DNR Lands Requiring A Discover Pass

[fireweed]

All this confusion stems from the DNR more so than the WDFW or even state parks.  Go the the Washington state Legislature website, to TVWA and listen to the old meetings on the Pass.  Everyone pretty much figured it would work like the NW forest pass and for PARKING in developed sites like campgrounds, trailheads, picnic areas--not an entry fee.  Even Rep. Brian Blake who helped sponsor the bill believed it was for developed sites.  The problem was the wording  "designated recreation areas". Sounds like trailheads to me, but to the DNR it means any land they "designate" on paper--with or without developed facilities.   Goldmark needs to be a one-term land commissioner for this double-cross.

[bobcat]

All this confusion stems from the DNR more so than the WDFW or even state parks.  Go the the Washington state Legislature website, to TVWA and listen to the old meetings on the Pass.  Everyone pretty much figured it would work like the NW forest pass and for PARKING in developed sites like campgrounds, trailheads, picnic areas--not an entry fee.  Even Rep. Brian Blake who helped sponsor the bill believed it was for developed sites.  The problem was the wording  "designated recreation areas". Sounds like trailheads to me, but to the DNR it means any land they "designate" on paper--with or without developed facilities.   Goldmark needs to be a one-term land commissioner for this double-cross.

 
It should only be "developed" sites. Trailheads, campgrounds, picnic areas, and such. For those types of things there should be a fee. But just for logging areas that were not specifically developed and are not maintained for the purpose of recreation, why is the pass required?

[Curly]

All this confusion stems from the DNR more so than the WDFW or even state parks.  Go the the Washington state Legislature website, to TVWA and listen to the old meetings on the Pass.  Everyone pretty much figured it would work like the NW forest pass and for PARKING in developed sites like campgrounds, trailheads, picnic areas--not an entry fee.  Even Rep. Brian Blake who helped sponsor the bill believed it was for developed sites.  The problem was the wording  "designated recreation areas". Sounds like trailheads to me, but to the DNR it means any land they "designate" on paper--with or without developed facilities.   Goldmark needs to be a one-term land commissioner for this double-cross.

 
It should only be "developed" sites. Trailheads, campgrounds, picnic areas, and such. For those types of things there should be a fee. But just for logging areas that were not specifically developed and are not maintained for the purpose of recreation, why is the pass required?

  X10000

[bigtex]

All this confusion stems from the DNR more so than the WDFW or even state parks.  Go the the Washington state Legislature website, to TVWA and listen to the old meetings on the Pass.  Everyone pretty much figured it would work like the NW forest pass and for PARKING in developed sites like campgrounds, trailheads, picnic areas--not an entry fee.  Even Rep. Brian Blake who helped sponsor the bill believed it was for developed sites.  The problem was the wording  "designated recreation areas". Sounds like trailheads to me, but to the DNR it means any land they "designate" on paper--with or without developed facilities.   Goldmark needs to be a one-term land commissioner for this double-cross.

I have an issue with this statement.

Section three of the bill states: "A discover pass is required for any motor vehicle to park or operate on any recreation site or lands,". So it says right there in the bill PARK OR OPERATE. To me it sounds like Blake is passing blame, or didn't read the bill as it was passed.

Also, in regards to the DNR designated recreation sites, the bill lists DNR areas where it is required. ""Recreation site or lands" means....department of natural resources developed or designated recreation areas, sites, trailheads, and parking areas." Had the intention of the bill only been to be DNR trailheads and parking areas they should have only included the trailheads and parking areas and not included the developed or designated recreation areas because that basically opened up a lot of lot for DNR to designate.

I have a lot of issues with legislators who pass bills then go back and say "hey that's not how it's suppose to be!". Well maybe you should have written the bill better!. This is NOT DNR, WDFW, or Parks fault for interpreting the language of the bill, if the leg only wanted trailheads they should have only said trailheads, and if they only wanted it for parking they should have made it only required for parking and not operating!

[Elk whack master]

This pass is making me so,so,soooooo................

[Raul Duke]

If you've got a fishing or hunting license, you're good to go on our (WDFW) lands. But if you're NOT a licensed fisher or hunter, OR if you plan to use State Parks or DNR lands, you'll need a Discover Pass................The penalty for not having a Discover Pass where required is $99, reduced to $59 if you provide proof of purchase of Pass to the court within 15 days after the notice of violation.

Fishing & hunting license dollars do NOT support State Parks and DNR -- that's why fishers & hunters who use those lands must buy the pass, too.


This is off ther FB page.   
I almost miss read it, and thought we (hunters) didn't need one. 

[fireweed]

Here's another reason I think the whole intent of the pass was changed along the line from Parking to Operating.  Have you guys noticed folks driving around (even on state Hwy. and county roads) near DNR/DWF with those big hangtags off their mirrors.  According to the website that is how the pass is suppose to be displayed.  These big tags block alot of view of traffic and can't possibly be safe to "Opperate" with.   Wouldn't even be surprised if you could get a ticket for driving with them as an unsafe condition. If they truely would have been thinking operate all along, the pass would be a little sticker in the corner of the windshield.  (But, then again that could be the plan, make them required, but make them illegal!!! Double-dipping with fines).

[bigtex]

Here's another reason I think the whole intent of the pass was changed along the line from Parking to Operating.  Have you guys noticed folks driving around (even on state Hwy. and county roads) near DNR/DWF with those big hangtags off their mirrors.  According to the website that is how the pass is suppose to be displayed.  These big tags block alot of view of traffic and can't possibly be safe to "Opperate" with.   Wouldn't even be surprised if you could get a ticket for driving with them as an unsafe condition. If they truely would have been thinking operate all along, the pass would be a little sticker in the corner of the windshield.  (But, then again that could be the plan, make them required, but make them illegal!!! Double-dipping with fines).

The intent NEVER changed. I don't think you guys understand what I am saying. From day one the bill said that it is required to operate your vehicle on certain lands. This is not as if DNR and WDFW suddenly decided to drive on their lands that you need the pass.

But I do agree, I think there should be a sticker just like the sno-park pass.

[NWHydroprint]

Better yet get rid of the pass and make all WA departments learn to live within there budgets or layoff people like any other business. Instead of creating fees to fund their over spending.
NWH

[fireweed]

It's interesting to go the the Washington State Legislature website and see the push-and-pull between the agencies and the legislature over the definition of "reacreation site and lands".  It starts very broad--basically anything the agencies say:
 "Recreation site or lands" means those areas of state-owned or managed lands designated by an agency where the discover pass or day-
 use permit is required.

Than after comments and concerns by legislators and public it changes to in the 1st substitute:
"Recreation site or lands" means a state park or any area
managed by an agency for outdoor recreation or fish and wildlife
conservation including water access areas, boat ramps, wildlife areas,
parking areas, roads, trailheads, and trails under ownership,
 management, lease, or control of the agency, or "public lands" as
 defined in RCW 79.02.010.

But this really didn't tighten the definition, so there was even still more push back to clarify that it was for developed sites: 2nd substitute bill
"Recreation site or lands" means a state park or fish and
 wildlife conservation sites including water access areas, boat ramps,
wildlife areas, parking areas, roads, and trailheads, or department of
natural resources developed or designated recreation areas, sites,
trailheads, and parking areas.

This is the language that passed. You can see the legislature and public comment is trying to limit the areas requiring a pass throughout the process. Afterall, If they wanted all state forests and all DNR lands to need a pass, why doesn't just say so???  I think the smoke and mirrors and wiggle room was intentional. So what did we get? What the agencies (especially the DNR) wanted all along, and what they first proposed: Basically anythere they say it's needed.

[washelkhunter]

We are almost being labeled as criminals just for being alive and walking the earth

[JJD]

Better yet get rid of the pass and make all WA departments learn to live within there budgets or layoff people like any other business. Instead of creating fees to fund their over spending.
NWH

[danderson]

   As far as I'm concerned when I buy a hunting licence, or fishing licence I just paid for the right  to use the national forests and DNR lands, the discover pass should be required for people that don't support the program through normal permits such as these, at this rate everytime an agency mismanages there spending there create a new pass mentality will be forced on us rather than fix the problem, that's usually bureaucratic fat cats being over paid and under worked.

[Gringo31]

Was looking at their website and they still don't have it straight.  Two different maps saying two different things.  I'm mostly referring to the SE part of the state.

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_rec_discover_pass_statewide_map.pdf

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_rec_dnr_gmu_hunting.pdf

So....which one is it??

[RifleRidge]

I wonder how many people were sited for no pass on opening deer hunt weekend?..