Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 05:37:36 PM
HB 2472 & SB 6225
In WA there are essentially two types of law enforcement agencies; limited and general authority. General authority agencies can enforce all state laws. Limited authority agencies are either limited in what laws they can enforce or where they can enforce laws. Examples of general authority agencies are city police, county sheriff, college police, port police and then WDFW and WSP which are the only state agency general authority agencies. Examples of limited authority agencies are DNR, Parks, Liquor Control, Gambling Commission.
In the case of DNR under state law they are limited in both what laws they can enforce, but also where they can enforce them. In comparison Parks can enforce all state laws, but only on Park lands. One way DNR can circumvent this issue is by asking the local sheriff to commission a DNR Officer(s). When this occurs the DNR Officer can essentially act as a sheriff's deputy and enforce all laws that a deputy could. Some sheriffs give this authority countywide, others say they can only use it on DNR lands.
The issue that arises is that some sheriff's (such as King Co) do not give commissions to outside agencies. Currently DNR has agreements with about half the counties. For example DNR has this agreement for all their officers in Kittitas County and the sheriff allows to DNR to use this authority anywhere. So a DNR Officer in Kittitas County can enforce all state laws anywhere in the county but as soon as they cross the King County line he is limited to only enforcing a very few amount of laws and only on DNR lands. It becomes very troublesome especially since many of the issues that DNR Officers can run across up in the woods that aren't natural resource related are outside of their state authority.
So what this bill does is shift DNR from a limited authority agency to a general authority agency. This would mean DNR can enforce all state laws on all lands. DNR would have the same authority as WSP and WDFW.
This proposal does come up quite a bit. Will be interesting to see where it goes.
Post by: wraithen on January 16, 2012, 07:07:26 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 16, 2012, 07:12:26 PM
Bigtex, do you feel there is enough of a void to justify the upgrade? A statewide upgrade to deal with King county?
Post by: christopheri on January 16, 2012, 07:15:24 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 16, 2012, 07:21:57 PM
Post by: wraithen on January 16, 2012, 07:25:59 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 16, 2012, 07:30:33 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 07:33:35 PM
Bigtex, do you feel there is enough of a void to justify the upgrade? A statewide upgrade to deal with King county?
It's not just with King County, that was just my example. There are several counties who have policies against comissioning outside agencies. The problem with commissioning is that it's political. The sheriff can yank the power from DNR at anytime. So if DNR cites the sheriff's brother and the sheriff doesn't like it then maybe he's the type that will pull the authority from DNR. So with using county commissions you have to walk a fine line. You make DNR general authority and it is now out of the hands of the county SO.
Personally I would like to see the legislation in a manner where DNR Officers have general authority on all STATE (DNR, WDFW, Parks) lands. Sort of like how State Park Rangers have full authority only within their parks. But I don't see the importance of making DNR 100% general authority with the ability to enforce all laws everywhere. And if DNR wants to continue to press the issue of authority off state lands they can continue with the county agreements.
However DNR does need some type of increase in their enforcement power because in the counties where the SO does not give county authority to DNR the DNR Officers can not really do a whole lot.
Post by: seth30 on January 16, 2012, 07:36:08 PM
a good idea to have more authority with DNR, but would this require extra funding, and if so I know we are not getting enough from the discovery pass, so where would the cash come from?
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 07:37:20 PM
DNR officers should patroll DNR lands and not be used to patroll lands outside of the DNR boundries. Prime example is the Capital forest. They need more enforcement there. The DIscover pass has helped get some of the crack heads out but it is still a mess up there. I almost never see an officer there and if they are given more authority in other jurisdictions wouldnt that take away from enforcment on DNR lands?
Capital Forest probably gets the most DNR Enforcement of any DNR lands in the state. What this will really do is increase the laws DNR can enforce. Does it mean that if they are traveling down I-5 and see a DUI they could arrest? Yes it does. However I don't think you'll start seeing DNR doing routine traffic enforcement on I-5
Post by: Humptulips on January 16, 2012, 07:39:45 PM
That's what happened to WDFW.
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 07:40:30 PM
Big Tex,
a good idea to have more authority with DNR, but would this require extra funding, and if so I know we are not getting enough from the discovery pass, so where would the cash come from?
Generally speaking no extra funding will be needed to simply increase authority. Now DNR Officers could down the road say they deserve more pay since they have more authority. This bill keeps DNR Officers out of the retirement system for firefighters and general authority police agencies, so there is no change in regards to benefits.
Several years ago WDFW was against similar legislation because they believe that if DNR become general authority then they could get more bargaining power for more officers and possibly the money for those officers could have been used for WDFW. That was just one of the mindsets at the time.
Post by: Jingles on January 16, 2012, 07:42:04 PM
Give them the authority to enforce the laws but restrict them to the lands where they are employed DNR DNR lands, Parks Parks Lands notwher they just happen to see some one doing 70 in a 55 like the Damned USFS barney here does
Post by: seth30 on January 16, 2012, 07:42:31 PM
Thanks for clearing that up :tup:Big Tex,
a good idea to have more authority with DNR, but would this require extra funding, and if so I know we are not getting enough from the discovery pass, so where would the cash come from?
Generally speaking no extra funding will be needed to simply increase authority. Now DNR Officers could down the road say they deserve more pay since they have more authority. This bill keeps DNR Officers out of the retirement system for firefighters and general authority police agencies, so there is no change in regards to benefits.
Several years ago WDFW was against similar legislation because they believe that if DNR become general authority then they could get more bargaining power for more officers and possibly the money for those officers could have been used for WDFW. That was just one of the mindsets at the time.
Post by: buckfvr on January 16, 2012, 07:43:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2012, 07:43:19 PM
Big Tex,
a good idea to have more authority with DNR, but would this require extra funding, and if so I know we are not getting enough from the discovery pass, so where would the cash come from?
:yeah: That would also be my concern.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 16, 2012, 07:44:11 PM
We already have enough Barney fife's out there that because the y have a badge period they think they can enforce the laws anywhere I think if they are employed but eh Parks that is their sole jurisdiction same goes for city wanna be cops their jurisdiction should be limited to the city/ town limits where they are employed . To the best of My knowledge we don't live in a police state and don't need every badge toting cop wanna be cop trying to enforce the laws.
Average response time for a 911 call 11 minutes average speed of a 357 Mag 1400 ft per second PIck up the body when the coroner is finished
Give me a break. :bash:
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 07:45:29 PM
It serves one purpose and only one purpose, and that is to enable them to write more citations.......create/generate revenue for the poor mismanaged state. They cant afford to increase man power so they are attemptimg to maximize the man power they have. I personally prefer game wardens to focus on fish and wildlife.....not be out there looking for any and every type violation they can. They imparticularly need to focus on their primary job description. Same goes for DNR and any other agency.......the stinkin state just wants something for nothing from everyone. Why not enlist a bunch of folks to serve as eyes in the woods but let them run around town and anywhere else they want and squeal like pigs about everything. All that costs them is an occassional special permit or some points......
So if your out on your local DNR Forest and run into an underage kegger how would you feel if you heard the DNR Officer standing right next to you has no authority to cite those violators? Because right now under state law DNR cannot enforce RCW 66 (liquor laws) and many other laws which are commonly violated in state forests.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 16, 2012, 07:47:56 PM
I could see supporting this legislation if there are minimal costs associated with it.
Post by: seth30 on January 16, 2012, 07:48:32 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 16, 2012, 07:49:48 PM
We already have enough Barney fife's out there that because the y have a badge period they think they can enforce the laws anywhere I think if they are employed but eh Parks that is their sole jurisdiction same goes for city wanna be cops their jurisdiction should be limited to the city/ town limits where they are employed . To the best of My knowledge we don't live in a police state and don't need every badge toting cop wanna be cop trying to enforce the laws.
Average response time for a 911 call 11 minutes average speed of a 357 Mag 1400 ft per second PIck up the body when the coroner is finished
I don't think any DNR, Wa State Parks or WDFW LEO should ever be refered to as a Barney Fife. You clearly have a huge chip on your shoulder and a jaundiced view of law enforcement. Maybe they caught you with a load of moonshine in your Model T?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 16, 2012, 07:50:38 PM
:yeah:Big Tex,
a good idea to have more authority with DNR, but would this require extra funding, and if so I know we are not getting enough from the discovery pass, so where would the cash come from?
:yeah: That would also be my concern.
They just let a bunch of rangers go from state parks, citing the law enforcement trained ones cost more than interpretive rangers. But, I would like to see them get more jurisdiction in the woods to get more poachers/druggies out of the woods.
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 07:51:08 PM
This is exactly what I was going to ask, to post up a few scenarios which they would have to walk away on.
It's alot easier to see what they can actually enforce currently under state law:
RCW 77 (Fish and Wildlife)
RCW 46 (Traffic, including ORV/ATV and Snowmobile)
RCW 76 which are DNR land rules, forest product regs and and timber cutting regs.
That is it gentlemen. So the only time DNR can enforce other laws is if they get authority from the sheriff. If the sheriff says no then they can only enforce the laws I listed above.
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 07:54:25 PM
Big Tex, can they enforce other crimes, such as people cooking meth, and pot growing ops, or do we still need to call normal LEO?
I just posted what few laws DNR can enforce under their state authority. Drugs is not included in that. DNR would definitely respond and help remove those issues, but they couldn't make the arrest. So if DNR is driving down the road and Joe Blo is doin meth and this county doesn't have an agreement with DNR then the DNR Officer has no authority. Now if DNR and this county have an agreement then that is a different story.
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2012, 07:57:38 PM
It serves one purpose and only one purpose, and that is to enable them to write more citations.......create/generate revenue for the poor mismanaged state. They cant afford to increase man power so they are attemptimg to maximize the man power they have. I personally prefer game wardens to focus on fish and wildlife.....not be out there looking for any and every type violation they can. They imparticularly need to focus on their primary job description. Same goes for DNR and any other agency.......the stinkin state just wants something for nothing from everyone. Why not enlist a bunch of folks to serve as eyes in the woods but let them run around town and anywhere else they want and squeal like pigs about everything. All that costs them is an occassional special permit or some points......
So if your out on your local DNR Forest and run into an underage kegger how would you feel if you heard the DNR Officer standing right next to you has no authority to cite those violators? Because right now under state law DNR cannot enforce RCW 66 (liquor laws) and many other laws which are commonly violated in state forests.
I bet they could write a lot of citations for no Discover Pass!
Post by: buckfvr on January 16, 2012, 08:00:11 PM
It serves one purpose and only one purpose, and that is to enable them to write more citations.......create/generate revenue for the poor mismanaged state. They cant afford to increase man power so they are attemptimg to maximize the man power they have. I personally prefer game wardens to focus on fish and wildlife.....not be out there looking for any and every type violation they can. They imparticularly need to focus on their primary job description. Same goes for DNR and any other agency.......the stinkin state just wants something for nothing from everyone. Why not enlist a bunch of folks to serve as eyes in the woods but let them run around town and anywhere else they want and squeal like pigs about everything. All that costs them is an occassional special permit or some points......
So if your out on your local DNR Forest and run into an underage kegger how would you feel if you heard the DNR Officer standing right next to you has no authority to cite those violators? Because right now under state law DNR cannot enforce RCW 66 (liquor laws) and many other laws which are commonly violated in state forests.
I would hope a professional DNR Officer would use his radio...... Kids havin a bit of fun.....lets hang them.....somebody call the cops.....ARE YOU SERIOUS ????
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 08:00:30 PM
Big Tex, can they enforce other crimes, such as people cooking meth, and pot growing ops, or do we still need to call normal LEO?Matters not what agency the chicken *censored* cop is from if he sees someone cooking meth or a pot grow he can make the arrest Hell
JOhn Q Public can make the arrest if he has any balls called citizens arrest
Sir,
You may want to study up on your state law enforcement authority. Under this situation all DNR could do is hold the suspect for a general authority agency to respond. DNR could not arrest the violator.
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2012, 08:01:43 PM
It serves one purpose and only one purpose, and that is to enable them to write more citations.......create/generate revenue for the poor mismanaged state. They cant afford to increase man power so they are attemptimg to maximize the man power they have. I personally prefer game wardens to focus on fish and wildlife.....not be out there looking for any and every type violation they can. They imparticularly need to focus on their primary job description. Same goes for DNR and any other agency.......the stinkin state just wants something for nothing from everyone. Why not enlist a bunch of folks to serve as eyes in the woods but let them run around town and anywhere else they want and squeal like pigs about everything. All that costs them is an occassional special permit or some points......
So if your out on your local DNR Forest and run into an underage kegger how would you feel if you heard the DNR Officer standing right next to you has no authority to cite those violators? Because right now under state law DNR cannot enforce RCW 66 (liquor laws) and many other laws which are commonly violated in state forests.
I would hope a professional DNR Officer would use his radio......
And hope somebody responds? So now you are tying up multiple officers from multiple agencies instead of just letting one officer handle it himself.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 16, 2012, 08:02:48 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 16, 2012, 08:07:08 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 16, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2012, 08:06:24 PM
If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
Post by: Swannytheswan on January 17, 2012, 08:38:37 PM
Post by: Jerbear on January 17, 2012, 09:20:54 PM
By the way, thank you for your service inn our nations military.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 18, 2012, 07:37:38 AM
Barney Fife eh?If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
So just as everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state. What is wrong with a county sheriff making policy for his county?
Are we not ALREADY far enough down the slippery slope to a police state yet?
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2012, 08:24:34 PM
So just as everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!
Post by: Bean Counter on January 19, 2012, 04:26:29 PM
If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
If I were a sheriff I would probably commission most outside agencies. I like the idea of it. However, there are plenty of reasons a community may not want it. Some LEAs don't play nice with others. Sad, but true. Also, some residents of some counties don't want it. My point is that the decision should be made by the sheriff; this is a big government power grab.
Post by: iusmc2002 on January 19, 2012, 04:46:38 PM
If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
If I were a sheriff I would probably commission most outside agencies. I like the idea of it. However, there are plenty of reasons a community may not want it. Some LEAs don't play nice with others. Sad, but true. Also, some residents of some counties don't want it. My point is that the decision should be made by the sheriff; this is JUST ANOTHER big government power grab.
Fixed it for ya :tup:
Sheriffs are elected by the people. DNR, Game cops et al, are not. The sheriff should have the right to determine what outside agencies do in his jurisdiction. Just like someone else said, lots of LEA don't play well together, and it's all political. If the DNR wants the OK to enforce laws in a certain county, maybe they could kiss a little butt and do what they need to in order to get that authority. But just blindly giving them the blanket ability to usurp an elected official's policies is baloney.
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on January 19, 2012, 04:50:49 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 19, 2012, 07:30:51 PM
If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
If I were a sheriff I would probably commission most outside agencies. I like the idea of it. However, there are plenty of reasons a community may not want it. Some LEAs don't play nice with others. Sad, but true. Also, some residents of some counties don't want it. My point is that the decision should be made by the sheriff; this is JUST ANOTHER big government power grab.
Fixed it for ya :tup:
Sheriffs are elected by the people. DNR, Game cops et al, are not. The sheriff should have the right to determine what outside agencies do in his jurisdiction. Just like someone else said, lots of LEA don't play well together, and it's all political. If the DNR wants the OK to enforce laws in a certain county, maybe they could kiss a little butt and do what they need to in order to get that authority. But just blindly giving them the blanket ability to usurp an elected official's policies is baloney.
Too funny--I put those words in first, did a preview, and decided to take them out.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 19, 2012, 07:37:23 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 21, 2012, 09:27:54 AM
6 from Puget Sound area 3 more from liberal eastern areas that think like they belong there. I will still play the card. Which one came up with the idea? Govt. power and money grab.So just as everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2012, 06:34:31 PM
money grab.So just as everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!
Really a money grab?
Which form of government benefits the most from state agencies writing tickets??? COUNTIES. Very little goes back to the state government.
Besides there are less then 10 DNR Officers. How much more money could be generated by 10 officers by simply allowing them to write tickets for all offenses.
Post by: iusmc2002 on January 22, 2012, 07:15:50 PM
money grab.So just as everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!
Really a money grab?
Which form of government benefits the most from state agencies writing tickets??? COUNTIES. Very little goes back to the state government.
Besides there are less then 10 DNR Officers. How much more money could be generated by 10 officers by simply allowing them to write tickets for all offenses.
Too much, that's how much.
Whether it's a money grab or not is debateable, what's NOT up for debate is this is another boneheaded attempt by the .gov to take power away from the people. Like I said before, "the people" elect the sheriff. If "their" sheriff doesn't want a state or federal agency playing in his backyard, he's exercising the right of the people, until the people decide he's not playing right and get him to reverse his decision through democratic methods.
If there is "less than 10" DNR cops now, they sound like a pretty ineffective force. Why keep them? What's the point? I'm not saying I want them to lose their jobs, but if they're small and ineffective and feel they could be more effective by forcing local governments to allow them to work where ever they want, why not merge them into the State Patrol?
We keep giving our rights up, little by little. The government says "It's just this little thing...., no big deal, nothing to see, move along" and they continue to erode our world. If a sheriff has the political intestinal fortitude to tell a state agency to get bent and stay out of his AO, good on him. He deserves a pat on the back :tup:
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2012, 07:24:22 PM
money grab.So just as everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it. :twocents:
I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?
The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!
Really a money grab?
Which form of government benefits the most from state agencies writing tickets??? COUNTIES. Very little goes back to the state government.
Besides there are less then 10 DNR Officers. How much more money could be generated by 10 officers by simply allowing them to write tickets for all offenses.
If there is "less than 10" DNR cops now, they sound like a pretty ineffective force. Why keep them? What's the point? I'm not saying I want them to lose their jobs, but if they're small and ineffective and feel they could be more effective by forcing local governments to allow them to work where ever they want, why not merge them into the State Patrol?
Merge them into the WSP? Obviously you have not been paying much attention the past three years. There have been numerous proposals to move both DNR and WDFW Enforcement to the WSP and it caused a huge uproar that pissed off the sheriffs association (they dont want to see more "power" given to WSP, having them not only be the big traffic agency but also fire marshal, fish and wildlife, and state forests patrol) and all hunting and fishing groups.
How can you say they are ineffective simply by how many officers they have? There are only 2 BLM LE Rangers in all of WA, does that mean they are ineffective?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 22, 2012, 07:52:34 PM
How can you say they are ineffective simply by how many officers they have? There are only 2 BLM LE Rangers in all of WA, does that mean they are ineffective?
And there is only one Chuck Norris.
Post by: christopheri on January 22, 2012, 08:09:23 PM
DNR officers should patroll DNR lands and not be used to patroll lands outside of the DNR boundries. Prime example is the Capital forest. They need more enforcement there. The DIscover pass has helped get some of the crack heads out but it is still a mess up there. I almost never see an officer there and if they are given more authority in other jurisdictions wouldnt that take away from enforcment on DNR lands?
Capital Forest probably gets the most DNR Enforcement of any DNR lands in the state. What this will really do is increase the laws DNR can enforce. Does it mean that if they are traveling down I-5 and see a DUI they could arrest? Yes it does. However I don't think you'll start seeing DNR doing routine traffic enforcement on I-5
If the Capital forest gets more DNR enforcement than any other DNR lands in the state then in my opinion there isnt enoughf enforcment officers for the DNR land in this state. As we all know the WDFW does not have enoughf officers either.
Increasing authority is not going to reslolve that issue. Managing tax dollars so these agencys can hire more officers will.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 23, 2012, 10:10:50 AM
It serves one purpose and only one purpose, and that is to enable them to write more citations.......create/generate revenue for the poor mismanaged state. They cant afford to increase man power so they are attemptimg to maximize the man power they have. I personally prefer game wardens to focus on fish and wildlife.....not be out there looking for any and every type violation they can. They imparticularly need to focus on their primary job description. Same goes for DNR and any other agency.......the stinkin state just wants something for nothing from everyone. Why not enlist a bunch of folks to serve as eyes in the woods but let them run around town and anywhere else they want and squeal like pigs about everything. All that costs them is an occassional special permit or some points......
So if your out on your local DNR Forest and run into an underage kegger how would you feel if you heard the DNR Officer standing right next to you has no authority to cite those violators? Because right now under state law DNR cannot enforce RCW 66 (liquor laws) and many other laws which are commonly violated in state forests.
Ah the Good ole days!!! Sure am glad to have experienced them! I have made my feelings known to my legislators and Senator. " May we see your papers?"
Post by: Special T on January 23, 2012, 12:04:09 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2012, 07:04:00 PM
I think this issue come down to do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. :twocents:
Agree 100%
And some of the current DNR-County SO agreements do allow DNR to act as deputies throughout the entire county, and some simply restrict the additional authority to DNR lands.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 23, 2012, 07:14:27 PM
I think this issue come down to do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. :twocents:
I also agree. Just for the sake of efficiency, I feel the move would equal more enforcement of laws for the same investment of dollars.
Post by: Humptulips on January 23, 2012, 07:48:47 PM
I think this issue come down to do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. :twocents:
Yea, If you want more enforcement in the woods this is a bad idea. Now, that is the only place they can enforce laws. Pass this and they will be everywhere but the woods.
Took a couple WDFW agents up to the Matheny once. They had to stop and make a traffic stop and then stop and question some guy that it turned out was locking a gate on a along the HWY.
Last year they had a safety check station checking trucks at Promise Land park USFS cop working it.
Keep them in the woods. If they find someone doing something they don't have authority for and it amounts to anything they can call the Sherriffs department.
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2012, 07:57:24 PM
I think this issue come down to do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. :twocents:
Yea, If you want more enforcement in the woods this is a bad idea. Now, that is the only place they can enforce laws. Pass this and they will be everywhere but the woods.
Took a couple WDFW agents up to the Matheny once. They had to stop and make a traffic stop and then stop and question some guy that it turned out was locking a gate on a along the HWY.
Last year they had a safety check station checking trucks at Promise Land park USFS cop working it.
Two things here. DNR Officers right now are very limited in what they can enforce, it is basically fish/wildlife, ORV/snowmobile, forest products, and traffic laws on DNR lands. So even other crimes that occur on DNR lands are outside of their authority, unless given authority by the county. Whereas Park Rangers for example can enforce all laws on State Park lands.
As far as USFS goes, they are not officers that are there to enforce natural resource laws like most people think. USFS (and other feds like BLM, NPS, USFWS) enforce EVERYTHING on federal lands. Basically if it occurs on federal lands then the federal officer is there to enforce it, doesn't matter if it's a DUI or poaching. Feds can get authority to enforce laws off federal lands by getting this authority from the sheriff.
Post by: Humptulips on January 23, 2012, 08:07:03 PM
I think this issue come down to do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. :twocents:
Yea, If you want more enforcement in the woods this is a bad idea. Now, that is the only place they can enforce laws. Pass this and they will be everywhere but the woods.
Took a couple WDFW agents up to the Matheny once. They had to stop and make a traffic stop and then stop and question some guy that it turned out was locking a gate on a along the HWY.
Last year they had a safety check station checking trucks at Promise Land park USFS cop working it.
DNR Officers right now are very limited in what they can enforce, it is basically fish/wildlife, ORV/snowmobile, forest products, and traffic laws on DNR lands. So even other crimes that occur on DNR lands are outside of their authority, unless given authority by the county.
Exactly, That keeps them working and patroling DNR lands instead of spending their time elsewhere. Again they see something they can't enforce they can call for the Sheriff.
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2012, 08:15:04 PM
I think this issue come down to do you want more enforcement in the woods? Yes or No? I vote yes It is silly and ineffective to tell a officer of any branch to nly enforece "some laws" and not others... I would bet that there would be less trouble by the counties and people in general if thier jurisdicion was ONLY on state lands UNLESS there was some kind of agreement with the county for when they are off state land. :twocents:
Yea, If you want more enforcement in the woods this is a bad idea. Now, that is the only place they can enforce laws. Pass this and they will be everywhere but the woods.
Took a couple WDFW agents up to the Matheny once. They had to stop and make a traffic stop and then stop and question some guy that it turned out was locking a gate on a along the HWY.
Last year they had a safety check station checking trucks at Promise Land park USFS cop working it.
DNR Officers right now are very limited in what they can enforce, it is basically fish/wildlife, ORV/snowmobile, forest products, and traffic laws on DNR lands. So even other crimes that occur on DNR lands are outside of their authority, unless given authority by the county.
Exactly, That keeps them working and patroling DNR lands instead of spending their time elsewhere. Again they see something they can't enforce they can call for the Sheriff.
So it is perfectly fine according to you for an underage kegger or people using drugs to be on DNR lands and DNR Officers not be able to cite/arrest the violators?
Post by: Humptulips on January 23, 2012, 09:21:06 PM
Post by: iusmc2002 on January 24, 2012, 04:15:47 PM
Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.
+1
If the sheriff doesn't feel he needs a DNR officer's help in upholding the laws of his county, why should the state be able to come in and force him to? If the sheriff believes a DNR officer should stick to Department of NATURAL RESOURCEs issues ("basically fish/wildlife, ORV/snowmobile, forest products, and traffic laws on DNR lands"), that's his perogative. If the Sheriff's Association has already expressed disdain for having them be part of WSP, which would give them carte blanche to enforce all laws in a sheriff's jurisdiction, why are they introducing legislation that amounts to the same thing?
Why do you NOT have a problem with MORE people having MORE authority over you? Not only that, but the state would be usurping a locally elected official's power over his county!
IHRE PAPIERE, BITTE
Post by: JLS on January 24, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
How would you guys feel if a tweaker, who a DNR guy was unalbe to detain because of limited jurisdiction, went on a spree and hurt someone? Maybe a family member of yours?
So much for government efficiencies.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 24, 2012, 04:32:37 PM
Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.
+2
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2012, 04:33:03 PM
Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.If the Sheriff's Association has already expressed disdain for having them be part of WSP, which would give them carte blanche to enforce all laws in a sheriff's jurisdiction, why are they introducing legislation that amounts to the same thing?
Before you go saying why the Sheriff's association is against a WDFW/DNR - WSP merger you may want to look into the facts.
They are not against it because it would give DNR more authority. They are against it because they don't want the WA St Patrol to be the WA St Police. By moving DNR/WDFW to WSP, WSP would now be the lead for traffic, fish/wildlife, forests, fire marshal, and crime lab. Look at Oregon for example, they have a Oregon State Police, why? Because they do traffic, fish/wildlife, and gambling.
Post by: iusmc2002 on January 24, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.If the Sheriff's Association has already expressed disdain for having them be part of WSP, which would give them carte blanche to enforce all laws in a sheriff's jurisdiction, why are they introducing legislation that amounts to the same thing?
Before you go saying why the Sheriff's association is against a WDFW/DNR - WSP merger you may want to look into the facts.
They are not against it because it would give DNR more authority. They are against it because they don't want the WA St Patrol to be the WA St Police. By moving DNR/WDFW to WSP, WSP would now be the lead for traffic, fish/wildlife, forests, fire marshal, and crime lab. Look at Oregon for example, they have a Oregon State Police, why? Because they do traffic, fish/wildlife, and gambling.
But wait, if I'm reading this right, if the DNR was part of WSP, wouldn't they have more authority? Does the WSP have the authority to write tickets and do investigations anywhere in the state? Or does the local LEO have to ask them for help?
Post by: NoBark on January 24, 2012, 04:59:42 PM
Two thoughts:
If you are afraid of the 'Police', I gotta ask why? Yea, I know, power doesn't look pretty on some people, but if that's the case, stop bitchin' about bad people.
Unless you wanna do the job?
While I really don't see much advantage to this except for the odd chance a tweaker stole something from my rig while hunting and a DNR guy caught him because he could.
This does not put MORE enforcement in the woods for wildlife offences. It simply shifts paycheck signers. I want fewer Bio's and office clerks in Olympia and more Gammies in the woods!!
This is moreof a shell game than anything else. It isn't solving much.
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2012, 05:09:44 PM
Sure is. They can call the Sheriff. The kids will scatter anyway when they see his vehicle, problem solved.If the Sheriff's Association has already expressed disdain for having them be part of WSP, which would give them carte blanche to enforce all laws in a sheriff's jurisdiction, why are they introducing legislation that amounts to the same thing?
Before you go saying why the Sheriff's association is against a WDFW/DNR - WSP merger you may want to look into the facts.
They are not against it because it would give DNR more authority. They are against it because they don't want the WA St Patrol to be the WA St Police. By moving DNR/WDFW to WSP, WSP would now be the lead for traffic, fish/wildlife, forests, fire marshal, and crime lab. Look at Oregon for example, they have a Oregon State Police, why? Because they do traffic, fish/wildlife, and gambling.
But wait, if I'm reading this right, if the DNR was part of WSP, wouldn't they have more authority? Does the WSP have the authority to write tickets and do investigations anywhere in the state? Or does the local LEO have to ask them for help?
DNR wouldn't be apart of WSP. Basically WSP would create a bureau/division of troopers who patrolled state forests. There would still be a DNR.
Just like how Oregon State Police has a division that does fish and wildlife enforcement. But there is also a Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife, they just don't have a law enforcement program.
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2012, 05:11:18 PM
It simply shifts paycheck signers..
No it doesn't. DNR Officers would still be paid by DNR. This is an authority issue, not a agency merger/transition.
Post by: NoBark on January 24, 2012, 05:15:48 PM
But my point still stands. It doesn't increase wildlife enforcement.
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2012, 05:19:22 PM
Thanks for the clarification :sry:
But my point still stands. It doesn't increase wildlife enforcement.
Nobody said that it did.....
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 24, 2012, 07:28:22 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First the
sheriff is a constitutiional common law office and jurisdiction remains
from the original english office. I will give you a quick url to look at.
http://www.hcky.org/hcso/History/origin_of_sheriff.htm
The second and more important issue is the state constitution allows only
for the office of sheriff,
DNR,WDFW and other agencies are not
constitutional offices but are basically under the executive branch which
has no constitutional LE authority, not that the government considers
itself restricted by the const.
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people,
and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,
and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States
is the supreme law of the land.
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear
arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but
nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
SECTION 32 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. A frequent recurrence to fundamental
principles is essential to the security of individual right and the
perpetuity of free government
SECTION 5 COUNTY GOVERNMENT. The legislature, by general and uniform laws,
shall provide for the election in the several counties of boards of county
commissioners, sheriffs, county clerks, treasurers, prosecuting attorneys
and other county, township or precinct and district officers, as public
convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties, and fix their
terms of office: Provided, That the legislature may, by general laws,
classify the counties by population and provide for the election in
certain classes of counties certain officers who shall exercise the powers
and perform the duties of two or more officers. It shall regulate the
compensation of all such officers, in proportion to their duties, and for
that purpose may classify the counties by population: Provided, That it
may delegate to the legislative authority of the counties the right to
prescribe the salaries of its own members and the salaries of other county
officers. And it shall provide for the strict accountability of such
officers for all fees which may be collected by them and for all public
moneys which may be paid to them, or officially come into their
possession. [AMENDMENT 57, part, 1971 Senate Joint Resolution No. 38,
part, p 1829. Approved November, 1972.]
Amendment 12 (1924) -- Art. 11 Section 5 COUNTY GOVERNMENT -- The
legislature, by general and uniform laws, shall provide for the election
in the several counties of boards of county commissioners, sheriffs,
county clerks, treasurers, prosecuting attorneys and other county,
township or precinct and district officers, as public convenience may
require, and shall prescribe their duties, and fix their terms of
You will notice the office of sheriff is a elective office. You will also
note that sec 24 definatively states that no corporation may maintain or
employ an armed body of men, gee all cities and the state are actually
corporations. Nevertheless you will not see any LE authority listed in
the duties of the executive branch. There was am reason at common law the
office of sheriff was a distinct office with it's own authority.