Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 09:13:58 AM
Senate Bill 5080 would allow holders of the WDFW access pass to ALSO access DNR lands with the WDFW Pass. Essentially meaning the only areas hunters/fishers couldn't go without purchasing a Discover Pass is State Parks.
As of right now there is only ONE sponsor for this bill, Republican Senator Doug Erickson. If you want this bill to pass I highly suggest you contact your state Senator to either a) support the bill, or b) become a co-sponsor. As of right now there is no similar bill in the House.
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5080&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5080&year=2013)
Post by: huntnphool on January 17, 2013, 09:22:47 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on January 17, 2013, 09:23:17 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 09:26:24 AM
Post by: huntrights on January 17, 2013, 09:28:02 AM
http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/
Message of support sent. :tup:
Writing your reps only takes a couple of minutes, and it makes a BIG difference.
Bigtex,
Thanks for keeping us informed about new legislation that needs our support or opposition.
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 09:28:10 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 17, 2013, 09:30:26 AM
Post by: walt on January 17, 2013, 09:37:35 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 17, 2013, 09:48:12 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 09:53:26 AM
I'd probably even buy a discover pass and start using the State Parks again if this passes. I'm fine with pay to play. The main reason I haven't and won't is out of spite...I think that sentiment is probably shared by many hunters, and thus there would be some additional revenues that may not be considered should this occur. It's a slap in the face to hunters to have to pay twice.
Post by: lokidog on January 17, 2013, 10:17:01 AM
I'd probably even buy a discover pass and start using the State Parks again if this passes. I'm fine with pay to play. The main reason I haven't and won't is out of spite...I think that sentiment is probably shared by many hunters, and thus there would be some additional revenues that may not be considered should this occur. It's a slap in the face to hunters to have to pay twice.
X2 Although I just found out my wife bought one to go to one of the island state parks for a school field trip. And here I was avoiding DNR land last year. :o
Post by: sirmissalot on January 17, 2013, 12:36:24 PM
Post by: luvtohnt on January 17, 2013, 01:05:29 PM
What's the logic on believing we should still have to pay to use state parks?
Because it costs a LOT of money to keep them maintained, and facilities up to date. :dunno:
I also have no problem paying to access state parks, but I avoided any DNR land like it was the plauge. I would be willing to buy a discover pass as well if we can go on DNR with the WDFW pass. Like mentioned above I avoided the purchase out of spite.
Brandon
Post by: Tom Reichner on January 17, 2013, 01:21:58 PM
This IS going to be an uphill battle 1) there is currently only one sponsor to this bill, usually the more sponsors the better the chance the bill has of passing 2) there is going to be a significant amount of loss revenue, where are they going to make that up at?A few years ago, I didn't have to pay for a pass to go to these areas. Now, I do. That results in a significant (for me) loss of funds . . where am I going to make up for that?
Post by: washelkhunter on January 17, 2013, 01:29:29 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 01:30:11 PM
This IS going to be an uphill battle 1) there is currently only one sponsor to this bill, usually the more sponsors the better the chance the bill has of passing 2) there is going to be a significant amount of loss revenue, where are they going to make that up at?A few years ago, I didn't have to pay for a pass to go to these areas. Now, I do. That results in a significant (for me) loss of funds . . where am I going to make up for that?
Unfortunately "pay to play" is the name of the game now days. I know I'll be bashed for this, but compared to how much we spend every year on licenses, gear, food for trips, gas for scouting, and hunting trips, $30 for a Discover Pass wasn't much. Considering $30 probably gives me less then a 1/3 of a tank of gas.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 01:32:17 PM
Unfortunately, this represents well the government mindset: they can take endless amounts of money from private citizens with little concern about how it affects the citizens' budgets, but when someone talks about government reducing their revenues from citizens they scream bloody murder.This IS going to be an uphill battle 1) there is currently only one sponsor to this bill, usually the more sponsors the better the chance the bill has of passing 2) there is going to be a significant amount of loss revenue, where are they going to make that up at?A few years ago, I didn't have to pay for a pass to go to these areas. Now, I do. That results in a significant (for me) loss of funds . . where am I going to make up for that?
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 01:35:53 PM
Come on, Bigtex. You know very well that's just the tip of the iceberg. Sure, it's only $30 for a Discover Pass, but it's also an extra 2% hit on payroll effective January 1: $1000 on a $50000 salary. It's an extra $1,700 per year to commute across the 520 Bridge in Seattle. It's an $1/gallon for milk. It's a 15% increase in utility bills. Closer to home i's $66 for a second deer tag that used to be $22, and allowed for "any deer" rather than a doe.This IS going to be an uphill battle 1) there is currently only one sponsor to this bill, usually the more sponsors the better the chance the bill has of passing 2) there is going to be a significant amount of loss revenue, where are they going to make that up at?A few years ago, I didn't have to pay for a pass to go to these areas. Now, I do. That results in a significant (for me) loss of funds . . where am I going to make up for that?
Unfortunately "pay to play" is the name of the game now days. I know I'll be bashed for this, but compared to how much we spend every year on licenses, gear, food for trips, gas for scouting, and hunting trips, $30 for a Discover Pass wasn't much. Considering $30 probably gives me less then a 1/3 of a tank of gas.
The list goes on and on. It's not JUST $30.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 17, 2013, 01:38:44 PM
.....because we nickle and dime you on so many other things, a few more pennies is no big deal right?
I like the Legislation and if there is going to be revenue shortfalls because of this? Double or tripple the cost of the discover pass. Many of us spend over $100/year on just tags and licenses already, if they want to PLAY....they can PAY what we do.
Post by: huntrights on January 17, 2013, 01:43:17 PM
Post by: gaddy on January 17, 2013, 01:46:36 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 01:47:05 PM
Come on, Bigtex. You know very well that's just the tip of the iceberg. Sure, it's only $30 for a Discover Pass, but it's also an extra 2% hit on payroll effective January 1: $1000 on a $50000 salary. It's an extra $1,700 per year to commute across the 520 Bridge in Seattle. It's an $1/gallon for milk. It's a 15% increase in utility bills. Closer to home i's $66 for a second deer tag that used to be $22, and allowed for "any deer" rather than a doe.This IS going to be an uphill battle 1) there is currently only one sponsor to this bill, usually the more sponsors the better the chance the bill has of passing 2) there is going to be a significant amount of loss revenue, where are they going to make that up at?A few years ago, I didn't have to pay for a pass to go to these areas. Now, I do. That results in a significant (for me) loss of funds . . where am I going to make up for that?
Unfortunately "pay to play" is the name of the game now days. I know I'll be bashed for this, but compared to how much we spend every year on licenses, gear, food for trips, gas for scouting, and hunting trips, $30 for a Discover Pass wasn't much. Considering $30 probably gives me less then a 1/3 of a tank of gas.
The list goes on and on. It's not JUST $30.
The extra 2% hit on payroll was there several years ago, it was just eliminated for the past 2/3 years (http://www.forbes.com/sites/thesba/2013/01/02/4-important-2013-payroll-updates-tax-changes-for-small-business/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/thesba/2013/01/02/4-important-2013-payroll-updates-tax-changes-for-small-business/)).
Ya, everything costs more to do, but hey it cost more to do things in the 70's then it did in the 60's. I am pretty sure we all make significantly more then we did in the 1970s.
I'm not saying that it doesn't suck to have to pay more to do X or Y. But the whole idea of it's the current federal administration or the state, etc fault that things costs more is nuts. Fees, charges, etc have gone up every few years for everything in every state, doesn't matter if its a Democrat or Republican in the office. I didn't see too many Republicans trying to keep the 2% payroll tax cut from being eliminated...
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2013, 01:47:36 PM
Hi Don,
Currently, hunters in WA purchase their hunting license and part of that fee gives them a vehicle pass. It used to be that vehicle pass covered the state's hunters on all state lands, WDFW, DNR, and state forest. Now, with the Discover Pass, the state's hunters are only allowed to use the vehicle pass for WDFW lands and must additionally purchase a Discover pass to access DNR and state forest lands. We're being double taxed to pay for the WA State Parks system when we're not allowed to hunt in state parks. This makes zero sense.
Under Bill 5080, our WDFW vehicle tabs would cover us on all state lands EXCEPT inside state parks, where, if we wanted to use the parks, we'd have to pay to play. This makes a huge amount of sense.
Please support this bill. I know you're a sportsman's friend and I look forward to hearing your views on this. Thank you,
John W
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
:yeah:
.....because we nickle and dime you on so many other things, a few more pennies is no big deal right?
I like the Legislation and if there is going to be revenue shortfalls because of this? Double or tripple the cost of the discover pass. Many of us spend over $100/year on just tags and licenses already, if they want to PLAY....they can PAY what we do.
Under Gregoire's proposed budget, the shortfall Parks is already getting from missed revenue from Discover Pass sales is being replaced by general fund money. When the Discover Pass was created it was to eliminate general fund funding of Parks, that funding is now slowly coming back.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 01:49:36 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 01:50:47 PM
It used to be that vehicle pass covered the state's hunters on all state lands, WDFW, DNR, and state forest. Now, with the Discover Pass, the state's hunters are only allowed to use the vehicle pass for WDFW lands and must additionally purchase a Discover pass to access DNR and state forest lands. We're being double taxed to pay for the WA State Parks system when we're not allowed to hunt in state parks. This makes zero sense.
Thats false. Prior to Discover Pass the WDFW pass was ONLY used on WDFW lands. There was no pass for DNR or State Parks. FYI, "state forest" is DNR.
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
Bigtex, tell us truthfully: has your salary increased at the same rate that the state government's budget has (forgetting merit or change in responsibility)? What cuts have they made to their lifestyle?
State employees have seen a 3% salary cut since either the 09 or 11 budgets were enacted.
Federal employees have had their salaries frozen since 09 or 11 as well.
And yes, it "hurts" more to pay a bill or fill the gas tank. Maybe a full day in the woods ends up being a half day.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 02:01:37 PM
Since the overall budget is increasing, the money is obviously going somewhere other than to the employees. That is unfortunate.Bigtex, tell us truthfully: has your salary increased at the same rate that the state government's budget has (forgetting merit or change in responsibility)? What cuts have they made to their lifestyle?
State employees have seen a 3% salary cut since either the 09 or 11 budgets were enacted.
Federal employees have had their salaries frozen since 09 or 11 as well.
And yes, it "hurts" more to pay a bill or fill the gas tank. Maybe a full day in the woods ends up being a half day.
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 02:07:24 PM
Since the overall budget is increasing, the money is obviously going somewhere other than to the employees. That is unfortunate.Bigtex, tell us truthfully: has your salary increased at the same rate that the state government's budget has (forgetting merit or change in responsibility)? What cuts have they made to their lifestyle?
State employees have seen a 3% salary cut since either the 09 or 11 budgets were enacted.
Federal employees have had their salaries frozen since 09 or 11 as well.
And yes, it "hurts" more to pay a bill or fill the gas tank. Maybe a full day in the woods ends up being a half day.
Hate to sound like a politician but it does cost more to operate things. Gas is going up/down depending on the month. WDFW Enforcement asked for more money in the state budget simply because they fear they don't have enough to cover fuel expenses. The number of overall employees in DNR, Parks, WDFW has decreased substantially, especially Parks where many full time employees went to part time. Budgets go up but you also need to filter in inflation. The state is looking at nearly a $1B shortfall for the 2013-15 budget but yet DNR, DFW, and Parks are looking at a proposed budget increase in Gregoires budget.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2013, 02:07:50 PM
It used to be that vehicle pass covered the state's hunters on all state lands, WDFW, DNR, and state forest. Now, with the Discover Pass, the state's hunters are only allowed to use the vehicle pass for WDFW lands and must additionally purchase a Discover pass to access DNR and state forest lands. We're being double taxed to pay for the WA State Parks system when we're not allowed to hunt in state parks. This makes zero sense.
Thats false. Prior to Discover Pass the WDFW pass was ONLY used on WDFW lands. There was no pass for DNR or State Parks. FYI, "state forest" is DNR.
Yes, it's inaccurate only in there was no fee to access any of those lands. No there's an extra fee for all of it. The point is the same. Thank you for the correction, BT
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2013, 02:08:58 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 02:12:02 PM
Fishing license revenue UP 25.8% From 20,012,913 in FY 11 to 25,168,304 in FY 12
Hunting license revenue UP 14.2% from 14,640,812 in FY 11 to 16,725,155 in FY 12
Individual participation for fishing went from 710,066 in FY 11 to 750,224 in FY 12
Individual participation for hunting went from 190,804 in FY 11 to 183,685 in FY 12. 6,000 of those hunters were lost due to special permit hunts.
The whole "speak with your checkbook" saying isn't working when fishing revenue goes up 25.8% in a year and hunting revenue is up 14.2% in one year.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wdfw%20license%20sales%20reveune&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fcommission%2Fmeetings%2F2012%2F08%2Faug0412_03_license_sales_revenue_rpt.pdf&ei=bXP4UNj0DIL5igLuw4B4&usg=AFQjCNGJYjJFWnrVb914ps2csPk-C_En1A&bvm=bv.41248874,d.cGE (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wdfw%20license%20sales%20reveune&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fcommission%2Fmeetings%2F2012%2F08%2Faug0412_03_license_sales_revenue_rpt.pdf&ei=bXP4UNj0DIL5igLuw4B4&usg=AFQjCNGJYjJFWnrVb914ps2csPk-C_En1A&bvm=bv.41248874,d.cGE)
Post by: sirmissalot on January 17, 2013, 02:12:57 PM
This IS going to be an uphill battle 1) there is currently only one sponsor to this bill, usually the more sponsors the better the chance the bill has of passing 2) there is going to be a significant amount of loss revenue, where are they going to make that up at?A few years ago, I didn't have to pay for a pass to go to these areas. Now, I do. That results in a significant (for me) loss of funds . . where am I going to make up for that?
Exactly. I guess I'm old fashioned, but I'm really surprised to hear some of you say you support paying to use state parks. I don't mean to camp there, but to go there. I just feel like I pay enough taxes and fees, especially as a sportsman, that going and having lunch at the local park should be "free" as a washington state resident, with a vehicle access pass pasted to my wind shield. Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax, fees fees and more fees, then charge a fee to use a parking lot at a park.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 02:50:15 PM
A common trend I see is people saying "if fees go up, I am going to quit hunting or fishing".It would appear that based on your data that indeed that is exactly what is happening with hunters. Hunter numbers did drop, by nearly four percent in one year.
Individual participation for hunting went from 190,804 in FY 11 to 183,685 in FY 12. 6,000 of those hunters were lost due to special permit hunts.
I suspect the response to that will be to increase license costs further to make up the shortfall.
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2013, 02:50:34 PM
:yeah:I'd probably even buy a discover pass and start using the State Parks again if this passes. I'm fine with pay to play. The main reason I haven't and won't is out of spite...I think that sentiment is probably shared by many hunters, and thus there would be some additional revenues that may not be considered should this occur. It's a slap in the face to hunters to have to pay twice.
I'll probably buy a DP too if this passes. I will definitely write a letter. :tup:
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 03:14:01 PM
A common trend I see is people saying "if fees go up, I am going to quit hunting or fishing".It would appear that based on your data that indeed that is exactly what is happening with hunters. Hunter numbers did drop, by nearly four percent in one year.
Individual participation for hunting went from 190,804 in FY 11 to 183,685 in FY 12. 6,000 of those hunters were lost due to special permit hunts.
I suspect the response to that will be to increase license costs further to make up the shortfall.
We need to remember WDFW isn't just a hunter agency. Fishing gets both more revenue and participation. It's not the old Game or Wildlife Dept anymore. And even though hunter #s dropped, hunter revenue still increased.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 03:45:08 PM
Unfortunately you are correct. The mission of WDFW is "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities."A common trend I see is people saying "if fees go up, I am going to quit hunting or fishing".It would appear that based on your data that indeed that is exactly what is happening with hunters. Hunter numbers did drop, by nearly four percent in one year.
Individual participation for hunting went from 190,804 in FY 11 to 183,685 in FY 12. 6,000 of those hunters were lost due to special permit hunts.
I suspect the response to that will be to increase license costs further to make up the shortfall.
We need to remember WDFW isn't just a hunter agency. Fishing gets both more revenue and participation. It's not the old Game or Wildlife Dept anymore. And even though hunter #s dropped, hunter revenue still increased.
That includes not only fishing but recreational activities such as wildlife viewing (i.e. wolves). It is my sense that hunting is becoming less and less of a factor in their decision making processes.
Post by: huntrights on January 17, 2013, 03:49:44 PM
http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/859#img_view_container
More stats from the NSSF:
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf
See the attachments below:
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 03:52:06 PM
Unfortunately you are correct. The mission of WDFW is "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities."A common trend I see is people saying "if fees go up, I am going to quit hunting or fishing".It would appear that based on your data that indeed that is exactly what is happening with hunters. Hunter numbers did drop, by nearly four percent in one year.
Individual participation for hunting went from 190,804 in FY 11 to 183,685 in FY 12. 6,000 of those hunters were lost due to special permit hunts.
I suspect the response to that will be to increase license costs further to make up the shortfall.
We need to remember WDFW isn't just a hunter agency. Fishing gets both more revenue and participation. It's not the old Game or Wildlife Dept anymore. And even though hunter #s dropped, hunter revenue still increased.
That includes not only fishing but recreational activities such as wildlife viewing (i.e. wolves). It is my sense that hunting is becoming less and less of a factor in their decision making processes.
Hunter numbers are declining on a national level: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3228893.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3228893.html)
I am willing to bet most of us got into hunting in our teens, or even before. I personally just think videogames, movies, computers, etc are much more appealing to our youth then being out in the outdoors hunting is. So less people are "getting into it" :twocents:
Post by: huntrights on January 17, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
That article is from 2009
Hunter numbers are declining on a national level: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3228893.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3228893.html)
I am willing to bet most of us got into hunting in our teens, or even before. I personally just think videogames, movies, computers, etc are much more appealing to our youth then being out in the outdoors hunting is. So less people are "getting into it" :twocents:
February 11, 2009, 4:17 PM
Where can we find the numbers for Washington State?
Post by: bobcat on January 17, 2013, 03:56:25 PM
Post by: huntrights on January 17, 2013, 04:04:26 PM
Well this is a pretty simple bill that was introduced today.
Senate Bill 5080 would allow holders of the WDFW access pass to ALSO access DNR lands with the WDFW Pass. Essentially meaning the only areas hunters/fishers couldn't go without purchasing a Discover Pass is State Parks.
As of right now there is only ONE sponsor for this bill, Republican Senator Doug Erickson. If you want this bill to pass I highly suggest you contact your state Senator to either a) support the bill, or b) become a co-sponsor. As of right now there is no similar bill in the House.
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5080&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5080&year=2013)
Remember the original goal of this thread: Support Senate Bill 5080.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 04:04:33 PM
"Hunting participation increased 9% from 2006 to 2011. The numbers of big game hunters rose 8%, migratory bird hunters increased 13%, and hunters seeking other animals increased by 92%. The number of small game hunters declined 6%, which is not statistically significant. Total hunting-related spending increased between 2006 and 2011. There was a 30% increase over the five-year period. Purchases of hunting equipment such as guns, decoys, and ammunition increased 29%. The category with the biggest increase was land leasing and ownership with 50%. Trip-related spending was up 39%."
http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/859 (http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/859)
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 04:09:27 PM
Hunter numbers are declining on a national level: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3228893.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3228893.html)
I am willing to bet most of us got into hunting in our teens, or even before. I personally just think videogames, movies, computers, etc are much more appealing to our youth then being out in the outdoors hunting is. So less people are "getting into it" :twocents:
That article is from 2009
February 11, 2009, 4:17 PM
Where can we find the numbers for Washington State?
I posted it in my link. From FY 11 - 12 hunter numbers were down
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2013, 04:12:23 PM
1. Cost of gas to go hunting has increased greatly.
2. Cost of hunting licenses and permit fees have gone up.
3. Requiring a Discover Pass to access DNR lands.
4. Some of the decisions by WDFW that make it seem like they don't appreciate hunters. (Wolf plan that is plain stupid).
All these things add up and cause some people to just say screw it. :twocents: Now, most on this site are die-hard hunters and will still go even if frustrated by a lot of the above items, but others that are not so gung-ho will give up.
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 04:13:03 PM
According to the most recent USFWS survey completed in 2011, hunter numbers are increasing, not decreasing:
"Hunting participation increased 9% from 2006 to 2011. The numbers of big game hunters rose 8%, migratory bird hunters increased 13%, and hunters seeking other animals increased by 92%. The number of small game hunters declined 6%, which is not statistically significant. Total hunting-related spending increased between 2006 and 2011. There was a 30% increase over the five-year period. Purchases of hunting equipment such as guns, decoys, and ammunition increased 29%. The category with the biggest increase was land leasing and ownership with 50%. Trip-related spending was up 39%."
http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/859 (http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/859)
So in the CBS article it says according to USFWS hunter numbers declined by 10% from 1996-2006. But then increased 9% from 2006-11
Why the change?
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 04:14:15 PM
Many factors caused hunters to skip this last year:
1. Cost of gas to go hunting has increased greatly.
2. Cost of hunting licenses and permit fees have gone up.
3. Requiring a Discover Pass to access DNR lands.
4. Some of the decisions by WDFW that make it seem like they don't appreciate hunters. (Wolf plan that is plain stupid).
All these things add up and cause some people to just say screw it. :twocents: Now, most on this site are die-hard hunters and will still go even if frustrated by a lot of the above items, but others that are not so gung-ho will give up.
The numbers I posted would be the 2011 hunting season, since that is part of fiscal year 2012. The 2012 season is part of fiscal year 2013 and those numbers aren't out yet. Makes sense huh? :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 04:15:33 PM
Well this is a pretty simple bill that was introduced today.
Senate Bill 5080 would allow holders of the WDFW access pass to ALSO access DNR lands with the WDFW Pass. Essentially meaning the only areas hunters/fishers couldn't go without purchasing a Discover Pass is State Parks.
As of right now there is only ONE sponsor for this bill, Republican Senator Doug Erickson. If you want this bill to pass I highly suggest you contact your state Senator to either a) support the bill, or b) become a co-sponsor. As of right now there is no similar bill in the House.
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5080&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5080&year=2013)
Remember the original goal of this thread: Support Senate Bill 5080.
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2013, 04:18:21 PM
Well this is a pretty simple bill that was introduced today.
Senate Bill 5080 would allow holders of the WDFW access pass to ALSO access DNR lands with the WDFW Pass. Essentially meaning the only areas hunters/fishers couldn't go without purchasing a Discover Pass is State Parks.
As of right now there is only ONE sponsor for this bill, Republican Senator Doug Erickson. If you want this bill to pass I highly suggest you contact your state Senator to either a) support the bill, or b) become a co-sponsor. As of right now there is no similar bill in the House.
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5080&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5080&year=2013)
Remember the original goal of this thread: Support Senate Bill 5080.
:yeah: :tup:
:yeah:
I will write my reps tomorrow. I've been hoping for a bill like this. :tup:
Post by: Special T on January 17, 2013, 04:45:21 PM
This bill corrects the poor legislation of the Discover pass. Our state has a history of charging those who use services with fees. Pay to Play. The reason why we need this bill supported is because it places the proper fees with those who use the Parks department. I am a Hunter and fisherman and enjoy all that the outdoors offer. I have REFUSED to purchase the discover pass because it takes funds from those who do not use the services and directs it to the WA parks system. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul and is wrong. Many of my fellow hunters have avoided the Parks and DNR land because we are so upset. Parking along a gravel road on DNR land to hunt or fish should require no fee because we are not using a service. I have used the DNR campsites and have no problem paying the fee to use these improved services. It is wrong to assess me, and others like me who do not use the state parks system. The state is currently making up the shortfall of revenue generated by the general fund. If parks cannot generate their own funds they should priorities their spending so that those who use the services pay their own way. Thank you for representing me and supporting this bill.
Special T
Post by: Special T on January 17, 2013, 04:49:35 PM
Post by: NoBark on January 17, 2013, 05:06:03 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 05:09:06 PM
I am requesting that you support and work for the passage of Senate Bill 5080 (“SB 5080”.) This is important to me, and I appreciate your attention to it.
As a lifelong resident of Washington, I have been fortunate to spend countless time in our wonderful outdoor areas as a hunter, fisherman, hiker, wildlife viewer, and camper.
Because I am a hunter and fisherman, I contribute a significant amount of funds to both the state and private industries via license fees, application fees, travel related expenses, equipment purchases, and other costs.
Prior to introduction of the Discover Pass, I was able to access DNR lands without payment of an additional fee. I have not purchased a Discover Pass, and have no plans to. It’s simply not right to charge individuals such as myself one more fee to access public land when we are already contributing a significant amount of funding via other channels. If the sole purpose of a Discover Pass for hunters and fishermen becomes providing access to state parks, I would be more inclined to purchase one. I have several friends who share this view.
I understand the need to sustain and maintain public areas such as those owned by the Department of Natural Resources. The necessary funding should come from sources other than hunters and fishermen who are already contributing heavily, while some users of DNR land are contributing far less.
Thank you very much.
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 05:11:10 PM
1 AN ACT Relating to providing that the vehicle access pass provide
2 access to the department of natural resources' recreation sites; and
3 amending RCW 79A.80.040.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 Sec. 1. RCW 79A.80.040 and 2012 c 261 s 5 are each amended to read
6 as follows:
7 (1) The vehicle access pass is created solely for access to the
8 department of fish and wildlife and to the department of natural
9 resources' recreation sites or lands. The vehicle access pass is only
10 available to a person who purchases a current valid: Big game hunting
11 license issued under RCW 77.32.450; small game hunting license issued
12 under RCW 77.32.460; western Washington pheasant permit issued under
13 RCW 77.32.575; trapping license issued under RCW 77.65.450; watchable
14 wildlife decal issued under RCW 77.32.560; or combination, saltwater,
15 or freshwater personal use fishing license issued under RCW 77.32.470.
16 (2) One vehicle access pass must be issued per purchase pursuant to
17 subsection (1) of this section.
18 (3) The vehicle access pass is valid for the license year of the
19 license it is purchased with.
p. 1 SB 5080
1 (4) The vehicle access pass must contain space for two motor
2 vehicle license plate numbers. A vehicle access pass is only valid for
3 those vehicle license plate numbers written on the pass.
Post by: gaddy on January 17, 2013, 05:25:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 05:29:07 PM
i still dont see were allocations of funds are addressed? why is it that the state parks get the bulk & why are the counties in which citations are issued getting all funds instead of a split for the issuing agencies.
This bill does nothing to the funds.
FYI, actually effective summer 2012 the fines from citations went into the Discover Pass account. 8% to DNR, 8% to WDFW, and 84% to Parks.
Post by: Klyne3 on January 17, 2013, 05:31:39 PM
The bill, as it currently is written:
1 AN ACT Relating to providing that the vehicle access pass provide
2 access to the department of natural resources' recreation sites; and
3 amending RCW 79A.80.040.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 Sec. 1. RCW 79A.80.040 and 2012 c 261 s 5 are each amended to read
6 as follows:
7 (1) The vehicle access pass is created solely for access to the
8 department of fish and wildlife and to the department of natural
9 resources' recreation sites or lands. The vehicle access pass is only
10 available to a person who purchases a current valid: Big game hunting
11 license issued under RCW 77.32.450; small game hunting license issued
12 under RCW 77.32.460; western Washington pheasant permit issued under
13 RCW 77.32.575; trapping license issued under RCW 77.65.450; watchable
14 wildlife decal issued under RCW 77.32.560; or combination, saltwater,
15 or freshwater personal use fishing license issued under RCW 77.32.470.
16 (2) One vehicle access pass must be issued per purchase pursuant to
17 subsection (1) of this section.
18 (3) The vehicle access pass is valid for the license year of the
19 license it is purchased with.
p. 1 SB 5080
1 (4) The vehicle access pass must contain space for two motor
2 vehicle license plate numbers. A vehicle access pass is only valid for
3 those vehicle license plate numbers written on the pass.
So Big Tex if this passes would they allow both vehicles on the pass to be allowed at the same place at the same time?
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 05:34:07 PM
The bill, as it currently is written:
1 AN ACT Relating to providing that the vehicle access pass provide
2 access to the department of natural resources' recreation sites; and
3 amending RCW 79A.80.040.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 Sec. 1. RCW 79A.80.040 and 2012 c 261 s 5 are each amended to read
6 as follows:
7 (1) The vehicle access pass is created solely for access to the
8 department of fish and wildlife and to the department of natural
9 resources' recreation sites or lands. The vehicle access pass is only
10 available to a person who purchases a current valid: Big game hunting
11 license issued under RCW 77.32.450; small game hunting license issued
12 under RCW 77.32.460; western Washington pheasant permit issued under
13 RCW 77.32.575; trapping license issued under RCW 77.65.450; watchable
14 wildlife decal issued under RCW 77.32.560; or combination, saltwater,
15 or freshwater personal use fishing license issued under RCW 77.32.470.
16 (2) One vehicle access pass must be issued per purchase pursuant to
17 subsection (1) of this section.
18 (3) The vehicle access pass is valid for the license year of the
19 license it is purchased with.
p. 1 SB 5080
1 (4) The vehicle access pass must contain space for two motor
2 vehicle license plate numbers. A vehicle access pass is only valid for
3 those vehicle license plate numbers written on the pass.
So Big Tex if this passes would they allow both vehicles on the pass to be allowed at the same place at the same time?
Only thing this changes is the allowance of the WDFW pass on DNR lands. All other rules still apply.
Post by: Klyne3 on January 17, 2013, 05:38:04 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 17, 2013, 05:39:12 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
Just to vent about that - THAT IS A STUPID RULE!!!!! not your fault and not trying to scream at the messenger but holy cow that is stupid. If 2 vehicles are allowed on the pass then who cares if they are both at the same place at the same time - Yes I do realize it's another way to make more money, but it doesn't make it right or smart.Bigtex will definitely correct me if I'm mistaken (:chuckle:) but the pass is only valid for one vehicle at a time, not two. You get one pass but you can use it on two different vehicles. Originally, it could only be used on one vehicle. Period.
If you were to get two passes for one price you could give one to your friend, etc.
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 05:47:45 PM
Just to vent about that - THAT IS A STUPID RULE!!!!! not your fault and not trying to scream at the messenger but holy cow that is stupid. If 2 vehicles are allowed on the pass then who cares if they are both at the same place at the same time - Yes I do realize it's another way to make more money, but it doesn't make it right or smart.Bigtex will definitely correct me if I'm mistaken (:chuckle:) but the pass is only valid for one vehicle at a time, not two. You get one pass but you can use it on two different vehicles. Originally, it could only be used on one vehicle. Period.
If you were to get two passes for one price you could give one to your friend, etc.
One vehicle at a time, up to two vehicles per pass.
Post by: Klyne3 on January 17, 2013, 05:51:29 PM
Just to vent about that - THAT IS A STUPID RULE!!!!! not your fault and not trying to scream at the messenger but holy cow that is stupid. If 2 vehicles are allowed on the pass then who cares if they are both at the same place at the same time - Yes I do realize it's another way to make more money, but it doesn't make it right or smart.Bigtex will definitely correct me if I'm mistaken (:chuckle:) but the pass is only valid for one vehicle at a time, not two. You get one pass but you can use it on two different vehicles. Originally, it could only be used on one vehicle. Period.
If you were to get two passes for one price you could give one to your friend, etc.
I am not asking for 2 passes I would however like to have 1 pass that would cover 2 vehicles at the same time at the same place, that are in my name. Not sure why this is such and issue i have to buy 2 DP to trailer my jeep to Elbe but only have to have one for Evan's which is covered under the NW Forest pass - all I have to do is ask for a decal
Post by: washelkhunter on January 17, 2013, 06:54:33 PM
Post by: huntrights on January 18, 2013, 07:52:59 AM
And check out SB 5057 of which Doug is a sponsor. Changing the law so that when a non-profit buys property with state money they cant prohibit hunting! Like that one too.
Should we start another thread on this one to ensure it doesn't get buried?
Post by: NoBark on January 18, 2013, 08:40:38 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 18, 2013, 08:58:53 AM
I am not asking for 2 passes I would however like to have 1 pass that would cover 2 vehicles at the same time at the same place
Wouldn't they then take up two parking spots? And wouldn't that be like getting parking for half price? And wouldn't that be unfair to us who aren't high-rollers like you, and can only afford one vehicle?
Post by: huntrights on January 18, 2013, 09:24:09 AM
Thanks for bringing it back up. I really don't think it is a huge issue expecially with the bigger hunting non-prof's but, there are some non-profs out there that could try this.
Connection with our state representatives is fast and easy. We need to be able to fight many battles on many fronts at the same time. I suspect that the legislation has been drafted because the abuse has already happened; we need to prevent further abuse.
Find your legislator:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/
Post by: Klyne3 on January 18, 2013, 10:05:23 AM
I am not asking for 2 passes I would however like to have 1 pass that would cover 2 vehicles at the same time at the same place
Wouldn't they then take up two parking spots? And wouldn't that be like getting parking for half price? And wouldn't that be unfair to us who aren't high-rollers like you, and can only afford one vehicle?
First off where I go does not have parking spots per say just a big area for everyone to park their trucks and trailers- however I guess that you do have a point since but it's not different than have a truck and boat trailer. And I guess I should also point out that it's a ORV Park.
Second I hope the high roller comment was sarcasm. I am not throwing it in anyone's face that I have multiple vehicles. I have worked hard to have the toys that I have. Yes it is my choice to have the hobbies that I do and I have no issue paying a reasonable amount for them. I pay the fuel taxes, buy all the passes, license all of them, etc etc.. And where you only have to pay for 1 pass that covers 2 vehicles, I have to buy 2 to cover 2 vehicles.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 18, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
And where you only have to pay for 1 pass that covers 2 vehicles, I have to buy 2 to cover 2 vehicles.
But your wrong, I'm buying a pass for one vehicle, and your complaining that because you have two vehicles, you should somehow be entitled to park and use them both simultaneously with a single pass. I disagree, the pass should be enforced as it is, allowing a family to use either one of their vehicles at one time, but not both at the same time.
Post by: Klyne3 on January 18, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
And where you only have to pay for 1 pass that covers 2 vehicles, I have to buy 2 to cover 2 vehicles.
But your wrong, I'm buying a pass for one vehicle and your complaining that because you have two vehicles, you should somehow be entitled to park and use them both simultaneously with a single pass. I disagree, the pass should be enforced as it is, allowing a family to use either one of their vehicles at one time, but not both at the same time.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Because I am not wrong I have to buy 2 passes to cover two vehicles, you only have to buy one to cover 2 vehicles. I don't agree with that rule..... if it covers 2 vehicles than it should cover those two vehicles regardless if they are at the same place at the same time. I don't believe I am entitled to anything more than what I pay for.
Post by: Special T on January 18, 2013, 01:11:04 PM
Post by: Klyne3 on January 18, 2013, 01:18:34 PM
So this brings up a great point... Lets say you have a dedicated wheeler/ jeep. If you only have it on the trailer do you need 2 DPs? Or is the ORV sticker cheeper?
If it is street legal then it must have a DP for the jeep and the truck pulling the trailer must have a DP also. You can get ORV sticker for them but you can not drive them on any roads because it is illegal and you will be pulled over/ticketed etc - Same as if you were to run a quad/dirtbike down the road. My jeep is still street legal according to the law even with how it is set up due to open wheel clauses and age and will stay that way even though I rarely use it on road
Post by: Bob33 on January 18, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
And where you only have to pay for 1 pass that covers 2 vehicles, I have to buy 2 to cover 2 vehicles.
But your wrong, I'm buying a pass for one vehicle and your complaining that because you have two vehicles, you should somehow be entitled to park and use them both simultaneously with a single pass. I disagree, the pass should be enforced as it is, allowing a family to use either one of their vehicles at one time, but not both at the same time.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Because I am not wrong I have to buy 2 passes to cover two vehicles, you only have to buy one to cover 2 vehicles. I don't agree with that rule..... if it covers 2 vehicles than it should cover those two vehicles regardless if they are at the same place at the same time. I don't believe I am entitled to anything more than what I pay for.
This is the RCW which deals with the Discover Pass: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.80.020 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.80.020)
The language pertaining to transferability and single use is here:
(5) The discover pass must contain space for two motor vehicle license plate numbers. A discover pass is valid only for those vehicle license plate numbers written on the pass. However, the agencies may offer for sale a family discover pass that is fully transferable among vehicles and does not require the placement of a license plate number on the pass to be valid. The agencies must collectively set a price for the sale of a family discover pass that is no more than fifty dollars. A discover pass is valid only for use with one motor vehicle at any one time.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 18, 2013, 01:23:04 PM
So this brings up a great point... Lets say you have a dedicated wheeler/ jeep. If you only have it on the trailer do you need 2 DPs? Or is the ORV sticker cheeper?
No, you only need the Discover Pass on you tow vehicle/trailer. You need an ORV sticker to ride your ATV on certain lands. If you park you tow vehicle in a nonDiscover Pass area, you only need your up-to-date ORV sticker to ride on certain lands.
As for a jeep, unless they changed the requirements, don't they have to be licensed with a Wa State license plate, or can you now use an ORV sticker on them ? Mine jeep was street legal though.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 19, 2013, 06:33:19 AM
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Because I am not wrong I have to buy 2 passes to cover two vehicles, you only have to buy one to cover 2 vehicles. I don't agree with that rule..... if it covers 2 vehicles than it should cover those two vehicles regardless if they are at the same place at the same time. I don't believe I am entitled to anything more than what I pay for.
It does seem unfair that you have to chose between the G-wagen and the Lexus, you should be entitled to take both at the same time.
Post by: Klyne3 on January 19, 2013, 11:47:33 AM
We have a difference of opinion. And I have no problem debating the issue with you or anyone else and keeping it civil.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 19, 2013, 12:30:19 PM
Sounds like the perfect solution to me. I don't believe we should be given free access to state parks. But we should be able to hunt on DNR land without having to purchase a separate pass.
:yeah:
Post by: stuckalot on January 19, 2013, 12:38:19 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2013, 11:30:00 AM
Post by: buckfvr on January 23, 2013, 12:00:03 PM
This IS going to be an uphill battle 1) there is currently only one sponsor to this bill, usually the more sponsors the better the chance the bill has of passing 2) there is going to be a significant amount of loss revenue, where are they going to make that up at?A few years ago, I didn't have to pay for a pass to go to these areas. Now, I do. That results in a significant (for me) loss of funds . . where am I going to make up for that?
THe only thing people in the system understand about budgets is either its not enough, or it'll do. THink big picture, and spending cuts in Olympia....trim the fat from every department and division under state control. The fat years made the state spend impulsively, and they seem intent to continue that at our expense. When the state falls farther behind, what will they decide we need to be taxed on next. The only way out of this is to reign in spending by law makers in Olympia......spending our money.....Less government, less state employees.
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2013, 01:39:37 PM
This IS going to be an uphill battle 1) there is currently only one sponsor to this bill, usually the more sponsors the better the chance the bill has of passing 2) there is going to be a significant amount of loss revenue, where are they going to make that up at?A few years ago, I didn't have to pay for a pass to go to these areas. Now, I do. That results in a significant (for me) loss of funds . . where am I going to make up for that?
THe only thing people in the system understand about budgets is either its not enough, or it'll do. THink big picture, and spending cuts in Olympia....trim the fat from every department and division under state control. The fat years made the state spend impulsively, and they seem intent to continue that at our expense. When the state falls farther behind, what will they decide we need to be taxed on next. The only way out of this is to reign in spending by law makers in Olympia......spending our money.....Less government, less state employees.
I get your point. But less government doesn't always mean less employees. The Liquor Control Board is the one state agency in the past year that has gone through the biggest change due to the liquor and marijuana initiatives. One of the points of the liquor initiatives was to eliminate state employees selling booze, well it happened. And now there is so many issues with liquor related crimes (theft, underage drinking, etc) that the governor is proposing adding at least 10 more officers to the agency in one year alone. Then we have marijuana, the law was just written and the LCB has already hired/in the process of hiring 5 marijuana program managers. They then will have to people to handle the licensing, education and so on of the program. And then to top that off, even more enforcement officers. So 1183 did one thing, they did a drastic cut to the number of employees of the LCB, but ever since then the numbers of LCB employees has been rising because of 1183 and 520, both of which were voted in by citizens, not politicians.
Post by: Bob33 on January 23, 2013, 01:46:10 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2013, 01:48:47 PM
That is correct :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 08:41:00 PM
Out of 3 people that commented, two were opposed, the other was neither pro or con. One of the opposition was the Washington Federation of State Employees.
The big issue...Loss of revenue.
To watch, the briefing on this bill starts at 1:18:00
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013011128 (http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013011128)
In fact two committee members (senators) talked about ONLY having one pass for all three lands..meaning no more WDFW Pass. And maybe going that way
FYI, the bill Hargrove talked about his legislation, that is the legislation that would have a discounted Discover Pass price
Post by: 6x6in6 on January 24, 2013, 09:51:13 PM
Well then privatize the State Parks system.:yeah:
.....because we nickle and dime you on so many other things, a few more pennies is no big deal right?
I like the Legislation and if there is going to be revenue shortfalls because of this? Double or tripple the cost of the discover pass. Many of us spend over $100/year on just tags and licenses already, if they want to PLAY....they can PAY what we do.
Under Gregoire's proposed budget, the shortfall Parks is already getting from missed revenue from Discover Pass sales is being replaced by general fund money. When the Discover Pass was created it was to eliminate general fund funding of Parks, that funding is now slowly coming back.
I highly doubt the private sector would employ 1,118 employees with their top 25 making in excess of $2 million. :yike:
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2013, 04:57:19 PM
In fact two committee members (senators) talked about ONLY having one pass for all three lands..meaning no more WDFW Pass. And maybe going that way
This is the direction i fear this would go, and it only HIGHLIGHTS the real issue with the DP. I beliver the legal term is conversion where you take from someone else and make it your own... I hate the DP BECAUSE it takes from sportmen BY DESIGNE to give to the parks... I have NO problem with our state parks AND i have payed to camp there many times. I WON'T go there for the day and will boycot giving them any of my "hunting funds" to pay for parks. :bash:
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2013, 05:07:04 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5080%20SBA%20NRP%2013.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5080%20SBA%20NRP%2013.pdf)
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on January 25, 2013, 05:18:29 PM
-Steve
Post by: Curly on January 25, 2013, 05:25:39 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2013, 05:37:23 PM
Does anyone know how much land DFW and DNR purchased in the last five years? It is time to stop spending and TAXING!
-Steve
All of WDFW lands has come from grants, not tax money.
As far as I know all DNR acquisitions have been the result of land trades/exchanges.
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2013, 09:24:16 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 06, 2013, 04:14:34 PM
The committee has not acted on this bill other then it's initial hearing.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 06, 2013, 05:22:25 PM
Total hunting-related spending increased between 2006 and 2011. There was a 30% increase over the five-year period. Purchases of hunting equipment such as guns, decoys, and ammunition increased 29%. The category with the biggest increase was land leasing and ownership with 50%. Trip-related spending was up 39%."
http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/859 (http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/859)
Let's see.... 30% increase in spending from......
Purchasing...... most of that I'd guess was from guns and ammo and most of that was people stocking up in the event of an Obama gun/ammo ban.
Lease/land purchase......... That's a bad trend. People with money moving away from public land. Pretty soon only the rich will be able to afford hunting.
Trip related spending....... Most of that can be attributed to the spiraling cost of fuel.
If I was the State, I wouldn't be using that study to justify charging hunters more. It just shows they need relief.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 06, 2013, 05:35:00 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 11, 2013, 06:04:14 PM
This bill never went up for a vote in the committee. Most likely due to the fiscal impact.
Post by: Gringo31 on March 12, 2013, 10:07:28 AM
I believe you are quite mistaken. In my neck of the woods. DNR buys farm ground and then leases it out with a 30 year return. It pisses off the local community because they can pay more than the average farmer who is looking for a quicker return which makes the gov't the high bidder and causes taxes to go up.