Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. 2022-63

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Amending Ordinance No. 2002-7, as Amended by Ordinance Nos. 2014-47, 2015-45, and 2018-2 by Removing the Prohibition Against the Discharge of Firearms on Eight Parcels Totaling 285 Acres, Known as the "Mountain View Dairy" in the Unincorporated Graham-Kapowsin Area of Unincorporated Pierce County; and Directing the Pierce County Sheriff's Department to Take Specific Actions.

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Dave Morell, Amy Cruver

Final votes

November 1, 2022
Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
James L Halmo 10/31/22 5:11 PM Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council: Due to a scheduling conflict, I am unable to personally address the Council on November 1st about proposed Ordinance 2022-63. Accordingly, I am offering a few comments for your consideration. First, I strongly oppose the lifting of the fire arms restrictions on the Mt. View Dairy property. Have not the owners provided sufficient fencing to protect their crop (hay) from wandering elk? Have they not installed some barbed wire fencing? Is there not some fencing around the agricultural area (excluding the 50 acres of forest lands)? Is there not some electrical hot wiring around the perimeter of the crop area? Is it turned on? If not, maybe they do want to pay electrical bills for such a venture. They do not seem to have taken the normal preventive type of agricultural protection measures on the acreage. Why not? Second, there is no excuse to allow some ‘willy-nilly’ shooting of elk. In fact, I do not believe that they fully understand the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s specific provisions for hunting elk – both in terms of limits (non-daylight as well as time frames) and actual permits. If the purpose is to shoot elk, the State does restrict times and dates for such activities, and the County cannot simply ‘waive’ that restriction. Third, Is the primary purpose of this proposed Ordinance about the protection of the farm’s hay production? An irrigation project is being proposed. If other crops are being proposed, what crops? Is there an approved Farm Management Plan with the County? I could not find one. Fourth, we are facing the prosect of a ‘new’ regional airport in the Graham Community Plan area. Both the east and central proposed zones affect the Graham area. The latter less so. That said, the sponsors of this proposed legislation are not aware that its passage and the actual authorization of a ‘new’ eastern regional airport could require the County to revert back to retaining the firearms restrictions. Airports are essential public facilities. Authorizing the unlimited discharge of firearms in or around an airfield’s Area of Influence and Runway Protection Zone would be rebuffed for safety reasons by federal authorities as being an incompatible land use. In fact, there is no guarantee that the property or some of the property will not be covered with asphalt! Two 9.000 ft runways plus accessory buildings (terminals, hangers, etc.) would undoubtedly include some of this land. And fifth, I fully support the County Sheriff Department’s comments about NOT lifting the restrictions on the use of high caliber firearms. Also, their concerns about closeness to Kapowsin Elementary School must not be ignored. Having been elected to and served on a school board, I always considered the safety of the school children a prime responsibility. You should do the same. Sincerely, James L. Halmo 9806 247th Street Ct East Graham, WA 98338 (253) 875-1890 Jimh1890@hotmail.com