Post by: Old Man Yager on October 17, 2016, 09:55:19 AM
Post by: Falcon on October 17, 2016, 10:52:44 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on October 17, 2016, 01:41:42 PM
Post by: ballpark on October 17, 2016, 01:52:58 PM
Post by: Old Man Yager on October 17, 2016, 07:44:25 PM
Great they are enforcing potential trespassing on the private access farms. I'm sure there isn't over 700,000 acres of public ground to take a look at as well. I'm sure I'll get the comment "well Hancock lays for salary of blah blah blah" but I'm pretty sure our license fees still go into enforcement salaries as well. Protect the monopolies and let the public ground get shot out further re-enforcing the need to use leases. Glad they were polite to the kids and professional. Too bad administrative policy is so screwed up that these are the priorities.I was thinking the same thing, might be a lot of better opportunities for them to catch somebody on public land, just for the fact that many more people can access it. It's good that they go into private so people will keep that in mind, that they aren't above the law just because they bought a pass or a lease.
Post by: Goshawk on October 17, 2016, 08:27:46 PM
I haven't seen or been checked by a Game Warden since George Smallwood's checkpoint outside of Eatonville. Thought they all gave up on that.
Goshawk
Post by: Drifterat on October 17, 2016, 08:31:41 PM
But I agree that there is plenty of state land that needs more thorough patrols and they shouldn't be enforcing trespass laws for big business.
Post by: fishnfur on October 17, 2016, 08:36:34 PM
Post by: floatinghat on October 18, 2016, 08:29:01 AM
Interesting if it is policy? I think Weyco / Private timber that charges access fees should be required to provide their own enforcement for access and game laws. The lic/tax payer payed enforcement should control public property before being "gate checkers".
Post by: Stuwee31 on October 18, 2016, 08:38:21 AM
Post by: Branden on October 18, 2016, 08:51:50 AM
Post by: PolarBear on October 18, 2016, 09:20:05 AM
Post by: NoBark on October 18, 2016, 09:32:41 AM
IF they are being paid by Owner and not WDFW to check PERMITS, OK
If they are checking for poachers, license, tag and general infractions on WDFW dime. OK
If they are doing less of #2 above on public land on WDFW dime. Not OK
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2016, 09:38:39 AM
Last time I was checked by a warden in Hancock I asked him why he was in there. He said Hancock pays them overtime to help patrol. He said Hancock has to pay for mileage also. Seems like a good thing to me.
If they want security, they should have to hire private security. I don't care if it's off-duty DFW LEO. But they shouldn't be in uniform and using government vehicles to do it. It's hard for me to imagine that the WDFW has spare enforcement and equipment resources available which allows them to farm out gamies to private landowners during hunting season. I don't care what the compensation is. The WDFW should not be helping the very companies who blind-sided them and us by closing off access to the general public. When is our state going to stop coddling these private businesses who are making money off closing lands to public hunting?
Post by: Goshawk on October 18, 2016, 09:46:28 AM
During modern rifle WDFW enforcement is at the Weyco gates in Vail tree farm every night. I asked him if they are Weyco employees now and got the full shakedown as a result. They did tell me Weyco pays a small overtime contract, as there was a WSP officer there at times as well. This was all last season so I don't know what is going on up there this year.
But I agree that there is plenty of state land that needs more thorough patrols and they shouldn't be enforcing trespass laws for big business.
Post by: fishngamereaper on October 18, 2016, 09:50:41 AM
Its kind of funny people complain when they don't see or hear of active wdfw enforcement but then when they do, they complain about how it's being done.
Post by: trophyhunt on October 18, 2016, 09:59:14 AM
Post by: Stein on October 18, 2016, 10:03:05 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2016, 10:19:25 AM
Their job is to enforce the fish and game laws. If a landowner is experiencing problems like trespassing, they have every right to place a call and have it enforced. If they want more, they can pay for even more attention. I don't like the timber companies policies, but they have the same rights as a landowner that I do.
I agree. That doesn't mean that our LEO should be patrolling their property or putting up checkpoints. They should only be responding to calls for specific violations, like they do for any private landowner.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2016, 10:26:49 AM
A lot of companies/school's etc pay off duty Leo for security details. Part of the agreement is that they are in uniform. Most if not all Leo agencies have policies/ procedures for off duty work. Most of the time it doesn't cost the tax payer a dime. And with private security you don't get enforcement powers. Private security are simply observers that still have to call Leo.
Its kind of funny people complain when they don't see or hear of active wdfw enforcement but then when they do, they complain about how it's being done.
I've never complained about seeing DFW LEO doing their job for us on public lands. My interactions have always been positivie and I appreciate what LEO do. And when we don't see them working, is it because the resource is spread too thin by sending them onto private property to patrol and set up check points during hunting season? I also understand LEO need to feed their families by working overtime and I have no problem with that. But what happens when they're in a WDFW enforcement uniform or a WSP uniform and vehicle, and something happens which creates liability? An officer shot or injured, a vehicle accident, etc. Does Hancock assume the liability or is it the state which pays? I bet it's the state.
Post by: Stein on October 18, 2016, 10:39:23 AM
Their job is to enforce the fish and game laws. If a landowner is experiencing problems like trespassing, they have every right to place a call and have it enforced. If they want more, they can pay for even more attention. I don't like the timber companies policies, but they have the same rights as a landowner that I do.
I agree. That doesn't mean that our LEO should be patrolling their property or putting up checkpoints. They should only be responding to calls for specific violations, like they do for any private landowner.
We had an issue in our neighborhood that was recurring and the local police set up extra patrols through here, sometimes as many as three times a night until the problem was resolved.
The point is that we don't know what prompted their attention, whether it was on or off duty or basically any other fact other than they were there enforcing the law and apparently caught at least one guy.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2016, 10:41:19 AM
Post by: jackmaster on October 18, 2016, 10:48:29 AM
Post by: MLhunter1 on October 18, 2016, 11:05:58 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 18, 2016, 11:14:48 AM
Post by: Old Man Yager on October 18, 2016, 11:18:18 AM
It was probably Jeff Summit, nice guy with a porn mustache. :chuckle:that's the guy
Post by: MLhunter1 on October 18, 2016, 11:21:13 AM
Post by: fireweed on October 18, 2016, 01:42:11 PM
Just like citizens in Cowlitz County have done, contact the WDFW law enforcement and insist that state-taxpayer funded LEOs are NOT corporate security guards.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2016, 02:47:02 PM
Post by: floatinghat on October 18, 2016, 03:05:25 PM
Game wardens need to stick to game rules, and not be corporate security guards. This is what the sheriff of Cowlitz County has decided. Our sheriff will not check permits or enforce corporate policy while on private timberlands. They are only there to respond to calls and look for crimes. The county sheriff's policy is to only approach someone and ask them to leave for trespassing after the company security calls them because someone has refused to leave. It should be the same with game wardens--they check game, licenses, tags, but not enforce corporate policy on access. Imagine the slippery slope with the multi-layers of rules that these companies put in place--rules about family relationships, photo id and paper permits, shovels, fire extinguishers, firewood collection procedures, berries, mushroom limits, open/closed roads and walk-in areas, motorized vs. non-motorized permits, hangtag visibility, different company permits in different areas. Heck, Rayonier even proposed that nobody under 18 could be on their land. It is not the job of state employees to enforce all this random corporate gobbly-gook. It's should not be a warden's job to keep all this straight and be the hired enforcers for these companies (the game laws are confusing enough all by themselves). That is a security guards job, and if they find a violation then they can call a LEO.
Just like citizens in Cowlitz County have done, contact the WDFW law enforcement and insist that state-taxpayer funded LEOs are NOT corporate security guards.
Post by: Mudman on October 18, 2016, 03:10:56 PM
Post by: buglebrush on October 18, 2016, 03:25:15 PM
Game wardens need to stick to game rules, and not be corporate security guards. This is what the sheriff of Cowlitz County has decided. Our sheriff will not check permits or enforce corporate policy while on private timberlands. They are only there to respond to calls and look for crimes. The county sheriff's policy is to only approach someone and ask them to leave for trespassing after the company security calls them because someone has refused to leave. It should be the same with game wardens--they check game, licenses, tags, but not enforce corporate policy on access. Imagine the slippery slope with the multi-layers of rules that these companies put in place--rules about family relationships, photo id and paper permits, shovels, fire extinguishers, firewood collection procedures, berries, mushroom limits, open/closed roads and walk-in areas, motorized vs. non-motorized permits, hangtag visibility, different company permits in different areas. Heck, Rayonier even proposed that nobody under 18 could be on their land. It is not the job of state employees to enforce all this random corporate gobbly-gook. It's should not be a warden's job to keep all this straight and be the hired enforcers for these companies (the game laws are confusing enough all by themselves). That is a security guards job, and if they find a violation then they can call a LEO.
Just like citizens in Cowlitz County have done, contact the WDFW law enforcement and insist that state-taxpayer funded LEOs are NOT corporate security guards.
:yeah:
Post by: Branden on October 18, 2016, 04:04:40 PM
Post by: jackmaster on October 18, 2016, 08:17:11 PM
I guess I don't see the problem. You have a warden sitting at home on the couch. Or he can be out making OT working as a sub contractor. Seems like a win for the warden and for law abiding hunters. As long as timber companies are paying for the whole thing what's the big deal? If tax dollars are being used then yes there is a problem.:yeah:if the game warden is out working for Hancock on his days off then there isn't a swingn Richard that should give a rats hiny!! I would do the exact same on my days off, who can't use extra cash now days??
Post by: Igor on October 18, 2016, 08:37:00 PM
Post by: fireweed on October 18, 2016, 08:38:05 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2016, 09:24:29 PM
I guess I don't see the problem. You have a warden sitting at home on the couch. Or he can be out making OT working as a sub contractor. Seems like a win for the warden and for law abiding hunters. As long as timber companies are paying for the whole thing what's the big deal? If tax dollars are being used then yes there is a problem.
The difference is the uniform and the official vehicle. Tax dollars may or may not being used. Resources are and because of the uniforms and official vehicles, the county and state law enforcement agencies are on the hook for any liabilities. That's definitely taxpayer dollars when it comes to that.
Post by: jackmaster on October 18, 2016, 09:28:48 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 18, 2016, 09:42:12 PM
Without going into too much detail I can say that in Pierce County on the opener you had a DNR LEO working the state forest, a USFS LEO on USFS lands, a couple WDFW LEOs working the massive Hancock lands in Buckley and Eatonville (which are probably the most deer hunted areas in Pierce County..), and several others working other areas.
Officers go where the people are...It shouldn't matter if that's a WDFW Wildlife Area or a Weyerhauser tree farm, or does it not matter if people slaughter our deer and elk herds on private timberlands???
You guys make it sound like since there was one warden in Eatonville that the entire county was then vacant of coverage...
Post by: bigtex on October 18, 2016, 09:45:36 PM
Imagine the slippery slope with the multi-layers of rules that these companies put in place--rules about family relationships, photo id and paper permits, shovels, fire extinguishers, firewood collection procedures, berries, mushroom limits, open/closed roads and walk-in areas, motorized vs. non-motorized permits, hangtag visibility, different company permits in different areas.Shovels, fire extinguishers, firewood, mushrooms, etc. are actually state laws, not just corporate rules/policies.....
Post by: fishnfur on October 18, 2016, 10:21:30 PM
People love to complain about natural resource LEOs and where they are, and what they are doing. If I'm working duck hunters they tell me I should be working deer hunters, deer hunters will say I should be working the rivers. If I'm on the westside of the county they say I should be on the east, the eastside guys I should be in the north.
Without going into too much detail I can say that in Pierce County on the opener you had a DNR LEO working the state forest, a USFS LEO on USFS lands, a couple WDFW LEOs working the massive Hancock lands in Buckley and Eatonville (which are probably the most deer hunted areas in Pierce County..), and several others working other areas.
Officers go where the people are...It shouldn't matter if that's a WDFW Wildlife Area or a Weyerhauser tree farm, or does it not matter if people slaughter our deer and elk herds on private timberlands???
You guys make it sound like since there was one warden in Eatonville that the entire county was then vacant of coverage...
You imply that is not the case. But if we never see you while we're out there (which we frequently are), then as far as we're concerned that is exactly the case. I'm sure that makes perfect sense. If I spend 40 or 50 days a year in the woods and never ever see a LEO along the way......(unless Rugged Justice is riding along)......
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 19, 2016, 07:43:28 AM
People love to complain about natural resource LEOs and where they are, and what they are doing. If I'm working duck hunters they tell me I should be working deer hunters, deer hunters will say I should be working the rivers. If I'm on the westside of the county they say I should be on the east, the eastside guys I should be in the north.
Without going into too much detail I can say that in Pierce County on the opener you had a DNR LEO working the state forest, a USFS LEO on USFS lands, a couple WDFW LEOs working the massive Hancock lands in Buckley and Eatonville (which are probably the most deer hunted areas in Pierce County..), and several others working other areas.
Officers go where the people are...It shouldn't matter if that's a WDFW Wildlife Area or a Weyerhauser tree farm, or does it not matter if people slaughter our deer and elk herds on private timberlands???
You guys make it sound like since there was one warden in Eatonville that the entire county was then vacant of coverage...
My complaint isn't about the natural resource LEOs, for whom I have the highest respect. My complaint is about 1. their management team, and 2. The love affair that WDFW maintains with WEYCO and other pay-to-play big timber companies after they screwed the public on land use. As far as people slaughtering our deer and elk, as I said before, if there are specific reports of law breaking, whether it be trespassing, poaching (or slaughter!), or dumping and vandalism, LEOs can be dispatched to investigate these reports as they would reports from any private landowner. Until a crime/violation is reported, they can spend their time on public lands serving the majority of hunters and fishers. If they're being hired as private security after hours (and I have no problem with LEOs getting extra work if they need it), they shouldn't be representing the WDFW or the WDP or any other government entity, in uniform. They should be private security in private security uniforms and in company or personal vehicles. Mileage can't begin to cover the initial expense of a new LE vehicle ($70-100K), or the liabilities incurred by taxpayers when they're working in government uniforms and vehicles.
Post by: Mudman on October 19, 2016, 08:56:10 AM
Post by: jackmaster on October 19, 2016, 09:07:39 AM
I get it. Its not wrong and I get the point, its a good thing. Yet Weyco isn't a timber Co. its a real estate Co. fleecing us and the State. Hancock is but I feel their lands should be treated as all the rest. No special treatment or Quid pro crap. Wardens should do their job enforce laws, protect wildlife on all lands but not be pd. extra ot for special service on these large companies. Their land is the same as all lands. Does State or forest service pay extra for our public lands to get special patrols? Enforcing their permits really ticks us off. More than Discober pass...those companies that the off duty wardens are working for are paying the O.T, I don't know about you, but I would do it for the extra money, who wouldn't ?
Post by: Mudman on October 19, 2016, 09:19:48 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 19, 2016, 09:28:30 AM
People love to complain about natural resource LEOs and where they are, and what they are doing. If I'm working duck hunters they tell me I should be working deer hunters, deer hunters will say I should be working the rivers. If I'm on the westside of the county they say I should be on the east, the eastside guys I should be in the north.
Without going into too much detail I can say that in Pierce County on the opener you had a DNR LEO working the state forest, a USFS LEO on USFS lands, a couple WDFW LEOs working the massive Hancock lands in Buckley and Eatonville (which are probably the most deer hunted areas in Pierce County..), and several others working other areas.
Officers go where the people are...It shouldn't matter if that's a WDFW Wildlife Area or a Weyerhauser tree farm, or does it not matter if people slaughter our deer and elk herds on private timberlands???
You guys make it sound like since there was one warden in Eatonville that the entire county was then vacant of coverage...
My complaint isn't about the natural resource LEOs, for whom I have the highest respect. My complaint is about 1. their management team, and 2. The love affair that WDFW maintains with WEYCO and other pay-to-play big timber companies after they screwed the public on land use. As far as people slaughtering our deer and elk, as I said before, if there are specific reports of law breaking, whether it be trespassing, poaching (or slaughter!), or dumping and vandalism, LEOs can be dispatched to investigate these reports as they would reports from any private landowner. Until a crime/violation is reported, they can spend their time on public lands serving the majority of hunters and fishers. If they're being hired as private security after hours (and I have no problem with LEOs getting extra work if they need it), they shouldn't be representing the WDFW or the WDP or any other government entity, in uniform. They should be private security in private security uniforms and in company or personal vehicles. Mileage can't begin to cover the initial expense of a new LE vehicle ($70-100K), or the liabilities incurred by taxpayers when they're working in government uniforms and vehicles.
Ever see a cop standing in Wal mart, with a vehicle parked out front? Ever see a cop at a football game on Friday night? How about a cop working neighborhood watch?
Its called extra duty details and law enforcement community has done it for literally decades. Private companies pay the governing agency a fee for the service and the officer gets a hourly rate above and beyond what he is payed by the state or county. The officer is being paid to pull extra hours above and beyond what the government is willing to pay him.
My god we've beat this horse to death at least tewn times on this site. All of you guyys that just can't stand the notion of Weyerhauser's existence just get over it.
I get it. We disagree on how our uniformed officers should be used and employed, and about the effect WEYCO and other timber companies have on the citizens of this state by enacting pay-to-play policies. And you guys just can't stand the notion that WEYCO and other big timber companies are getting more services for fewer taxes than you or I. Why don't you just get over it? See how I invalidated your argument like you did mine? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're the one who's wrong, if anyone is.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 19, 2016, 10:23:29 AM
Post by: bowhunterty on October 19, 2016, 10:47:19 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 19, 2016, 10:52:21 AM
Post by: fireweed on October 19, 2016, 10:59:39 AM
Pman the problem with that is it could be said for out police as well, construction companies and pro sports teams hire off duty cops all the time, for traffic control on streets to security at sporting events :twocents:
Fine and dandy for overtime officers to watch public gathering, but do they stop people to check their ticket stubs? Do they check to see if you've smuggled in candy or pop that wasn't purchased at the venue? NO. That is the job of private security.
The Cowlitz County sheriff, who is also the president of the Washington State Sheriff's Association, gets it, and clearly states his deputies are not security guards for Weyerhaeuser. Other counties and the WDFW need to take a look at his policies and follow this lead.
http://tdn.com/commissioners-want-more-information-about-sheriff-patrols-of-weyco-land/article_06df460c-e3fd-5ba1-ac06-3094d21e9aa8.html
Post by: Mudman on October 19, 2016, 02:03:47 PM
Post by: buglebrush on October 19, 2016, 03:23:22 PM
Pman the problem with that is it could be said for out police as well, construction companies and pro sports teams hire off duty cops all the time, for traffic control on streets to security at sporting events :twocents:
Fine and dandy for overtime officers to watch public gathering, but do they stop people to check their ticket stubs? Do they check to see if you've smuggled in candy or pop that wasn't purchased at the venue? NO. That is the job of private security.
The Cowlitz County sheriff, who is also the president of the Washington State Sheriff's Association, gets it, and clearly states his deputies are not security guards for Weyerhaeuser. Other counties and the WDFW need to take a look at his policies and follow this lead.
http://tdn.com/commissioners-want-more-information-about-sheriff-patrols-of-weyco-land/article_06df460c-e3fd-5ba1-ac06-3094d21e9aa8.html
:yeah: Exactly. WDFW once again shows it is more concerned about its bottom-line than hunting opportunity. It shouldn't be in bed with the pay to play timber companies. :bash:
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2016, 05:39:14 PM
Does State or forest service pay extra for our public lands to get special patrols?Actually yes.
WDFW has OT patrols for USFS at Baker Lake, BLM in eastern WA, US Army Corps of Engineers in eastern WA all funded by those agencies. Additionally the Bureau of Reclamation pays for the equivalent of half a WDFW Officer position in Grant County. PacifiCorp pays for a WDFW Officer in Cowlitz County.
This isn't "new" about 20 years ago Bonneville Power paid for like 10 WDFW Officers along the Columbia. Idaho has a couple warden positions funded by outside companies/agencies as well.
Post by: Mudman on October 19, 2016, 05:45:54 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 19, 2016, 05:53:38 PM
Very interesting, Thanks Tex. So Gov. paying other agencies in Gov. to get services. Makes sense as Feds pay states all the time for many things. But private companies should not be involved, should they? Complicated for sure. It just feels wrong to me.Happens all the time. WDFW occasionally gets money from DNR to patrol DNR lands, simply because DNR's LE division is so small.
WDFW, DNR, Parks, and Liquor Control have to pay State Patrol to use them for dispatch even though they don't generate enough radio traffic to require another dispatcher. It costs WDFW $5 just for one officer to sign in service at the beginning of their shift, it costs the other agencies even more. There were years that WDFW had to pay around $350,000 for this service. I could go on and on about one state agency charging another agency for a service.
Post by: jackmaster on October 19, 2016, 08:08:01 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 19, 2016, 08:10:32 PM
Post by: Mudman on October 19, 2016, 08:13:13 PM
Post by: hyde35 on October 19, 2016, 08:35:42 PM
when did rules for shovels, fire extinguishers, etc on private land become state laws? They are hunters on private land with fire danger warning as low. I don't think I am required to carry any of those items while hunting Private land by state law.Imagine the slippery slope with the multi-layers of rules that these companies put in place--rules about family relationships, photo id and paper permits, shovels, fire extinguishers, firewood collection procedures, berries, mushroom limits, open/closed roads and walk-in areas, motorized vs. non-motorized permits, hangtag visibility, different company permits in different areas.Shovels, fire extinguishers, firewood, mushrooms, etc. are actually state laws, not just corporate rules/policies.....
Post by: ballpark on October 20, 2016, 06:57:19 AM
I guess I just don't see why anyone has concerns for what any Leo,s or wardens do on THEIR own time?? Doesn't make sense to me one bit !!! I wouldn't want someone questioning my private off duty time..On their own time using state vehicles? Who pays for the gas :dunno: If all expenses are covered and not on our dime it's not an issue. I still do not understand why they cannot conduct checkpoints around these areas, it would cover more hunters instead of a select few. GO TRUMP :tup:
Post by: fishngamereaper on October 20, 2016, 07:18:54 AM
I guess I just don't see why anyone has concerns for what any Leo,s or wardens do on THEIR own time?? Doesn't make sense to me one bit !!! I wouldn't want someone questioning my private off duty time..On their own time using state vehicles? Who pays for the gas :dunno: If all expenses are covered and not on our dime it's not an issue. I still do not understand why they cannot conduct checkpoints around these areas, it would cover more hunters instead of a select few. GO TRUMP :tup:
You wont see check points in WA. Imagine the uproar from the violating my rights crowd. And you can thank the WA Supreme court and the 9th circuit for that.
Post by: ballpark on October 20, 2016, 07:39:01 AM
I guess I just don't see why anyone has concerns for what any Leo,s or wardens do on THEIR own time?? Doesn't make sense to me one bit !!! I wouldn't want someone questioning my private off duty time..On their own time using state vehicles? Who pays for the gas :dunno: If all expenses are covered and not on our dime it's not an issue. I still do not understand why they cannot conduct checkpoints around these areas, it would cover more hunters instead of a select few. GO TRUMP :tup:
You wont see check points in WA. Imagine the uproar from the violating my rights crowd. And you can thank the WA Supreme court and the 9th circuit for that.
Maybe checkpoints is the wrong term - Registration or Survey stations to document game kills.
Post by: bigtex on October 20, 2016, 08:42:11 AM
The benefitting agency/company (in this case the timber company) pays for salary, benefits, vehicle costs, and other associated expenses.I guess I just don't see why anyone has concerns for what any Leo,s or wardens do on THEIR own time?? Doesn't make sense to me one bit !!! I wouldn't want someone questioning my private off duty time..On their own time using state vehicles? Who pays for the gas :dunno: If all expenses are covered and not on our dime it's not an issue.
Post by: fireweed on October 20, 2016, 08:44:34 AM
I guess I just don't see why anyone has concerns for what any Leo,s or wardens do on THEIR own time?? Doesn't make sense to me one bit !!! I wouldn't want someone questioning my private off duty time..On their own time using state vehicles? Who pays for the gas :dunno: If all expenses are covered and not on our dime it's not an issue. I still do not understand why they cannot conduct checkpoints around these areas, it would cover more hunters instead of a select few. GO TRUMP :tup:
You wont see check points in WA. Imagine the uproar from the violating my rights crowd. And you can thank the WA Supreme court and the 9th circuit for that.
But on private land the private corporation can do anything they want and impose any rules they want. The way it looks now, with public LEO's in bed with timber companies, the company can make up any rules, and if a person breaks those rules (even a permit holder) then they are trespassers, and the force of state law can come down on them.
Weyco could enforce these corporate policies on permit holders, and deem any one who breaks these rules are "trespassers" subject to prosecution: no pistols; no pets; no smoking; hard hats must be worn outside of vehicles; no cell phones, and because the WDFW is right there to enforce Weyco policy, breaking these rules could make you a trespasser. Take a few internal Weyerhaeuser policies, like no guns. Of course they will allow rifles, but they could ban concealed carry, or pistols, or firearms not during any firearm hunting season. Company policy doesn't allow cell phones to be used at all in vehicles, and employees cannot leave their vehicles without hardhat and orange vest. What if they extended that policy to permit holders, with bought-and-paid for state LEO's now checking for these violations of company policy, and deeming anyone not complying a "trespasser". Giving private corporations full discretion determine which corporate rules must be followed, then having state LEO's enforce those rules via trespassing, is extremely scary policy. Someone may say, "you don't have to buy the permit" but in some places, the timber companies have a virtual monopoly on land and access, so the leverage they have is incredible.
Post by: Drifterat on October 23, 2016, 07:33:38 PM
Our state employees should not be big business muscle.
Post by: Mudman on October 28, 2016, 09:03:01 AM
Great arguments on both sides. I spent all day yesterday hunting out of Ashford, and all day hunting the Capital Forest today. Never saw any LEO either day. If I'd hunted the corporate owned Vail tree farm how many would I've seen there?EXACTLY the point. It is a conflicting issue. Weyco can hire its own and public LEO can do their job serving the PUBLIC! Weyco charges us to pay leo's. Clintonesque.
Our state employees should not be big business muscle.