3.1 million acres WA State DNR land CLOSED to shooting?

[DHiatt]

DNR Proposing "CLOSED unless posted open" policy for recreational shooting on ALL DNR land.

The DNR's new proposed WAC revision (11/28/05) basically creates a new "Closed unless posted open" policy for OHV and Recreational Shooting/Hunting on DNR (OUR Public Land!) It will be illegal to cross or walk on a trail on WA DNR land with a loaded firearm if the DNR goes ahead with this! The DNR manages 6.1 million acres of public land and water in WA State.

NO! I don't understand why Doug Sutherland, OUR elected Public Lands Commissioner is letting his staff propose turning public land into a new King's Forest!

You can now read the entire text of the DNR's 11/28/05 draft WAC for yourself. Take your blood pressure pills FIRST!

For a fully searchable, high resolution version, click here (PDF 13 MB) http://www.nmaoffroad.org/news/051128_DNR_WAC_Draft.pdf

For a lower resolution version (not searchable), click here (PDF 3 MB) http://www.nmaoffroad.org/news/051128_DNR_WAC_Draft_sm.pdf

Thanks to the NMA for putting this online!

The link to the existing DNR WAC is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=332-52

Please send your OHV comments to the NMA via [email protected]

Also feel free to send your personal comments regarding the DNR's attempt to turn PUBLIC Land into a new KING's FOREST directly to Doug Sutherland (the DNR's ONLY elected official) via email using [email protected] Too much of OUR DNR land is already locked up to keep it from use by the public, instead of for use by the public!

Be sure to blind copy [email protected] with all emails concerning OHV use so the NMA representative on the WAC committee will have a copy of your comments for use in the upcoming meetings.

Comments/suggestions for dealing with these proposed regulations on Recreational Shooting or hunting on DNR land should be blind copied to me [email protected] if sent directly to Doug Sutherland.

I need your input on the proposed WAC revisions regarding firearm use on DNR's 6.1 million acres of land and water as I am the Recreational Shooting representative on the DNR's WAC Revision Committee. Send them to me via [email protected]


The Legislature has not directed the DNR to rewrite any WACs by changing any RCWs. The DNR has just taken it upon themselves to rewrite the laws regarding DNR land!

Speak up now or be banned from the new King's Forest!

Dave Hiatt
Recreational Shooting Representative
DNR WAC Revision Committee
[email protected]

 

[jkswiss]

I figured it was only a matter of time. While I would like to be able to shoot in the forests, I can't say that I don't see where they are coming from. Shooters have a tendency to leave a lot of junk behind, and they also seem to enjoy shooting things that explode, i.e. old electronics, that is a bear to clean up. They shoot and never pick up after themselves and makes the area look bad. I can't say we don't deserve it. I know everyones gonna claim that they clean up after themselves but its pretty obvious that some of us aren't. The price we pay may be having to pay for a range where all we can shoot at is paper.

 

[deanf]

I can't say we don't deserve it.

I'm not we, I'm me, and I certainly don't deserve it!

I certainly don't deserve what ammounts to a complete gun ban on DNR lands.

The courts in WA take a dim view of WACs that go against RCWs and the state Constitution, which these proposed WACs clearly do. I don't see how they can enforce it.

Hell, Washington State Parks recently decided to remove their prohibition on CCW in state parks because their WAC went against the RCW. State agencies need to get on the same page here.

 

[jsalcedo]

I always cart out my trash and everyone elses.

It's really too bad that scummy dirty people ruin the fun for the rest of us.

 

[LAK]

I don't live in WA, but the idea that States agencies can make such sweeping enactments "because of trash" is an outrage. Aside from some other factors, some sweeping penalties for trash offenders might wake some people up.

But I do see an ongoing agenda to incrementally reduce access everywhere. People are being corralled into cities, and hunting is fast becoming a wealthy man's sport in many places.
-------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Lupinus]

It is redicules. It is public land. YOU own it. Every other citizen of your state OWNS it. The goverment does not own it the people do. People go camping and leave their crap behind, maybe they should be banned. Heck people go for a walk in the woods and leave crap behind, maybe just walking past the tree line should be outlawed. Crap like this ticks me off.

 

[Old Dog]

DHiatt, thanks for posting this -- somehow, I'd missed it. Washington staters, this is a huge deal, and I think it'll impact us more than we have might think.

deanf said

I'm not we, I'm me, and I certainly don't deserve it!

Yeah, well, if you live up here, you had to have seen this coming. The last time I was out shooting with some buddies on DNR land, we talked about this, as we were thoroughly bummed out by how massively trashed the shooting area was ... there was so much garbage strewn about three or four acres, we were embarrassed to be associated with shooters who have no regard for cleaning up after themselves ... and it looked to be years' worth of trash ...

Another thing that is starting to bother me is that the off-road organizations seem to be a lot better organized than the gun people as far as lobbying the state on public land use issues. It's embarrassing as well. We have got to get better at this up here.

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

OUR elected Public Lands Commissioner is letting his staff propose turning public lan

Enviromentalist types in positions of authority looking for any reason to make the world a better place.

Anti-gun types in positions of authority looking to make this world a better place.

Those bureaucrats cannot just sit back in their chairs and watch the system of society go rolling along smoothly in pursuit of daily happiness. They cannot just sit in reserve waiting for something to go wrong or hiccup and then jump in and fixit. They have to create a better world by tweaking this and that a little here, a little there.

Might try to team up with some of the off road orgs and do a semi-annual cleanup or some such. Self policing may be tougher, how do you approach a carload of guys and tell them to pickup there crap when they leave? Had the same garbage with Lytle Creek in So.Cal back in the 80's. I left never went back.

Also if this ain't publized, no one knows. And it's a good time of year for the bureaucrats to sneak things through since everyone is busy with othere things and have little time for news.

Vick

 

[jefnvk]

Another thing that is starting to bother me is that the off-road organizations seem to be a lot better organized than the gun people as far as lobbying the state on public land use issues. It's embarrassing as well. We have got to get better at this up here.

That is ecause the status quo, is that shooting and hunting is allowed, and off-roading is not. They need to take an active role to get what they need, we just need to take a role whenever something like this pops up.

And it seems no matter where you go, the people's hatred of the DNR is universal. And the DNR's 'better-than-god' mentality is omnipresent.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

DNR Proposing "CLOSED unless posted open" policy for recreational shooting on ALL DNR land.

Actually, if you examine this document closely you find that their restrictions go to not shooting across and on "Developed Recreation Facilities, including sites and trails". Not the whole forest. Oregon has this rule as well...they don't want us pullin' out a BMG and shooting up a tv 10 yards from our campsite at 3am. Not sayin' y'all do that, but thats what they are proposing.

Now...the question becomes: how much land is DNR "Developed" for recreation?

I did a quick search and I still don't know the answer to that question. If the answer is *all*, then y'all have a bit of a problem. If the answer is campgrounds, a few trails and a waterfall here and there, then you will have a hard time convincing folks that you SHOULD be shooting adjacent to campgrounds and across hiking trails (as it explicitly denies herein).

Side note: as I am reading this my wife sends me a link...how fortuitous! For a nice, graphic example of what they are trying to avoid:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/w2b/sets/1589557/

Not trying to start a flame war here, and bear in mind that I haven't been into washington state's forests since 1986 or so, but what I see here doesn't look too onerous.

 

[grimjaw]

This is very disturbing. One of the reasons I moved out here was the availability of DNR land for such things as shooting.

I'm not a persuasive debater, but if someone will give me a petition to sign or other volunteer activity to attend, I'll try to make time.

If the move is being prompted by litter on DNR land, is littering on DNR land illegal? If so, why don't they enforce *that*? Is there an authority to report that infraction? Perhaps sending videotapes to law enforcment of litterbugs who don't clean up when asked politely would be a good notion.

jmm

 

[DHiatt]

The problem is CLOSED unless Posted Open new policy

I am glad to see some people from WA here. It is much harder to contact WA gun owners than WA OHV people because the OHV people have been under attack by public land managers for years now and are getting fed up enough to have a voice in political issues.

However, as previously mentioned in this thread, gun owners have had pretty free access to public land. Gun owners/users are now under attack!

The thing to remember here is the DNR intends to implement a CLOSED unless Posted Open policy for OHV and Shooting on ALL DNR land and water! There are currently NO areas Posted Open. This WILL effectively CLOSE it to shooting. How active do you think DNR bureaucrats will be at going out to post 6.1 million acres of land and water (mostly small parcels scattered throughout the State) OPEN to shooting! NOT!

The specific language addressing the possession of a firearm with a loaded chamber is specifically prohibiting the carrying (not the discharge) of a loaded weapon at/on anything they designate as noted in the proposed WACs including trails. There are a tremendous number of miles (hundreds, thousands?) of trail on DNR lands. Hunters walk and cross those trails while hunting. This would make those acts illegal.

Dave Hiatt
The Only Recreational Shooter on the DNR WAC Revision Committee (volunteer)

 

[deanf]

Dave, you need to give us specific contact info for DNR. I can get it myself, but I know a lot of people here won't bother and thus may not comment to DNR about this.

 

[DHiatt]

DNR Contact Information - send your comments!

There was probably too much information in my first post for people to notice the sentence -

"Also feel free to send your personal comments regarding the DNR's attempt to turn PUBLIC Land into a new KING's FOREST directly to Doug Sutherland (the DNR's ONLY elected official) via email using [email protected]"

The only email address for the DNR that counts is [email protected]

Doug is the Commissioner of Public Lands i.e. the elected president of the WA State Timber company. They are supposed to be out there making money to support public schools in WA State.

Thanks,

Dave Hiatt

 

[deanf]

The propsed change to WAC 332-52-050 is flawed. They take the language for the proposed WAC directly from an old version of WAC 352-32-120. This old version prohibited gun possession on state parks lands. The Parks and Recreation Commission recently change the WAC thusly:

WAC 352-32-120
Firearms.

(1) No person shall discharge or propel across, in, or into any upland state park area as defined in WAC 352-32-010 a firearm, except where the commission for good cause has authorized a special recreational activity upon finding that it is not inconsistent with state park use. Any violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

(2) The possession, display, carrying, discharge or use of a firearm is further regulated under chapter 9.41 RCW.

This effectively allows gun possession on state parks lands as long as it is within state law.

I brought this to the attention of the C. of P. L. in my email.

 

[Al Norris]

The proposed section 332-52-050 effectively limits possession of any loaded firearm except in designated areas. This coordinates well with the new regulation, 332-52-070 Target Shooting.

Taken together, it most certainly says that even simple possession of a loaded firearm, for any reason may not be lawful except in designated areas - Closed unless posted open.

You should also look at this proposed rule:

NEW SECTION 352-52-080 Directing Access
(1) Department Roads, trails and other facilities are closed unless designated open.

Every bit as much abuse over firearms can be had with this little goody!

You Washington folks really need to quash this odious regulation making!

 

[Inner Monkey]

Not long ago two friends & myself were on public land setting up to shoot. While we were setting up to shoot I was disgusted by the amount of trash including a refrigerators, an oven & even a car that were littering an area the size of a football field.

Then down the road came the local bubba patrol. In the back of a pick-up truck were 3 @$$ hats riding in the back & shooting stuff off the road-side, from the back of the moving vehicle!

As a shooter I was embarrassed & outraged by the mess & abuse of this section of public land. Not to mention the mess in many other sections like it. I am NOT saying I agree with the proposed closure of land to target shooting but we don’t need to look very far for someone to blame.

If these idiots that leave these areas trashed can not pick up after themselves they should be banned form abusing public land. These guys do not USE they ABUSE. Unfortunately the government can not discern the difference between the responsible shooter & the irresponsible shooter. There solution is to just CLOSE & BAN.

I would rather see a law or rules implemented that punish the abuser. First off they should be made to pick-up after themselves or pay a substantial fine, enough to pay for the clean-up.

I can see the pit-fall of closing public land to shooting & making it illegal to even have a gun on public land & in principal I agree that this is a bad idea. But the truth is that within the shooting community lies an element of miscreant abusers that have in my opinion ruined the trust of the public & it is most likely too late.

The land belongs to all of us to use & appreciate. This does not give anyone the right to do whatever they dam well please. We have to find a balance & earn back the respect as well as trust of the public, stolen by those among us that mistreat & abuse public land.

 

[DHiatt]

CLOSING land instead of enforcing laws? The Sign Protection Act?

I just read the post from Inner Monkey and I have a few questions.

Where was the DNR enforcement officer that the Nonhighway and Offroad Vehicle Advisory (NOVA) funds the InterAgency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) voted for and paid for with OHV grant money to police the DNR land north and east of Everett, WA?

How much effort has the DNR put into enforcement of existing laws using the 40% ($millions) they skim right off the top of our NOVA funds every year?

How is crowding everyone into a few little "posted open" sections of DNR land going to help reduce overuse and conflicts between different types of users?

Why aren't all 3.1 million acres of DNR land (Public Land by the way) OPEN to the PUBLIC instead of gated off with Road Closed signs like The King's Forest?

How many laws were already being broken by the idiots that Inner Monkey described in his post?

How will making more laws stop idiots like those described by Inner Monkey?

What can't the DNR ever (yes, I have met with Doug Sutherland twice with no results) provide any detailed accouting for what they have done on-the-ground with the millions of dollars they skim off the NOVA funds program?

Do gun laws stop someone from walking into a gun free ("free fire zone" in my Vietnam area definitions book) zone and shooting people?

Why make more laws when the current laws are not enforced?

Doug Sutherland keeps a shot up Road Closed sign in his office and is fond of mentioning it to everyone he meets with. Isn't it already illegal to shoot up signs? Is he promoting CLOSING public lands as the Sign Protection Act of 2006?