Input Needed RE: Improving Access in Washington

[bearpaw]

IMPROVING ACCESS IN WASHINGTON
Everyone did an awesome job of helping put together the "Youth & New Hunter Recruitment" recommendations. I need some help identifying the issues affecting access in Washington and in offering solutions to help resolve these access problems. I put out a few potential ideas to get the discussion started, when finalized I will submit to the Recreation & Parks Task Force. Please offer your thoughts, and links to other discussions with ideas. THANKS!

Who to get involved
•   Encourage WDFW to increase efforts to keep lands open
•   Lobby legislators to consider property tax incentives
•   ?

Issues and causes of decreasing access on private lands
•   Garbage Dumping
•   Equipment Vandalism
•   Resource Damage
•   Opportunity to profit from access fees
•   ?

Issues and causes of decreasing access on state lands
•   Garbage Dumping
•   Resource Damage
•   ?

Issues and causes of decreasing access on federal lands
•   Pressure from Environmentalists
•   Resource Damage
•   ?

Steps to retain or increase access to all lands
•   Education through state publications and web sites
•   Increase fines for garbage dumping
•   ?
•   ?

Steps to retain or increase access to private lands
•   Expand on WDFW land access programs
•   Revise property tax classifications to benefit landowners who allow free public access
•   Meet with big timber and negotiate access
•   ?
•   ?

Steps to retain or increase access to state lands
•   ?
•   ?
•   ?

Steps to retain or increase access to federal lands
•   State needs to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for public access
•   ?
•   ?

WDFW and other agencies are facing potential funding cuts, how can access easements or other costs to gain access be funded
•   ?
•   ?
•   ?

[huntrights]

 

Who to get involved

•   Encourage WDFW to increase efforts to keep lands open

•   Lobby legislators to consider property tax incentives

•   Encourage the DNR to keep lands open.

•   Lobby legislators to place limits on the DNR and WDFW regarding road closures and decommissioning.  They should get public input for each road closure and provide valid justification to close or decommission a road if they decide to move forward with their plan.  Decommissioning/destroying roads should be discontinued completely.  If people can’t access our public lands, promoting outdoor recreation will become a moot point.

•   Involve user groups that are affected by lack of access; their input and influence is critical.

•   Involve our representatives (i.e. Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler) that have been involved at the federal level working to keep our public lands open (i.e. roads to trails – DO NOT DECOMMISSION/DESTROY).  Congresswoman Beutler and her staff have done a lot of work addressing this issue

•   The general public.  Public education is critical to ensure the public understands that to be able to use and access private and public lands depends on each and every one of us being responsible and good stewards of that land.  Smokey the Bear type messages and education.

•   State Tourism Office if we have one.

•   Schools.  Promote hunting, fishing, and all other outdoor recreation through the school systems.  Demand for access from the masses will encourage more public access.


Issues and causes of decreasing access on private lands

•   Garbage Dumping

•   Equipment Vandalism

•   Resource Damage

•   [Lack] of opportunity to profit from access fees

•   Lack of personnel and resources to police/monitor the guest users of private land.

•   Lack of respect for the property owners ( i.e. driving onto property near farm or ranch houses when the owners are sleeping)

•   Accessing private land without permission from the land owner.

•   Harvesting game on private land without permission.

•   The expense associated with garbage dumping and vandalism.

•   Not closing gates that should be closed.


Issues and causes of decreasing access on federal lands

•   Pressure from Environmentalists

•   Resource Damage

•   Man caused fires

•   Road closures or decommissioning/destruction of roads.  Please investigate the roads to trails approach versus destroying roads.

•   Lack of funding and resources to maintain roads at a safe level.

•   Decrease in timber sales that support the U.S. Forest Service.

•   Problems with squatters, alcohol and drug parties in the woods, irresponsible people.

•   Lack of law enforcement resources to monitor and police the federal lands.  The same is true for state lands.


Steps to retain or increase access to all lands

•   Education through state publications and web sites

•   Increase fines for garbage dumping

•   Public education through all media and our schools.  Smokey the Bear type messages and education.

•   Adopt roads to trails programs versus decommissioning/destroying roads.  Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler has promoted this at the federal level.

•   Continually work with agencies and land owners to promote keeping our public lands open to the public.

•   Remind our federal and state agencies that manage our public land that they do not own the land; they are merely managing our land for the benefit of the public; the land belongs to the public.


Steps to retain or increase access to private lands

•   Expand on WDFW land access programs

•   Revise property tax classifications to benefit landowners who allow free public access

•   Meet with big timber and negotiate access

•   Private property rights need to be respected so all access must be negotiated.

•   Provide incentives to private land owners to provide access to the public.


Steps to retain or increase access to state lands

•   Restrict road closures and decommissioning/destruction by the DNR and WDFW.  Require public review and input prior to agency action.

•   STOP decommissioning/destroying roads; adopt roads to trails policies.

•   Promote partnerships with non-profit stewardship groups and other willing organizations (i.e. Boy Scouts) that are willing to be involved with trail and road maintenance and garbage pick-up.

•   Public education regarding good outdoor stewardship practices.

•   Don’t be so quick to give-in to environmentalist pressure to keep people out of public lands.


Steps to retain or increase access to federal lands

•   State needs to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for public access

•   Restrict road closures and decommissioning/destruction by the DNR and WDFW.  Require public review and input prior to agency action.

•   STOP decommissioning/destroying roads; adopt roads to trails policies.

•   Promote partnerships with non-profit stewardship groups and other willing organizations (i.e. Boy Scouts) that are willing to be involved with trail and road maintenance and garbage pick-up.

•   Public education regarding good outdoor stewardship practices.

•   Don’t be so quick to give in to environmentalist pressure to keep people out of public lands.



WDFW and other agencies are facing potential funding cuts, how can access easements or other costs to gain access be funded

•   Promote partnerships with non-profit stewardship groups and other willing organizations (i.e. Boy Scouts) that are willing to be involved with trail and road maintenance and garbage pick-up.

•   Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler and her staff have done a great deal of work on the roads to trails approach to road closures which avoids road decommissioning/destruction.  She also has information regarding funding opportunities for road maintenance such as:

o   Timber sales

o   Stewardship dollars

o   Federal road tax

o   Road maintenance rotation

Please consider contacting her office for details.

[bearpaw]

huntrights, do you have any other ideas for state funding rather than federal

[huntrights]

huntrights, do you have any other ideas for state funding rather than federal

More taxes and fees always seems to be the easy way out, but Economics 101 has shown that approach becomes counterproductive when imposed in excess.  Continually raising taxes and fees will eventually have detrimental effects on the economy and the outdoor activities we are trying to promote.  We don't want more taxes and fees.  Cutting waste and balancing budgets is a good start. 

Promoting partnerships with stewardship organizations to help in areas where funding is shrinking or not available may be a viable option.  However, finding and engaging those organizations on a consistent basis might be a challenge.

Perhaps other states have come up with creative ways to fund road maintenance and personnel requirements.

Raising the minimum wage by over 50% may also contribute to funding issues since it is completely misaligned from the rest of the country.  Maybe it will stay contained in Seattle. 

Funding is a complex issue that has no easy answers.  It is also a likely significant contributor to many of our access issues ( i.e. lack of maintenance and personnel dollars).

[stevemiller]

huntrights, do you have any other ideas for state funding rather than federal

I do,Make the fools that are breaking the rules pay for their crime,That would be state funding by itself.We need the prosecuting att. to do their job instead of letting the criminals walk all while we lose more and more areas.

[bearpaw]

Without doubt funding issues seem the toughest issue, any other ideas on any of this?  Keep it coming?

[stevemiller]

Another one that I thought was pretty obvious was they need to allow the people that are trying to volunteer their time and energy to fix a problem be allowed to do so.Like the hoof rot issue.Why does the state pay tons of money to groups when others try to do it pro Bono?Why does the state pay huge money for PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS to cull when they could have it done for free by the hunters or at least the master hunters?They spend spend spend and complain they cant pay for some of the most important issues like more LEO. 

[Todd_ID]

Regarding hunting access....
Hunting is a basic cost:perceived-benefit analysis as far as how many people participate.  Increase the cost, and revenue goes up for a year, but you've ticked off people who will not participate the next year causing a net decrease in income.

Decrease the cost by offering resident hunters a 10% discount for multiple purchases or packages (for instance), and people will purchase more at checkout and be more willing to participate next year.  Both scenarios tip the cost:benefit ratio different ways.

Increasing and decreasing the perceived benefit is cheaper and easier to do and will tip the ratio quicker than the cost side would. 

Making the WDFW Access Pass good on DNR land in lieu of a Discover Pass is a good start: the hunter wins in slightly decreased cost and greatly increased perceived benefit: major tip of ratio.  The state wins because of public image upticks from hunters as well as increased repeat buyers next year; the loss of dollars to DNR is well worth both.

Another way to increase benefit would be to have flex seasons.  For instance, before Oct. 1 you have to declare the 9 contiguous day window your tag will be valid for during the window of Oct 7 to Nov 1 for an eastern modern firearm mule deer hunter.  You could even give 2 windows that add up to 9 days to give even more flexibility.  Then, if unsuccessful, you can choose a 5 day window for the late season.  This allows hunters to choose when they WANT to go based on when their group CAN go.  This would lead to increased sales by hunting camps being able to get together schedule-wise better therefore being able to draw in more of their friends as well as leading to less congestion in the woods on any given day.  Win-win for the hunter and state; the only drawback is enforcement period lengthens and the possibility of party hunting, and neither are enough of a problem to not do it.

Increase WDFW's per-region budget for hunter access coordinators.  Each region only has one person working on it now, and that's not nearly enough.  The landowners in the programs in the SE haven't been able to contact the guy who's supposed to be handling their land because he's too busy.  When that landowner runs out of permit forms because they can't get them from him, they just say no more access.  This has happened to me personally three times in three years with different landowners.  I would have been able to hunt that land, but I was told no because they had no more forms.  Yes, it would increase WDFW expenses, but the strides made toward hunter access would help increase the perceived benefit.

Lean on the various National Forest Administrators and DNR to loosen ATV restrictions.  Hunters like their ATV's, and less restriction in an area will draw hunters and keep someone on the fence from quitting buying in-state licenses and going to ID where they can use their machine.  Keep them restricted to the same roads that vehicles can use, and the harvest rate won't be affected; it may even go down by pushing animals a bit farther from roads a bit sooner in the season.

[stevemiller]

Its pretty simple really,Decrease the cost of having it accessable and more can be accessible.They need to start at the beginning and that is damage control whether it be litter or off road trail damage or what have you, when these fools are turned in they need to be fined,Not just the cost of what they did at the time they were caught  but a percentage of the other damage caused whether it be from them or someone else.We and I mean all user groups should not have to pay the price for damage caused by a few.    Bearpaw how much does DNR,WDFW,ETC pay out annually for this type of damage,How much does a property owner that is shutting his land down to access have to pay for damage caused on his or her land?This in my op is the number one reason we are losing access. 

[Humptulips]

Been thinking about this for a while. In WSTA we are perennially short of funds so we're constantly trying to get people to spend on raffles and auction stuff. To do that we are trying to give incentives away to encourage sales. WDFW could work the same game.

What have they to give away that doesn't cost them? First thought comes to mind is damage control permits. So someone has a bear problem why not make them give up some free access to get the permits? Could be for so many days or for so many hunters. I don't know the formula but the idea is you give them something that doesn't currently cost in return for access.
I know we have something like that in place now but it allows pay to hunt and family only hunts to count. The law needs to be changed so WDFW has something to negotiate with.
If the timber companies have $millions in tree damage why give away the remedy to that problem?

This can go the other way too. Everybody hates the discover pass but we all know it is not going away unless something replaces the money it brings in. Why not give people a discover pass if they buy a certain dollar amount of permits or maybe charge for the depredation hunts but give out a free discover pass. Either way the same money could come in and people might see real value for their dollars.
That would take the sting out of paying for access on DNR land.

[bearpaw]

Great comments guys, thanks, keep in mind that a big part of the funding issue is funding state parks, please feel free to offer any comments regarding ways to potentially fund state parks too. 

[stevemiller]

Theres also a lot of lakes that dont allow overnight camping anymore starting last year or the year before I dont remember,I would have to say that if they opened these back up for camping and did the camping fee they could generate quite a bit from that.They never charged before they closed it and I dont really know why they came up with the new rule.I would pay it and enough others would also im sure.

[bigtex]

Steps to retain or increase access to all lands
•   Education through state publications and web sites
•   Increase fines for garbage dumping
•   ?
•   ?

From an LE standpoint instead of increasing fines, how about a mandatory minimum? Realistically the legislature couldn't increase the fine as the laws are written because they would have to make littering (garbage dumping) a felony and I am willing to bet that wouldn't happen.

Instead, we need to look at mandatory minimums. Littering less than one cubic foot in WA is an infraction which means a simple citation that can be paid, and actually this violation did see it's penalty go from a class 3 infraction to a class 2 infraction this year, so those penalties did increase. Littering between one cubic foot and one cubic yard is a misdemeanor which means you can be fined $0-1,000 and up to 90 days in jail. Over one cubic yard is a gross misdemeanor which equates up to a $5,000 fine and up to 364 days in jail.

Now in addition to the misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor penalties the "The person shall also pay a litter cleanup restitution payment equal to twice the actual cost of cleanup, or fifty dollars ($100 for the gross misdemeanor violation) per cubic foot of litter, whichever is greater. The court shall distribute one-half of the restitution payment to the landowner and one-half of the restitution payment to the law enforcement agency investigating the incident. The court may, in addition to or in lieu of part or all of the cleanup restitution payment, order the person to pick up and remove litter from the property, with prior permission of the legal owner or, in the case of public property, of the agency managing the property. The court may suspend or modify the litter cleanup restitution payment for a first-time offender under this section, if the person cleans up and properly disposes of the litter."

So now what does all this mean?

Well if I go out and litter over a cubic yard of garbage I could face up to a $5,000 fine and 364 days in jail. SCARY  Well don't get so scared because the minimum fine in WA is??? ZERO! And lets say I am a good guy so I go out and pick up the garbage I dumped, now on top of not facing a minimum fine, the court can also suspend the payments to be made to the landowner and the LE agency that investigated the incident.

So what do I think should happen?

Mandatory minimum $250 fine for the misdemeanor violation. Mandatory minimum $500 fine for the gross misdemeanor violation. Remove the ability for the court to suspend the payment to the landowner and the LE agency if you pick up your garbage 

[stevemiller]

I like it BigTex    Make it happen lol  .Seriously though how could we get something like you suggest to come about?

[bigtex]

I like it BigTex    Make it happen lol  .Seriously though how could we get something like you suggest to come about?

It would have to come from the legislature. There aren't many in the WA legislature in favor of mandatory minimum criminal penalties and I don't know why. I think if you got enough big landowners to request they remove the ability of the court to remove the cleanup restitution it could pass, but you would need the big names (Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc) to come out and ask for it.