Hunting in Pulaski County Park
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:11 pm
http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/p ... 5a7a2.html
Park hunting still a hot topic
By JANIE SLAVEN Commonwealth Journal
Oct 12, 2017
- 59de92134577a_image.jpg (157.61 KiB) Viewed 3568 times
Fiscal Court
Pulaski County Fiscal Court listens as Alex Godsey, standing, of the Lake Cumberland Trail Foundation speaks against a proposed
ordinance to allow hunting on the north end of Pulaski County Park, commonly called the “Piney Grove side.”
Janie Slaven
The Pulaski County Fiscal Court room was full Tuesday as both supporters and opponents of hunting in Pulaski County Park gathered to hear how magistrates would vote.
The second reading of an ordinance that would “reopen” the park’s “Piney Grove” side to hunters was actually not on the meeting’s agenda, and as the topic came up in Citizens Comments, it became apparent why.
Nearly everything about the proposal — from park and/or hunting regulations in other areas to the actual amount of acreage involved — can be disputed to some degree. At one point, Judge-Executive Steve Kelley compared the issue to peeling an onion.
“We keep finding something new every time we start digging into it,” he said.
Dale Weddle, who at the last meeting had advised the court about the acreage inaccuracies, brought a packet for county officials regarding the addition of 318 acres to the original 467-acre park back in 1998 — noting that an additional 19 acres at the end of Piney Grove Road were “floating” as they were not included in a survey of the area at the time.
Weddle worked with Pulaski County government at the time the Piney Grove area was added to the park in order to construct a hiking trail. Reading from a letter from then-County Judge Louie Floyd, Weddle pointed out that the county had intended to keep the area open to hunters at the request of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the regulations governing the Lake Cumberland Wildlife Management Area.
Weddle also noted that private property as well as a portion of the Wildlife Management Area surrounds the Piney Grove area of the park.
“Regardless of what you all are going to do,” Weddle said, “you’re going to have hunting going on all the way around and in very close proximity to the park trails.”
He also presented a December 2016 map from the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife website which he said indicated the area was considered open to hunters as well as a photo indicating that at least one hunting sign was still up.
“It’s clearly been the understanding that this area is open to hunting,” Weddle continued, adding that the county had complied with calls for buffer zones around the developed area of the park as well as signage to alert hikers when they enter the hunting area. “To my knowledge, there haven’t been any instances regarding safety issues with hunting in the area since that time, which was almost 20 years ago.”
As he drew to a close, Weddle said the issue has been an emotional one for many of his neighbors.
“This thing has been all over social media,” he said. “Some of the things that have been said on there are just really a shame.”
Weddle added that he’s trying to represent people who work 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and can’t attend fiscal court’s 10 a.m. meetings.
Next up to support hunting was Doug Morgan, president of the Kentucky Houndsman Association and member of the state Land and Water Conservation board. He asserted that hunters take on their own responsibility according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
“The only liability that they see is a known hazard,” Morgan said, such as well not covered.
Morgan also stated there should be no grant restrictions as long as the county maintains the park as open for recreation.
“It’s up for you to decide where you want that recreation to be,” Morgan continued. “It belongs to you.”
With only six percent of the commonwealth left open to hunters, Morgan said that every acre is precious. “We have to share,” he said. “The proposal that’s before you now seems reasonable to me.”
Representing the Lake Cumberland Trail Foundation, which opposes the hunting proposal, was Alex Godsey. The group contracts with the county to help maintain quality and safety of the trail system since February. Godsey praised the county’s efforts to improve the park, noting that some have called it the best trail system east of the Mississippi.
In his research of the park’s history, Godsey noted that the tracts included in the 1998 lease add up to neither 337 or 318 acres. He doesn’t dispute that Floyd’s letter indicated a desire to keep the area open to hunting as well as to prohibit auto and horse traffic.
In recommending against open hunting, the foundation cites U.S. Forest Service regulations prohibiting the discharge of a weapon within 150 yards of a developed area.
Godsey said, “There’s no place in the Pulaski County Park that’s more than 150 yards from a trail,” because the system has been constructed as a series of “stacked loops.” He added that mountain bikers can travel up to 20 miles per hour — further complicating a shot a hunter might think was good.
Godsey went on to say that he couldn’t find any state parks (nor city/county parks) that allow open hunting. Instead, some state parks offer special hunts of between two and seven days.
“Pulaski Park joins the wildlife management area to the north and south,” Godsey read, “and this land provides for that aspect of outdoor recreation without the detriment to the perception of safety to the multi-use trails…Our membership and other trail users have insisted to us that they would not feel safe bringing their children and pets to trails that are being actively hunted. This would result in reduced camping, use of shelters, and general store as well as other economic benefits generated by these projects.”
Godsey also presented a letter from the Kentucky Mountain Bike Association as well as information from the Corps of Engineers indicating that the county’s lease is classified as “parks and recreational.”
“I didn’t know this but apparently there are a couple of different kinds of leases,” Godsey told the court. “The Corps doesn’t allow hunting in a parks and recreation lease. That’s called a fish and wildlife activity.”
Godsey indicated that the path to allow hunting might be complicated and involve adding the Fish and Wildlife agency as a lessee. He also outlined problems tied to the grants that funded the trail system.
“You can’t even pay the money back…,” Godsey said. “What you would have to do [to close the park/trails], is buy equal to or greater tracts of land somewhere else and build an equal to or greater than trail system or park…”
Godsey concluded that while there might be a compromise for the Piney Grove side, but he urged the court to consider the six-fold increase in park revenue since 2012.
Weddle and Morgan protested the amount of time Godsey had been given, with Morgan giving a rebuttal.
“The Department of Fish and Wildlife considers this property just like your own farm,” he said. “They…oversee all the game laws…no matter who owns it…If you make an ordinance outside the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s ordinance, then you have to enforce it.”
Morgan also emphasized that the Piney Grove area is the only area of the park that the county is considering for hunting.
“There is no reason why you can’t have hunting on that piece of property,” he said, adding his belief that allowing biking creates more liability than hunting if there are ramps or other obstacles that could be considered hazardous.
“We’re trying to be diligent in finding out facts,” Judge Kelley said as the discussion concluded. “It’s not a simple solution…Obviously you’ve got passion on both sides of the issue and I would like to find some sort of compromise.”
County Attorney Martin Hatfield agreed that a vote should be postponed.
“As you said earlier, there are a lot of layers here that keep revealing themselves,” Hatfield said. “We certainly don’t want to violate the terms of the lease.”
The attorney emphasized that the county doesn’t own the property but leases it from the Corps of Engineers.
County Treasurer Joan Isaacs asked about the second reading if the ordinance has already been advertised. There was some discussion of re-advertising if there isn’t a second reading at the next court meeting.
Godsey asked about changing the boundaries of the Piney Grove side. Hatfield responded that is another reason to postpone the vote, as the Corps may want to change the boundaries (to accommodate the acreage discrepancy). Godsey questioned whether such a “material” change can be made between the first and second reading of an ordinance.
“It’s not just grammatical errors that can be changed,” Hatfield explained. “There can be substantive changes made to the ordinance before the second reading.”