Legislation would reduce nonresident disabled vets license fees

[bigtex]

House Bill 1192 sponsored by Reps Short, Blake, Takko, Taylor, Kretz, Crouse, Springer, Chandler, Ryu, and Morrell would allow nonresident disabled vets and nonresidents that are 65 or older and have a service related disability purchase a license at the same fee of resident disabled vets and those 65 or older that have a service related disability. Currently nonresidents pay full price.

The legislation also requires WDFW to contact other states to promote the discounted license fees.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?year=2013&bill=1192

[huntnphool]

House Bill 1192 sponsored by Reps Short, Blake, Takko, Taylor, Kretz, Crouse, Springer, Chandler, Ryu, and Morrell would allow nonresident disabled vets or nonresidents are 65 or older to purchase a license at the same price of resident disabled vets or residents 65 or older. Currently nonresidents pay full price.

The legislation also requires WDFW to contact other states to promote the discounted license fees.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?year=2013&bill=1192

[Bob33]

"...allow nonresidents are 65 or older to purchase a license at the same price of resident."

What is the point of that? First, many who are 65 and older, and particularly non-residents who will have to travel further and incur more travel expenses, have more disposable income than those under 65.

Second, what is the point in trying to attract more non-residents? Many of our hunting areas are already crowded enough.

Why give any preferential treatment to non-residents?

[bigtex]

"...allow nonresidents are 65 or older to purchase a license at the same price of resident."

What is the point of that? First, many who are 65 and older, and particularly non-residents who will have to travel further and incur more travel expenses, have more disposable income than those under 65.

Second, what is the point in trying to attract more non-residents? Many of our hunting areas are already crowded enough.

Why give any preferential treatment to non-residents?

 

[baldopepper]

As I read it, it only applies to Disabled veterans over the age of 65. not just any nonresident over the age of 65.

[huntnphool]

"...allow nonresidents are 65 or older to purchase a license at the same price of resident."

What is the point of that? First, many who are 65 and older, and particularly non-residents who will have to travel further and incur more travel expenses, have more disposable income than those under 65.

Second, what is the point in trying to attract more non-residents? Many of our hunting areas are already crowded enough.

Why give any preferential treatment to non-residents?

lmao, how many people do you really believe this is going to apply too? You act like Washington hunting seasons are the Mecca of opportunity, and to be had by thousands of 65+'s disabled's, walking mile after mile in your secret honey hole.

[bearpaw]

I just watched on the SLC news last night, the state of Utah created an "Outdoor Recreation Planning Council", the first in the nation, to create a long term plan for "Outdoor Recreation" in Utah. The state of Utah recognizes the tremendous economic impact that outdoor recreation provides to the state's economy and they want to plan for it.

Reduced licenses in Washington could help attract more recreationists into Washington. Many businesses in my area depend on hunters and fishermen, so there is what I assume is part of the reasoning. Give them a break on licenses, that will attract them and they will spend far more while in the state.

Numbers of hunters has been decreasing for many years, it's time to provide incentives.

If it's only for veteran's then that is self explanatory for the reason for the legislation.

[Bob33]

"...allow nonresidents are 65 or older to purchase a license at the same price of resident."

What is the point of that? First, many who are 65 and older, and particularly non-residents who will have to travel further and incur more travel expenses, have more disposable income than those under 65.

Second, what is the point in trying to attract more non-residents? Many of our hunting areas are already crowded enough.

Why give any preferential treatment to non-residents?

lmao, how many people do you really believe this is going to apply too? You act like Washington hunting seasons are the Mecca of opportunity, and to be had by thousands of 65+'s disabled's, walking mile after mile in your secret honey hole.

To the contrary. I believe we already have congestion and I don't see the value in making it easier to aggrevate that condition.  I do agree it probably wouldn't cause many more to visit our state.  I would prefer to see the state act to increase resident hunting opportunities first.

[huntnphool]

"...allow nonresidents are 65 or older to purchase a license at the same price of resident."

What is the point of that? First, many who are 65 and older, and particularly non-residents who will have to travel further and incur more travel expenses, have more disposable income than those under 65.

Second, what is the point in trying to attract more non-residents? Many of our hunting areas are already crowded enough.

Why give any preferential treatment to non-residents?

lmao, how many people do you really believe this is going to apply too? You act like Washington hunting seasons are the Mecca of opportunity, and to be had by thousands of 65+'s disabled's, walking mile after mile in your secret honey hole.

To the contrary. I believe we already have congestion and I don't see the value in making it easier to aggrevate that condition.  I do agree it probably wouldn't cause many more to visit our state.  I would prefer to see the state act to increase resident hunting opportunities first.

thats some pretty shallow thinking Bob. Haven't disabled vets paid enough already? They put their lives on the line so people like you can enjoy the freedoms this country offers and allow you to sit at your computer with bitter contempt that they might somehow get a financial break on a license, that's just utter selfishness right there, you must be proud!

[bigtex]

As I read it, it only applies to Disabled veterans over the age of 65. not just any nonresident over the age of 65.

You are correct. I did not fully explain the bill. Sorry for the confusion

[bearpaw]

In every state I see a contingency of hunters who think they want fewer nonresident hunters, but they want to hunt in other states. No wonder non-resident opportunities are dwindling everywhere. 

[huntnphool]

As I read it, it only applies to Disabled veterans over the age of 65. not just any nonresident over the age of 65.

You are correct. I did not fully explain the bill. Sorry for the confusion

the title should be explanation enough, you did just fine.

 Perhaps Bob should push for legislation that would remove handicap parking for these people too, if they can take over his hunting grounds then surely they can park further away from the stores!

[Machias]

I started going back to Missouri when they did this 2 years ago.  But they went a bit further, any service connected disable vet 40% or more can hunt MO for resident prices.  I can hunt there for $44 for 6 deer.  They also went as far as if I carry my Letter from the VA I can hunt small game in MO with just the letter.  I probably spent $2000 on hotel, food, gas and hunting supplies.

[Bob33]

As I read it, it only applies to Disabled veterans over the age of 65. not just any nonresident over the age of 65.

You are correct. I did not fully explain the bill. Sorry for the confusion

the title should be explanation enough, you did just fine.

 Perhaps Bob should push for legislation that would remove handicap parking for these people too, if they can take over his hunting grounds then surely they can park further away from the stores!

That's a cheap shot, and misrepresents what I said. The original post stated that the bill applied to all non-residents, not just disabled. My comment was not directed at disabled people in any way.

What is your point?

[huntnphool]

As I read it, it only applies to Disabled veterans over the age of 65. not just any nonresident over the age of 65.

You are correct. I did not fully explain the bill. Sorry for the confusion

the title should be explanation enough, you did just fine.

 Perhaps Bob should push for legislation that would remove handicap parking for these people too, if they can take over his hunting grounds then surely they can park further away from the stores!

That's a cheap shot, and misrepresents what I said. The original post stated that the bill applied to all non-residents, not just disabled. My comment was not directed at disabled people in any way.

Nice try Bob, my original reply, as well as the title of the thread has always stated "Disabled Vets". So had the link posted in the original post;

Sec. 1. RCW 77.32.480 and 2007 c 254 s 3 are each amended to read
 as follows:
 Upon written application, a combination fishing license shall be
 issued at the reduced rate of five dollars((,)) and all hunting
 licenses shall((,)) be issued at the reduced rate of a youth hunting
 license fee for the following individuals:
 (1) A resident or nonresident sixty-five years old or older who is
 an honorably discharged veteran of the United States armed forces
 having a service-connected disability;
 (2) A resident or nonresident who is an honorably discharged
 veteran of the United States armed forces with a thirty percent or more
 service-connected disability;
 (3) A resident with a disability who permanently uses a wheelchair;
 (4) A resident who is blind or visually impaired; and
 (5) A resident with a developmental disability as defined in RCW

[KFhunter]

I would go for it only in cases where we have reciprocity with other states.