HB 1271 Would Reduce the Penalty for not Having a Discover Pass

[bigtex]

HB 1271 sponsored by Representatives Harmsworth, Muri, Bergquist, Stokesbary, MacEwen, Van Werven, Condotta, Doglio, and Buys would reduce the penalty for not having a Discover Pass from $99 to the actual price of the Discover Pass (currently $33). If you provide proof to the court that you have purchased the pass within 15 days of your citation, the penalty is waived, currently the fine is reduced from $99 to $59.

[bigtex]

I'm sure I'll be in the minority but I don't like this bill. Basically this would mean someone who didn't buy the pass before going on state lands doesn't get penalized as long as they then buy the pass and show it to the judge. Well, then why buy the pass at all? Why not just go to state lands without the pass and if you get caught, oh well pay your $33 to get a pass, show the judge and it's taken care of. It's basically saying you don't have to follow the law 

[Okanagan]

The whole concept of charging citizens to go on public land is bad law.  But that battle is long past.  This bill makes a bad law less onerous.  You are correct that it shows open contempt for the Discovery Pass and encourages people to not buy it until caught, and then have no extra penalty.  Bravo!

 

[Wanttohuntmore]

I haven't voted yet, I see where you are coming from.  The fact that we have to have this pass to fund DNR is bs.  On the bright side, if the fine is less, more would violate it, and probably tie up more enforcement resources and court resources, possibly making it even less likely to be enforced.   What grabs my goat is that I don't mind paying my share for public properties, but when the government has its hand out at every turn in the road, a fee here, a permit there, a fine there, a license here,,,, it makes criminals out of ordinary folks.  I can guarantee the people I work with have no idea what a discovery pass is, yet they break that rule all the time.  I can go on and on....  Take the tax out of property or sales or gas and quit adding fees!

[EmeraldBullet]

I'm sure I'll be in the minority but I don't like this bill. Basically this would mean someone who didn't buy the pass before going on state lands doesn't get penalized as long as they then buy the pass and show it to the judge. Well, then why buy the pass at all? Why not just go to state lands without the pass and if you get caught, oh well pay your $33 to get a pass, show the judge and it's taken care of. It's basically saying you don't have to follow the law 

I totally agree. This bill is BS in my opinion.

I know it's not the same thing, but what if the state did the same thing with buying hunting tags? If you plan on using a service pay for it, if you don't and get caught you should pay a price IMO.

[Okanagan]

Next DNR will add a fee to drive on any road designated scenic.  After all, people on those roads can enjoy the view of WA State.  Then they can add a fee for each wild animal seen along the way, maybe a dollar per elk or bear, 75 cents for a deer or coyote and down to ten cents per squirrel or rabbit. They could monitor animals along the road by satellite and charge by how many could have been seen.  If you didn't see it, your tough luck and pay up.  Or an easier method of fee would be to average animals seen on each route and charge a flat fee I.e. between Seattle and Spokane:  1.75 deer, .5 elk, .1 bear, 1 coyote, 2 rabbits, 4 turkeys... etc.  This is not a toll road fee but a natural resources fund, a way to "give something back" and enhance the outdoors. Hope DNR gives me a free pass for coming up with this idea, though I'm sure they are already considering something like this.

[dreamunelk]

I am definitely not a fan of the discover pass.  Especially since I have to buy two.

That said I have noticed what DNR and WDFW has done with the funds.  DNR camp grounds that I frequent are in the best shape I can remember.  They are primitive but, I can see they are spending funds on these.  A lot of repairs for boat launches would not have been done with out these funds.  Considering they both get something like 8% they are making good use of the funds.
Even though I hate paying I am seeing results that benefit most of us so have voted no.

As for parks I have nothing good to say.

[EmeraldBullet]

Next DNR will add a fee to drive on any road designated scenic.  After all, people on those roads can enjoy the view of WA State.  Then they can add a fee for each wild animal seen along the way, maybe a dollar per elk or bear, 75 cents for a deer or coyote and down to ten cents per squirrel or rabbit. They could monitor animals along the road by satellite and charge by how many could have been seen.  If you didn't see it, your tough luck and pay up.  Or an easier method of fee would be to average animals seen on each route and charge a flat fee I.e. between Seattle and Spokane:  1.75 deer, .5 elk, .1 bear, 1 coyote, 2 rabbits, 4 turkeys... etc.  This is not a toll road fee but a natural resources fund, a way to "give something back" and enhance the outdoors. Hope DNR gives me a free pass for coming up with this idea, though I'm sure they are already considering something like this.

LMFAO

[WAcoueshunter]

Curious what their angle is...are they objecting to the public paying for access to public land, and instead want our general fund to pay for it?

Or....

Are they aiming to gut the use tax (Discover Pass) so public lands are even more underfunded and it will be easier to sell them off? 

[JimmyHoffa]

If they don't like it, just repeal it.  But this bill  , just lets a bunch of people not buy and hope they can delay purchase only if they get caught. 

[GBoyd]

I'm surprised that everybody seems to be against the Discover Pass. If we pay an extra tax to hunt, it makes sense to me that the hikers and boaters should have to contribute as well. I like the Discover Pass and I'd love to see the forest pass increase to about $150 so that people would appreciate how expensive it is to maintain roads in the mountains.

It's a shame. Everybody wants to have nice things and they want somebody else to pay for it.

[JimmyHoffa]

State parks gets 84% of it.  Can't hunt in state parks.

[GBoyd]

State parks gets 84% of it.  Can't hunt in state parks.

Right. Non-hunters are paying an extra tax to use the outdoors, just like hunters have been for a long time.

[hunter399]

They can pay for roads,through timber,livestock leases,and the other resorces the state takes off of state land ,I don't like the state land that is landlocked from private land around it , we pay for this pass and can't use some state lands,it's like a private hunting area for the people that own the border land and we have to buy a pass for it .I did buy my pass this year first time and still don't like it .good for them on lower fees for offenders.rant over.

[Curly]

I'm not a fan of the Discover Pass but this bill is dumb. The current penalty is not that bad.  All the bill would do is make people willing to risk getting caught without the pass. If someone is in an area where a pass is required they need to buy the stupid pass since that is the law. 

[Special T]

I could give a rats rear end! Why you ask? Because it's a transfer of user group fees from one group SPORTSMEN to another group PARKS USERS. They aren't the same people because fishermen pay extra to use a boat ramp before the DP. When I can hang a deer stand and whack a pet deer then we can revisit this bs.

[quadrafire]

Paid my $99 stupid tax this year. For failure to display

[bigtex]

They can pay for roads,through timber,livestock leases,and the other resorces the state takes off of state land ,I don't like the state land that is landlocked from private land around it , we pay for this pass and can't use some state lands,it's like a private hunting area for the people that own the border land and we have to buy a pass for it .I did buy my pass this year first time and still don't like it .good for them on lower fees for offenders.rant over.

The revenue generated from the things you listed are given to education, mainly building schools, which is common in almost all states. There's no way you'll see that change.

[fireweed]

The whole concept of charging citizens to go on public land is bad law.  But that battle is long past.  This bill makes a bad law less onerous.  You are correct that it shows open contempt for the Discovery Pass and encourages people to not buy it until caught, and then have no extra penalty.  Bravo!

I like your logic.  It just weakens the DP and makes it a de-facto voluntary pass. 

[fireweed]

The fee that became the Discover pass was intended to be for "recreational site or lands" which, to key lawmakers (like Blake) meant DEVELOPED recreation sites (trailheads, picnic areas, state parks) but the lands part tacked on to the definition left the door open for the DNR to defined, for themselves, what constituted recreational lands.  Which, surprise! the DNR interpreted as pretty much all state land which was open for recreation, not necessarily contained recreation improvements.  Logging roads, which were funded by timber sales for timber sales, now became recreational access roads. Much Landlocked DNR land even needs a DP.  And as pointed out, 84% of the DP money goes to the state parks, which don't allow many of the activities (hunting, ATV) that DNR land does.  The whole system needs revamped for fairness and put back to original intent: to support developed recreation sites.

[Curly]

The fee that became the Discover pass was intended to be for "recreational site or lands" which, to key lawmakers (like Blake) meant DEVELOPED recreation sites (trailheads, picnic areas, state parks) but the lands part tacked on to the definition left the door open for the DNR to defined, for themselves, what constituted recreational lands.  Which, surprise! the DNR interpreted as pretty much all state land which was open for recreation, not necessarily contained recreation improvements.  Logging roads, which were funded by timber sales for timber sales, now became recreational access roads. Much Landlocked DNR land even needs a DP.  And as pointed out, 84% of the DP money goes to the state parks, which don't allow many of the activities (hunting, ATV) that DNR land does.  The whole system needs revamped for fairness and put back to original intent: to support developed recreation sites.

 

But with that said, is the proposed HB 1271 going to be a way to get the whole DP revamped?  I'd rather they put up a bill to redo the system instead of this bill.

[Special T]

They can pay for roads,through timber,livestock leases,and the other resorces the state takes off of state land ,I don't like the state land that is landlocked from private land around it , we pay for this pass and can't use some state lands,it's like a private hunting area for the people that own the border land and we have to buy a pass for it .I did buy my pass this year first time and still don't like it .good for them on lower fees for offenders.rant over.

The revenue generated from the things you listed are given to education, mainly building schools, which is common in almost all states. There's no way you'll see that change.

The roads built to logging the land is a byproduct of logging is a benifit to us all that has a neglibal  additional cost. Since a DP doesn't even allow you behind gates the state isn't doing anything extra AND most of the $ is going to parks not for DNR improvements on facilities. Is the DNR likely doing a good job putting thier sliver to good use? I would bet they are.

My resentment is a direct result of the dishonesty in selling the DP. The only thing I have against the Parks department is the fact that they are benefiting from $ that is not thier user group. Thier user group is not willing to pay for thier "services" with the exception of the boat launch (sportsmen) and overnight campers.

[timberfaller]

I'd rather see the group abolish the "Discover Pass"  IT is nothing but a fancy tax, guise-ed as a FEE!

Once the government is allowed to get away with something,  its very hard if not impossible to CORRECT their mistakes!!

[Stein]

I think everyone in the state should be forced to buy one.  If I need to pay for things like monorail and buses, they can pay for maintaining stuff they may or may not use.  When it comes to parks, wildlife and such, I think it should be something funded from the general fund as opposed to pay-to-play. 

[boneaddict]

Paid my $99 stupid tax this year. For failure to display

What! 
What pisses me off is I,bought one of the dang things and they sent me some guys fishing license instead.   I forwarded his license on to him, but haven't seen my discover pass yet.

[Dhoey07]

Sounds to me like they want the fine money to go to the DP funds instead of the courts.  If this goes through there is no reason to buy one until you get caught without one. 

[Bob33]

I don’t like the concept of paying for resources that should be free because of other fees that I already pay as a hunter. However, I appreciate the fact that non-hunters are now required to pay something for these resources as well.

My use of lands that require a DP are very infrequent: maybe once or twice a year at most.  I can understand someone, particularly a hunter, with similarly infrequent access who opts to not purchase a DP and chances being caught. In those instances I do not believe a substantial fine is appropriate.

In my perfect world, the tree hugger who spends large amounts of time in these areas would be fined a more substantial amount than the hunter who has already contributed quite a bit.

[bigtex]

Sounds to me like they want the fine money to go to the DP funds instead of the courts.  If this goes through there is no reason to buy one until you get caught without one.

That's how the funding already works

[DOUBLELUNG]

If they don't like it, just repeal it.  But this bill  , just lets a bunch of people not buy and hope they can delay purchase only if they get caught. 

My sentiment exactly.  I don't like the Discover Pass, but this bill sucks, talk about wasting scarce enforcement resources.  Either enforce it or repeal it (my preference), but I'm opposed to a wink and a nod law. 

[nwbow87]

Agreed. Get rid of it altogether. It's absurd that this pass exists in the first place. I personally haven't seen much at all in improvements to public land, aside from more gates. They spruced up the state Park parking lot near my house as well, to be fair.
All in all, this legislation is garbage and it's just another tax on people, trying to recreate in the outdoors.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Bofire]

  If $33.00 is a fair price for the pass, I think it is a fair price for the fine.
Carl

[pianoman9701]

I'm not in favor. Ideally, the Discover Pass would go away completely, but that's never going to happen. Politicians don't usually backpeddle on taxes they get past the voter base. So, since it's here to stay and I have to buy one each year just to drive up in the hills and pick mushrooms, everyone should have to get one to do the same or pay the fine. Reducing the fine means that some will take the risk and that means less revenue. Keep it where it is.

I would absolutely support and 50% discount to sportsmen/women who purchase one with their license, since it seems to mostly be a tax on us.

[JimmyHoffa]

Would people that pay for the toll roads, ferries, express lane (use, not the tax) think it was cool if violators paid the same amount as they did only if they were caught?

[bigtex]

Would people that pay for the toll roads, ferries, express lane (use, not the tax) think it was cool if violators paid the same amount as they did only if they were caught?

Great point

[Bob33]

HB 1271 sponsored by Representatives Harmsworth, Muri, Bergquist, Stokesbary, MacEwen, Van Werven, Condotta, Doglio, and Buys would reduce the penalty for not having a Discover Pass from $99 to the actual price of the Discover Pass (currently $33). If you provide proof to the court that you have purchased the pass within 15 days of your citation, the penalty is waived, currently the fine is reduced from $99 to $59.

Where do you see that in the bill? The only change I see with respect to the fines is that a rock collecting endorsement can substitute for a Discover Pass.

(6) The penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of this section is ninety-nine dollars. This penalty must be reduced to fifty-nine dollars if an individual provides proof of purchase of a discover pass, or, if applicable, a rock collecting endorsement, to the court within fifteen days after the issuance of the notice of violation.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1271.pdf

[CP]

They should make the fine  .

[KFhunter]

This bill just tells me that the DP program is a total failure, this is just agonal breathing.

[bigtex]

HB 1271 sponsored by Representatives Harmsworth, Muri, Bergquist, Stokesbary, MacEwen, Van Werven, Condotta, Doglio, and Buys would reduce the penalty for not having a Discover Pass from $99 to the actual price of the Discover Pass (currently $33). If you provide proof to the court that you have purchased the pass within 15 days of your citation, the penalty is waived, currently the fine is reduced from $99 to $59.

Where do you see that in the bill? The only change I see with respect to the fines is that a rock collecting endorsement can substitute for a Discover Pass.

(6) The penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of this section is ninety-nine dollars. This penalty must be reduced to fifty-nine dollars if an individual provides proof of purchase of a discover pass, or, if applicable, a rock collecting endorsement, to the court within fifteen days after the issuance of the notice of violation.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1271.pdf

The link you provided is for 2015-16 bills

[Bob33]

HB 1271 sponsored by Representatives Harmsworth, Muri, Bergquist, Stokesbary, MacEwen, Van Werven, Condotta, Doglio, and Buys would reduce the penalty for not having a Discover Pass from $99 to the actual price of the Discover Pass (currently $33). If you provide proof to the court that you have purchased the pass within 15 days of your citation, the penalty is waived, currently the fine is reduced from $99 to $59.

Where do you see that in the bill? The only change I see with respect to the fines is that a rock collecting endorsement can substitute for a Discover Pass.

(6) The penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of this section is ninety-nine dollars. This penalty must be reduced to fifty-nine dollars if an individual provides proof of purchase of a discover pass, or, if applicable, a rock collecting endorsement, to the court within fifteen days after the issuance of the notice of violation.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1271.pdf

The link you provided is for 2015-16 bills

Please provide a link for the current bill.

[bigtex]

HB 1271 sponsored by Representatives Harmsworth, Muri, Bergquist, Stokesbary, MacEwen, Van Werven, Condotta, Doglio, and Buys would reduce the penalty for not having a Discover Pass from $99 to the actual price of the Discover Pass (currently $33). If you provide proof to the court that you have purchased the pass within 15 days of your citation, the penalty is waived, currently the fine is reduced from $99 to $59.

Where do you see that in the bill? The only change I see with respect to the fines is that a rock collecting endorsement can substitute for a Discover Pass.

(6) The penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of this section is ninety-nine dollars. This penalty must be reduced to fifty-nine dollars if an individual provides proof of purchase of a discover pass, or, if applicable, a rock collecting endorsement, to the court within fifteen days after the issuance of the notice of violation.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1271.pdf

The link you provided is for 2015-16 bills

Please provide a link for the current bill.

Sorry. Thought I did

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1271&Year=2017

[Bob33]

HB 1271 sponsored by Representatives Harmsworth, Muri, Bergquist, Stokesbary, MacEwen, Van Werven, Condotta, Doglio, and Buys would reduce the penalty for not having a Discover Pass from $99 to the actual price of the Discover Pass (currently $33). If you provide proof to the court that you have purchased the pass within 15 days of your citation, the penalty is waived, currently the fine is reduced from $99 to $59.

Where do you see that in the bill? The only change I see with respect to the fines is that a rock collecting endorsement can substitute for a Discover Pass.

(6) The penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of this section is ninety-nine dollars. This penalty must be reduced to fifty-nine dollars if an individual provides proof of purchase of a discover pass, or, if applicable, a rock collecting endorsement, to the court within fifteen days after the issuance of the notice of violation.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1271.pdf

The link you provided is for 2015-16 bills

Please provide a link for the current bill.

Sorry. Thought I did

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1271&Year=2017

Thanks.