Eliminating garbage from being dumped (poll added)

[Knocker of rocks]

Could maybe have FS/DNR do before/after checks on areas they allow for brush picking.  If the area has more trash than when they started, the permit holder could be required to clean it up.

Slippery slope

[bigtex]

Could maybe have FS/DNR do before/after checks on areas they allow for brush picking.  If the area has more trash than when they started, the permit holder could be required to clean it up.

Slippery slope

Sounds nice but it really isn't feasible. It would be like saying a WDFW Officer finds a poached deer then pulls over the guy that passed him on the road. He was the last one in the area so he must've poached the deer. Also need to realize that there are a ton of brush picking areas open in this state, it's not like Christmas tree cutting where it's typically limited to zones.

Also need to realize there are only 12 DNR Officers for the entire state which cover multiple counties. On the USFS side the average is less than 1 LEO per USFS District in WA. Simply isn't feasible.

[bigtex]

"Offer free cleanup to large landowners who keep properties open to public access"

And who would pay for this service???

Remember an old economics teacher that said "there's no such thing as free"..............

[Bean Counter]

If there identified problem areas: how about sting operations? I know they're resource intensive for LE, but it would send a clear message when the fines are laid to them.

[bigtex]

If there identified problem areas: how about sting operations? I know they're resource intensive for LE, but it would send a clear message when the fines are laid to them.

It's done. About 4 years ago there was an article in the paper about a DNR "sting" on the Kitsap Peninsula involving 3 DNR LEOs. No cases were made and people complained to DNR about a waste of taxpayer dollars having three LEOs there and no cases being made.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.....

[jackmaster]

If there identified problem areas: how about sting operations? I know they're resource intensive for LE, but it would send a clear message when the fines are laid to them.

It's done. About 4 years ago there was an article in the paper about a DNR "sting" on the Kitsap Peninsula involving 3 DNR LEOs. No cases were made and people complained to DNR about a waste of taxpayer dollars having three LEOs there and no cases being made.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.....

there are alot better ways than to post up 3 leo,s once the word gets out people will go else where, ya got to do a covert mission my son, many a way to skin a cat without the cat knowing he's  been skinned

[fireweed]

At first I was not happy about garbage being added to my property taxes in Idaho, but after seeing how convenient it is to get rid of garbage and yard debri and how much Idaho has benefitted verses Washington's significant garbage problem, I am now a big proponent of the idea.

Perhaps legislators could write a bill including can/bottle deposits and adding garbage to property taxes?

I would really like to hear additional comments?

Around here the tweekers are actually REMOVING garbage from the woods--IF it is metal.  We've got old railroad tracks and they comb those things pulling out rusty buckets, pieces of spike or rail (not to mention fence posts still holding up fences) They work hard!  The bottle bill could get them doing something else useful--scouring for glass and Aluminum. 

[fireweed]

FW, can you expand on the $17 / parcel.  When you say most is refunded to who and when?

I haven't really researched it but each forestland parcel I pay has a separate Firefighting fee, and if you have a bunch of small parcels instead of one big one you can apply for a partial refund--the kicker is you have to apply.  If you forget, they keep extra money (so you can bet there is some extra somewhere). Sort of like the $5 opt-out for Parks, only you have to pay, then apply for a refund.  DNR would know more.

[bearpaw]

"Offer free cleanup to large landowners who keep properties open to public access"

And who would pay for this service???

Remember an old economics teacher that said "there's no such thing as free"..............

Precisely why I offered funding choices in the poll! If you have additional funding options I will gladly add them to the poll.

[bearpaw]

FW, can you expand on the $17 / parcel.  When you say most is refunded to who and when?

I haven't really researched it but each forestland parcel I pay has a separate Firefighting fee, and if you have a bunch of small parcels instead of one big one you can apply for a partial refund--the kicker is you have to apply.  If you forget, they keep extra money (so you can bet there is some extra somewhere). Sort of like the $5 opt-out for Parks, only you have to pay, then apply for a refund.  DNR would know more.

I could add this to the poll, can you verify there are in fact fire funds somewhere?

[arees]

I like this idea but it will do absolutely nothing to open up the private timberland again.  But it could remove on of the "excuses" for closing.

Bearpaw, think about this: every forestland parcel pays $17 or so for forest fire fighting.  Most of that money is then refunded if you have lots of parcels.  I also think there is a huge firefighting fund out there somewhere.  Why couldn't the law be changed to allow use of that money to clean up timberland?

FW, can you expand on the $17 / parcel.  When you say most is refunded to who and when?

I haven't really researched it but each forestland parcel I pay has a separate Firefighting fee, and if you have a bunch of small parcels instead of one big one you can apply for a partial refund--the kicker is you have to apply.  If you forget, they keep extra money (so you can bet there is some extra somewhere). Sort of like the $5 opt-out for Parks, only you have to pay, then apply for a refund.  DNR would know more.

I could add this to the poll, can you verify there are in fact fire funds somewhere?

I don't know about this fund, but the proposal sounds like taking money that was raised for one purpose and deciding to spend it on another.  If the state took the Discover Pass funds and decided to spend it on highway maintenance, wouldn't we all be pissed?  How is this different?

[bigtex]

FW, can you expand on the $17 / parcel.  When you say most is refunded to who and when?

I haven't really researched it but each forestland parcel I pay has a separate Firefighting fee, and if you have a bunch of small parcels instead of one big one you can apply for a partial refund--the kicker is you have to apply.  If you forget, they keep extra money (so you can bet there is some extra somewhere). Sort of like the $5 opt-out for Parks, only you have to pay, then apply for a refund.  DNR would know more.

I could add this to the poll, can you verify there are in fact fire funds somewhere?

Here is a quick recap of the law for firefighting.

RCW 76.04.600 states "Every owner of forest land in the state of Washington shall furnish or provide, during the season of the year when there is danger of forest fires, adequate protection against the spread of fire thereon or therefrom which shall meet with the approval of the department." Basically this means you need to have firefighting department or some similar type of protection. Now obviously most people don't have their own fire departments. So...

RCW 76.04.610 states "If any owner of forest land within a forest protection zone neglects or fails to provide adequate fire protection as required by RCW 76.04.600, the department (DNR) shall provide such protection and shall annually impose the following assessments on each parcel of such land: (i) A flat fee assessment of seventeen dollars and fifty cents; and (ii) twenty-seven cents on each acre exceeding fifty acres."

Regarding the refund: "(b) Assessors may, at their option, collect the assessment on tax exempt lands. If the assessor elects not to collect the assessment, the department may bill the landowner directly.
(2) An owner who has paid assessments on two or more parcels, each containing fewer than fifty acres and each within the same county, may obtain the following refund:
(a) If all the parcels together contain less than fifty acres, then the refund is equal to the flat fee assessments paid, reduced by the total of (i) seventeen dollars and (ii) the total of the amounts retained by the county from such assessments under subsection (5) of this section.
(b) If all the parcels together contain fifty or more acres, then the refund is equal to the flat fee assessments paid, reduced by the total of (i) seventeen dollars, (ii) twenty-seven cents for each acre exceeding fifty acres, and (iii) the total of the amounts retained by the county from such assessments under subsection (5) of this section.

Applications for refunds shall be submitted to the department on a form prescribed by the department and in the same year in which the assessments were paid. The department may not provide refunds to applicants who do not provide verification that all assessments and property taxes on the property have been paid. Applications may be made by mail.

In addition to the procedures under this subsection, property owners with multiple parcels in a single county who qualify for a refund under this section may apply to the department on an application listing all the parcels owned in order to have the assessment computed on all parcels but billed to a single parcel. Property owners with the following number of parcels may apply to the department in the year indicated:

Year Number of Parcels
2002 10 or more parcels
2003 8 or more parcels
2004 and thereafter 6 or more parcels"

[fireweed]

These are a couple interesting (and similar to garbage clean up?) points about the fire fighting fee:
Affects forest land owners
Could cost landowners money but costs aren't predictable each year
Cost Isn't caused by the forest land owners themselves
Flat fee on parcels (vs. on value or stumpage)
Fund can build up over time (and I've heard it's out there somewhere...)
fund acts sort of like insurance

Something similar for cleanup costs or rolling cleanup into this program could be an option.

[bearpaw]

I'm looking for ideas and solutions and I'm willing to add any possible solutions to the poll, let me know if this fire fund is real and if you want it added to the poll.

[bigtex]

I'm looking for ideas and solutions and I'm willing to add any possible solutions to the poll, let me know if this fire fund is real and if you want it added to the poll.

Good luck trying to take any money away from wildland fire funds. The past couple of years state and federal governments have underfunded fire programs so much they have to dip into other accounts to even fund the fire program because of the amount of fires we're having. If anything I think we'll see the $17 current fee increase if we continue to see bad fire years.