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

[kenbell27]

I remember watching steelhead in Lake Lois.

I used to fish off of the culverts that ran under Carpenter Road when i was a kid but never saw  a Stealhead, Probably woudnt have known what to do when if i hooked in to one back then.      When i was was in highschool we planted Salmon in the creek that feeds Lake Lois. I wonder if there is still any fish in it.

[Boss .300 winmag]

They've already sold several State Parks that I know of.  It's amazing how private business can make a profit on parks but the State just seems to F it up........   Couldn't be due to the state employee unions and the high wages the State has to pay the employees..... 

Say it ain't so.

[Klyne3]

so then after reading some on this I still have a question since I already pay to play would this pass take place of the pass I already purchase for Evan's creek ORV park?

[Wazukie]

so then after reading some on this I still have a question since I already pay to play would this pass take place of the pass I already purchase for Evan's creek ORV park?

No it wouldn't as Evens Creek is National Forest Land, it sits just outside the national park, at least for now.

[billythekidrock]

What *censored* politician proposed "40 volunteer hours" to the low income in exchange for the $30 pass. Basically $0.70 an hour? 

[Skyvalhunter]

What the hell you might as well put in coin collections at the toilets to generate more funds for the "general Fund" to help pay for all the stupid lawsuits cropping up.

[jackmaster]

well what the hell is that yellow pass we get when we buy are huntn licenses, is that a vehicle user permit? this is B.S. WTF, getn tired of the raping the hunters and fishers. time to rape the tree huggers and such for awhile, make them pay a 100$ for a tree huggn license, or all the damn brush pickers a 200$ brush raping license

[bobcat]

Well, it hasn't been yellow for quite some time now, but the vehicle use pass is for WDFW wildlife areas and boat launches. This new proposed pass is for WDFW lands, DNR lands, and State Parks. It would be required if you are anywhere on DNR or WDFW land. The current vehicle use pass is only required at designated sites. The proposed pass would be fine with me if it were free with the purchase of a hunting or fishing license (or at least discounted by at least half.)

[Sumpnneedskillin]

I'd be more willing to accept it if the money was split evenly.  However it isn't.  Parks gets 85% of the money.  I'd also be more willing to accept it if you could share it between two vehicles.  But the way this bill is written right now you have to have a pass for each vehicle.

Here's something else to ponder.  If you didn't have a fishing or hunting  license and wanted to use the designated areas for hiking, wildlife watching etc you had to have a pass.  You went and bought one for $12.  So DFW got $12 from that purchase.  If this bill passes DFW will only get $2.50 for that pass.  So here's another place that DFW is losing revenue.

[bobcat]

I think they must be counting on more people buying this pass, so even though the DFW only gets $2.25 per pass, overall they will get at least as much money as before. But probably a lot more. There are a lot more people that use state parks that will now have to buy this pass. The DFW never got money from those people before.

I do agree- you should be able to swap the pass from one vehicle to another.

I have four vehicles so that means I have to pay $120?    

[Sumpnneedskillin]

I think they're hoping everyone will buy one.

It's doesn't appear that they learned the first time.  $5 for day use at State Parks and everyone stayed away.  Now you want to make it $30!  Talk about driving people away.  I think that what will happen is after the initial rush of enforcement people will risk the $99 ticket.  Especially if they're in some of those out of the way areas because manpower is lacking to send someone to visit every area every day.

I know we need to do something, but I don't think robbing Peter to pay Paul or bending your customers over is the answer.  What is the answer?  Not sure, but I do know that we need to share the wealth  hunters, fishermen, wildlife watchers, hikers etc all need to pay, not just 1 or 2 groups.  Also how do you do it effectively and efficiently ie the balance between rules and enforcment and still get the most bang for your buck?

Do you raise the vehicle license fee by a $1 in the name of resource conservation and give .33 to each branch (DFW, DNR and Parks)?

Do you start a new lotto game (scratch off, card game etc) and use the money there for resources?

Do you impose a tax/fee on new recreation vehicles (RV's, ATV's, boats etc) for resources?

What ever decision is made it's not going to make everyone happy.

[Special T]

I'm all for paying your own way... You could convince me that an extra $2.5 to help expand/improve existing WDFW areas might do some good... Many of us hunter will likely foot the bill that these clowns are throwing at us... It will keep the WA parks open, but it will decimate their numbers. That is how they justify a parks existence... Some parks do really well on numbers. I know the Potholes State park has lots of paying visitors... There are several others that have lots of visitorship... Some of the state parks on the West side have marginal numbers to justify their existence before a fee... Many E side WA parks make $14-$28 per day per campsite... They are packed in the summer and may pay for themselves... Many require a reservation MANY months in advance. I know that Lake Pearrygin required us to make a reservation 4 month in advance to secure and unimproved camp site. They are a destination and as such peoples other options are to go to a private campground... Many West side State parks are not necessarily a camping destination. I would wager that their busy season is much smaller than many in E WA, where the weather is more cooperative.
The bottom line is state parks Compete for our TIME and $$$ just like everything else. It is likely time to thin the herd and get lean.

[Sumpnneedskillin]

I think the Lewiston Tribune had an article the past couple of weeks about this.  If I remember correctly they said only 4 state parks make money.  The other state parks are subsidized to remain open.

[Special T]

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010429&slug=judd29

Sunday, April 29, 2001
State parks become land of the fee
One thing is clear about recreating in 21st Century America: You're going to need a bigger windshield.

Not to block bugs. Just to placate the police.

Most of you who even occasionally walk across, climb up, ski down or snooze upon your public lands probably have an impressive lower-windshield sticker lineup: One for the Forest Service, one for State Sno-Parks, one or more for whomever manages your other favorite outdoor haunts. (Which incidentally leads us to wonder: Isn't it time for a strategic window-decal alliance between the U.S. Forest Service and Jiffy Lube?)

Clear some space, folks, for the new one: Your Washington State Parks day-use parking pass, available soon at a local retailer.

The smoke has cleared in Olympia, and the deed has been done: Starting Jan. 1, it will cost you $5 a day, or $30 a year, to suck a Slurpee at Saltwater State Park, fly a kite at Fort Flagler, or pluck a clam at Penrose Point.

This should come as something less than a surprise. We're already well down the road to becoming the pay-as-you go state.

It takes neither a genius nor a blue-ribbon panel to look at Washington government and conclude that the costs of serving critical needs of a burgeoning population - schools, roads, ferries, bridges, social services, corporate welfare for billionaire sports-franchise owners, etc. - far outstrip available money to pay for them, particularly given recent tax-and-spend limits imposed by voters.

State Parks are an instructive, but by no means unique, example of how this all trickles down to campfire-pit level - and burns a hole in the bottom of your shoe.

Like many state agencies, State Parks was hit in the '90s by the double whammy of skyrocketing use and declining revenues from the state general fund. The choice: Cut service, or charge more for it.

Unfortunately - and perhaps contrary to popular belief - there wasn't a lot of fat left to trim from state parks, where knife struck bone years ago. Further sawing would have created nothing short of severed limbs.

Several years ago, this prompted citizen members of the State Parks and Recreation Commission to issue a dire warning: Give the parks the money they need to survive, or we'll be forced to close some. A lot of them, in fact.

That created a fair amount of outrage - much of it emanating from this column, which wondered out loud: How can a state pretend to offer a high quality of life, but turn its back on the very natural heritage that makes it unique? And doesn't anyone even give a rip?

Some people did. Hundreds responded, and a dozen or more were angry enough to actually do something. They got busy, volunteered their time, and formed the first state parks citizens' lobby group - an effort nothing short of heroic, which continues in Olympia today.

But in an era of rising costs and failing revenues, the best they've been able to do is stave off further degradation - and keep those parks on the closure list open.

That's a major accomplishment. But the truth is that not enough of the rest of us have risen to back them up at crunch time. Further, and even more sobering: No amount of lobby power is likely to channel money toward "expendable" services such as beaches, forests and campgrounds as long the state's regressive, fundamentally-flawed revenue structure fails to pay for even basic human services.

The result - for better or worse, largely of our own making - stares us in the face today: A daily parking-fee system for nearly 100 state parks (see www.parks.wa.gov/public.asp for a full roster) - a list that likely includes your favorite.

Tough to argue with Parks Commissioners' reasoning: They had no choice, they said, short of dragging that parks-closure hit list back out of the drawer.

What does it all mean?

It means roughly $4 million a year in new revenue will help prop up State Parks' $90 million annual budget - likely keeping all parks open with at least basic services.

It means if you fail to pay the kitty, you'll get a $45 parking ticket.

It means Washington's most magnificent natural places, in spite of the inarguable role they play in what we're all about, will continue to rate a near-zero on our public priority list - receiving less than one-fourth of one percent of the total state budget.

It means state legislator's list of "basic public services" no longer includes free, open access to the few remaining islands of nature in an increasingly asphalt world.

And it means we, through our longstanding and dutiful ignorance, acquiescence and silence, agree with them.

Pay-as-you-go. It's become as much a part of the Northwest persona as picnics at Potlatch. Not such a bad concept, perhaps - at least it accurately describes how we've evolved.

Those who can pay, after all, still get to go. And to hell with the rest of ya.

[BlackRidge]

HMMMMMM doesnt that defeat the entire idea of the parks system? A free, natural retreat for all Americans to enjoy?