Clout message and sample letter to send

[426rider]

Please take the time to read and send a letter. This is an email from the clout administrator.
"
Your Public Lands Commissioner, Mr. Doug Sutherland, is directing DNR staff
to take the law into their own hands!

IMPORTANT - YOU are one of the few people in your District who signed up for
CLOUT alerts. YOU need to send an email NOW! If not you, then who?

The DNR's only elected official, Mr. Doug Sutherland - Public Lands
Commissioner, is effectively the elected president of the WA State Timber
Company (WA State Dept of Natural Resources). He has been permitting the
DNR staff to close more and more public land to use by the public. His
staff has recently closed two more areas to OHV use (Pilchuck & Noocksack
DNR land) and has also closed large portions of the Tahuya Forest Green
Mountain area to OHV use.
His approach to the management of public lands appears to be one of creating
a new King's Forest where the public is not allowed on public land.

Mr. Sutherland has now directed the DNR staff to revise the WA
Administrative Codes (WACs) that are controlled by his department. He is
doing this even though the Legislature has not changed any of the Revised
Codes of WA (RCWs) affecting the DNR!

He is effectively taking the law into his own hands without any specific
direction from the Legislature to do so! He was not elected to turn DNR
land (PUBLIC LAND) into the King's Forest!

For your information, the Legislature writes RCWs and agency bureaucrats
then write WACs which are the real laws that get enforced on the ground.
The Legislature has not changed anything to do with the DNR for many years.
However, under Mr. Sutherland, the DNR staff is being told to rewrite and
expand the detailed laws on their own!

We need to put a stop to this or the DNR will soon have new WACs stating
that public land is closed to the public unless specfically posted as open
to the public!

The link listed here takes you to the EXISTING WAC. CLOUT has a copy of
the PROPOSED WAC language in PDF format which you can request. Be sure you
have HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION and a VERY LARGE EMAIL BOX before
requesting a copy. It is huge. We hope to have it posted on a website
soon so you can link to it instead of downloading it via email.

PLEASE SEND A COPY OF ANY REPLY from the DNR, TO clout@hpgmc.com WHEN YOU
GET ONE!

Please contact Mr. Doug Sutherland (USE THE EMAIL LINK INCLUDED BELOW)
immediately! Sample text that you can copy and paste into the EMAIL link is
provided below, or write your own. It is vital that you make your voice
heard on this important issue!

Doug Sutherland 2 cpl@wadnr.gov

For more information:
...on this legislation, Proposed DNR revision to WAC 332-52
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=332-52
...on this committee, Sutherland 100

** You are receiving this notification because you are on the Washington
CLOUT Action List. To update your status, or remove yourself from this
list, please contact CLOUT Admin at clout@hpgmc.com. Forward this notice
freely to your associates, and get them involved, too!

SAMPLE TEXT (use it if you'd like!)

The Public Lands Commissioner should not be taking the law into his own
hands by rewriting the WACs when the controlling RCWs have not been changed
by the Legislature.

It is unfortunate that the agency is so lacking of any true sense of public
service. The Washington public needs more access to state lands not less.

If DNR had used the time and public monies to enforce existing laws instead
of attempting to enact WACs that essentially address the same issues the
problems would have been solved long ago.

I would appreciate being informed as to why you are taking the law (WAC
332-52) into your own hands without prior direction by the Legislature, as I
am one of your politically involved constituents.

Thank you."

[426rider]

Mine is sent

[RawkRash]

Mine too.

[Lynn Davison]

I sent a letter a few days ago. I live Whatcom County and here is a copy of what I sent if anyone need a sampl to look at.
Hope it helps, Lynn

Mr. Doug Sutherland, Public Lands Commissioner:


The Public Lands Commissioner should not be taking the law into his own hands by rewriting the WACs when the controlling RCWs have not been changed by the Legislature.

If DNR had used the time and public monies to enforce existing laws instead of attempting to enact WACs that essentially address the same issues the problems would have been solved long ago.

A few weeks ago I meet with five DNR officials at the North Fork gravel pit. I had a nice talk with all of them and they told me that the area was being closed because of motorcycles and quads down at the river. I agree with them that orv use of any kind by the river is not acceptable, however, all DNR personnel had motorcycles in the back of their trucks. If motorcycles and quads at the river were the main issues, then why were they not patrolling this area months or years ago?

"I find it odd that five officers showed up at the gravel pit two weeks before the closure date to tell us that you were closing the mountain. However, DNR would not take the time to address the river issues before it reached this state?"

During the last clean up at the North Fork, I met with Erik Riske, DNR Natural Resource Investigator, and he said this area would not be closed until there was another site available in Whatcom County? What happened to this? Again you are rewriting WAC's and RCW's as you see fit, not in the interests of ORV users!

Your statement dated 12-2-2005 said that the area was being closed due to discussions with local public safety officials, I have not heard of anyone being hurt at the North Fork? You also mentioned regulatory agencies, Fish and Wildlife keep bringing up salmon spawning areas being ruined. We both know that the salmon are not even making it to the spawning grounds as they are dying in the illegal nets down river! Your attempts to explain these ORV closures were pretty lame and had no depth or real information included. If the salmon are that endangered, maybe we should quit eating them?

I'm afraid that by closing these DNR areas we all use and as tax payers, own you are going to have renegade ORV users of all kinds using private land with in permission to use and we don't even want to talk about the ramifications of that?

In Whatcom County alone, I have watched Galbreath, Cub Creek, Saxon, Academy and now the North Fork closed for the same reasons, just another year, pretty sad! Motorcycle shops and four wheeler have too much money invested to just stop using their orv and park them. Whatcom County needs to address this issue soon!

Reading the proposed revisions to WAC 332-52 and especially WAC 332-52-070 gives one pause to consider how far the Department of Natural Resources has drifted from the admirable agenda that it once had of building trails and campgrounds and actively inviting the public to use and enjoy state lands. Perhaps it is time for us to request the State Legislature to step in and
get things back on track.

I would appreciate being informed as to why you are taking the law (WAC
332-52) into your own hands without prior direction by the Legislature, as I
am one of your politically involved constituents.


Avid ORV user
Lynn Davison

[Kimmy]

I think that maybe there is some confusion. I frequently review WAC's and RCW's as it pertains to my job. If you look and read the wa state legislature page maybe their definations make more sense..

Statutes and Constitution
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the compilation of all permanent laws now in force.

2005 Revised Code of Washington by Title — View the table of contents of the RCW. You can navigate the statutes by title, chapter, and section.

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) — Regulations of executive branch agencies are issued by authority of statutes. Like legislation and the Constitution, regulations are a source of primary law in Washington State. The WAC codifies the regulations and arranges them by subject or agency. The online version of the WAC is updated twice a month.

The laws of WA are the RCW's. EVERY government office then runs their branch or division through the interpretations of the law (RCW) by using WAC's. Agencies such as DSHS (dept of social & health svcs) L&I (labor & industries) etc make changes - but not to the RCW (state law) unless its submitted to the legislature and approved by them. I honestly cannot imagine the agencies having to run everything through the legislature - getting changes would take forever and they simply dont have the time.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with what Sutherland is doing, but I did review the WAC 332-52 its definitions (see the one for public use sites - ORV are not specifically mentioned), look at 332-52-020 which prohibits damage to lands under the jurisdiction of the DNR ie - Walker Valley and North Fork, Pilchuck etc. (item # 4 vehicles and road use) - some of these very things were cited by the DNR as reasons to close specific areas.

The DNR appears to be upholding the very RCW's which are in place to protect resources. I dont agree with areas being closed to offroad use- but dont see that the laws are being changed (as of yet?) just the way the DNR manages or interprets what law is already in place.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=332-52

[Lynn Davison]

I agree with you Kimmy regarding the RCW's and WAC's. As a retired Duputy Fire Marshal, I am fimaliar with these laws and guidelines. What I don't agree with is the way Sutherland is interpeting them. As the Fire Marshal I was in charge of inturpeting the UFC (uniform fire code) and the building code for many years.

That said, I realize Mr. Sutherland has great leeway, however, must be consistent, with his interpretations. You mentioned Mr. Sutherland is WAYYYYYY better than his predecessor, however, these new closures have come under his commission. But if you say he is ok, then I will try not to come down on him too hard.

As you know I am not even close to you when it comes to understanding what and how to handle ORV issues in Washington State. Be patient as I am trying to get up to speed and do something positive for our cause.