So far, our local newspaper( the Chronicle) will not publish anything about the "Wallace Pits" public access issue. Even those they called me an said they were!


I do have new news that may be fun for you to read!

I talked to Ray Croswell from WDFW today (6-11) about the Wallace Gravel Pit public easement issue. He told me that he had talked to Randy Wallace, the owner of the pit on June 1, 2001. He told Mr. Wallace that he had to leave the public fishing area open! (no locked gates)

Apparently, Randy Wallace tried to give him the same BS story about the mining safety issue that he did to me. Mr. Croswell didn't buy Wallace's story either, and told him that he will be out soon to post the area. I also was out their last Saturday morning (June 2,) at about 6:45 A.M.

As you may suspect, the gravel pit gate was locked! Obviously, as many of you already know, the Wallace's carry a lot of weight in out local area. I called in a complaint at 7:03 to our local Lewis County Sheriff Office. Basically, when the deputy arrived, I got the big circle jerk!

If you would like to see how you address being jerked off, read the attached letter to the Lewis County Sheriff Office! It's a little long (no, its real long!), but this is how YOU need to do it when YOU have been "JERKED OFF! This may sound like a lot of work or BS to you, but this is the way to get results! Enjoy!

Sheriff John McCroskey
Lewis County Sheriff Office
360 NW North St.
Chehalis, WA.
98532-1900

Re: Wallace Brother Gravel Pit access complaint.

Dear Mr. McCroskey:

I am very concerned about how your department processed my complaint that was phoned into your office on June 2, 2001 at approximately 7:03 A.M. on Saturday morning. My call to your dispatcher requested that an officer come to my location and verify that a locked gate was blocking my access to a public fishing easement that was owned by the state Fish and Game Department. I also offered the dispatcher a reference case number that was given to me by Lewis County Deputy Fed M. Wetzel. Deputy Wetzel had filed a report earlier concerning this fishing access to the gravel pit area on May 11, 2001. The dispatcher did not want the case number for any reference. I believe that all your calls are recorded and that something very similar to what I have stated will be reflected on your recordings.

Sometime around 7:55 A.M., on June the 2, 2001, Deputy Al Meuchel met me at the locked gate located at 654 Mandy Rd. Office Meuchel asked me what my problem was. I explained to him that the Washington Department of Fish and Game has a 60-foot public fishing access easement that runs from the location that we were standing at through the locked gated area all the way down to the Cowlitz River. In addition, I also explained to him that we have a public fishing parking area located next to the river and an additional 25-foot walking easement that started just north of the gated area that runs all the way down river to the County Line area.

I also told Deputy Meuchel that your office should have on file, a copy of a report that was failed by Deputy Fred M. Wetzel about 2 weeks ago. That incident occurred while I was fishing on the state owned easement. An employee of the gravel pit drove down to where I was fishing and he told me that I was trespassing and that I had to leave right now. I explained to him that I was on a state owned fishing easement and that I had a right to be there. The employee told me that he was going to lock the gate on me if I didn't leave right now. I told him that that would not be a good ideal, and that I have a cell phone in my car and that I would call the sheriff, and have them handle it if the gate was locked.

About a half hour later Officer Wetzel came down to where I was fishing and said that the gravel pit owner had called his office and said that I was trespassing on their property. Officer Wetzel was very polite and handled himself very professionally. After checking with his dispatcher, Officer Wetzel was able to confirm that I was not trespassing and that I was legally within my rights to be fishing the area that I was at. Officer Wetzel had the foresight to see that this problem would be an on-going problem with his Office. He had requested from WDFW, and was told that his dispatcher had received a faxed copy of the easement map from WDFW, and that their dispatchers would now known and be alerted that fishermen did have a right to drive down to the river and fish at the states easement areas. He also gave me the case number for my reference, so if I were to have any more problems with accessing the state fishing area his office would only need to check this case for reference (case #01C5448).

When Deputy Al Meuchel arrived, It became immediately oblivious he had already formed an opinion about my complaint. When Deputy Meuchel pulled up along side of the gated area, I told him that the locked gate was blocking a state public fishing area. Strangely enough, the deputy questioned me, to why I didn't go down river and fish at the other public area. I tried to explain to him that this fishing area was better fishing here and also that it was a much larger area to fish. He then decided that he was not going to make anyone open the gate. In fact, he stated to me, " I am not going to make anybody open this gate today, It will be up to the county commissions to see if they want to open this gate or not". I again told him that another deputy had already gone through this issue, and that he had given me the case number so that other deputies could verify access if there was anymore problems. He told me he did not care about the other case, and that this was "going to be decided by the commissioners".

I told him that this is not a county road easement issue, and that this was a state public fishing easement. I could see that this Deputy, for whatever reason, was not going to do anything about opening the gate that day. I specifically told the deputy that I wanted him to file an official complaint with the sheriff's office, stating that a locked gate was

blocking my access to a public fishing area. I then requested the Deputy to give me his name and the case number of my "complaint". The deputy then called his dispatcher and got the case number. The deputy gave me his card with the case number on it (case #01C6454). He then left the area. I also left the area, knowing that I was not going to be able to drive down to the river that morning. About 40 minutes later, when I had returned from fishing another area, I noticed that I had received a call from an unknown number to me. I redialed the number and your dispatch office answered. I told them who I was and they told me that "the gate was now open and I could go back if I wanted to". I assumed that Deputy Mechel must have contacted the pit owner and had him open the gate. I did not return to the area that day to see if the gate was open or not.

Since Deputy Mechel appeared to be so reluctant to act on my complaint, I decided to see what was really reported as record. On Monday, June 4, 2001, I went to your Chehalis Office and requested to see both case # 01C5448 & #01C6454. The clerk at the desk told me that I would not be able to see the reports today. She said that they were right in the middle of moving all there files and that it was going to take between 1 and 5 days to process it. There was a bunch of Deputies Moving files cabinets around so the delay sounded reasonable to me.

On Tuesday, June 5, I received a call from a lady named "Kathy". She told me that my requests were ready. I arrived at your new office around 10:AM. It took about 20 minutes before I received service. Kathy gave me copies of the reports. The first report was case #01C5448, which was filed by Deputy Wetzel. After reading Deputy Wetzel report, I believed that he did and excellent job on recording the events that had occurred at the Wallace Brothers Gravel Pit that morning. In fact, I would consider his report as a credit to both you and your office.

I cannot say that about the complaint that I reported to your office on June 2, 2001 (#01C6454). In my opinion, there are serious problems how Deputy Meuchel and other staff handled the filing of his report and the second report that was generated on June 5, 2001. I say this with great caution, but the facts will speak for themselves. When Kathy gave me the 2 reports she told me that only one case (01C5448) actually had a written report filed. She told me that the other case (01C6454) was not really handle that way and that it didn't really have any written report attached to it. I asked why it didn't have anything attached to it, because I specifically told Deputy Meuchel that I wanted my complaint filed with the sheriff office in writing. That is why I came in an asked for a copy of it. The deputy told me that he would file my complaint.

I asked Kathy if I could speak to Deputy Meuchel, since I saw him walking around the office, out of uniform. She said that it was his day off, but I was in luck because he was there in the office, right now. I saw him go into a back room. She took
back my copy of this so-called report and went to the same room to give it to him. She told me that he would be out to see me in just a few minutes. Well, about 30 minutes later, after watching Kathy go back an forth several different times to the back room Sergeant Patrich C. Smith came out and introduced himself. He was holding a bran-new report that was not there just 30 minutes ago. How could that have happen? The clerk personally told me that there were no other documents filed under case 10C6454. Now, out of nowhere, up pops a new complaint form that had obviously just been generated. There was no explanation to why Deputy Meuchel didn't come out as requested. There was no explanation as to what had happen to my signed copy of the "other" report.

Sergeant Smith was very polite and very professional and I have no complaint to how he represented your office. Your staffs were very professional, but the facts show that my demand for a written complaint was not done as requested and that the new document was generated after the fact. The Complaint as now written, says nothing about any access to a public easement being blocked, nor does it even mention the Wallace Gravel Pit as the location where the complaint took place. Why is that? Is this policy of your department? I do understand that there is some very long standing names involved in this access issue but that does not change the law, or how the law should be applied.

I now understand that there is some fancy legwork going on by your office saying that it really isn't your offices responsibility to enforce issues concerning state easements such as the one that exists at the Wallace Gravel Pits. I am sure that your office has history of responding to both Civil and Criminal issues that occur on state lands. We can debate that at a later time. The point is, that was not at issue when I requested Deputy Meuchel to file my complaint on June 2, 2001. It has always been my understanding that a deputy must file a written report when requested by a complainant. It now has the appearance that may not have been done as requested.

For all of the reasons that I have address above, I am requesting that you personally do an internal investigation of why my complaint was not filed as originally reported, and how a second report appeared out of nowhere. Your immediate attention to my complaint will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Bob Reid,
CPR-Fish

Cc: Lee Van Tussenbrook, WDFW regional Director,

Ray Croswell, WDFW Regional Lands Program Manager

I can understand your frustration in having a gate locked, but don't take it out on the deputy. They get enough sh#t thrown their way every single day that they are out there.
The real problem, as you described it, is the landowner not abiding by the easement. Take your issue to the WDFW. They won't care who the Wallace's are and will probably be immune to their influence as you state it.
People wonder why the police and sheriff department service levels aren't to their liking. It's because they have to respond to piddly little issues like yours where you DEMAND that something be done immediately, afterall, YOU pay their salaries!
Call your local representative, call the WDFW, but leave the deputies alone so that they can really help someone.

Get a grip, then get a life.

Sorry if I tended to ride the fence on this issue.

Andy M

Andy M,
I try never to get personal. I am only trying to speak for the little guy that does not have the background, time, or past experience to handle such a large public issue, as this is one.

As you should be able to read, I gave one deputy the best possible recommendation that one can give. I did not call the first deputy out from his normal duty, the owner of the Gravel Pit called him out!

People like you never just "ride the fence" you are the fence! It may come as a shock to you but WDFW staff advised me to make it part of the record, and file a report so that WDFW can take it to the next step if the pit owners continues to lock out the "public".

One thing that I have learned before crossing a creek…always look before you make your leap! Obviously, you have not!


Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Andy I am afraid you are wrong.

Police work i am sure is very difficult and that police officers are forced to endure a lot of garbage. That is their job!!
They know that going in. Their job is to protect the rights of American citizens according to the laws or our country,state and county. If they don't like doing that they should go find another job.
I have a job and there are parts of it I don't like. I don't not do them because I don't want to. That is what this deputy did he failed to do his job and he lied to the public.
A police officer cannot make choices about when to protect a persons rights and when not to his job it to just protect them. When it comes to protecting peoples rights he is to be a robot nothing else there is no room for personal judgement he just protects thats it!
Protect and serve this deputy did neither.

Thumbs down to your response andy m. Law enforcement officials are there to enforce the law and protect the rights of people whose rights otherwise might be taken from them by pompous individuals that believe, for one reason or another, it is their right to trample the rights of others. Such violations of ones rights are against the law.

This situation is one of those instances, it may not be your idea of what law enforcement is about, but it is one part of it and an important part at that. If they are not out there doing this soon those pompous individuals will grow exponentially and the rights of others will diminish exponentially.

I for one applaud Cowlitz fisherman for his handling of this situation in a mature manner and will hopefully be down that way soon to take advantage of the new bank fishing opportunity on the mighty cowlitz.

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Stadle ]

Andy M. You're an idiot.... You must be a deputy sherrif to hold the viewpoints you hold. If the sherrifs' deputy would've done his job in the first place and nipped this problem in the bud, the things never would've gotten so out of hand. To tell Cowlitzfisherman to "get a life" is a total slap in the face to everything he's tried to do in the name of what is right..... And just for the record, we do pay the police departments' salaries, and ANY law enforcement officer would do well to remember the term CIVIL SERVANT. Don't ever presume that a law enforcement officer having to respond to a call from from a corncerned citizen as "piddly"............. That is what the cops get paid to do! Believe it or not, the cops aren't just there to look tough, carry a gun, and hassle kids for loitering.... Sometimes they may actually have to go do some real police work, and if that makes them mad, then so be it.... Just thought I'd set you straight.

I think Cowlitzfisherman has done a great service to the sporting community of Washington. When people try to bend the law to their will, its imperitive that we speak out. Law enforcement as well as state agencies must be made to protect the interests of the common man. I commend you for your knowledge and tenacity in this issue.
"Great spirits have always encounterd violent opposition from mediocre minds."
Thanks
Brandon
P.S. I guess I gotta go give this place a try!

andy: If that post was serious, it speaks for itself.

cowlitzfisherman: You 'da man. Good work, and good documentation. You have done us all a service.

Howdy,
Seems like I struck a chord here. So sorry if I offended anyone, but I detected a bit of pomposity in the original post from "cowlitz's" letter to the sheriff's department. I am not a deputy, but I have a lot of respect for the work that they do every day, day in and day out.
I started out by saying that I could feel his pain, ie. the locked gate, but that he needed to direct his issues to the proper authorities, wdfw and his local representatives. I should have given him his due for contacting the wdfw folks, but I didn't. Sorry for that.
I felt that "cowlitz" made it "personal" when he dragged the deputies name into this bulletin board where said deputy probably doesn't visit to defend himself. This deputy may have had a bad hair day before he met with "cowlitz", it happens, I apologize on his behalf if he made you feel any less significant, really.
Access to fishing is important, I agree, but is your slammimg of deputy #2 really going to help? That is where you and I part ways on your tactics.
I do give you cudos for fighting for our rights, but when you publicly try to malign someone and they have no defense, I feel that someone needs to stand up for them, much like the way that our officers stand up for us in the face of all of those no-so-nice-guys out there.
Maybe he didn't . the "I's" and x the "T's" the way you wanted, but you did receive a call later in the day to let you know that the situation had been taken care of, didn't you? Is taking 30 minutes of his day off worth that much to you? Are you really that important? You got response, he may not have been friendly, but he was there. You got your access back. There was already a documented case file on the issue.
One thing that I gave you that you didn't give him was an opportunity to respond. I apologize for my negative comments, but you also now know why.

I would guess that the original post was not one of pompousness but one of anger and, possibly, a call to action. By naming the officers that both did their job commendably and shamefully he has done nothing more than what any one of us would have done if we received shoddy service at a tackle shop.

Andy's comment about taking 30 minutes of the officers day off was silly. If he would have done his job they way he was supposed to on the day the incident happened then he wouldn't have had to take the time to do it several days later on his time off. That's common sense.

Many times easements are donated for free by the landowner, but considering the attitude displayed by the owner I would imagine that he probably is getting money for it if not at least a large tax write-off.

A letter needs to be sent to the landowner asking him why he is refusing access to this easement. Maybe it is due to our all-too-common slobbery on the property, or maybe he's got a case of cranial rectitis.

If it turns out that the land owner is doing it to be a pee-are-eye-see-kay, then it might be necessary to have a fishing trip scheduled up there by a bunch of us to highlight the problem. A dozen people's voices are heard much easier than just one.

Count me in if this happens.

cowlitzfisherman

Great job on the follow ups. You are going farther than some people would. No matter how hard you try to do something that is right there is always someone who is going to flip you crap. I have not been able to make it down to this area yet because of other priorities but am looking forward to checking it out. It sounds to me that the WDFW needs to make the Wallaces remove the gate or move it so it does not interfere with the fishing access.

Keep up the good work and keep us posted.

One more thought by the misunderstood Andy M on this issue, then I will retire from the topic.

"Cowlitz" strayed way off base to make his point about fishing access. He led me away from his primary issue, the easement, and got me interested in something else. There are a lot of people who you will direct away from the primary issue by using the same tactics that some of our politicians use. I in turn led you folks away from the primary issue even further. Some folks seemed to get the idea, direct your anger and energy at the folks who can really do something about it, mainly, wdfw and the landowner.

The deputy played such an insignificant role in the whole debate, yet "cowlitz" set out to make him the primary issue, when in fact the deputy did follow up, had dispatch call "Cowlitz" about the renewed access to the easement in question that day, and used his discretion in handling the issue as he saw it. Keep focussed on the real issue and you will succeed. Best of luck to all. A

Thank you for that clarification Andy...... You might not be all bad after all.

Cowlitz-
Although I have never fished the Cowlitz, may never in my life but your work must me commended. You are fighting for the sportsmen of Washinton, something that very very few people do nowadays.

Thanks!!!

andy cowlitzfisher man is to be comended for his efforts . cowlitz acted right by geting on the deputy . you start at the bottom of chain of command . public servants must remember thier servants ./ cowlitzman your my hero .

Cowlitzfisherman, good job. I was wondering if you have tried to get ahold of Skip Mohney. He may beable to help you get something in the paper down there. He is a pretty good guy, I lived there for about 30 years and know him pretty well. I think he would help.

Keep us posted if you get a response from your letter.

Hi ZoZo,

Thanks for understanding what I was trying to get across. I am a nice guy, and I am sure that "Cowlitz" is too. Focus on the main issue. Andy

First, I would like to thank everyone for coming to my support and defending my posting. Apparently Andy M and I don't think along the same lines when it comes to fishing rights. First thing Andy, No one led you astray on this issue, you led your own self in that direction! I would like to clear up a few misnomers about what my motives were in posting my complaint letter to the Lewis County sheriff Office.

Andy, I need to set you straight on a few twisted things that you have posted concerning the access issue and my part in it. Lots of People who know me, also know that I have pretty thick skin most of the time. I usually never mind it when some disagrees with me or has a different opinion than I. What I do mind is when that person does not have their facts together or is just plain blowing out hot air. As just one example, you say that I have made this issue "personal" because I have dragged the deputy name into this bulletin Board". The deputy name was only used to document the event that lead to the sheriff's office failure to file a complaint. When one files a formal complaint with the sheriff, and asks for an internal investigation, one dam well better get all their facts right!

You say that the deputy used his discretion in handling this issue as he saw it. The last time I checked out our laws, a deputy "must" file a "complaint" when the complaint party has requested it. The deputy has NO OPTION to decide, or use "his own discretion" in deciding if a complaint is to be, or not to be filed. It simply is not his option! A "complaint" is simply a complaint. It doe not require that a deputy take a corrective action, it simply allows a person to make a record of their issue. You say that this deputy may not have doted his "I's" or x the "T's" the way that I wanted him to. In part that is true. This deputy didn't only forget to dote his "I" or x his "T", he forgot to file the "complaint" as requested!

You say that I should call my "local representative, call the WDFW, but leave the deputies alone so that they can really help".
Obviously Andy, you don't know anything about our Lewis County local politics. Do you really think that a local representative or someone like our county commissioner, who had received over $10,000 in campaign donations from the Wallace's will do a dam thing to see that fishermen can go through their property? Remember, this is Lewis County…home of the good old boys!

You say that I should be taking this battle up with WDFW. What do you think that I have been doing? Didn't you see that the letter was also cc'ed to Lee Van Tussenbrook, WDFW regional Director, and Ray Croswell, WDFW Regional Lands Program Manager? Who else would you want me to see in WDFW? Who do you think recommend me to file a formal complaint, showing that my public access was being blocked to state public fishing areas?
I have personally worked with the regional director about 4 years ago for over 6 months on a special selected committee who were chosen to represent sport fishing and hunting groups to developed and make new recommendation to the state attorney general office in the rewriting of our state fish and hunting codes (RCW's). So Andy, I do have some background for guidance in this issue.

I learned a long time a go Andy, if you're going to get into a fight, then fight it to win! I have been fighting battles just like this one for over 15 years for sport fishermen and will continue to fight for them as long as they continue to give me their support. I make it a policy if I start something, I will finish it! Thanks again all you folks who have given me your support on this access issue. I will continue to update you until this issue is resolved.

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

CFM,

You should also send a letter to the Attorney General's Office, or at least cc: them the correspondence to WDFW or the county.

They should respond by either coming down with their somewhat bigger hammer, unimpeded by Lewis Co. politics, or push some buttons at the county.

Good luck, and thanks from all sportsmen for your efforts. You're out there for all of us who have access problems.

Fish on...

Todd.