At long last the DNR has replied to my inquiry concerning this subject (FAs and public land). The text of Mr Sutherland's reply is below. I think the more folks we turn out the better. For your reading pleasure then --

Thank you for your comments regarding the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on-going efforts to improve the rules governing access on federally granted trust lands.  The department is in the early stages of a long public process to revise and update existing parts of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) that pertain to the use of managed lands and roads.  Unchanged since 1970, improved and updated WACs would provide for a safer and more enjoyable experience for people accessing and recreating on DNR-managed lands, while ensuring the department continue its primary and fiduciary responsibility to generate revenue for the state trust.
DNR's intent is to examine and propose improvements to WAC 332-52 and is working with the public, as well as other state agencies, to ensure the safety of the ever-increasing number of users while protecting the lands and resources under the department's stewardship.
The department manages more than 5 million acres of federally granted trust forest, agriculture, and state-owned aquatic, conservation and urban lands.  Of these 5 million acres, approximately 2.2 million acres are forested trust lands managed by DNR.  By law, state trust lands are managed to produce income for trust beneficiaries such as public schools, universities, prisons, state mental hospitals, community colleges, local services in many counties, and the state general fund.  They are also managed to provide fish and wildlife habitat, as well as educational and recreational opportunities.  Most of the recreation occurring on DNR managed lands takes place in forested trust lands.
Recognizing the importance of also allowing recreational opportunities on these lands, RCW 79.10.120 directs DNR to allow for multiple uses of trust lands when such uses are compatible with trust land management.  The multitude of allowable uses includes: recreation areas, trails, education and scientific studies, special events, hunting and fishing, as well as the maintenance of scenic areas and historic sites.
With many people recreating on and utilizing DNR-managed lands in many different ways, RCW 43.12.065 ensures uses can be made compatible by giving the department the authority to adopt and enforce WACs pertaining to public use of state-owned lands.  In accordance with the prescribed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Rulemaking processes, the department initiated a public scoping process in October of 2004, which consisted of eight public meetings throughout the state.  In addition, an Advisory Committee was recently established with a broad range of citizen representatives and agency representatives, including: WDFW, IAC and State Parks.
Listening to comments received from the public scoping process and the Advisory Committee, the department is working to draft and update rule language, as well as potential alternatives, which allow for multiple uses and are compatible with the department's primary responsibilities.  Consistent with SEPA, DNR will evaluate alternative draft rule language through an environmental impact statement (EIS).  The EIS will address the protection of the environment, public safety and compliance with existing laws.  The public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed language and the draft EIS before anything becomes finalized.  A draft EIS and rule language is anticipated to be ready for public review and comment in August of 2006.  Adoption of final EIS and rule language is not anticipated until 2007.
As we continue with this extensive public process, updates and information are available on the department's website at:

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/adm/comm/fs04_186.htm
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/amp/sepa/recreation/resp_summary.pdf
If you would like to be put on our mailing list to receive information regarding further opportunities to provide comments, please go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov.  Click on SEPA under "Featured Sites" and go to the "Revision to Chapter 332-52 WAC".  There will be a place to provide your contact information.  
Although this message is responding to all who have sent messages to me, I want you to know I have read them all.  To you, Dave Hiatt, I agree with Tommy Thompson.  You really should express the whole story so your readers would know that the sky is not falling, that the recreation uses are secondary after the fiduciary responsibilities to the trusts, and that the lands are trust lands certainly not the "Kings Forest."  These lands belong to the trusts, not the public, however as noted earlier, the public may use them.  Further as previously noted, RCW 43.12.065 is the authority to update the WACs and no additional legislative direction is required.

Finally, two considerations for you all: 1) Threats do you no benefit in these determinations.  Thoughtful suggestions to improve our uses of these lands do. 2) Some of you should re-read your messages before sending them, the language and spelling is terrible, and some although serious, are just really funny.  

Please stay engaged in this process, as we work through all the various issues we must consider.  If you have questions or additional comments please e-mail either me, or Margaret Barrette at  [email protected] .

I truly thank you for your input.

Sincerely,


Doug Sutherland
Commissioner of Public Lands

Finally, two considerations for you all: 1) Threats do you no benefit in these determinations. Thoughtful suggestions to improve our uses of these lands do. 2) Some of you should re-read your messages before sending them, the language and spelling is terrible, and some although serious, are just really funny.

You are right threats are illegal and counter-productive however demands have consequences when not met.

Right, isn't that an interesting way to end the reply. For the record my inquiry was coherent, spelling correct  w/o threats. Mr Sutherland's reply appears to be boilerplate to a degree.

Wow...only one reply? I thought you all would be all over this esp. given the tone of Mr Sutherlands reply. I mailed it off to one of the WAC directors also. Mr Sutherland *needs* to hear from us often via email/mail and in person at the hearings. BTW Mr Sutherlands email was a blanket reply to many recipients.

The lands do not belong to the people, they belong to a public trust....

Quoted: Wow...only one reply? I thought you all would be all over this esp. given the tone of Mr Sutherlands reply. I mailed it off to one of the WAC directors also. Mr Sutherland *needs* to hear from us often via email/mail and in person at the hearings. BTW Mr Sutherlands email was a blanket reply to many recipients.

might give it, it's own thread.

Quoted: Right, isn't that an interesting way to end the reply. For the record my inquiry was coherent, spelling correct  w/o threats. Mr Sutherland's reply appears to be boilerplate to a degree.

Yes interesting to say the least. I may have missed it but did you  post  your inquiry here?

 I would like to see what he thought was so threatening.

Quoted: Quoted: Right, isn't that an interesting way to end the reply. For the record my inquiry was coherent, spelling correct  w/o threats. Mr Sutherland's reply appears to be boilerplate to a degree. Yes interesting to say the least. I may have missed it but did you  post  your inquiry here?  I would like to see what he thought was so threatening.

AssaultPossum Do you have a copy of what you sent them? and if so can you post it?...

Here's the complete text of my mail:

"I've just became aware of a proposed change to WAC 332-52-040 and I wondered when/where public hearings will occur to discuss this. I would also like to know if you have any information about this proposed change on your website - when it was proposed, who proposed it and for what reason(s). If this information isn't available online where can it be had?

Sincerely AssaultPossum"

As I said previously Mr Sutherlands reply was to many recipients and I have no idea what they wrote. I know I didnt threaten etc...just wanted to get more infos. I think he's feeling the heat already and reacted (badly). That's good and I think the shooting/hunting community needs to keep the pressure on. AP

Quoted: Here's the complete text of my mail: "I've just became aware of a proposed change to WAC 332-52-040 and I wondered when/where public hearings will occur to discuss this. I would also like to know if you have any information about this proposed change on your website - when it was proposed, who proposed it and for what reason(s). If this information isn't available online where can it be had? Sincerely AssaultPossum" As I said previously Mr Sutherlands reply was to many recipients and I have no idea what they wrote. I know I didnt threaten etc...just wanted to get more infos. I think he's feeling the heat already and reacted (badly). That's good and I think the shooting/hunting community needs to keep the pressure on. AP

 Thank you and well done.

Quoted: Here's the complete text of my mail: "I've just became aware of a proposed change to WAC 332-52-040 and I wondered when/where public hearings will occur to discuss this. I would also like to know if you have any information about this proposed change on your website - when it was proposed, who proposed it and for what reason(s). If this information isn't available online where can it be had? Sincerely AssaultPossum" As I said previously Mr Sutherlands reply was to many recipients and I have no idea what they wrote. I know I didnt threaten etc...just wanted to get more infos. I think he's feeling the heat already and reacted (badly). That's good and I think the shooting/hunting community needs to keep the pressure on. AP

I think Mr. Sutherland is probably scared of your moniker "Assault Possum" If that is in fact how you signed your letter! Good job, I hope he's shaking in his boots! We need to find out when and where there will be some public hearings on this and show up in force.

No, I didn't sign w/ my arfcom moniker. I figured that would be bad since it contains the 'a' word.

I ride quads on DNR land, and I would not think of doing so unarmed.
In Tahuya State forest there are some unsavory characters lurking,-illegals...meth labs...

Quoted: I ride quads on DNR land, and I would not think of doing so unarmed. In Tahuya State forest there are some unsavory characters lurking,-illegals...meth labs...

+100 alot of DNR land in kitsap county has that problem. I never go on DNR land unarmed. IN fact I dont go anywhere, except for work, unarmed. I live very close to Tahuya state forest. By Green Mountain. I have more than once while riding my mountain bike or walking the dogs come across people who look like they are up to no good.

Quoted: I ride quads on DNR land, and I would not think of doing so unarmed. In Tahuya State forest there are some unsavory characters lurking,-illegals...meth labs...

I also do a lot of Quad riding and I'm always looking for new places to ride. Where abouts do you ride at? I have a Kawasaki 700 that goes like a raped ape! IM or email me if you want to hook up and do some riding. I'm thinking about going out on Saturday or Sunday (new years day) Reiters Pit might be kind of crowded. If you know of a better place please let me know.

If it aint tweekers its pot growers, never, never go unarmed.

Quoted: Reiters Pit might be kind of crowded. If you know of a better place please let me know.

It is Reiter.. Reiter Pit.

Anyway you are right on the money for it being packed, there are tons of people out there camping now, and I will bet at least 2 die there this weekend. someone will roll their 4X4 trying to climp the hill to the Deer creek area, and someone will be lost and require a SAR team. That is good for guys like me, I like it when all the idiots hang out in one well known spot. (makes it faster to find them). As far as places to ride around here, watch out, DNR has been closing off the roads one at a time, P5000 is now closed for good to ORV's

Think I will go shoot on some DNR land today, to make myself feel better, here bunny, bunny.

The Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland can be emailed at

[email protected].  Let him know what you think. But please be rational in your arguement