Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: ICEMAN on February 24, 2013, 04:07:09 PMWe all want clean waters, but how about increasing the penalties ten fold for those in violation of and focusing efforts on current law, rather than inconveniencing every normal guy with new rules and new fees? I would rather money spent on more education and enforcement of current laws, not more FTE's and enforcement power.iCE, THIS WOULD BE TOO EASY AND NOT REQUIRE 287 (just a made-up number, it will probably be higher) NEW STATE EMPLOYEES. This is actually a great idea. All they need to do is step up the random inspections about 4X and increase the penalty for having any invasive on their boat to $10,000 with no reductions. Of course, this might only require 10 new employees.
We all want clean waters, but how about increasing the penalties ten fold for those in violation of and focusing efforts on current law, rather than inconveniencing every normal guy with new rules and new fees? I would rather money spent on more education and enforcement of current laws, not more FTE's and enforcement power.
Quote from: lokidog on February 24, 2013, 05:59:08 PMQuote from: ICEMAN on February 24, 2013, 04:07:09 PMWe all want clean waters, but how about increasing the penalties ten fold for those in violation of and focusing efforts on current law, rather than inconveniencing every normal guy with new rules and new fees? I would rather money spent on more education and enforcement of current laws, not more FTE's and enforcement power.iCE, THIS WOULD BE TOO EASY AND NOT REQUIRE 287 (just a made-up number, it will probably be higher) NEW STATE EMPLOYEES. This is actually a great idea. All they need to do is step up the random inspections about 4X and increase the penalty for having any invasive on their boat to $10,000 with no reductions. Of course, this might only require 10 new employees. That $10,000 will do nothing to mitigate the violation itself if it establishes.
Quote from: KopperBuck on February 22, 2013, 10:24:00 PMQuote from: bigtex on February 22, 2013, 10:12:20 PMWSP Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officers (weigh stations) already do a large majority of the inspections. WDFW also does them sporadically, especially in the summer.Under the bill WDFW really has to set up the program. Much of the discussion has been around with just having people go through the weigh stations at the ports of entry (state borders).So there are already inspections dtaking place? I was unaware, had never seen notice.Yes they are already taking place. This legislation would simply make it law that every single boat that crosses the border is required to have proof it is clean.
Quote from: bigtex on February 22, 2013, 10:12:20 PMWSP Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officers (weigh stations) already do a large majority of the inspections. WDFW also does them sporadically, especially in the summer.Under the bill WDFW really has to set up the program. Much of the discussion has been around with just having people go through the weigh stations at the ports of entry (state borders).So there are already inspections dtaking place? I was unaware, had never seen notice.
WSP Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officers (weigh stations) already do a large majority of the inspections. WDFW also does them sporadically, especially in the summer.Under the bill WDFW really has to set up the program. Much of the discussion has been around with just having people go through the weigh stations at the ports of entry (state borders).
So a couple of comments and some questions... Port of entry scales are on Interstates that are maned 24 7 Bow Hill I5 N Battleground I5 south, I dont remeber the name of the one I90 east and the one on I 84 near the tri cites. So what that means is that if you are NOT traveling on those major interstates you MUST go to one or WAIT until there is another scale open, and BTW they don't have a schedual for a reason! If you think its a good idea to have the general public driving through scales i would have to disagree. There are enough truckers that test the CVE officers, I don't want to be behind some jack wagon that wants to argue with them. (I'm normally behind that person and its hit or miss if a friendly smile, show your paperwork and a yes sir/mam will get you sent on your way.)I think it would be much more conducive for you to have to read and sign the updated rules when you get your tabs for your boat.
The bill was voted out of the committee, it is now in the Senate Rules committee which will decide if and when it'll go up for a full Senate vote.According to the fiscal note, there is no cost to implement this legislation.
Quote from: bigtex on February 26, 2013, 04:02:07 PMThe bill was voted out of the committee, it is now in the Senate Rules committee which will decide if and when it'll go up for a full Senate vote.According to the fiscal note, there is no cost to implement this legislation.Back to that credibility issue...How can there be no cost to implement this legislation? If the inspections are occurring in Washington, someone in Washington has to be paying for those inspections. If it is not the state, it must be the boater. What will the state be charging for those inspections?If the inspections are occurring out of state (as the legislation actually states), what will the other states (and Canada) be charging for the inspections? Will they be doing the inspections for free because everyone loves WDFW?Or are they just expecting to make the money up by writing tickets?What is offsetting the cost of inspections?I appreciate you taking the time to post here, I just wish the department provided you with trustworthy answers. So far we have been told not to worry about what the bill actually says because the department will be doing something else anyway. Now we are told that it won't cost anything to do more work.
