HB 2342 Would Prohibit Public Access to Bodies of Water if there is No Parking

[bigtex]

House Bill 2342 introduced today by Rep Haler would require state and local agencies that own lands that are one-quarter square miles or less in size adjacent to a body of water must provide adequate public parking. If parking is not provided then using that land to access the water is prohibited and you will face misdemeanor charges.

(1) If a parcel of public land is one-quarter of a square mile or less in size and is adjacent to a body of public water and the land is or can be used to access the body of public water, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must provide adequate public parking for persons utilizing the land to access the water.
(2) If adequate public parking is not provided, using the land to access the water for other than a governmental purpose is prohibited. If adequate public parking is not provided, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must post a warning sign for the public that clearly shows that using the land to access the water is prohibited and states the sanction for a violation of the prohibition.
(3) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=2342&year=2013

[KFhunter]

whew!


That's going to piss off a lot of roadside fishermen.

[bigtex]

whew!


That's going to piss off a lot of roadside fishermen.

No kidding. I have a feeling there is a story behind this one 

[bobcat]

Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.

[Bofire]

  I remember a news story about access to Lake Washington. some public property people use to access it that pissed off the residents.
this idea sucks!
Carl

[fastdam]

That would support the UNITED NATIONS Agenda 21. 

[viva_che1363]

so much for fishing spots that are not a a zoo. id say 75% of my fishing spots would be impacted. unless i wanna park and walk up the road a few miles.

[magnanimous_j]

Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.

Not just sportsmen, but anyone using the waterfront for any recreation. I guess the property owners don’t like seeing us plebs when they look out their 20 foot, floor to ceiling windows. Poor dears.

[bigtex]

This must be a senator from the wetside that introduced this bill. Sure hope this one doesnt pass. I have a duck hunting spot that would be affected.

Haler is a Republican from the Richland area

[724wd]

This must be a senator from the wetside that introduced this bill. Sure hope this one doesnt pass. I have a duck hunting spot that would be affected.

Haler is a Republican from the Richland area

then he can go jump off the Blue Bridge!

[bigtex]

This one has been bugging me so it's time for a bigtex rant.

This just shows the utter stupidity of some of the bills that are introduced into the legislature. If this representative truly thinks this bill will get any support, let alone pass I think we need to rethink his position in the legislature. Like I already said, there has to be a story behind this bill.

There are a lot of good bills introduced into the legislature that for whatever reason don't pass. Then there are bills that are introduced simply to make a point. Typically these bills that are introduced to make a point have no intention on passing yet they get the public all riled up.

How much time and money is wasted on bills that a) will never pass or b) are simply there to make a point and have no intention on passing???

[snowpack]

Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.

Or it is an attempt to try to make those agencies add 'adequate parking' to those lands.  1/4 of a square mile is 160 acres and it is not unheard of to have about 1 mile of riverbank on 160 acres.  I guess this would prohibit boats from parking on the bank too?

[bobcat]

Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.

Or it is an attempt to try to make those agencies add 'adequate parking' to those lands.  1/4 of a square mile is 160 acres and it is not unheard of to have about 1 mile of riverbank on 160 acres.  I guess this would prohibit boats from parking on the bank too?

Yeah I thought of that too.

bigtex, don't these proposed laws also give the reason behind it?

[bigtex]

Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.

Or it is an attempt to try to make those agencies add 'adequate parking' to those lands.  1/4 of a square mile is 160 acres and it is not unheard of to have about 1 mile of riverbank on 160 acres.  I guess this would prohibit boats from parking on the bank too?

Yeah I thought of that too.

bigtex, don't these proposed laws also give the reason behind it?

Some do have an "intent" section written into the law. This one doesn't. If it does eventually go to a committee hearing there will be a formal, easily to read document which will kind of outline the purpose, but until that happens we are stuck with the 3 sections I posted.

[ghosthunter]

What they really need is a bill that requires the state to insure access to every non private lake in the state. Two building sites must be set aside forever for public access.

Same thing with ocean beach access in every community.