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

[bobcat]

Except the Forest Pass is only needed for parking at or in the vicinity of trailheads. If you're just hunting in the National Forest and don't park at a trailhead, you don't need the pass.

[bobcat]

I got a reply to my email back from Rep. Gary Alexander:

Thank you for contacting my office through the legislative hotline concerning SB 5622 concerning recreation access on state lands. 

Although it has had a public hearing, SB 5622 is still in committee in the Senate and I have not had an opportunity to review the proposal.  I am concerned about the lack of stable funding for our state parks.  I do not support the current opt-out program through vehicle license tabs and it is very unlikely I would support an opt-in program for the discover pass, especially without a clear vision of where the funds would go and what they would be used for.  At some point, the parks may need to develop funding sources of their own, rather than depending on an opt-in or opt-out program. 

I am also concerned about governments need to continually increase fees or establish new fees to fund state programs instead living within its means.  I am a firm believer in following the priorities of government and recognizing the economic difficulties our citizens are facing.

I appreciate you taking the time to express your views. 

[Ray]

Except the Forest Pass is only needed for parking at or in the vicinity of trailheads. If you're just hunting in the National Forest and don't park at a trailhead, you don't need the pass.

Who cares. We're talking about taking a tax based upon the premise that there are no ways to actually cut budgets and keep government agencies within reasonable boundaries or even keep them responsible for their own budgets on an individual basis. The whole idea that they all live together in a happy grab bag pool of money is a problem. The biggest problem is that it does not force each agency to be fiscally responsible. It's a scam and government employees would never cut off their own paycheck so they are less likely to object to it. Let us not forget that the real reason the Democrats want this is because they don't want to cut in other areas which are more likely to result in them losing critical votes.

I believe a true mark of reform would include ways to hold each and every agency responsible for living within a clearly established budget and have a plan to make cuts accordingly when budgets are not met. Most any agency like the DNR should have a way to generate revenue. I bet those trees they cut are not free for all. This is how business works in the real world. When a division in a company doesn't generate enough revenue they come onto the radar for being reduced or even disbanded.

Currently the situation with a big pool of cash, the agencies can play competition politics to get more than their fair share of cash. Even someone else's share whether or not they should.

[bobcat]

While I'm not sure I agree with all the details of this proposed access pass, I still think user fees are a good idea, and probably necessary if we want to keep all the state parks and state lands open. I would rather see separate user fees for state parks, DNR, and DFW lands. I don't use state parks so I shouldn't have to pay. I use WDFW lands occasionally and my hunting license fees should cover that use. DNR lands I use more than anything else and there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free. I really think DNR should begin charging for the campground use, and trail use. Capital Forest gets a lot of use by motorcyclists and mountain bikers. There's no reason they shouldn't be paying something for that, since DNR spends a lot of money on maintaining trails and campgrounds. I would rather see fees charged for that type of use than for somebody just driving through the forest.

[Ray]

there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free.

Maybe they should cut more trees or trim some fat if you ask me.

[Boss .300 winmag]

While I'm not sure I agree with all the details of this proposed access pass, I still think user fees are a good idea, and probably necessary if we want to keep all the state parks and state lands open. I would rather see separate user fees for state parks, DNR, and DFW lands. I don't use state parks so I shouldn't have to pay. I use WDFW lands occasionally and my hunting license fees should cover that use. DNR lands I use more than anything else and there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free. I really think DNR should begin charging for the campground use, and trail use. Capital Forest gets a lot of use by motorcyclists and mountain bikers. There's no reason they shouldn't be paying something for that, since DNR spends a lot of money on maintaining trails and campgrounds. I would rather see fees charged for that type of use than for somebody just driving through the forest.

ORV tabs cover some of the DNR stuff.

[bobcat]

there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free.

Maybe they should cut more trees or trim some fat if you ask me.

Timber sale money does not go for maintenance of recreational trails and campgrounds. The timber sale revenue goes directly to schools. Cut more trees? I'm not sure they can cut at a faster pace than what they've been doing. Have you seen the new clearcuts everywhere on DNR lands? And fat? Maybe there is none. The DNR is only going to get 7 1/2% of this money anyway. I suppose they could eliminate the employees who maintain the campgrounds and trails, and just shut them down.   

[cougkilr]

there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free.

Maybe they should cut more trees or trim some fat if you ask me.

Fat? I agree Bobcat, what FAT are you referring to Ray? 

[Wacenturion]

While I'm not sure I agree with all the details of this proposed access pass, I still think user fees are a good idea, and probably necessary if we want to keep all the state parks and state lands open. I would rather see separate user fees for state parks, DNR, and DFW lands. I don't use state parks so I shouldn't have to pay. I use WDFW lands occasionally and my hunting license fees should cover that use. DNR lands I use more than anything else and there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free. I really think DNR should begin charging for the campground use, and trail use. Capital Forest gets a lot of use by motorcyclists and mountain bikers. There's no reason they shouldn't be paying something for that, since DNR spends a lot of money on maintaining trails and campgrounds. I would rather see fees charged for that type of use than for somebody just driving through the forest.

Whenever there is a budget crisis, agencies throw out the kind of cuts that get knee jerk reactions from the user groups.  The agency believes that gives them additional legislative support in a backdoor way from complaining users that write their legislators.  Always the first way to approach budget problems.  Cut hatcheries, cut game farms, cut use of areas, whatever pisses users off and force this game to begin.

How about actually looking at department programs and get rid of some of the johnny come lately programs that do very little for the resource or the public.  That would be too responsible I guess.  Just easier to keep raising fees and losing your base.    

[bigtex]

Except the Forest Pass is only needed for parking at or in the vicinity of trailheads. If you're just hunting in the National Forest and don't park at a trailhead, you don't need the pass.

Thats true however if the USFS wanted to they could charge the fee for just access into the forest and would not have to report to anybody regarding the matter. It is just like how most national parks require an acess fee. With the anticipated declining federal budget I wouldn't be surprised if the federal land management agencies started to create new passes or increase fees.

[bobcat]

Whenever there is a budget crisis, agencies throw out the kind of cuts that get knee jerk reactions from the user groups.  The agency believes that gives them additional legislative support in a backdoor way from complaining users that write their legislators.  Always the first way to approach budget problems.  Cut hatcheries, cut game farms, cut use of areas, whatever pisses users off and force this game to begin.

Actually, you mentioned hatcheries, what if they eliminated all the trout hatcheries that are nothing but put and take fisheries, and mostly I don't think they're even stocking native fish. It's always seemed like such a waste to me. To put so many trout in these small lakes just so people can go out on opening day and catch eight little trout each, or whatever the limit currently is. I wonder how much money that would save. I'd rather see them spending money on salmon and steelhead hatcheries. Or even sea-run cutthroat, or any species that once stocked, can sustain their population, without having to be replenished before the next year's season begins.

[Wacenturion]

Whenever there is a budget crisis, agencies throw out the kind of cuts that get knee jerk reactions from the user groups.  The agency believes that gives them additional legislative support in a backdoor way from complaining users that write their legislators.  Always the first way to approach budget problems.  Cut hatcheries, cut game farms, cut use of areas, whatever pisses users off and force this game to begin.

Actually, you mentioned hatcheries, what if they eliminated all the trout hatcheries that are nothing but put and take fisheries, and mostly I don't think they're even stocking native fish. It's always seemed like such a waste to me. To put so many trout in these small lakes just so people can go out on opening day and catch eight little trout each, or whatever the limit currently is. I wonder how much money that would save. I'd rather see them spending money on salmon and steelhead hatcheries. Or even sea-run cutthroat, or any species that once stocked, can sustain their population, without having to be replenished before the next year's season begins.

That might be true, but before you assume anything, you would have to look at an economic assessment of put and take trout fishing.  How many license dollars to the agency does it generate, how many man hours of fishing, how much in retail sales can be attributed to it to mention a few.

Your like or dislike of any fish or wildlife activity may or may not be what others think of it.  Do salmon and steelhead hatchery releases sustain themselves?  Many probably consider them put and take.  Some folks would like to see every hatchery closed period....only wild fish.  That would greatly reduce opportunity in many cases.

My point was, instead of regulating away actual participation of users in the field whether you or I participate in it or not, we don't want eliminate it, if it pays for itself.  What needs to be cut is managerial waste and unnecessary programs that whether we manage them or not, nothing changes. 

[Sumpnneedskillin]

Except the Forest Pass is only needed for parking at or in the vicinity of trailheads. If you're just hunting in the National Forest and don't park at a trailhead, you don't need the pass.

Thats true however if the USFS wanted to they could charge the fee for just access into the forest and would not have to report to anybody regarding the matter. It is just like how most national parks require an acess fee. With the anticipated declining federal budget I wouldn't be surprised if the federal land management agencies started to create new passes or increase fees.

When I was stationed in San Diego you had to have an "Adventure Pass" anywhere in the NF down there.  $30 a yr, $5 for a second pass and $5 per day pass.  You had to have it displayed anywhere you were parked in the NF boundaries.  Those monies were used for NF improvements (trail maint, trailhead signs, camp ground maint etc).  The FS LEO's would issue tickets to people for not having them.  Not sure of what the fine was.

[bobcat]

That might be true, but before you assume anything, you would have to look at an economic assessment of put and take trout fishing.  How many license dollars to the agency does it generate, how many man hours of fishing, how much in retail sales can be attributed to it to mention a few.

Just an idea. I always thought it was odd that they would dump tons of rainbow trout in some of the lakes around here, not even considering the native trout that were already there. One of the local lakes that I'm familiar with used to have a population of native cutthroat trout. We used to catch one occasionally but in the later years that I fished there never saw one. I assume they are now extinct in that lake. Kind of a shame to let a native species go extinct so the state can treat it like a commercial fish farming operation.

[Hangfire]

The fish hatcheries are one of the few state ran operations that bring money into the economy. Te hatcheries are not nearly as efficient as they used to be with more employee's to produce the same thing. That said they bring more money in than it takes to operate. Ten years ago the value of as sport caught steel head to the economy was in the $300 dollar range.

The people of the state are wanting to fish as evident by the numbers fishing these little road side gravel pits for some fish.It is often a family outing that produces some thing
they can take home and eat.

Hatcheries began because the native fish could not keep up with demand. Most people wouldn't know a wild fish if they saw it. I used to be friends with the manager (now deceased) of the little Colville hatchery . I was one time fish Trout Lake in Ferry county. This other angler came up and exclaimed how he liked to fish for these native fish not those terrible soft, tasteless hatchery fish. When I told him the rainbow in Trout lake were planted as fry from the hatchery he became angry almost combative. He knew wild fish when he saw them. The hatcheries produce a lot more than legal sized trout.

If hunters/fisherman had the $30 fee reduced by the declared value of the access fee for the launches and only paid the difference it might be acceptable.

BOBCAT- what is the name of the lake that used to have native cutthroat? There has been a lot of changes in the planting program, are you sure they were not hatchery fish planted as fry? I know there are some native cutthroat around but not a lot.

The Cowlitz River is one place where the hatchery fish are being reduced to protect native Sea-Run Cutts. The hatchery Sea-Runs are not being recycled back into the river to protect some very small populations of native Sea-Runs down stream from the hatchery in small tributaries. I used to fish the Cowlitz a lot for Sea-Runs it was one of the most successful Sea-Run fisheries in the state.