Governors outdoor recreation group

[Curly]

I like a different funding source than a discover pass. I like the $10 fee added to tabs better than the DP but I'm still not thrilled.  I wish there was some other funding ideas than adding more fees to tabs.

I like the idea of a DP for people using established trailheads, parking areas, and DNR campgrounds, so I'd like to see the DP remain for those instances, but not for someone simply driving on DNR land or parking on logging roads and walking.

[KFhunter]

pretty rare for me to park on state land

[Curly]

$10 added to tabs is too much. 

[Todd_ID]

I'm all for user-based funding.  If we, as hunters or fishers, aren't willing to foot the bill of what it costs to manage whatever, then close it off.  Don't ask the average non-user to pay an extra $10 just so I don't have to pay $30.  The North American Wildlife Conservation Model has worked for 105 years, and it'll keep working after we're gone.

[KFhunter]

I don't have answers to improve funding and don't mean to whiz on Dale's idea.  Problem is I think probably the typical hunter probably has more vehicles than a single car family going for a hike.  Same holds true for rural folks as well.   People living rural would be hit a lot harder with a tabs fee than someone in the city.   

How about business owners with company vehicles that'll never be used for recreation?

[CAMPMEAT]

Maybe my new country lifestyle living for 14 years has changed my thinking but, why not add the $10 onto the hiking, kayaking, snow showing, skiing peoples ? Why do we, the hunters/fishers always get to pay for their lifestyles ? They don't pay for ours...

[Curly]

The problem with the DP is it is not a user based fee.  The majority of the funds for the DP go to state parks when a lot of users don't even set foot in parks.  They really need 3 separate passes. 

[bearpaw]

I don't have answers to improve funding and don't mean to whiz on Dale's idea.  Problem is I think probably the typical hunter probably has more vehicles than a single car family going for a hike.  Same holds true for rural folks as well.   People living rural would be hit a lot harder with a tabs fee than someone in the city.   

How about business owners with company vehicles that'll never be used for recreation?

Just to clarify: It wasn't my idea, but I liked it better than the Discover Pass. 

The problem with the DP is it is not a user based fee.  The majority of the funds for the DP go to state parks when a lot of users don't even set foot in parks.  They really need 3 separate passes. 

Discover Pass funds mostly go to state parks. I see hunters/fishers footing the bill for state parks and the rest of the citizens not paying. I support a broader base of funding for the state parks where no particular group gets unfairly hooked for paying the bill.

Maybe my new country lifestyle living for 14 years has changed my thinking but, why not add the $10 onto the hiking, kayaking, snow showing, skiing peoples ? Why do we, the hunters/fishers always get to pay for their lifestyles ? They don't pay for ours...

That's the message I have been standing by in the meetings, a fee/tax that somehow gets everyone to pay their fair share. 

[bearpaw]

I'm all for user-based funding.  If we, as hunters or fishers, aren't willing to foot the bill of what it costs to manage whatever, then close it off.  Don't ask the average non-user to pay an extra $10 just so I don't have to pay $30.  The North American Wildlife Conservation Model has worked for 105 years, and it'll keep working after we're gone.

I agree, but the Discover Pass mostly goes to state parks, I think that is why most hunters/fishers object to it.

[CAMPMEAT]

Dale,

What extra fees do hikers, kayakers, mountain climbers, scuba divers, bicyclists etc, pay for, besides the Discover Pass to recreate ?

[Curly]

I think the question should be - Are state parks a benefit to every citizen of the state? If the answer is yes, then maybe more money should come from everybody (maybe the general fund?) instead of jacking up the cost on only a portion of the citizens.

I think parks are good for the state and funding should come from everybody.  With that said, maybe parks need to be privately run and maintained; that would save a lot of money.....they are paying Rangers and park aids pretty good salaries with retirement and benefits for jobs that could been done a lot cheaper I imagine.

[blackdog]

Don't flame me but its my understanding that hunters and fishers are 5-6% of the general population and 8% of discover pass revenues go to F&W. Not sure the subsidy argument holds water.

[Curly]

Hunters don't hunt on state park land though, so why are we paying for a pass where 84% goes to fund something we are not using?

[blackdog]

And those folks don't hunt or fish and and paying into the 8% going to F&W.

[Curly]

The sole purpose of the DP when it was created was to fund State Parks, was it not?     I'm sure they figured they wouldn't sell  enough passes if they only required them for use on State Parks so they tacked on DNR land too.  I say there should be separate permits/passes for the 3 users.......wdfw pass (which we get with our hunting license), a parks pass, and a DNR pass.  I think all of them should be vinyl that sticks to a windshield like an oil change sticker.....i know parks used to have those vinyl stickers for an annual boat launch pass. 

Fund it that way and see how long parks can remain out of the  red.