like to reiterate my interest in being involved in the advisory process. Thanks to all WDFW staff and personnel for attending the meeting Monday
Post by: Old Dog on April 29, 2016, 11:43:27 AM
What a waste of time, I'm on my third glass of scotch and still completely frustrated. I'll be sure to be at the meeting specifically for dog training, if it happens, to show support if nothing else. Russell Link (I think that was his name) seemed genuinely interested in providing adequate dog training grounds. The rest of the WDFW employees I heard from seemed to be just placating us, hoping we'll go away
Do you still think it was a waste of time? I sure don't.
Post by: John B on April 29, 2016, 06:01:26 PM
Do you still think it was a waste of time? I sure don't.
Yes, I think they wasted our time. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we all went. We showed our numbers and expressed that their dog training area was not acceptable. I think many of those emails were sent before the meeting.