The following newspaper article was circulated around our chapter
meeting the other night. Since we're close to WA as well as have several
members from southern Washington it was of importance to the membership.
Anyone heard any more about this new law to take effect on July 1? Any
idea on how this would even be enforced with firewood cutters, helping
out a neighbor, roadside ditch scavenging, etc?

Seems cumbersome and not very workable. If it's just targeting BL
Maples, are deputies going to be schooled in recognizing pieces from the
bark or green wood? Who determines what constitutes "specialty wood"?
How much figure is too much? While I can see and understand the
frustration and anger of those who have lost property to tree rustlers,
it seems to me there could be a more workable solution addressing the
wholesale and retail of such wood.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/226446_maplethieves31.html

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Poachers target maple trees for their 'figured' wood
Law seeks to halt theft of timber used in fiddles, guitars

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Snip of the full article but take note of the last paragraphs:
Officials hope a new law taking effect July 1 will help curtail illegal tree
harvesters.

The measure requires a permit for transporting "specialty wood," which
includes logs of less than 8 feet, free of knots, which can be turned into
musical instruments or ornamental boxes.

The permit must be signed by the owner and identify the person's property. It
also must be endorsed by the sheriff's office and kept with the wood during
transport. When the law goes into effect, any person transporting specialty
wood without a permit would be in immediate violation of the law. Officers
may seize the wood along with the vehicle and tools.

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
The following newspaper article was circulated around our chapter
meeting the other night. Since we're close to WA as well as have several
members from southern Washington it was of importance to the membership.
Anyone heard any more about this new law to take effect on July 1? Any
idea on how this would even be enforced with firewood cutters, helping
out a neighbor, roadside ditch scavenging, etc?

Seems cumbersome and not very workable. If it's just targeting BL
Maples, are deputies going to be schooled in recognizing pieces from the
bark or green wood? Who determines what constitutes "specialty wood"?
How much figure is too much? While I can see and understand the
frustration and anger of those who have lost property to tree rustlers,
it seems to me there could be a more workable solution addressing the
wholesale and retail of such wood.


There is a much more workable solution - respect for the property of others.

It's like the folks that come traipsing across my place - when asked, they
answer "I didn't know who owned it."

"You know _you_ don't. Should be enough."

Instead we get laws and legalism like "who determines what constitutes
'specialty wood, '" and questions on the competence of those who will have
to enforce the law the people's representatives have made.

I sign Christmas tree transport permits as landowner every year. Not really
a problem.

Owen, A property owner can protect their timber by letting it be known
that he plans to cut a tree down. The tree huggers will gather, lock
arms. sing songs and protect his property, although not his right to use
it.

In the true spirit of net forums, I must caution you against posting
political opinions about Washington's legislature, correct or not.
Pertinence is no excuse. Of course, as a self appointed moderator, it's
ok for me. "Peace in our time", eh?


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

What's next? Permits required to transport more than $100 cash because it
MIGHT have been illegally obtained?

This is a bogus law since it bypasses due-process, and makes a person
engaging in free trade (or a hobby) a criminal. This is doubly horrible
since there is a simpler solution, which is to have officers stop vehicles
transporting timber and inquire about the log, just as they do with any
other questionable situation. The best response to such a inquiry is to
show the officer a bill of sale (even it is just for a token $1) signed by
the former owner.

Let's face it, it is a kneejerk law written to a apease voters.

Dan

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/226446_maplethieves31.html

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Poachers target maple trees for their 'figured' wood
Law seeks to halt theft of timber used in fiddles, guitars

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Snip of the full article but take note of the last paragraphs:
Officials hope a new law taking effect July 1 will help curtail illegal
tree
harvesters.

The measure requires a permit for transporting "specialty wood," which
includes logs of less than 8 feet, free of knots, which can be turned
into
musical instruments or ornamental boxes.

The permit must be signed by the owner and identify the person's
property. It
also must be endorsed by the sheriff's office and kept with the wood
during
transport. When the law goes into effect, any person transporting
specialty
wood without a permit would be in immediate violation of the law.
Officers
may seize the wood along with the vehicle and tools.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 06:53:37 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:

snip

There is a much more workable solution - respect for the property of others.

It's like the folks that come traipsing across my place - when asked, they
answer "I didn't know who owned it."

"You know _you_ don't. Should be enough."

Instead we get laws and legalism like "who determines what constitutes
'specialty wood, '" and questions on the competence of those who will have
to enforce the law the people's representatives have made.

I sign Christmas tree transport permits as landowner every year. Not really
a problem.

IMHO, this is a case of making a new law because they aren't enforcing an old
one...
Sort of like "cracking down" on drivers with cell phones... I've seen folks that
drive fine while on a cell.. others that shouldn't be allowed to drive at all...
the point is that there are already several laws that can be enforced, such as
reckless driving, etc... enforce the standing law and apply it to maps, radio
tuning, makeup, newspapers, shavers, etc... YMMV



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Well Great. Another extremely critical problem for our already overburdened
law enforcement officers to worry about.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 01:25:32 -0700, Owen Lowe
wrote:



The measure requires a permit for transporting "specialty wood," which
includes logs of less than 8 feet, free of knots, which can be turned into
musical instruments or ornamental boxes.

Thank you "The Nanny State." Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking
laws, wood laws...how about they just enforce the ones they already
have, shoot rustlers and let natural selection have half a chance.




--
Chuck *#:^)
chaz3913(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
Anti-spam sig: please remove "NO SPAM" from e-mail address to reply.


September 11, 2001 - Never Forget

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Dan Bollinger" wrote in This is a
bogus law since it bypasses due-process, and makes a person
engaging in free trade (or a hobby) a criminal. This is doubly horrible
since there is a simpler solution, which is to have officers stop vehicles
transporting timber and inquire about the log, just as they do with any
other questionable situation. The best response to such a inquiry is to
show the officer a bill of sale (even it is just for a token $1) signed by
the former owner.

Let's face it, it is a kneejerk law written to a apease voters.


How do you feel about gypsy moth and emerald ash borer laws?

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:20:23 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


"Dan Bollinger" wrote in This is a
bogus law since it bypasses due-process, and makes a person
engaging in free trade (or a hobby) a criminal. This is doubly horrible
since there is a simpler solution, which is to have officers stop vehicles
transporting timber and inquire about the log, just as they do with any
other questionable situation. The best response to such a inquiry is to
show the officer a bill of sale (even it is just for a token $1) signed by
the former owner.

Let's face it, it is a kneejerk law written to a apease voters.


How do you feel about gypsy moth and emerald ash borer laws?

damn, I didn't even know that moths' and borer's had legislative branches... how
many laws have they passed??


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

In article , "George" george@least
wrote:

There is a much more workable solution - respect for the property of others.

It's like the folks that come traipsing across my place - when asked, they
answer "I didn't know who owned it."

"You know _you_ don't. Should be enough."

Instead we get laws and legalism like "who determines what constitutes
'specialty wood, '" and questions on the competence of those who will have
to enforce the law the people's representatives have made.

I sign Christmas tree transport permits as landowner every year. Not really
a problem.

Consider a couple scenarios that might affect woodturners:

1) you own the tree parts that you are carting to a wood meeting to
offer for raffle;
2) you "win" a chunkamapleburl in a raffle in Oregon and cart it home to
Washington;
3) the Big Leaf Maple you have stacked up next to your garage was
obtained long before this law went into effect - how do you prove it was
obtained legally;
4) you come across a line crew removing growth from the vicinity of the
electric lines. They are just going to chip it all up and would gladly
give you what you wanted but you must first locate the property owner
and then visit the county sheriff's office before carting off wood that
has a use beyond the chipper.

Granted all of these have a work-around but the law is creating
criminals out of innocent activities. I can fully understand the desire
to stop rustling but I think there's got to be a better way than to
consider all who possess and/or transport Big Leaf Maple, Alder and
other woods as criminals who rustled their stash from someone's property.

Part of the law that has my boxers in a bunch is the requirement to
obtain a sheriff's permit for each instance instead of a yearly permit
from the state. I'm certain Washington is similar to Oregon and other
states in that the sheriff is located at the county seat - not in every
town - that would be a 40 mile round trip for me in just my county, not
to mention the 4 or 5 other surrounding counties and their respective
sheriff's offices.

I'm sure there are those reading this who think it's much to do about
nothing - after all, it would be pretty easy to conceal much of what we
carry around. But is an officer allowed to search a vehicle he has
stopped for a traffic violation if he spots a chainsaw or bark pieces on
the floormat? Will the occifers be following the musical notes of a
chainsaw to ensure the proper permits and permissions have been
obtained? Will the woodturning club members be forced to the backroads
to and from meetings in the vein of moonshiners? Laugh if you want but
consider if your state put in a similar law covering Black Walnut,
Cherry, Mesquite, Norfolk Is. Pine, etcetera.

"Chuck" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 01:25:32 -0700, Owen Lowe
wrote:



The measure requires a permit for transporting "specialty wood," which
includes logs of less than 8 feet, free of knots, which can be turned
into
musical instruments or ornamental boxes.

Thank you "The Nanny State." Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking
laws, wood laws...how about they just enforce the ones they already
have, shoot rustlers and let natural selection have half a chance.

=======Here's the site where the law is set forth. I can't understand how
this ever got through the legislature in such a form. I think the EU
Constitution writers are moonlighting for the WA State Legislature.
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsea...=605003108&p=1

Leif

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:38:49 -0700, Owen Lowe
wrote:

In article , "George" george@least
wrote:

Consider a couple scenarios that might affect woodturners:

1) you own the tree parts that you are carting to a wood meeting to
offer for raffle;
2) you "win" a chunkamapleburl in a raffle in Oregon and cart it home to
Washington;
3) the Big Leaf Maple you have stacked up next to your garage was
obtained long before this law went into effect - how do you prove it was
obtained legally;
4) you come across a line crew removing growth from the vicinity of the
electric lines. They are just going to chip it all up and would gladly
give you what you wanted but you must first locate the property owner
and then visit the county sheriff's office before carting off wood that
has a use beyond the chipper.

Granted all of these have a work-around but the law is creating
criminals out of innocent activities. I can fully understand the desire
to stop rustling but I think there's got to be a better way than to
consider all who possess and/or transport Big Leaf Maple, Alder and
other woods as criminals who rustled their stash from someone's property.

I agree, it's pretty horrendous. I'm not even entirely sure what a
tree rustler is, but I can't imagine it's really that common a
problem. I know I'd be in trouble if they passed a law of that type
in Wisconsin- on weekends, especially after big storms, I like to go
onto county land and either cut deadfall that is blocking the trails
or pick up stuff the liscensed loggers leave behind for turning
purposes (usually crotch wood and the like). I don't trespass on
private property, and I never cut a live tree for any reason- but how
would the sheriff know, if I were stopped and had no permit? Granted,
it's not a law here yet, but it seems like once there's a precedent
somewhere for just about anything, everyone wants to jump in
eventually.

Part of the law that has my boxers in a bunch is the requirement to
obtain a sheriff's permit for each instance instead of a yearly permit
from the state. I'm certain Washington is similar to Oregon and other
states in that the sheriff is located at the county seat - not in every
town - that would be a 40 mile round trip for me in just my county, not
to mention the 4 or 5 other surrounding counties and their respective
sheriff's offices.

Yep, it'd be a 45 mile round trip for me as well.

I'm sure there are those reading this who think it's much to do about
nothing - after all, it would be pretty easy to conceal much of what we
carry around. But is an officer allowed to search a vehicle he has
stopped for a traffic violation if he spots a chainsaw or bark pieces on
the floormat? Will the occifers be following the musical notes of a
chainsaw to ensure the proper permits and permissions have been
obtained? Will the woodturning club members be forced to the backroads
to and from meetings in the vein of moonshiners? Laugh if you want but
consider if your state put in a similar law covering Black Walnut,
Cherry, Mesquite, Norfolk Is. Pine, etcetera.

Agreed, it's not funny- especially the bit about them seizing the
vehicle and tools. There are some other laws on the books that allow
this (I can't remember the specific cases, but I believe that they
generally involve suspected drug dealer and subversive groups) IIRC,
the standard procedure is to auction siezed property, and if the trial
is held after the auction occurs, the accused is just out of luck,
even if they are cleared of all charges. Taking the wood is one
thing, but essentially stealing tools and vehicles from a guy bringing
a hunk of firewood home from a buddy's house is insane.

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:20:23 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:

How do you feel about gypsy moth and emerald ash borer laws?

damn, I didn't even know that moths' and borer's had legislative
branches... how
many laws have they passed??


We have lived with the first for years, though the second is a relatively
new problem. Outright ban now on moving ash from infected areas. Of course,
like environmental law, they're really only enforced on large-scale
operations. Periodically the DEQ will inspect firewood haulers of the
individual type, just as they check and demand draining of your boat after
pulling it from a zebra-mussel infested area. Don't want them in inland
lakes and streams any faster than they can walk by themselves.

Second-guessing legalism and police-bashing aside, it's aimed and will
likely only be enforced against the guy hauling a trailer. Don't know that
it would ever become a primary enforcement item.

Hi Owen, We've all had a serious post diverted by 'humor', so I should
have known better and taken care not to appear to laugh at your problem.
Some states can take your property by eminent domain then sell it to a
private owner and here they can declare your property to be 'historical'
and deny any changes thereafter, but not reduce taxes. Our legislature's
intentions are often interpreted as they please and enforced or not by
unelected staff, usually to the detriment of citizens. Not funny and no
.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Arch wrote:

Hi Owen, We've all had a serious post diverted by 'humor', so I should
have known better and taken care not to appear to laugh at your problem.
Some states can take your property by eminent domain then sell it to a
private owner and here they can declare your property to be 'historical'
and deny any changes thereafter, but not reduce taxes.

Solution to that--forget to separate a bunch of oily rags sitting under the
pile of lumber in the basement with a few gallon cans of naphtha and other
flammable solvents sitting on top of it and go on vacation. Oops. You
mean they'll _do_ that? Gee whiz, I never imagined . . .

Our legislature's
intentions are often interpreted as they please and enforced or not by
unelected staff, usually to the detriment of citizens. Not funny and no
.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:20:23 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:

How do you feel about gypsy moth and emerald ash borer laws?

damn, I didn't even know that moths' and borer's had legislative
branches... how
many laws have they passed??


We have lived with the first for years, though the second is a relatively
new problem. Outright ban now on moving ash from infected areas. Of
course, like environmental law, they're really only enforced on
large-scale operations. Periodically the DEQ will inspect firewood
haulers of the individual type, just as they check and demand draining of
your boat after pulling it from a zebra-mussel infested area. Don't want
them in inland lakes and streams any faster than they can walk by
themselves.

Second-guessing legalism and police-bashing aside, it's aimed and will
likely only be enforced against the guy hauling a trailer. Don't know
that it would ever become a primary enforcement item.

==== What bothers me about this is the almost stealth-like passage of the
legislation. Also, its shotgun application to all people who deal with wood
either for personal firewood gathering, for turning purposes or even for
carving (lots of cedar used for that in the chainsaw carving genre).
Western Washington, where I live, lots of people use wood stoves and there
is a cottage industry of chainsaw carving. I used to haul ten cords of wood
that was sold off the University of Washington's demonstration forest per
year. They issued sale receipts, but now, it appears that I would have to
have a Sheriff's blessing on each load that I trucked out. It would take
about 20 truckloads. I didn't use a trailer. Random enforcement is like
traffic stops for a taillight out, but they ask to search your vehicle
anyway. What is it about the politicians that they persist in trying to
make criminals out of all of us. As stated above, I think the new law is a
knee-jerk response to a few occasions and perhaps some influential ox was
gored. I will be speaking with my State Senator about this.

Leif

As stated above, I think the new law is a
knee-jerk response to a few occasions and perhaps some influential ox was
gored. I will be speaking with my State Senator about this.

Soften him up with LDD first!

"Harry B. Pye" wrote in message
groups.com...
As stated above, I think the new law is a
knee-jerk response to a few occasions and perhaps some influential ox was
gored. I will be speaking with my State Senator about this.

Soften him up with LDD first!

=====Good idea! And then maybe I can turn her!!!

Leif

Leif Thorvaldson wrote:


"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 19:20:23 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:

How do you feel about gypsy moth and emerald ash borer laws?

damn, I didn't even know that moths' and borer's had legislative
branches... how
many laws have they passed??


We have lived with the first for years, though the second is a relatively
new problem. Outright ban now on moving ash from infected areas. Of
course, like environmental law, they're really only enforced on
large-scale operations. Periodically the DEQ will inspect firewood
haulers of the individual type, just as they check and demand draining of
your boat after pulling it from a zebra-mussel infested area. Don't want
them in inland lakes and streams any faster than they can walk by
themselves.

Second-guessing legalism and police-bashing aside, it's aimed and will
likely only be enforced against the guy hauling a trailer. Don't know
that it would ever become a primary enforcement item.

==== What bothers me about this is the almost stealth-like passage of the
legislation. Also, its shotgun application to all people who deal with
wood either for personal firewood gathering, for turning purposes or even
for carving (lots of cedar used for that in the chainsaw carving genre).
Western Washington, where I live, lots of people use wood stoves and there
is a cottage industry of chainsaw carving. I used to haul ten cords of
wood that was sold off the University of Washington's demonstration forest
per
year. They issued sale receipts, but now, it appears that I would have to
have a Sheriff's blessing on each load that I trucked out. It would take
about 20 truckloads. I didn't use a trailer. Random enforcement is like
traffic stops for a taillight out, but they ask to search your vehicle
anyway. What is it about the politicians that they persist in trying to
make criminals out of all of us.

Power--if everybody is a criminal then anybody can be arrested at any time
on a politician's whim.

As stated above, I think the new law is a
knee-jerk response to a few occasions and perhaps some influential ox was
gored. I will be speaking with my State Senator about this.

Leif

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Too late for LDD, Harry. As with Fla. the Wash. senate is likely already
cracked. If not, it is surely warped and gone oval.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

"Harry B. Pye" wrote in
groups.com:

As stated above, I think the new law is a
knee-jerk response to a few occasions and perhaps some influential ox
was gored. I will be speaking with my State Senator about this.

Soften him up with LDD first!

I thought that Western Washington was the home of the alchohol soaking
method! That would be consistant with political discussions globally...

"Leif Thorvaldson" wrote in message
...
Western Washington, where I live, lots of people use wood stoves and there
is a cottage industry of chainsaw carving. I used to haul ten cords of
wood that was sold off the University of Washington's demonstration forest
per year. They issued sale receipts, but now, it appears that I would
have to have a Sheriff's blessing on each load that I trucked out. It
would take about 20 truckloads. I didn't use a trailer. Random
enforcement is like traffic stops for a taillight out, but they ask to
search your vehicle anyway. What is it about the politicians that they
persist in trying to make criminals out of all of us. As stated above, I
think the new law is a knee-jerk response to a few occasions and perhaps
some influential ox was gored. I will be speaking with my State Senator
about this.


No doubt the permits will be combined. If you do not give consent to
search, you come under the "plain view" interpretation, or probable cause
must be furnished.

Happy to see you directing your ire against the proper source - lawmakers,
rather than law enforcement. Like Arch, I feel that the huggers probably
had a hand in this, too. Protectionism by the back door. Tough
constituency to overcome, what with "environmentalism" serving as the Roman
church served during the middle ages. Only thing tougher to fight would be
an Al Sharpton charge that harvesting wood is demographically demonstrated
as racist....

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 17:23:37 -0700, "Leif Thorvaldson" wrote:


"Harry B. Pye" wrote in message
sgroups.com...
As stated above, I think the new law is a
knee-jerk response to a few occasions and perhaps some influential ox was
gored. I will be speaking with my State Senator about this.

Soften him up with LDD first!

=====Good idea! And then maybe I can turn her!!!

Leif

but have less chance of cracking her stand..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

It is Washington house bill 1406S and requires a permit for transporting
specialized forest products.
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsea...=606182744&p=1

Specialized forest products are defined as Christmas trees, native
ornamental trees and shrubs, cut or picked evergreen foliage, cedar
products, cedar salvage, processed cedar products, specialty wood, wild
edible mushrooms, and Cascara bark. The law also includes specialty wood
which includes western red cedar, Englemann spruce, Sitka spruce, big leaf
maple, or western red alder. For specialty wood the log must meet specific
requirements.

There are limits to the amount of specialized forest products a person can
have without a permit (I.e. you can transport 5 Christmas trees without a
permit). The important part is that the law only affects the initial
transporter of the wood. The law provides a means for tracing the sale of
specific forest products back to the person transporting them out of the
forest. If what you are transporting is below the limits set by the law, or
if you are not selling the wood, than the law does not have much of an
effect. I don't think that this law will bother us turners to a large
degree.

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
The following newspaper article was circulated around our chapter
meeting the other night. Since we're close to WA as well as have several
members from southern Washington it was of importance to the membership.
Anyone heard any more about this new law to take effect on July 1?

In article r87pe.10615$ld3.3329@trnddc04,
"Henry" wrote:

There are limits to the amount of specialized forest products a person can
have without a permit (I.e. you can transport 5 Christmas trees without a
permit). The important part is that the law only affects the initial
transporter of the wood. The law provides a means for tracing the sale of
specific forest products back to the person transporting them out of the
forest. If what you are transporting is below the limits set by the law, or
if you are not selling the wood, than the law does not have much of an
effect. I don't think that this law will bother us turners to a large
degree.

Bill #1406, 2005:
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?
Action=Html&Item=0&X=604221107&p=1

I didn't see any upper limits to the quantity or size or any stipulation
about selling or not. The two parts that concerned me a

(19) "Specialty wood" means wood that is:
(a) In logs less than eight feet in length, chunks, slabs, stumps, or burls;
and
(b) One or more of the following:
(i) Of the species western red cedar, Englemann spruce, Sitka spruce,
big leaf maple, or western red alder;
(ii) Without knots in a portion of the surface area at least
twenty-one inches long and seven and a quarter inches wide when
measured from the outer surface toward the center; or
(iii) Suitable for the purposes of making musical instruments or
ornamental boxes.

Realize that (a) says "logs _less_ than 8' in length" and (b) says "One
_or_ more..." It doesn't matter the size _if_ the wood is "suitable for
purposes of making... ornamental boxes". It doesn't mean that as long as
you don't make an ornamental box it's OK, it says if it's _suitable_ for
making musical instruments or ornamental boxes. Who is to determine
suitability?

Sec. 4 RCW 76.48.070 and 1995 c 366 s 6 are each amended to read as
follows:
(2) It is unlawful for any person either (a) to possess, (b) to
transport, or (c) to possess and transport within the state of
Washington any cedar products ((or)), cedar salvage, or specialty wood
without having in his or her possession a specialized forest products
permit or a true copy thereof evidencing his or her title to or
authority to have possession of the materials being so possessed or
transported. The specialized forest products permit or true copy are
valid to possess, transport, or possess and transport the cedar
products, cedar salvage, or specialty wood from the harvest site to
the first cedar or specialty wood processor or buyer. For purposes of
this subsection, a true copy requires the actual signatures of both
the permittee and the permittor for the execution of a true copy.

You'll notice (2) states possession, transportation, and possession and
transportation - mentions nothing about any act or intent to sell.

I've read the bill a few times but not being a legal eagle some of the
whereas's and heretofor's go beyond how much effort I desire to put into
figuring it all out. Also, I'm an Oregonian so at the present this
wouldn't affect me - I only offered it up for our Washington residents
and others who might be interested. If you found some size, quantity or
use limitations in the bill that might alleviate my concerns for
woodturners then please post a folllow up.

In article , "George" george@least
wrote:
...

No doubt the permits will be combined. If you do not give consent to
search, you come under the "plain view" interpretation, or probable cause
must be furnished.

Happy to see you directing your ire against the proper source - lawmakers,
rather than law enforcement. Like Arch, I feel that the huggers probably
had a hand in this, too.

Maybe, but it was the major property owners that pushed it. Olympic
Resources (Pope and Talbut) has lost $10's of thousands in figured Maple
in that last couple of years.

This is a follow up to the older law on moving Cedar, back when Cedar
theft starting being such a problem.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

Owen Lowe wrote:

If you found some size, quantity or
use limitations in the bill that might alleviate my concerns for
woodturners then please post a folllow up.


And if anyone needs some Big Leaf Maple, let me know and I'll give you some
starters. It's practically a weed around here. Sheesh!

Henry wrote:

It is Washington house bill 1406S and requires a permit for transporting
specialized forest products.

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsea...=606182744&p=1

Specialized forest products are defined as Christmas trees, native
ornamental trees and shrubs, cut or picked evergreen foliage,

Now wait a minute--if I'm out four-wheeling and get a cedar twig caught in
the body work I'm violating this law? These guys are _nuts_.

snip

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article oMlpe.14489$_w.7459@trnddc01,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

And if anyone needs some Big Leaf Maple, let me know and I'll give you some
starters. It's practically a weed around here. Sheesh!

Yes Lobby I agree - AAMOF, my daughter and I started both an Oregon
White Oak and a Big Leaf Maple early this spring from seeds that had
sprouted in our yard - both now in a large pot in our kitchen window.
Wow, the Maple is easily 2 or 3 times taller than the oak - now to just
start nicking the little sucker to create some burls...

Either that or attempt to banzai it - which seriously has crossed my
mind.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Henry wrote:

It is Washington house bill 1406S and requires a permit for transporting
specialized forest products.

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsea...=606182744&p=1

Specialized forest products are defined as Christmas trees, native
ornamental trees and shrubs, cut or picked evergreen foliage,

Now wait a minute--if I'm out four-wheeling and get a cedar twig caught in
the body work I'm violating this law? These guys are _nuts_.

==== It's ok as long as you keep it under five pounds of cedar twigs.
Doesn't mean they can't stop you and weigh them and search your rig,
(Probable cause, don't ya know -- If he's got one twig of cedar he must have
more secreted in the vehicle!) They'll probably have to seize your rig and
impound it while a more thorough search is made.

Leif

"Leif Thorvaldson" wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Henry wrote:

It is Washington house bill 1406S and requires a permit for
transporting specialized forest products.

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsea...ion=Html&Item=
2&X=606182744&p=1

Specialized forest products are defined as Christmas trees, native
ornamental trees and shrubs, cut or picked evergreen foliage,

Now wait a minute--if I'm out four-wheeling and get a cedar twig
caught in the body work I'm violating this law? These guys are
_nuts_.

==== It's ok as long as you keep it under five pounds of cedar twigs.
Doesn't mean they can't stop you and weigh them and search your rig,
(Probable cause, don't ya know -- If he's got one twig of cedar he
must have more secreted in the vehicle!) They'll probably have to
seize your rig and impound it while a more thorough search is made.

Leif




Then they'll find the single marijuana seed and he'll go to a *Federal*
Pen for 20 to Life!!

Owen Lowe wrote:

In article oMlpe.14489$_w.7459@trnddc01,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

And if anyone needs some Big Leaf Maple, let me know and I'll give
you some starters. It's practically a weed around here. Sheesh!

Yes Lobby I agree - AAMOF, my daughter and I started both an Oregon
White Oak and a Big Leaf Maple early this spring from seeds that had
sprouted in our yard - both now in a large pot in our kitchen window.
Wow, the Maple is easily 2 or 3 times taller than the oak - now to
just start nicking the little sucker to create some burls...

Either that or attempt to banzai it - which seriously has crossed my
mind.


I've got a volunteer in the front yard. It's about 5 years old now and the
neighbor is still begging me to cut it down. I kinda like it, but I pull up
all its offspring.

Lobby Dosser wrote:

Owen Lowe wrote:

In article oMlpe.14489$_w.7459@trnddc01,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

And if anyone needs some Big Leaf Maple, let me know and I'll give
you some starters. It's practically a weed around here. Sheesh!

Yes Lobby I agree - AAMOF, my daughter and I started both an Oregon
White Oak and a Big Leaf Maple early this spring from seeds that had
sprouted in our yard - both now in a large pot in our kitchen window.
Wow, the Maple is easily 2 or 3 times taller than the oak - now to
just start nicking the little sucker to create some burls...

Either that or attempt to banzai it

Do you mean "bonsai"? Makes a difference when you go looking for
information g

"banzai" is what Japanese soldiers shouted just before committing suicide by
Marine.

- which seriously has crossed my
mind.


I've got a volunteer in the front yard. It's about 5 years old now and the
neighbor is still begging me to cut it down. I kinda like it, but I pull
up all its offspring.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Do you mean "bonsai"? Makes a difference when you go looking for
information g

"banzai" is what Japanese soldiers shouted just before committing suicide by
Marine.

You know I didn't think that looked quite right - but my auto-speller
prompted me to spell it that way. Yes, I meant bonsai. Anyone know what
a Big Leaf Maple would do when bonsai'd?

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Do you mean "bonsai"? Makes a difference when you go looking for
information g

"banzai" is what Japanese soldiers shouted just before committing
suicide by
Marine.

You know I didn't think that looked quite right - but my auto-speller
prompted me to spell it that way. Yes, I meant bonsai. Anyone know what
a Big Leaf Maple would do when bonsai'd?

Other than look silly with a spindly trunk and humongous leaves?

"George" wrote:


"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Do you mean "bonsai"? Makes a difference when you go looking for
information g

"banzai" is what Japanese soldiers shouted just before committing
suicide by
Marine.

You know I didn't think that looked quite right - but my
:auto-speller
prompted me to spell it that way. Yes, I meant bonsai. Anyone know
what a Big Leaf Maple would do when bonsai'd?

Other than look silly with a spindly trunk and humongous leaves?

Which is what they look like when they're coming up all over the lawn.
Hey they're not weeds, they're a Bonsai Garden!

Hybrids are in style, the Maple-Bonsai might resemble a Toyota with a
Mack truck 'bull dog' radiator cap. Or maybe a
Bon Ami-Bonsai with a chick that 'hasn't scratched yet' No, I haven't
got into the cooking gin, nor Leif's bootleg LDD yet.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:14:07 +0000, Lobby Dosser wrote:


Other than look silly with a spindly trunk and humongous leaves?

Which is what they look like when they're coming up all over the lawn.
Hey they're not weeds, they're a Bonsai Garden!



Or they WILL be as soon as I get done mowing. ;-)

Bill

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:50:14 -0700, Owen Lowe
wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Do you mean "bonsai"? Makes a difference when you go looking for
information g

"banzai" is what Japanese soldiers shouted just before committing suicide by
Marine.

You know I didn't think that looked quite right - but my auto-speller
prompted me to spell it that way. Yes, I meant bonsai. Anyone know what
a Big Leaf Maple would do when bonsai'd?

Become a small-leaf maple? Only partially joking- I know fruit trees
that are bonsai often produce tiny fruits.

In article ,
(Arch) wrote:

Hybrids are in style, the Maple-Bonsai might resemble a Toyota with a
Mack truck 'bull dog' radiator cap. Or maybe a
Bon Ami-Bonsai with a chick that 'hasn't scratched yet' No, I haven't
got into the cooking gin, nor Leif's bootleg LDD yet.


If it survives my attempts I'll post pics in a year or two.

--
Owen Lowe
___
Safety Tip'o'th'Day: After mounting a new turning to the lathe check the
speed before turning the motor on.
___
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Corporate States of America,
and to the Republicans for which it stands, one nation, under debt,
easily divisible, with libertyand justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05