Free: Contests & Raffles.
My I like SB5998. It fixes the transferrability problem (which is the only sure thing to pass somehow) and Limits a Discover Pass on DNR land to real, honest-to-goodness DEVELOPED sites. Now the DNR requires the pass everywhere they decide--whether there are facilities or not. This bill needs more sponsors!What about SB5986/HB2187 which allows the vehicle use permit that comes with the purchase of hunting/fishing licenses to be used on DNR land? This is a good second choice, but I'm concerned that tribes would be completely exempt from contributing, since they cannot be charged a fee to hunt. Also, I see no problem if folks using truly developed DNR campgrounds, etc. pay more and need a real DP.Bill SB5979 looks like it defeats the whole purpose of a discover pass, and transfers most of the money from DNR recreation back to trusts (schools, prisons etc.) that get the current revenue from DNR activities.
My What about SB5986/HB2187 which allows the vehicle use permit that comes with the purchase of hunting/fishing licenses to be used on DNR land? This is a good second choice, but I'm concerned that tribes would be completely exempt from contributing, since they cannot be charged a fee to hunt.
Is there a bill out there with an exemption for hunters who purchase a hunting license? Im not going to pay another 30 bucks to hunt on state land after buying a wash state license to hunt the states wildlife.
Only a couple bills are still alive. Second Substitute HB 2737 BROADENS where the Discover Pass is needed on DNR land, changing the definition from "developed and designated" to basically all land and forest lands. As the current definition might not hold up in court (see what recently happened to the Forest Service) The new definition would basically make it ok for the DNR to do what they are currently doing, make the DP an entry fee.
As the current definition might not hold up in court (see what recently happened to the Forest Service) The new definition would basically make it ok for the DNR to do what they are currently doing, make the DP an entry fee.
All the court found is that the USFS in California was violating a part of the federal law outlining the requirements for federal agencies to charge people access to their agency lands
Quote from: bigtex on February 28, 2012, 11:50:54 AM All the court found is that the USFS in California was violating a part of the federal law outlining the requirements for federal agencies to charge people access to their agency landsFYI Tex, you've made this mistake several times now. The Federal case was in Arizona