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

[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