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

[sakoshooter]

If parking has to be provided, it would allow access that doesn't exist right now the way I understand it. How can that be bad? Many of these parcels are controlled by adjacent private land owners that don't want strangers or recreating traffic near their property, consequently no access is available. A couple members of the Pierce Co Boating Safety Commission worked on something similar(possibly this)when I was on the committee.

[snowpack]

If parking has to be provided, it would allow access that doesn't exist right now the way I understand it. How can that be bad? Many of these parcels are controlled by adjacent private land owners that don't want strangers or recreating traffic near their property, consequently no access is available. A couple members of the Pierce Co Boating Safety Commission worked on something similar(possibly this)when I was on the committee.

access does exist now.  You can ride a bicycle, jog, walk, or get dropped off and go use these lands.  Under this bill you could still do that and access as long as you aren't going to the water (fishing, duck hunting, trapping), but could still hunt land or look for mushrooms or walk the dog.  So certain groups are excluded, but others get a less crowded piece of land.

[BigGoonTuna]

this bill has got to be one of the most idiotic pieces of crap i've read lately.  no...hell no!

[ICEMAN]

I recommend the law be amended to require all legislators to grab a shovel, rake and trash bag and to clean up and groom all roadside "parking" pulloffs currently in use around the state.

[sakoshooter]

If parking has to be provided, it would allow access that doesn't exist right now the way I understand it. How can that be bad? Many of these parcels are controlled by adjacent private land owners that don't want strangers or recreating traffic near their property, consequently no access is available. A couple members of the Pierce Co Boating Safety Commission worked on something similar(possibly this)when I was on the committee.

access does exist now.  You can ride a bicycle, jog, walk, or get dropped off and go use these lands.  Under this bill you could still do that and access as long as you aren't going to the water (fishing, duck hunting, trapping), but could still hunt land or look for mushrooms or walk the dog.  So certain groups are excluded, but others get a less crowded piece of land.

What am I missing. I do not read that in what Big Tex posted. Is there more to it that I can read elsewhere?

[snowpack]

If parking has to be provided, it would allow access that doesn't exist right now the way I understand it. How can that be bad? Many of these parcels are controlled by adjacent private land owners that don't want strangers or recreating traffic near their property, consequently no access is available. A couple members of the Pierce Co Boating Safety Commission worked on something similar(possibly this)when I was on the committee.

access does exist now.  You can ride a bicycle, jog, walk, or get dropped off and go use these lands.  Under this bill you could still do that and access as long as you aren't going to the water (fishing, duck hunting, trapping), but could still hunt land or look for mushrooms or walk the dog.  So certain groups are excluded, but others get a less crowded piece of land.

What am I missing. I do not read that in what Big Tex posted. Is there more to it that I can read elsewhere?

all I've read is what bigtex posted too.  All the text in the bill focuses solely on using the that land for water access and the parking focuses on 'adequate'...which I don't see defined.

[TONTO]

 It would keep you from accessing public waterways without a discover pass. Since it would require a established parking area. That established parking area would then require a discover pass. So basicaly no parking along the roadway and walking in like a freeloader. Obviously if the pass isn't bringing in enough $ and these freeloaders are enjoying the public water without a pass, yet they can afford the pass, then they must pay the penalty to offset the costs. Basicaly what we have here is the AWA (afordable waterway act)

[sakoshooter]

The two gentlemen I know that worked on this or a similar project discovered that over 2 dozen public access areas were actually not accessible because of either no place to park or the adjacent land owners treated these areas like their own and made trouble for anyone trying to use them. Basically no access. From what I gather from what Big Tex posted, at least there'd be access which is better than you have now.
As for nor hunting or fishing or having to have a discover pass, I think you're reading more into this than there is. Just my 

[lokidog]

The two gentlemen I know that worked on this or a similar project discovered that over 2 dozen public access areas were actually not accessible because of either no place to park or the adjacent land owners treated these areas like their own and made trouble for anyone trying to use them. Basically no access. From what I gather from what Big Tex posted, at least there'd be access which is better than you have now.
As for nor hunting or fishing or having to have a discover pass, I think you're reading more into this than there is. Just my 

OMG, you think this bill says that the manager HAS TO PROVIDE parking?     This says that if no parking is available the WATER cannot be accessed, which actually has no impact on parking since apparently one could hike all over it as long as you don't go piss in the water. 

One more example of why every politician needs to be taken out back and, at the least, beaten and kicked to the curb.      

[sakoshooter]

The two gentlemen I know that worked on this or a similar project discovered that over 2 dozen public access areas were actually not accessible because of either no place to park or the adjacent land owners treated these areas like their own and made trouble for anyone trying to use them. Basically no access. From what I gather from what Big Tex posted, at least there'd be access which is better than you have now.
As for nor hunting or fishing or having to have a discover pass, I think you're reading more into this than there is. Just my 

OMG, you think this bill says that the manager HAS TO PROVIDE parking?     This says that if no parking is available the WATER cannot be accessed, which actually has no impact on parking since apparently one could hike all over it as long as you don't go piss in the water. 

One more example of why every politician needs to be taken out back and, at the least, beaten and kicked to the curb.      

(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.

This is what I read. Do you read something else?

There is 'NO' access to many public waters now and this bill will provide access and you're against it? I don't understand. Enlighten me please.

[bobcat]

(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.

You need to also read this part.

[j_h_nimrod]

Sections 1and 2 contradict each other. Section 1 says adequate parking must be provided and section 2 says that parking does not need to be provided and the land posted so the public knows they cannot use their public land to access their public waters. As it currently stands you have legal access to the land and water and the adjacent private land owners can get bent for all I care, they have no jurisdiction of the land.

Do you really think that if this bill passes that DNR, USFS, etc. is going to jump right up and start spending some of their already tight budgets building you parking areas?  Not likely. 

The need for a Discover Pass is a good point as well, though I do not see that as the purpose here.  More likely a fringe benefit.

[Sandberm]

Since I'm a local Tr-City guy I'm going to take a stab at what Haler is trying to do.

Over the years floating down the Yakima river on inner tubes etc. through West Richland has become a popular thing to do. Theres maybe a spot or two that are popular "put-in" and "take-out" spots. Along the river and at one of the more popular put-in spots are houses.

So imagine cars parked everywhere along the road, in front of peoples houses, young people yelling, car stereos, empty boxs of beer and other litter and in general people being noisy. The people who live along the river are fed up and want there peaceful riverfront back.

I imagine that one goal of this legislation would not be to tell people they can not access the public spot but rather to build a parking lot that will hold only so many cars, thus limiting the number of partiers.

Thats my guess. If you ask me, they should just enforce current parking laws.

[arees]

Since I'm a local Tr-City guy I'm going to take a stab at what Haler is trying to do.

Over the years floating down the Yakima river on inner tubes etc. through West Richland has become a popular thing to do. Theres maybe a spot or two that are popular "put-in" and "take-out" spots. Along the river and at one of the more popular put-in spots are houses.

So imagine cars parked everywhere along the road, in front of peoples houses, young people yelling, car stereos, empty boxs of beer and other litter and in general people being noisy. The people who live along the river are fed up and want there peaceful riverfront back.

I imagine that one goal of this legislation would not be to tell people they can not access the public spot but rather to build a parking lot that will hold only so many cars, thus limiting the number of partiers.

Thats my guess. If you ask me, they should just enforce current parking laws.

1) This is why I also said this should be handled by already existing parking laws.  Excessive noise and littering are already crimes.

2) Is the road private?  If not, we the public are allowed to park on it.  We all pay taxes for it. 

3) These people bought houses next to a public access point to a popular river.  They should have expected the great unwashed to show up and use that public property and resources.  As time goes by and populations increase there will be more people showing up.  Welcome to what we like to call "the real world."

All I hear are whiners complaining about the public accessing public property and public roads.

If you buy a house next to Safeco Field you don't get to complain about traffic on game days. 

[huntrights]

 

Bad Bill

Restrictions on public access to public lands and waters locally and nationally should be of concern to all American citizens. 

The description of the bill seems to do a good job of capturing the essence and intent of the bill.
HB 2342: AN ACT Relating to restricting the use of certain parcels of public land to access a public body of water

HB 2342 appears to say in section (1) that the government entity that has jurisdiction of the subject land “must” provide adequate parking for persons utilizing the land to access the water.  On the surface, that sounds great for the public.  However, section (2) appears to give the government entity the option of NOT providing adequate public parking which then would make it illegal for anyone using the land to access the water for other than governmental purposes.

If section (2) was changed to be friendlier to public use of public land, then the red flags might not be flying so high.  For example, the bill might not be so threatening if section (2) were changed to read: “If it is not feasible for the government entity to create adequate parking, or if roadside parking is filled up at that location, then the government entity must post a sign to give directions to the nearest public parking area.  The way it is written now, the bill appears to have the intent of keeping the public from using the subject public land to access the public water.  The bill will make it illegal for the public to access public waters by using the subject public lands if there are not "adequate" parking areas provided.

Delete section (3) about the threat of prosecution.