$30 Access Permit for State Lands (WDFW, DNR, & Parks)

[Wacenturion]

Maybe sportsmen should look at things differently if this comes to pass.  We pay $30, use a boat access to go fishing, return and find that some tweaker has broke into our vehicle and removed items, stole a trailer, whatever.  Wonder if  the Department could legally be held liable for the loss since they assumed a responsibility of sorts by charging to use the property to begin with.  I don't know if they would be, but that would be fair in my opinion.

There are park attendants on park sites....why not use the money to have some WDFW person on site watching the parking areas during daylight areas.  Sound stupid....perhaps..........but no more stupid than the ridiculous $30 fee in my opinion.  At least you would get something for your expenditure. 

[bobcat]

I'm not sure, but in reading this section, I think this woud do away with the current vehicle use permit:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. RCW 77.32.380 (Fish and wildlife lands
23 vehicle use permit--Improved access facility--Fee--Youth groups--
24 Display--Transfer between vehicles--Penalty) and 2003 c 317 s 4, 2001
25 c 243 s 1, 2000 c 107 s 271, 1998 c 87 s 1, 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 77, 1991
26 sp.s. c 7 s 12, 1988 c 36 s 52, 1987 c 506 s 90, 1985 c 464 s 11, &
27 1981 c 310 s 15 are each repealed.

[bobcat]

Another thing in HB1796 is that non-law enforcement employees of the three agencies would be able to enforce and write tickets for violations of this new law.

Sec. 11. RCW 79A.05.160 and 1965 c 8 s 43.51.170 are each amended
2 to read as follows:
3 (1) The members of the ((state parks and recreation)) commission
4 and ((such of)) its designated employees ((as the commission may
5 designate)) shall be vested with police powers to enforce the laws of
6 this state.
7 (2) The director may, under the provisions of section 9 of this
8 act, enter into an agreement allowing employees of the department of
9 natural resources and the department of fish and wildlife to enforce
10 certain civil infractions created under this title.

[Sumpnneedskillin]

I don't believe it's $30 for each vehicle. That just wouldn't make sense.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622.pdf
Page 2 line 26

(2) Cost of the discover pass is thirty dollars per vehicle.

Yes I have read that, but I don't see where it says you can't transfer from one vehicle to another. Just like the current access permit for WDFW lands, you hang it from the rear view mirror in whatever vehicle you are driving that day.

Pg 3 line 1
(6) The discover pass must contain space for the vehicle license plate number.

Yes, this bill also repeals RCW 77.32.380 which allows you to transfer the pass between two vehicles. (pg 1 line 5)

The way I read it is 1 vehicle per pass.  I can see problems already.

[Elkaholic daWg]

I cant hunt in state parks, so why should my money support them?

Your money is already supporting them. Your tax money that goes to the state goes into the general fund which State Parks gets funding from.

 Okay then why should we  pay MORE to support them? Hunters and anglers should get complementary passes W/O 40 hours of slavery. And this BS.  (below) We get 7 1/2% they get 85%
 



"Improves public safety , by giving law enforcement officers from each agency the authority to issue natural resource infractions on land managed by any of the agencies."

 Ah, the PC catch phrase...public safety
 Could someone please tell me how THIS improves public safety???

[Ray]

I'm not trying to attack law enforcement but my experience with them is that they prefer to cite for petty infractions instead of following up with things like vehicle break ins, property damage, and similar sort of incidents.

As an observation: When the Northwest Forest Pass was being touted as a solution to economic shortfall inside the National Forest they used the example of better enforcement, improved trailheads and that phrase "improved public safety". To this date (it's been about 10 years) there has been zero improved public safety as a result of that Northwest Forest Pass.

I wrote my senator already.

[Elkaholic daWg]

   From my thread in General discussion............................




  DFW and DNR land have always brought in revenue, now Parks?? So now won't it be just great when DFW, DNR, and the parks are one unit   Where will 85% of the money go? while the DFW enforcement has become the red headed step child of the WSP?

  I read in the bill (house version) where you would get a complementary pass for 40 hours community service.
 Now to get money from EVERYONE  (Who they now don't) using DFW,DNR land...That would be OK
 How far can they go before we rebel??



What I sent to my Reps



 
The following message was sent to Senator Val Stevens (R), Representative Dan Kristiansen (R) and Representative Kirk Pearson (R) of the 39th district.
TO:      Senator Val Stevens
     
CC:      Representative Dan Kristiansen
Representative Kirk Pearson
     
FROM:      James Zielasko
     
STREET ADDRESS:      
     Arlington, WA 98223-6729
     
EMAIL:  
     
PHONE:      
     
BILL:      5622 (Against)
     
SUBJECT:      SB 5622, and HB1796 Need Changes
     
MESSAGE:   I, as many hunters, am against this bill as it stands, whereas those of us who actually have been paying our way (Anglers,Hunters) by putting out our money to use state land for our recreation through our licenses tags and access permits (complementary with licenses). For how long have we been the ONLY ones paying to play and now we will be expected to pay another $30 on top of our already inflated licenses,tags, special permit application, which will come to well over $100.

I don't have a problem with us paying for our use of these lands as we have been. What I do have a problem with is that I haven't used a Washington state park in many years, but 85% of this money I will be forced to pay would go there, while my lands of use will get 15%!
This bill needs to be tweaked to allow for complementary discover passes for those who already spend their hard earned money on DFW licenses, Tags As it is now.
There are too many users of these lands that pay NOTHING,that do much more damage to these lands than sportsmen!
Please tweak Sb5622, and Hb (Kirk,Dan)1796 to allow for complementary passes for sportsmen!

Thank You

Arlington washington 98223
     
RESPONSE:      James has requested a response to this message.

 

[bearpaw]

It's just another tax, to balance the budget they need to look at cuts in unproductve programs. 

[bobcat]

Good letter Elkaholic. I also wrote one to my Senator that was very similar to what you wrote. I also asked if it would be $30 for every vehicle, or if the permit would be transferable from vehicle to vehicle.

[jager]

With all this talk of enforcement, ticket writing and patrols......clearly east differs from west.

[billythekidrock]

so what exactly is capital forest?  does it apply to there?

DNR and yes it would apply there.

How are they going to enforce this pass?
There are not enough officers (or time) to check people on a regular basis in the CF so the only way they will be able to "enforce" this is through the occasional contacts on the occasion that the officer is in the CF.

I don't understand the whole "how are they going to enforce? questions. Currently one of the most commonly written tickets by WDFW Officers is not having the Vehicle Use Permit. How would simply changing the permit name change the level of enforcement? It will actually increase enforcement level. Currently only WDFW Officers enforce the permits, you would now have DNR and WDFW Officers enforcing the permits on their land. So how would they enforce it? The same way they have for past 10 years.

That is my point. I don't see the enforcement of the current use permit. Maybe it is the most common citation, but I don't think they write enough. Enforce the laws and penalties we have. Don't create more.

I feel that these citations will be low on the totem pole as far as enforcement goes when compared to poaching game or timber. Just look at the cell phone laws. Lots of tickets written but yet you see it done all the time. Not enough tickets written in my opinion. They just don't generate enough revenue. Same is will be true with this issue. Not enough revenue (or federal money) to justify the paperwork and tickets for no pass will not be as glamorous when compared drugs or tresspassing.

Right now you have x amount of F&W officers that enforce wildlife (and other laws).
You also have x amount of DNR enforcement that enforce forest practice laws (and other laws?).
If combined you will have F&W enforce wildlife and forest practice laws as well as other laws.
You will also have DNR enforcing forest practice laws and wildlife laws as well as other laws. Basically you put more work on everyones plate.
And that is not even mentioning F&W enforcement going to WSP.

Believe me, if I thought they could enforce it (and it kept yahoos out of the woods) I would support it. I would have to give up something as my budget only allows so much, but I could get on board if I thought it would keep dumpers/homeless/etc. out of the woods.

[bigtex]

Another thing in HB1796 is that non-law enforcement employees of the three agencies would be able to enforce and write tickets for violations of this new law.

Sec. 11. RCW 79A.05.160 and 1965 c 8 s 43.51.170 are each amended
2 to read as follows:
3 (1) The members of the ((state parks and recreation)) commission
4 and ((such of)) its designated employees ((as the commission may
5 designate)) shall be vested with police powers to enforce the laws of
6 this state.
7 (2) The director may, under the provisions of section 9 of this
8 act, enter into an agreement allowing employees of the department of
9 natural resources and the department of fish and wildlife to enforce
10 certain civil infractions created under this title.

Thats incorrect Bobcat. That is actually how Parks police powers are written. Parks (and other agencies) will only allow certified law enforcement officers to enforce the laws. Many agencies have RCW'S that are similar but that doesn't mean the agency Bio is out citing people, it justs means the comission can designate officers to enforce laws.

[bigtex]

I'm not sure, but in reading this section, I think this woud do away with the current vehicle use permit:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. RCW 77.32.380 (Fish and wildlife lands
23 vehicle use permit--Improved access facility--Fee--Youth groups--
24 Display--Transfer between vehicles--Penalty) and 2003 c 317 s 4, 2001
25 c 243 s 1, 2000 c 107 s 271, 1998 c 87 s 1, 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 77, 1991
26 sp.s. c 7 s 12, 1988 c 36 s 52, 1987 c 506 s 90, 1985 c 464 s 11, &
27 1981 c 310 s 15 are each repealed.

Thats correct, if this passes the WDFW pass would be replaced by the new pass.

[bigtex]

As an observation: When the Northwest Forest Pass was being touted as a solution to economic shortfall inside the National Forest they used the example of better enforcement, improved trailheads and that phrase "improved public safety". To this date (it's been about 10 years) there has been zero improved public safety as a result of that Northwest Forest Pass.

Glad you brought up the Forest Pass. Congress has nothing to do with the forest pass. In all of the federal land management agencies (BLM, NPS, USFS, USFWS, USACE) there is legislation that allows each superintendent/supervisor of each area to set fees for their areas. So if Mt Rainier wanted to charge $50 to access they could, if Olympic wanted $35 they could. There is no congressional oversight or approval like you see with WDFW when they request a license increase from Olympia. Currently there is only one USFS Law Enforcement Officer assigned to every USFS Ranger District in this state, only the Randle District has two officers and Snoqualmie District has two officers, one out of the Enumclaw and North Bend Offices. So you have one USFS LEO to cover every crime/activity in each ranger district. These forest passes are mainly used to fund patrols by non-gun carrying "Forest Protection Officers". FPO's are essentially USFS workers that can write tickets for USFS violations (campgrounds, fire, litter, etc). So the USFS worker emptying the garbage can may have the authority to write you a federal citation. These FPOs are usually the ones writing the parking tickets for no trailhead pass, no sno-park permit or not paying camping fees. This leaves the actual officers to investigate more serious offenses. So it really is hard to tell how much more enforcement there is with the USFS because in reality every USFS worker could cite if they attended the proper training. However there is a big difference between LEO and FPO.

[Ray]

Yes, I am glad I brought it up too. It really points out that there are too many agencies looking for a buck without trimming their budgets and it underscores the problem of too many taxes. There are so many similarities between the forest pass and this new proposed pass that I am sure that it stinks because I've seen it all before.

In an actual business which is responsible for generating revenue and working within budgetary limitations there are ramifications for not meeting budget goals and requirements.

What you have have essentially described is that the forest pass has created more bureacrats to merely enforce revenue generation. Except now when they retire the taxpayers have to foot the bill for more personell expected to reach retirement.