Post by: bigtex on February 21, 2013, 11:20:28 PM
WDFW will adopt rules to implement the document requirement, including the type of documentation.
If you fail to obtain documentation it will be a natural resource infraction, not a criminal offense.
This program would be similar to those in Idaho and other states.
WDFW is in favor of the legislation
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5702 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5702)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 22, 2013, 08:32:35 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on February 22, 2013, 08:44:58 PM
I'm as much against invasive as the next guy but I'm not sure I agree with all of this. They're already understaffed according to them - check stations will be few and far between without hiring additional staff or requiring the individual who's coming in to visit a WDFW office, which can be completely out of the way depending on the border crossing and body of water.
Or if we're talking about paperwork from the resident state, is this a once a year deal, has to be the day before?
So now we're talking about possible lost revenue because folks aren't going to want to go through the hassle. How are we getting the word out on this? Through regs or the road signs that you only see at major entries.
Post by: KopperBuck on February 22, 2013, 08:46:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 22, 2013, 08:55:16 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on February 22, 2013, 09:34:37 PM
I like the motivation, just want to know more about it. When I fished Houser I loved watching how many people drove right by the wash station. At Cocolalla they had a camp host that did it for you. I thought that was real neat.
Post by: bigtex on February 22, 2013, 10:12:20 PM
Under the bill WDFW really has to set up the program. Much of the discussion has been around with just having people go through the weigh stations at the ports of entry (state borders).
Post by: KopperBuck on February 22, 2013, 10:22:24 PM
The mussels and snails are nothing to screw around with, among other things.
Post by: KopperBuck on February 22, 2013, 10:24:00 PM
WSP Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officers (weigh stations) already do a large majority of the inspections. WDFW also does them sporadically, especially in the summer.
Under the bill WDFW really has to set up the program. Much of the discussion has been around with just having people go through the weigh stations at the ports of entry (state borders).
So there are already inspections taking place? I was unaware, had never seen notice.
Post by: bigtex on February 22, 2013, 10:27:27 PM
WSP Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officers (weigh stations) already do a large majority of the inspections. WDFW also does them sporadically, especially in the summer.
Under the bill WDFW really has to set up the program. Much of the discussion has been around with just having people go through the weigh stations at the ports of entry (state borders).
So there are already inspections taking place? I was unaware, had never seen notice.
Yes they are already taking place. This legislation would simply make it law that every single boat that crosses the border is required to have proof it is clean.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 23, 2013, 08:45:07 PM
Post by: FisherKing on February 23, 2013, 08:51:19 PM
An over reach IMHO.Actually I beg to differ, invasive species can wreck havoc. Doesn't anyone remember milfoil? I know several lakes that were killed by that stuff. I'm fine with keeping washington ecosystems clean. Is it a pain if I go out of state, yes. But, its a small price to pay to keep what we have for generations.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 23, 2013, 08:55:24 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 23, 2013, 08:59:57 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2013, 09:04:17 PM
So I am trout fishing in Idaho on a Sunday and want to drive home. How do I get written documentation before I can go home? Washington state officials to decide what type of documentation is required, inspection and documentation to occur in Idaho, prior to crossing into Washington?
Under the bill WDFW has to determine what type of documentation is required. The documentation is not set right now. It will be up to WDFW if they will accept another state's inspection and how recently it must have happened.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 23, 2013, 09:08:54 PM
So I am trout fishing in Idaho on a Sunday and want to drive home. How do I get written documentation before I can go home? Washington state officials to decide what type of documentation is required, inspection and documentation to occur in Idaho, prior to crossing into Washington?
Under the bill WDFW has to determine what type of documentation is required. The documentation is not set right now. It will be up to WDFW if they will accept another state's inspection and how recently it must have happened.
Exactly my point. Washington to set the standard for what is expected of another state to perform. And who honestly thinks that this inspection can be done in a timely fashion at any hour of the day. Stupid unrealistic law IMHO. Can we make it any more inconvenient for Washington sportsmen?
Post by: Special T on February 23, 2013, 09:09:40 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2013, 09:10:57 PM
Would drivng with a trailered boat in the general vicinity(+/- fifty miles?) of the states borders be sufficient probable cause to pull you over and ask to see the papers? What if you hadn't left the state? How do you prove you hadn't left the state?
No.
As of right now you can be pulled over if any officer sees AIS on your watercraft.
If you are pulled over for a violation (anything from a speeding or registration violation to actually seeing AIS) you can be cited if you either a) admit or b) it is obvious you just came from another state and didn't follow the requirements of an inspection. By saying "obvious you just came from another state" I mean you just entered WA and the officer knows that. Such as within one mile of entering the state and you didn't pass an exit from the road.
You asked how do you prove you didn't leave the state, well the officer would have to prove that you did...
Post by: lokidog on February 23, 2013, 09:12:16 PM
It's too bad sportspeople can't just take responsibility for themselves as hsown by the random checks that do find idiots with zebra mussels and other things stuck on their boats.
Would this include boats that used an Oregon launch on the Columbia? Idaho launch on the Snakie? How about boats only launched in saltwater while out of state? And the list goes on......
And, again, that WDFW gets to decide on as yet undetermined documentation should alarm everyone with a boat..... :bash:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 23, 2013, 09:13:06 PM
I hate bills like this that throw something out there and just say, we'll let ____ agency write the actual law for it. :bash: I think the idea is OK to try and stop invasive species, however its BS the way the are writing law. :twocents:
Agreed, give the authority prior to knowing what the law is? No way.
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2013, 09:13:50 PM
So I am trout fishing in Idaho on a Sunday and want to drive home. How do I get written documentation before I can go home? Washington state officials to decide what type of documentation is required, inspection and documentation to occur in Idaho, prior to crossing into Washington?
Under the bill WDFW has to determine what type of documentation is required. The documentation is not set right now. It will be up to WDFW if they will accept another state's inspection and how recently it must have happened.
And who honestly thinks that this inspection can be done in a timely fashion at any hour of the day. Stupid unrealistic law IMHO. Can we make it any more inconvenient for Washington sportsmen?
Well actually WDFW have been conducting these inspections for about 5 years now. There are certain times where it will say along the highway "all vehicles trailering watercraft must exit". If you don't you are stopped and cited.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/)
http://66.45.170.162/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/24/boaters-must-stop-washingtons-pop-invasive-species-check-stations/ (http://66.45.170.162/blogs/outdoors/2011/jun/24/boaters-must-stop-washingtons-pop-invasive-species-check-stations/)
Post by: ICEMAN on February 23, 2013, 09:15:32 PM
So I am trout fishing in Idaho on a Sunday and want to drive home. How do I get written documentation before I can go home? Washington state officials to decide what type of documentation is required, inspection and documentation to occur in Idaho, prior to crossing into Washington?
Under the bill WDFW has to determine what type of documentation is required. The documentation is not set right now. It will be up to WDFW if they will accept another state's inspection and how recently it must have happened.
And who honestly thinks that this inspection can be done in a timely fashion at any hour of the day. Stupid unrealistic law IMHO. Can we make it any more inconvenient for Washington sportsmen?
Well actually WDFW have been conducting these inspections for about 5 years now. There are certain times where it will say along the highway "all vehicles trailering boats must exit". If you don't you are stopped and cited.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/)
So Idaho is OK with this, to keep their inspection sites open to all returning Washington users 24/7/365 and all ready to inspect and certify a clean boat and trailer? All for Washinton.
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
So I am trout fishing in Idaho on a Sunday and want to drive home. How do I get written documentation before I can go home? Washington state officials to decide what type of documentation is required, inspection and documentation to occur in Idaho, prior to crossing into Washington?
Under the bill WDFW has to determine what type of documentation is required. The documentation is not set right now. It will be up to WDFW if they will accept another state's inspection and how recently it must have happened.
And who honestly thinks that this inspection can be done in a timely fashion at any hour of the day. Stupid unrealistic law IMHO. Can we make it any more inconvenient for Washington sportsmen?
Well actually WDFW have been conducting these inspections for about 5 years now. There are certain times where it will say along the highway "all vehicles trailering boats must exit". If you don't you are stopped and cited.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/)
So Idaho is OK with this, to keep their inspection sites open to all users 24/7/365 and all ready to inspect and certify a clean boat and trailer?
I never said Idaho is going to be the only source to get inspected. WSP is trained and already does inspections at their Ports of Entry. If this bill passes WDFW has to set up a lot of the program.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 23, 2013, 09:19:25 PM
BT, do government/research vessels fall into this? under commercial?
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2013, 09:21:33 PM
I hate bills like this that throw something out there and just say, we'll let ____ agency write the actual law for it. :bash: I think the idea is OK to try and stop invasive species, however its BS the way the are writing law. :twocents:
That is actually how a lot of laws, especially natural resource laws are written. By allowing agencies to write the actual regs it also allows for them to be easier to change or adopt.
An example is chronic wasting disease and bringing species from those states into WA. Right now WDFW can simply add a state/providence to the list. If it had to go through the state legislature it may take years, which could impact the resource.
Post by: lokidog on February 23, 2013, 09:26:50 PM
lokidog, I think the way it is written you could launch in OR and pick it up in WA and get around the paperwork. I looked and it only said vessels transported by land. So the guys fishing OR for mahi/tuna can still get to Westport and such.
BT, do government/research vessels fall into this? under commercial?
I was actually talking about driving to Newport or someplace like that, fishing, then returning home by hwy. Also, when I used to fish for sturgeon, I would launch at Johns River (I think) on the OR side and then return from there with the boat on the trailer.
And, that would be ahi (although technically I think that is yellowfin tuna not albacore) as mahi mahi would be way too far away from WA to travel by boat. :chuckle:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 23, 2013, 09:30:59 PM
But the 3.b. part of the bill makes it seem to me that only trailered boats are affected. :dunno: The rest seems to be about training inspectors.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 23, 2013, 09:39:47 PM
So I am trout fishing in Idaho on a Sunday and want to drive home. How do I get written documentation before I can go home? Washington state officials to decide what type of documentation is required, inspection and documentation to occur in Idaho, prior to crossing into Washington?
Under the bill WDFW has to determine what type of documentation is required. The documentation is not set right now. It will be up to WDFW if they will accept another state's inspection and how recently it must have happened.
And who honestly thinks that this inspection can be done in a timely fashion at any hour of the day. Stupid unrealistic law IMHO. Can we make it any more inconvenient for Washington sportsmen?
Well actually WDFW have been conducting these inspections for about 5 years now. There are certain times where it will say along the highway "all vehicles trailering boats must exit". If you don't you are stopped and cited.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/)
So Idaho is OK with this, to keep their inspection sites open to all users 24/7/365 and all ready to inspect and certify a clean boat and trailer?
I never said Idaho is going to be the only source to get inspected. WSP is trained and already does inspections at their Ports of Entry. If this bill passes WDFW has to set up a lot of the program.
It was stated that the bill would require inspection prior to entry to Washington.
Post by: washelkhunter on February 23, 2013, 09:52:09 PM
Post by: Mfowl on February 23, 2013, 10:41:44 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 24, 2013, 09:56:03 AM
So I am trout fishing in Idaho on a Sunday and want to drive home. How do I get written documentation before I can go home? Washington state officials to decide what type of documentation is required, inspection and documentation to occur in Idaho, prior to crossing into Washington?
Under the bill WDFW has to determine what type of documentation is required. The documentation is not set right now. It will be up to WDFW if they will accept another state's inspection and how recently it must have happened.
And who honestly thinks that this inspection can be done in a timely fashion at any hour of the day. Stupid unrealistic law IMHO. Can we make it any more inconvenient for Washington sportsmen?
Well actually WDFW have been conducting these inspections for about 5 years now. There are certain times where it will say along the highway "all vehicles trailering boats must exit". If you don't you are stopped and cited.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/)
So Idaho is OK with this, to keep their inspection sites open to all users 24/7/365 and all ready to inspect and certify a clean boat and trailer?
I never said Idaho is going to be the only source to get inspected. WSP is trained and already does inspections at their Ports of Entry. If this bill passes WDFW has to set up a lot of the program.
It was stated that the bill would require inspection prior to entry to Washington.
All of the official discussion has been around using WSP owned/operated Port of Entry weigh stations
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2013, 10:37:48 AM
Wonder how that will work?
Post by: arees on February 24, 2013, 10:44:17 AM
I understand that you are discussing inspections inside Washington at weigh stations, but this is what is in the bill (which I assume was not actually written by you):
Sec 1 (3) (b) A person who enters Washington by road transporting any commercial or recreational watercraft that has been used outside of Washington must have in his or her possession documentation that the watercraft is free of aquatic invasive species.
It would appear that by the time you reach a weigh station or inspection point in Washington, you have entered Washington. At work we us the motto "words mean stuff, different words mean different stuff." What does "enters Washington" mean in the legislative sense because you seem to be implying that it doesn't mean "enters Washington" as most people would read it?
They could have written that you have to have be inspected prior to entering or at the nearest inspection station upon entering Washington, but that is not what is in the bill.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2013, 10:52:44 AM
I spend a lot of time in Utah so I hear a lot about these invasive mussels, they are a huge problem that is costing Utah and other states dearly. They actually plug up dam and irrigation equipment, plus any waters that get infested with these invasive species are robbed of nutrients and fish populations suffer, they are a very serious problem.
I must agree the spread of these mussels and snails needs attention before they become established in WA waters, I'm not sure if this law is quite the right way.
It places requirements on boat owners but does not seem to offer solutions. :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on February 24, 2013, 10:59:34 AM
Bigtex,
I understand that you are discussing inspections inside Washington at weigh stations, but this is what is in the bill (which I assume was not actually written by you):
Sec 1 (3) (b) A person who enters Washington by road transporting any commercial or recreational watercraft that has been used outside of Washington must have in his or her possession documentation that the watercraft is free of aquatic invasive species.
It would appear that by the time you reach a weigh station or inspection point in Washington, you have entered Washington. At work we us the motto "words mean stuff, different words mean different stuff." What does "enters Washington" mean in the legislative sense because you seem to be implying that it doesn't mean "enters Washington" as most people would read it?
They could have written that you have to have be inspected prior to entering or at the nearest inspection station upon entering Washington, but that is not what is in the bill.
I know what you are saying. I am just saying that if you watch the legislative hearing you will see legislators and WDFW saying inspections can occur at really two places; outside the state at inspection places or WA weigh stations at ports of entry. Port of entry weigh stations are only those just inside the state border, not those in the middle of the state.
Post by: bigtex on February 24, 2013, 11:01:20 AM
I must agree the spread of these mussels and snails needs attention before they become established in WA waters, I'm not sure if this law is quite the right way.
It places requirements on boat owners but does not seem to offer solutions. :dunno:
The law is very similar to other states. In some states you have to get your boat inspected each time you launch, even if you never left the state. At many launches in Colorado for example there are people working the launch, you get checked prior to launch and when you exit the lake.
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2013, 11:17:01 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 24, 2013, 11:19:50 AM
How do people know where to get these certificates/inspections?Like I said in a earlier post, there was a big lighted sign over I-90, you couldn't miss it, requiring any boats to pull over for inspection, I would imagine you would get one after being inspected and cleared. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2013, 11:21:48 AM
We got too many launches to stick a person there to "work the launch", so they'll close the launch if a person isn't there?
When I enter WA I don't want to drive 100+ miles out of my way to hit a major highway with state port of entry scales, that would suck hard and honestly I wouldn't do it.
This law just has a huge suck potential.
Post by: KFhunter on February 24, 2013, 11:31:43 AM
How do people know where to get these certificates/inspections?Like I said in a earlier post, there was a big lighted sign over I-90, you couldn't miss it, requiring any boats to pull over for inspection, I would imagine you would get one after being inspected and cleared. :dunno:
SO when I go fish arrow lakes I'm suppose to drive all the way down to I-90 to "get inspected", no :chuckle:
If I'm entering the US on highway 25 / 97 / 395 / 21 / 31 where would I be inspected?
I also come into WA on hwy 20 through Newport/Oldtown - there is a stop there for Idaho but it's infrequent and only eastbound.
what I do then?
Post by: bearpaw on February 24, 2013, 11:34:45 AM
How do people know where to get these certificates/inspections?Like I said in a earlier post, there was a big lighted sign over I-90, you couldn't miss it, requiring any boats to pull over for inspection, I would imagine you would get one after being inspected and cleared. :dunno:
Sorry, maybe I missed something, what I meant is how and where do you get an inspection before you enter the state?
Quote
Senate Bill 5702 would require a person entering WA and towing watercraft used outside of WA to have documentation that the watercraft is free of aquatic invasive species (AIS). It was introduced on 2/11, had a hearing on 2/19, and went up for committee vote on 2/21
WDFW will adopt rules to implement the document requirement, including the type of documentation.
If you fail to obtain documentation it will be a natural resource infraction, not a criminal offense.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 24, 2013, 02:01:26 PM
If I'm entering the US on highway 25 / 97 / 395 / 21 / 31 where would I be inspected?
I think the WaDOT has a Port of Entry at those location.
How about Canada? There isn't a Port or scale house north of Bow Hill
Post by: arees on February 24, 2013, 02:41:46 PM
Bigtex,
I understand that you are discussing inspections inside Washington at weigh stations, but this is what is in the bill (which I assume was not actually written by you):
Sec 1 (3) (b) A person who enters Washington by road transporting any commercial or recreational watercraft that has been used outside of Washington must have in his or her possession documentation that the watercraft is free of aquatic invasive species.
It would appear that by the time you reach a weigh station or inspection point in Washington, you have entered Washington. At work we us the motto "words mean stuff, different words mean different stuff." What does "enters Washington" mean in the legislative sense because you seem to be implying that it doesn't mean "enters Washington" as most people would read it?
They could have written that you have to have be inspected prior to entering or at the nearest inspection station upon entering Washington, but that is not what is in the bill.
I know what you are saying. I am just saying that if you watch the legislative hearing you will see legislators and WDFW saying inspections can occur at really two places; outside the state at inspection places or WA weigh stations at ports of entry. Port of entry weigh stations are only those just inside the state border, not those in the middle of the state.
So what this amounts to is that we should trust WDFW that they are not intending to implement the law as they wrote it. We should take it on faith that they will do something other than what they wrote and it will be good for us.
1) Will inspections be available at all ports of entry 24/7?
2) How far out of their way does a returning boater need to go to comply with this bill?
3) If I drive by an inspection station that is closed can I just drive on with a clear conscience?
Proposing a law that does not mean what it says and has no practical way of being implemented does not seem to be a good way to build trust. I have spoken with the local game warden where I hunt on several occasions and he seems like a decent guy. I think the department is letting him down.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 24, 2013, 04:07:09 PM
So I am trout fishing in Idaho on a Sunday and want to drive home. How do I get written documentation before I can go home? Washington state officials to decide what type of documentation is required, inspection and documentation to occur in Idaho, prior to crossing into Washington?
Under the bill WDFW has to determine what type of documentation is required. The documentation is not set right now. It will be up to WDFW if they will accept another state's inspection and how recently it must have happened.
And who honestly thinks that this inspection can be done in a timely fashion at any hour of the day. Stupid unrealistic law IMHO. Can we make it any more inconvenient for Washington sportsmen?
Well actually WDFW have been conducting these inspections for about 5 years now. There are certain times where it will say along the highway "all vehicles trailering boats must exit". If you don't you are stopped and cited.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul0111a/)
So Idaho is OK with this, to keep their inspection sites open to all users 24/7/365 and all ready to inspect and certify a clean boat and trailer?
I never said Idaho is going to be the only source to get inspected. WSP is trained and already does inspections at their Ports of Entry. If this bill passes WDFW has to set up a lot of the program.
It was stated that the bill would require inspection prior to entry to Washington.
All of the official discussion has been around using WSP owned/operated Port of Entry weigh stations
Well this is a bit misleading IMHO. For soime reason your post lead me to believe that that boaters would be required to have documentation upon entering... How is this possible using WSP scales when in another state?
Senate Bill 5702 would require a person entering WA and towing watercraft used outside of WA to have documentation that the watercraft is free of aquatic invasive species (AIS). It was introduced on 2/11, had a hearing on 2/19, and went up for committee vote on 2/21
WDFW will adopt rules to implement the document requirement, including the type of documentation.
If you fail to obtain documentation it will be a natural resource infraction, not a criminal offense.
This program would be similar to those in Idaho and other states.
WDFW is in favor of the legislation
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5702 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5702)
We all want clean waters, but how about increasing the penalties ten fold for those in violation of and focusing efforts on current law, rather than inconveniencing every normal guy with new rules and new fees? I would rather money spent on more education and enforcement of current laws, not more FTE's and enforcement power.
Post by: lokidog on February 24, 2013, 05:59:08 PM
We all want clean waters, but how about increasing the penalties ten fold for those in violation of and focusing efforts on current law, rather than inconveniencing every normal guy with new rules and new fees? I would rather money spent on more education and enforcement of current laws, not more FTE's and enforcement power.
iCE, THIS WOULD BE TOO EASY AND NOT REQUIRE 287 (just a made-up number, it will probably be higher) NEW STATE EMPLOYEES. :bash:
This is actually a great idea. All they need to do is step up the random inspections about 4X and increase the penalty for having any invasive on their boat to $10,000 with no reductions. Of course, this might only require 10 new employees. :chuckle:
Post by: KopperBuck on February 26, 2013, 12:44:47 PM
We all want clean waters, but how about increasing the penalties ten fold for those in violation of and focusing efforts on current law, rather than inconveniencing every normal guy with new rules and new fees? I would rather money spent on more education and enforcement of current laws, not more FTE's and enforcement power.
iCE, THIS WOULD BE TOO EASY AND NOT REQUIRE 287 (just a made-up number, it will probably be higher) NEW STATE EMPLOYEES. :bash:
This is actually a great idea. All they need to do is step up the random inspections about 4X and increase the penalty for having any invasive on their boat to $10,000 with no reductions. Of course, this might only require 10 new employees. :chuckle:
That $10,000 will do nothing to mitigate the violation itself if it establishes.
Post by: lokidog on February 26, 2013, 12:55:37 PM
We all want clean waters, but how about increasing the penalties ten fold for those in violation of and focusing efforts on current law, rather than inconveniencing every normal guy with new rules and new fees? I would rather money spent on more education and enforcement of current laws, not more FTE's and enforcement power.
iCE, THIS WOULD BE TOO EASY AND NOT REQUIRE 287 (just a made-up number, it will probably be higher) NEW STATE EMPLOYEES. :bash:
This is actually a great idea. All they need to do is step up the random inspections about 4X and increase the penalty for having any invasive on their boat to $10,000 with no reductions. Of course, this might only require 10 new employees. :chuckle:
That $10,000 will do nothing to mitigate the violation itself if it establishes.
Not looking at mitigating anything, this would hopefully be a deterrent as I don't know many recreational fisherman than can afford to drop that kind of cash for not cleaning their boat.
Post by: bigtex on February 26, 2013, 04:02:07 PM
According to the fiscal note, there is no cost to implement this legislation.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 26, 2013, 04:24:49 PM
Yep, they have been doing this on boats coming into Eastern Washington for several years now.WSP Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officers (weigh stations) already do a large majority of the inspections. WDFW also does them sporadically, especially in the summer.
Under the bill WDFW really has to set up the program. Much of the discussion has been around with just having people go through the weigh stations at the ports of entry (state borders).
So there are already inspections dtaking place? I was unaware, had never seen notice.
Yes they are already taking place. This legislation would simply make it law that every single boat that crosses the border is required to have proof it is clean.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2013, 04:26:04 PM
If you think its a good idea to have the general public driving through scales i would have to disagree. There are enough truckers that test the CVE officers, I don't want to be behind some jack wagon that wants to argue with them. (I'm normally behind that person and its hit or miss if a friendly smile, show your paperwork and a yes sir/mam will get you sent on your way.)
I think it would be much more conducive for you to have to read and sign the updated rules when you get your tabs for your boat. :twocents:
Post by: NoBark on February 26, 2013, 04:27:01 PM
But any way you implemant it. It WILL come with a cost.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 26, 2013, 04:37:02 PM
So a couple of comments and some questions... Port of entry scales are on Interstates that are maned 24 7 Bow Hill I5 N Battleground I5 south, I dont remeber the name of the one I90 east and the one on I 84 near the tri cites. So what that means is that if you are NOT traveling on those major interstates you MUST go to one or WAIT until there is another scale open, and BTW they don't have a schedual for a reason! :chuckle:What has been going on here on the dryside is that if you are entering the state on a highway that doesn't have a scale or check station set up, you press on. But you better stop if there is either of those. I believe it was last year that there was a big search in this area cause a boat reportedly from Utah (I believe) was in or near the area that was contaminated.
If you think its a good idea to have the general public driving through scales i would have to disagree. There are enough truckers that test the CVE officers, I don't want to be behind some jack wagon that wants to argue with them. (I'm normally behind that person and its hit or miss if a friendly smile, show your paperwork and a yes sir/mam will get you sent on your way.)
I think it would be much more conducive for you to have to read and sign the updated rules when you get your tabs for your boat. :twocents:
Post by: arees on February 27, 2013, 06:25:55 AM
The bill was voted out of the committee, it is now in the Senate Rules committee which will decide if and when it'll go up for a full Senate vote.
According to the fiscal note, there is no cost to implement this legislation.
Back to that credibility issue...
How can there be no cost to implement this legislation? If the inspections are occurring in Washington, someone in Washington has to be paying for those inspections. If it is not the state, it must be the boater. What will the state be charging for those inspections?
If the inspections are occurring out of state (as the legislation actually states), what will the other states (and Canada) be charging for the inspections? Will they be doing the inspections for free because everyone loves WDFW?
Or are they just expecting to make the money up by writing tickets?
What is offsetting the cost of inspections?
I appreciate you taking the time to post here, I just wish the department provided you with trustworthy answers. So far we have been told not to worry about what the bill actually says because the department will be doing something else anyway. Now we are told that it won't cost anything to do more work.
Post by: bigtex on February 27, 2013, 09:49:47 AM
The bill was voted out of the committee, it is now in the Senate Rules committee which will decide if and when it'll go up for a full Senate vote.
According to the fiscal note, there is no cost to implement this legislation.
Back to that credibility issue...
How can there be no cost to implement this legislation? If the inspections are occurring in Washington, someone in Washington has to be paying for those inspections. If it is not the state, it must be the boater. What will the state be charging for those inspections?
If the inspections are occurring out of state (as the legislation actually states), what will the other states (and Canada) be charging for the inspections? Will they be doing the inspections for free because everyone loves WDFW?
Or are they just expecting to make the money up by writing tickets?
What is offsetting the cost of inspections?
I appreciate you taking the time to post here, I just wish the department provided you with trustworthy answers. So far we have been told not to worry about what the bill actually says because the department will be doing something else anyway. Now we are told that it won't cost anything to do more work.
According to the state Office of Fiscal Management, which looks into how much bills cost. This bill will cost essentially zero.
I personally have never had a watercraft inspected outside of WA, but from what I have heard those inspections are free.
In regards to tickets. The offense is a natural resource infraction. Right now that fine is $87. OFM predicts there to be little revenue received from these tickets.
Post by: arees on February 27, 2013, 12:48:22 PM
1) Charge the people for the inspections.
2) Cut out something else the state is paying for.
3) Don't actually do any inspections.
Again you bring up out of state inspections and state that you think they are free. That implies the other states are paying for them from their budget. But in your other posts you are saying that the inspections would be performed in Washington at existing ports of entry. If the in state inspections will be free and they won't add to the budget, that implies that we have state employees loafing around at our ports of entry right now. Perhaps you know more about your coworkers than I do.
Maybe the OFM just means that the state blows through so much money that we won't notice blowing through a bit more.
Post by: Special T on February 27, 2013, 12:55:57 PM
Since only 2 Port of entry scales are right on the border defending it, how would this work for Bow hill or Battle ground on I5 Both of those are inland, some 15-30 miles so if i drive by withmy boat, how can they enforce this? I know that sometimes the CVE guys chase down trucks that run the scales... You could do that with the I90 and I84 scales but not the others so???
Post by: bigtex on March 11, 2013, 07:54:41 PM
The bill unanimously passed the Senate today. It now heads to the House.
Post by: bigtex on April 02, 2013, 12:08:23 PM
The Bill passed the House Natural Resource Committee with no opposition. The bill is scheduled for a full House vote and then signing by Governor Inslee
Post by: Curly on April 10, 2013, 01:10:52 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 17, 2013, 09:44:07 AM
The bill passed the House with only Rep Magendanz voting against it. It now goes to the governor.