delete

[Mudman]

I hate it. It's our land paid for with our taxes. I'll give you a different example. It's like you hired a maid to keep YOUR house clean. She/he gets greedy and decides to charge you an EXTRA $30 to use your own bathroom. Get out of MY house. YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!!!

  People seem to forget we already pay.  Just because they spend money somewhere else then cut funding for public parks etc. doesnt give em excuse to invent new fees that sound reasonable.  This fees crap is outta control.  OMG how did they handle this 20 years ago?  They spent the money they already raised from us responsibly. We were happy then right. Less fees/passes and more access 20yr ago and how quickly we forget.

[fireweed]

The idea of pay to play is fine--but the DP is horribly administered. 
Originally the DNR was supposed to limit the pass to "developed and designated recreation sites". Goldmark (DNR head) took out a map and decided to start "designating" land on paper--even timblerland without any recreation improvments.  last year Seattle changed the law. 

It is awful to charge for operating a vehicle on state land.  With all the county roads, easements, contractors, etc. this is sooooo STUPID.  Not to mention dangerous.   This is something the feds got right. Parking and Using a site only.

It's wrong for the DNR to be subsidizing the state parks.  Two passes for two agencies (Park and DNR) is a bad idea, too (as if we aren't confused enough).   
The way it is now I have to do a pass-check each time I head to the woods (discover? NW Forest? America the Beautiful? SNopark?

I would make the DP an additional small sticker for a license plate (get two stickers for $30 price).Stick it and forget it. And only enforced while parked at a DEVELOPED SITE.  Then split the $$ more fairly, maybe with a citizen oversight committee to make sure it is used for recreation.

[pianoman9701]

DP is NOT pay to play. Very little of the funding goes to the places/agencies where its use is required. This is a new tax on a small segment of our population (mostly sportsmen and women), with most of the revenues paying for services that all of our citizens use through the general fund. I'm against being singled out for a special tax for specific activities when 100% of that tax is not going directly to funding those activities.

I buy one because I'd be even more pissed if I had to pay a $99 fine.

[Knocker of rocks]

I find myself somewhat ok with it. I firmly believe people should pay costs for the things they use. Taking money out of the general coffer to cover the costs of parks and and other state lands is not really fair to the people that don't use it at all........ but I hate the fact my tax dollars are being spent on some art museum I will never set foot in. Same thing goes for sports stadiums and I love my sports

While I am very much against both the NWFP and the Discover Pass, I will point out that I disagree with your analogies.  Both parks and museums are thought of as a way to improve the quality of life of the states citizens, and to preserve nature and culture.  Just because I don't use some State Highways, should the state decrease its spending on roads in our less populace counties?

You are absolutely correct about the stadiums.  Billionaires and millionaires are holding the emotions of the  populace hostage all over (north) North America with the "new stadium or we move" mantra.  Sports is absolutely morally corrupt as a business.

[Huntbear]

I am 100% against this pass... it is double dipping on the hunters and fishermen & women... 

I do not use the state parks.  I should not have to pay for them...  There is no money coming out of the Discover Pass to help with anything on DNR wildlands.... IF it did, for example, they could use some of that money to create a shooting area in the WENAS area, vs. having to deal with meetings and homeowners filing complaints of bullets whizzing over their heads, horseback riders dealing with being shot over.. etc....    BUT, the money does not go to any of that... just to parks..   

This state can not control its own spending...  soooooooooooo lets create another fee and screw the sportsman in the state AGAIN!  Even though I never step foot in a state park..  I have to pay for it?  BS!  Let the people who use them, pay for them... if they can not work on a balanced budget.. then CLOSE THE PARKS!  When enough people get pissed off about parks closing, maybe the state will learn to manage money better....  OH WAIT... I AM TALKING ABOUT GOVERNMENT HERE... Stupid me...      I am tired of being screwed every time the state wants more money, because they can not stop spending.... 

[pianoman9701]

I find myself somewhat ok with it. I firmly believe people should pay costs for the things they use. Taking money out of the general coffer to cover the costs of parks and and other state lands is not really fair to the people that don't use it at all........ but I hate the fact my tax dollars are being spent on some art museum I will never set foot in. Same thing goes for sports stadiums and I love my sports

While I am very much against both the NWFP and the Discover Pass, I will point out that I disagree with your analogies.  Both parks and museums are thought of as a way to improve the quality of life of the states citizens, and to preserve nature and culture.  Just because I don't use some State Highways, should the state decrease its spending on roads in our less populace counties?

You are absolutely correct about the stadiums.  Billionaires and millionaires are holding the emotions of the  populace hostage all over (north) North America with the "new stadium or we move" mantra.  Sports is absolutely morally corrupt as a business.

I don't have a problem with taxes to fund art. I only have a problem with those funds coming from DP, which is required for participation in outdoor activities. If they want to fund museums, it needs to be a tax everyone pays. When they collect fees from people who use the outdoors, those funds should stay in providing the service to those outdoor activities. The way it's set up now only invites abuse and irresponsible spending. Whenever you put more money into the General Fund, they spend it.

[JohnVH]

against, mainly because it pisses me off that instead of fixing the budget problems, they keep stealing money from the people.

[Knocker of rocks]

I find myself somewhat ok with it. I firmly believe people should pay costs for the things they use. Taking money out of the general coffer to cover the costs of parks and and other state lands is not really fair to the people that don't use it at all........ but I hate the fact my tax dollars are being spent on some art museum I will never set foot in. Same thing goes for sports stadiums and I love my sports

While I am very much against both the NWFP and the Discover Pass, I will point out that I disagree with your analogies.  Both parks and museums are thought of as a way to improve the quality of life of the states citizens, and to preserve nature and culture.  Just because I don't use some State Highways, should the state decrease its spending on roads in our less populace counties?

You are absolutely correct about the stadiums.  Billionaires and millionaires are holding the emotions of the  populace hostage all over (north) North America with the "new stadium or we move" mantra.  Sports is absolutely morally corrupt as a business.

I don't have a problem with taxes to fund art. I only have a problem with those funds coming from DP, which is required for participation in outdoor activities. If they want to fund museums, it needs to be a tax everyone pays. When they collect fees from people who use the outdoors, those funds should stay in providing the service to those outdoor activities. The way it's set up now only invites abuse and irresponsible spending. Whenever you put more money into the General Fund, they spend it.

I am in complete agreement

[Annette]

As a senior Citizen I feel I've paid my share in taxes and would like a break! I'm sick of all the taxes! 

[seth30]

I am for the pass if you dont hunt, fish, or trap beacuase hikers, gatherers, etc use the lands we use as well.  I am against hunters, fisherman, and trappers getting a pass though.

[Heredoggydoggy]

The only good thing about the Discover Pass is that now the bunny-huggers have to pay to use the land.  If you buy a hunting or fishing license, you should get the pass for free.

And no, I will not now or ever buy one. 

[ghosthunter]

Good post. I agree with all of it. I have the same issues with the Discover pass, yet, like you, I agree that it's fair for people to pay for the things that they use. I think State Parks should have their own pass and DNR should have their own pass. The DNR pass should only be required if you use developed recreational sites like campgrounds and ORV trailheads/parking lots. So for most of us hunters, we would not need a pass for DNR lands, and we are already covered on Fish & Wildlife lands with the pass that comes with our hunting license. So really what it boils down to, in my opinion, is that the Discover pass should have always been only for State Parks, especially since 84% of the revenue from the sales of the pass goes to them anyway. DNR should have come up with their own pass, or some other way of charging people for using campgrounds and such on state lands.

And I agree about the current two car limit- it's still not good enough. If you buy a pass it should be valid on any vehicle you happen to be driving at the time.

 

[Skyvalhunter]

 

[lilshootergirl]

I think if we spend all this money on license & all our draws I think they should just give it to us. Also they better keep the portal pottys cleaner or I'll ask for a refund Yuk! What other fees will they ask for next year? Yes I understand were in a depression but still I paid my fees.

[Gringo31]

Our state doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.  Finding ways to squeeze more cash out of us IS NOT THE LONG TERM ANSWER!!!!

Fully against having to pay money to access public ground.