Governors outdoor recreation group

[bearpaw]

Dale,

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

To my knowledge they only pay if they buy a Discover Pass to go to State Lands, but I could be missing something. There is a separate committee for funding that I'm not a part of, so they could have more complete info about that. Another task force member and I have raised the question that certain user groups like hunters/fishers/boaters/shooters think they are paying a larger share than others, due to licenses/fees, Discover Pass, plus Pittman Robertson, and Dingle/Johnson funding coming back to the state. I don't think P/R and D/J taxes apply to other types of sporting goods buyers. Maybe someone could elaborate more?

[bearpaw]

There is another Task Force meeting in Wenatchee on Monday evening and Tuesday morning, anyone in that area should attend and sign up to have input. (I will be at a family reunion and will miss this meeting.)


Listening Session Agenda
Monday, July 7
7:00 to 8:30pm
Pybus Public Market, 3 N. Worthen Street, Wenatchee

7:00      Welcome / introduction of Task Force members present
7:05      Show “We Are Wenatchee” Video
7:10      Listening Session (6 people already signed up to give 5-7 min presentations)
8:00      Ice cream social (opportunity for TF members to mingle with attendees and learn more about recreation in Wenatchee/North Central Washington)
8:30      Gathering ends


Task Force Meeting #4 Agenda
July 8, 2014
9:00 AM – 1:00 PM
Wenatchee Valley College Campus | 1300 5th Street, Van Tassell Center Café – Wenatchee, WA

9:00 Welcome & Opening Remarks
Shiloh Schauer, Senator Linda Parlette and Wenatchee Mayor Frank Kuntz

9:10 Healthliest Next Generation – Lisa Rakoz – OSPI Health Educaton

9:30 Subcommittee Meetings – Subcommmittee’s meet to discuss business-to-date and presentation

9:40 Subcommittee Presentations – Each Subcommittee provides an update on progress and shares their committee’s 3 to 5 priorities. 10-min presentation and 10-min Task Force Q&A (20 minutes total per Subcommittee)

10:20 BREAK

10:30 Subcommittees Presentations continued

11:10 Roundtable Discussion

11:30 Public Comment Period
3-minutes per speaker

12:30 Staff Updates
 Outreach Update – Meg O’Leary
 Task Force Final Report Process & Timeline – Jim Fox
 Federal Issues Strategy – Jim Fox / Kaleen Cottingham

1:00 ADJOURN

Next Meeting: Tuesday, August 19, 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Sequim Holiday Inn Express | 1441 E Washington Street, Sequim - Dungeness Suite

You can also comment here: www.engageoutdoorwashington.com

[huntrights]

 
Data may not be available, but it appears to be probable that hunters and anglers just might be the primary purchasers of the Discover Pass (DP); if this is the case, then the burden of supporting the State Parks is wrongly distributed. A $10 annual fee on car, truck, motorcycle, and RV license tab renewals would discriminate against people with multiple vehicles (i.e. two or more vehicles, an RV, ATV s, and maybe motorcycles); the cost to them could greatly exceed the $30 DP. If a fee is to be added to the license tab renewals, then place a maximum of two or three fees that can be applied per household; a maximum of $20 per household per year from all households that register vehicles in Washington State. Additional vehicles would be FREE. This would spread the burden to all state residents that register vehicles; it might also motivate people get outdoors since they paid for it. The resulting income to the state will likely be far greater than what the DP currently brings in.  Any money generated must go to the State Parks, WDFW, and the DNR for the purpose of encouraging people to participate in outdoor recreation, including hunting.  The money should be used to improve and promote hunting and fishing opportunities, improve and promote other outdoor recreational activities, increase access, pay for road maintenance, improve facilities, and hire the necessary staff to support the State Parks and public lands.  NO dipping into the funds for other purposes - PERIOD!

There are nearly 3 million housing units in Washington State (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000.html)  At two fees per housing unit, that comes to $60 million. 

According to this article "State Parks hopes Discover Pass can close funding gap" (http://www.northkitsapherald.com/news/242283971.html) -

"The pass, which is a user fee for vehicle entry into Washington public lands such as state parks and natural resource lands, brought in an average of $13 million a year during its first two years. But during the fiscal year ending in June 2013, the pass program brought in $16.8 million — an increase of about 29 percent.

The pass program was implemented in 2011 after state lawmakers slashed the budget for state parks. But even though the program has fallen short of the $27 million a year the state originally thought it would bring in, pass sales have become a critical element of the state parks budget."

The numbers above indicate only about 560,000 Discover Passes were sold.  That's not producing enough funding.


Excerpt from:

“Funding Public Recreation With the Discover Pass: Policy and Practicality”
http://www.agforestry.org/upload/userfiles/Funding_Public_Recreation_with_the_Discover_Pass-Policy_and_Practicality_Final_Report.pdf

“Revenue from the Discover Pass and day‐use permits is deposited into the Recreation Access Pass Account. The first $71 million in revenue is distributed as follows: 8 % to State Wildlife Account (WDFW); 8 % to Park Land Trust Revolving Account (DNR); 84 % to State Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account. All revenues exceeding $71 million each fiscal biennium are distributed equally amongst the agencies.”

It appears the Discover Pass is about saving the State Parks.  Who are the primary purchasers of the Discover Pass (DP)?  Without real data to refer to, it is difficult to know which user sectors are purchasing the DP.  However, inferring from feedback from hunters and anglers, it appears they may be carrying the larger portion of the financial load, and they may not be the primary users of the State Parks.  However, they are more likely to be the primary users of public lands.  Spread the financial burden to all state residents for support of the State Parks in a fair and unbiased manner.



Spread the financial burden across ALL state residents because ALL state residents will ultimately benefit from having our State Parks in top shape, and all outdoor recreational activities supported and promoted for all residents and non-residents to participate in and enjoy.  If the state government truly wants to promote State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, then this may be a positive direction to go.  If we want the revenue and economic growth from the outdoor recreation "gold-mine" we have in this state, then ALL residents should pitch in.  All businesses will benefit from the cash flow, more people will be employed, more people will be motivated to get outdoors, etc.  If we invest properly, the growth and benefits can be self-propagating.  Burdening Washington State's hunters, anglers, and a few other outdoor enthusiast with the financial responsibility of the natural resources that benefit everyone will end up being a detriment to the overall goals.


However, there is a possible roadblock.  A problem may lie in some of the somewhat extreme attitudes (Just being PC) that sometimes permeate this state.   There are some people and organizations that are adamantly against keeping our forests and other natural resources open for human use.

For example:  Go to the website (http://www.engageoutdoorwashington.com/ideas/125194/that-s-a-bad-idea-the-fewer-people-visit-them-the-better), keep pressing the "View More Comments..." button until all comments are shown, then take a look at the last comment (press the "Read More" button to see the full comment.

It may be beneficial for us to understand how diverse (extreme) some opinions may be (Just being PC again).

 

[Curly]

Data may not be available, but it appears to be probable that hunters and anglers just might be the primary purchasers of the Discover Pass (DP); if this is the case, then the burden of supporting the State Parks is wrongly distributed. A $10 annual fee on car, truck, motorcycle, and RV license tab renewals would discriminate against people with multiple vehicles (i.e. two or more vehicles, an RV, ATV s, and maybe motorcycles); the cost to them could greatly exceed the $30 DP. If a fee is to be added to the license tab renewals, then place a maximum of two or three fees that can be applied per household; a maximum of $20 per household per year from all households that register vehicles in Washington State. Additional vehicles would be FREE. This would spread the burden to all state residents that register vehicles; it might also motivate people get outdoors since they paid for it. The resulting income to the state will likely be far greater than what the DP currently brings in.  Any money generated must go to the State Parks, WDFW, and the DNR for the purpose of encouraging people to participate in outdoor recreation, including hunting.  The money should be used to improve and promote hunting and fishing opportunities, improve and promote other outdoor recreational activities, increase access, pay for road maintenance, improve facilities, and hire the necessary staff to support the State Parks and public lands.  NO dipping into the funds for other purposes - PERIOD!

That sounds good to me.

(But I'd still like to know if State Parks is spending their money wisely.  Maybe privatizing maintenance of Parks lands would help reduce costs to taxpayers?)

[bigtex]

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.

Prior to the DP the general fund was the primary source for Parks and thats when the idea went from a tax based agency (general fund) to a user based agency (DP).

I think Parks needs to look at how they are running parks, in some areas the Natl Park Service is doing things that WA needs to do. For WA Parks the LE Rangers are the managers/head hanchos of the parks, at some parks there may just be one LE Ranger, others there may be several with one "senior" who is the head manager. The problem is with this mindset you are paying an LE Ranger to manage a park which may have absolutely zero law enforcement need and can be done by someone without a gun and thus at a less paygrade. Another issue is the maintenance, at many parks, especially in the off-months the maintenance are done by the LE Rangers, again I am pretty sure you could pay a laborer a lot less then a state LEO to mow grass. So how does this compare to the NPS? In the NPS the "superintendent" of a park is not an LE position but simply a manager, and the maintenance employees are exactly that, not LE Rangers mowing grass with a gun belt on.

[Curly]

I worked one summer at a State Park (almost 30 years ago) and even I was paid too much back then.  I imagine it hasn't changed much since then; probably even worse now.  They were paying me (a kid right out of high school) well above minimum wage (don't remember the exact $ now) where I'm sure they could have hired someone for a lot less money to mow the lawns and clean restrooms.

And after the busy season, all those duties that should be very low wage labor were done by the rangers (who are all getting very good vacation, retirement, and medical plans).  So, yeah, I agree completely that they need to change.

Bigtex, do you think State Parks really needs all the LE that they currently have?  If they were private RV parks, then LE would be the sheriff deputies in most cases right?  If they didn't have as many LE rangers, then I assume they would save a lot of money............ 

[bearpaw]

I see some really good comments and ideas by all of you, I hope you will also post your comments to the website: www.engageoutdoorwashington.com

[bigtex]

I worked one summer at a State Park (almost 30 years ago) and even I was paid too much back then.  I imagine it hasn't changed much since then; probably even worse now.  They were paying me (a kid right out of high school) well above minimum wage (don't remember the exact $ now) where I'm sure they could have hired someone for a lot less money to mow the lawns and clean restrooms.

And after the busy season, all those duties that should be very low wage labor were done by the rangers (who are all getting very good vacation, retirement, and medical plans).  So, yeah, I agree completely that they need to change.

Bigtex, do you think State Parks really needs all the LE that they currently have?  If they were private RV parks, then LE would be the sheriff deputies in most cases right?  If they didn't have as many LE rangers, then I assume they would save a lot of money............ 

The current payrate for a park aide right now is $9.48-11.89 an hour, not exactly a gold mine.

To answer your question Curly, State Parks definitely needs LE, but do they need it in all the parks like they do now? In my opinion no. For me the LE Rangers should only be in the parks with a LE need, and it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out which ones need an LE there and which one's don't. A couple years ago there were talks of removing the LE position at Olmstead near Ellensburg and giving the manager position to a non-LE person, to me that's a great idea and I don't know if it happened. But for the more historical/museum type parks (like Olmstead) you would really need to give me LE stats to prove there needs to be an LE Ranger based there. Now I will say that there are only about a third of the permanent LE rangers today as there were 4 years ago, about two-thirds of the permanent LE positions were transitioned into seasonal/temporary positions. Also need to note that State Parks is the lowest paid state level LE agency in the state, below WDFW, DNR, WSP, Liquor Control, etc. So your not going to be a rich guy working for State Parks 

[Curly]

Thanks Bigtex

Thanks for looking up the pay for Park Aide.  Wow, I think I made only a little less than that 30 years ago.      But that does seem about like the appropriate pay today.  It was actually a hard day work. 

[Special T]

Our state is based on a sales tax AND user fee system. User fees should be tied DIRECTLY to people using a resource. Tying it to Rv's Car tabs or some other thing goes against the intent of our states taxing system. Funds NEED to come from the general fund, and if there is NOT enough $ then the state needs to priorities and/or CHANGE the way state parks operate. NOT all parks are equal and provide services that are desired and are self sustainable. The state is NOT making the hard choices of which parks should be saved because they cost less, are more sustainable or provide better Cost benefit to bridge the $ Gap. We are entering a period where there will be LESS $ for EVERYTHING! The state had a user fee in the 90's  it failed, the DP has failed, Its time for the state to quit shirking its responsibility and close/change the way some parks operate.

I have nothing against parks but I HATE how the state skates on the hard decisions... Mostly because they equate Hard Decisions= More taxes, when the opposite is the truth.

[Elkaholic daWg]

I see some really good comments and ideas by all of you, I hope you will also post your comments to the website: www.engageoutdoorwashington.com

Looks like it's up to you folks now. Yesterday I saw that comments weren't being accepted any more so do what you can Dale. It sure seemed that (biased of course) Hunters, shooters, fishers, prospectors, loggers, trappers and motorized people showed they are much more reasonable when it comes to most of their wants and needs, and were not asking for pie in the sky programs W/O any consideration of funding, or futuristic "Airships" or exoskeletons for the disabled

[bearpaw]

I want to thank all the sports folks who took the time to participate, you kept us all on the radar screen so to speak, I'm sure that will make a huge difference in the end. The task force was split into 4 subgroups and each group had to finalize 5 recommendations this last week, currently I am reading through the recommendations of the other subgroups. The way I understand it, now the task force as a whole will begin to look at the recommendations from each subgroup to reach consensus on final recommendations.

[huntrights]

There are about 275,000 hunters in Washington (2011 WDFW info.); thanks for representing us.

[MarkyMark]

Bearpaw that is too much to follow. Can you draw a flow chart?
Thanks for your diligent work.

[CAMPMEAT]

I decided to stop commenting on that site. Those types of onesided, me, me, me people really irritate me. They are nothing more than arrogant, self-centered IDIOTS, who think they should control everything for everybody. They can jump off a cliff.........like many have said: You can't fix stupid !!