"recreational access" bill prefiled HB2150

[fireweed]

Brian Blake, HB 2150 "Encouraging Recreational access to private property"

Allows companies to charge $25 and strengthens their liability immunity somewhat.

Hope this is the first of many bills to tackle the access issue this session.  Maybe some of the others will have teeth.  This one is all carrot and no stick. You can comment on bills directly online now--here's the link to this one (use the green button)

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2150&year=2013

[blackdog]

I am not seeing much discussion about this bill. 

[bearpaw]

I read the bill and I am encouraged to see a legislator who is tackling this issue. 

Seems like a good bill to me. There's no reason for opposition from the timber companies wanting to charge a fee but there is liability protection for timber companies or anyone else to allow free access or who only charge up to $25 per year and do not limit the number of people who access their property. Seems like a good approach,  as far as I can see the hunting community should support this bill.

[scout/sniper]

IF liability is the reason for charging. We don't know this yet.
I have sent several emails to weyco execs for an explanation.
As expected, no response as of yet.
The bill does not prohibit any company from charging whatever they want.
Unless I am mistaken, and I very well could be.

[bearpaw]

IF liability is the reason for charging. We don't know this yet.
I have sent several emails to weyco execs for an explanation.
As expected, no response as of yet.
The bill does not prohibit any company from charging whatever they want.
Unless I am mistaken, and I very well could be.

The way I read it does not prevent a company from charging any amount, except if they charge more than $25 then they do not get the liability protection afforded within this bill. That's the reason I see this as a good bill, there will not be opposition by those wanting to charge.

I would be opposed to any bill that trampled the property rights of anyone by saying that a person or entity could not charge for access. That would be far too socialist for this American to agree with.

This bill takes a different approach, it rewards those who keep their land open for free access or who only charge up to $25 and do not limit the number of persons who may access their property when charging up to a $25 fee.

[scout/sniper]

It sounds like a good start then.

[blackdog]

The other section of the bill allows the State to purchase public access with the landowner again able to have recreational immunity.

[bigtex]

I personally see the private landowners wanting the $25 number raised. What people don't understand is these timber companies use their fees to staff security for their lands, pay law enforcement (WDFW, Sheriff, etc) to patrol their lands, any type of maintenance and so on. For most, its not a simple cash grab, its money truly going back into the recreational access program these companies have.

[fireweed]

I've already contacted Blake about this bill.  As written it will make access WORSE.
I have a few HUGE concerns, and some of it isn't obvious at first reading.
1) Non-motorized access must be free. 
2) Notice the $25 is per person.  It should be per vehicle.
3) Also, the bill keeps posting of hazardous conditions via a sign or WRITTEN notice a requirement for immunity.  This could become a defacto requirement for permits.  Think about it: Your company gets immunity only if they post warning signs at every "artificial dangerous latent condition" OR they provide written notice.  Q. Which one is easier or more iron clad?  A. Written notice--which means a record of who got the notice, which means PERMITS FOR ALL ENTRY.   Which could be ok for vehicles, but not simple walk-in.  Now, in the name of better access, kids on bicycles need to pay $25 AND have a permit. 

It would be much better to completely remove the section on dangerous latent conditions.  You go on this land you get hurt, tough--you can't sue.  Or limit it to a very specific dangerous condition like known wells, mines, and buildings.
4) The companies get to make their own "safety" rules and keep the immunity.  RIght now Weyco. employees are not allowed to set foot outside vehicles on company land unless they are wearing an orange safety vest and a hardhat.  No firearms are allowed either.  What is to stop them from adding those standard safety requirements to the visiting public?  We also saw a company propose to limit access to adults over 18.  Under this law, they could discriminate like this and still get immunity. 

THIS BILL NEEDS SERIOUS WORK AND THOUGHT

[blackdog]

Its ok Fireweed the bill should probably die and we can move forward with the Wall Street public access policy that is coming. "The perfect should always be the enemy of the good" is what I like to say.

[fireweed]

You are right--don't scrap the good for the perfect-- but I've watched bills in the past  and they seem to be quickly put together and poorly thought out at the start--then they can change for the better as comments come in.  The original bill seems sometimes just intended to get the conversation started.  So now is our opportunity, not to scrap the bill, but improve it's wording as it moves through the committee process.   It's on the Judiciary agenda for today--so comment right now for a better bill. 


--Short session  this year anyway so getting anything "big" passed is doubtful. 

[japerry]

Hi there,

I actually signed up on this forum to help garner support from hunters about this bill and 2151. I think the first thing we need to clarify is that this bill does not set any fees. It just allows landowners to charge a nominal fee and still reap the benefits of the recreational immunity statue.

Section 4a should go.
This is the part about 'known artificial latent conditions'. Unfortunately, trial lawyers are very firm about keeping this clause, as its their loophole to basically nullify the immunity bill. I testified in support of this bill and mentioned 4a should go -- I somehow doubt it'll get removed before passage, but if everyon here emails or comments in support, maybe we'll get political help to see it gone.

Fee structure will help for access
Its important to understand why the immunity statue exists, and what its scope is. Historically, its only for those who recreate for free on someone's property. This means that if you have a wildlife preserve, that costs hundreds to access, you'll also have insurance, etc. It means that recreation has become a prime money maker for the land, and thus not immune from casual access.

What we're trying to advocate for is an optional small fee structure, which makes it possible for landowners to host user groups on their land. Right now there is very little incentive for private land owners to host. At best, only a few people will come to the land and not trash the place or sue. At worst, someone could injure themselves on an old bridge and sue. We need to make sure landowners, providing free or minimum cost access no greater than that of the discover pass.

I hope you'll support the legislation, and mention how 4a should be removed. you can send comments here:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/PBC/Bill/2150

[Special T]

Perhaps you can tell us how this would work in a real world scenario.

Walk us through some of the issues that potential land owners have and could avoid from legislation like this...

I'm a firm believer that large timber companies are trying to combat many opposing forces. Increase $, Reduce  liability, improve harvest...

[fireweed]

Hi there,

I actually signed up on this forum to help garner support from hunters about this bill and 2151. I think the first thing we need to clarify is that this bill does not set any fees. It just allows landowners to charge a nominal fee and still reap the benefits of the recreational immunity statue.

Section 4a should go.
This is the part about 'known artificial latent conditions'. Unfortunately, trial lawyers are very firm about keeping this clause, as its their loophole to basically nullify the immunity bill. I testified in support of this bill and mentioned 4a should go -- I somehow doubt it'll get removed before passage, but if everyon here emails or comments in support, maybe we'll get political help to see it gone.

Fee structure will help for access
Its important to understand why the immunity statue exists, and what its scope is. Historically, its only for those who recreate for free on someone's property. This means that if you have a wildlife preserve, that costs hundreds to access, you'll also have insurance, etc. It means that recreation has become a prime money maker for the land, and thus not immune from casual access.

What we're trying to advocate for is an optional small fee structure, which makes it possible for landowners to host user groups on their land. Right now there is very little incentive for private land owners to host. At best, only a few people will come to the land and not trash the place or sue. At worst, someone could injure themselves on an old bridge and sue. We need to make sure landowners, providing free or minimum cost access no greater than that of the discover pass.

I hope you'll support the legislation, and mention how 4a should be removed. you can send comments here:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/PBC/Bill/2150

Thanks for testifying.  You did a great job.  I like Blake's other bill 2243 better.  It calls for private-public small fee.  I agree that the recreational immunity statute is virtually useless now.  These lawyers are so creative on what is an "known dangerous artificial latent condition" even trees (planted by people), stumps, buffer strips, rocks in roads etc. are now known hazards.  It only protects landowners from acts of God, like bear attacks or lightning. 

My big beef with both bills (2150, 2243) is that there needs to be a requirement that non-motorized general access is unencumbered by permits or fees.  I understand where you are coming from with group events--and I would think charging for that would be ok, but general walk-in access should be free and not-require a permit.  Complete liability immunity if timberlands 1) allow free non-motorized access 2) charge a nominal fee for motorized access 3) charge a nominal fee for group events.  Motorized and group events can have written permits/notification but not casual non-motorized access.  Getting rid of the whole "latent conditions" is a no-brainer.  If they do this, they can keep their whole tax breaks, if not that's where the we need to be looking next.

Oh, at first reading, I thing 2151 looks like a good thing, but it seems to replace one set of rules and red tape with another set of requirements.  Simplify it more.

[bearpaw]

Hi there,

I actually signed up on this forum to help garner support from hunters about this bill and 2151. I think the first thing we need to clarify is that this bill does not set any fees. It just allows landowners to charge a nominal fee and still reap the benefits of the recreational immunity statue.

Section 4a should go.
This is the part about 'known artificial latent conditions'. Unfortunately, trial lawyers are very firm about keeping this clause, as its their loophole to basically nullify the immunity bill. I testified in support of this bill and mentioned 4a should go -- I somehow doubt it'll get removed before passage, but if everyon here emails or comments in support, maybe we'll get political help to see it gone.

Fee structure will help for access
Its important to understand why the immunity statue exists, and what its scope is. Historically, its only for those who recreate for free on someone's property. This means that if you have a wildlife preserve, that costs hundreds to access, you'll also have insurance, etc. It means that recreation has become a prime money maker for the land, and thus not immune from casual access.

What we're trying to advocate for is an optional small fee structure, which makes it possible for landowners to host user groups on their land. Right now there is very little incentive for private land owners to host. At best, only a few people will come to the land and not trash the place or sue. At worst, someone could injure themselves on an old bridge and sue. We need to make sure landowners, providing free or minimum cost access no greater than that of the discover pass.

I hope you'll support the legislation, and mention how 4a should be removed. you can send comments here:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/PBC/Bill/2150

I like the fact that this bill attempts to create more incentive for landowners to keep lands open for public use. 

[fireweed]

Changes are already in the works (as the process goes through the first committee)

And the clear winning lobbyist is the "Trail Lawyer"

All changes to required signage and the part about the written notice instead are OUT.
The part about 3rd party damages being immunity to liability is OUT.
 So the liability immunity doesn't expand.