Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 09:14:55 AM
The bill:
(1) The legislature finds that maintaining access to the state's public lands is vital to preserving the many recreational and health benefits those lands provide to the citizens of the state. State lands provide an innumerable number of valuable recreational opportunities including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, off-road vehicle use, and wildlife viewing. In turn, these recreational opportunities generate economic benefits for the communities surrounding those lands.
(2) The legislature finds that one way to help maintain recreational access to state lands is to ensure state agencies have the tools to provide an adequate law enforcement presence on those lands. As the largest state agency recreational land manager, the department of natural resources holds approximately three million acres of uplands managed to benefit public institutions, such as common schools, and counties, as well as a number of preserves and conservation areas. The legislature intends to provide the department of natural resources with additional resources to increase the number of officers protecting the state's natural resources and ensuring safe recreation on state lands, which in turn will help stem the need for recreational area closures.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand dollars, or as much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, from the general fund to the department of natural resources for the purposes of this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The sum of five hundred thousand dollars, or as much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, from the general fund to the department of natural resources for the purposes of this act.
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5906&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5906&year=2013)
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 09:30:01 AM
If DNR was to use this money solely for DNR LEOs they would probably hire 4-5 new officers. No DNR Officers do not make 100K a year. You need to figure in the fact DNR would need to purchase 4-5 brand new patrol vehicles, outfit them with all equipment, buy gear for the actual officer, etc. DNR LEOs are actually the lowest paid state LEOs (they make right about the same as Park Rangers).
DNR sometimes provides funding to county sheriffs to patrol DNR lands so they could also use some of this funding for that as well.
Post by: snowpack on April 10, 2013, 11:35:42 AM
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 11:42:25 AM
As much as I dislike the idea of the Disco Pass....if they actually wrote tickets for about 1/3 of the violators I would guess they would probably have that $500K.
I highly doubt that.
DNR only gets 8% of the fine for the Discover Pass tickets.
The parking citation is $99 if they don't go before a judge, that means DNR gets a little under $8 for the citation.
The operating citation is $203 if they don't go before a judge, that means DNR gets a little over $16 for the citation.
This means that there would have to be 62,500 Discover Pass parking tickets written statewide by all agencies in order for DNR to get $500,000
OR
31,250 Discover Pass operating tickets would have to be written.
Not possible
Post by: snowpack on April 10, 2013, 11:51:04 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 10, 2013, 12:38:48 PM
But, I highly doubt that it will get through as written, considering that the half a mil funding comes from the General Fund.
A whole lot of people could be up in arms over this type of allocation of General Funds use considering all the cuts coming from other areas currently and in the recent past.
Post by: Special T on April 10, 2013, 01:09:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 04:21:52 PM
But, I highly doubt that it will get through as written, considering that the half a mil funding comes from the General Fund.
A whole lot of people could be up in arms over this type of allocation of General Funds use considering all the cuts coming from other areas currently and in the recent past.
I think that is one of the common misconceptions about govt budgets. I think everyone hears deficit/red and imagines that no new programs are funded by the general fund and it's cut cut cut, not true. There are new programs/positions funded all the time by the general fund.
There are two things "going" for this bill:
1- Strong bi-partisan support
2- Obvious public safety element. Easier to "sell" this bill then one that would cost the same and would just build a new office or something.
Post by: whacker1 on April 10, 2013, 04:53:49 PM
timber theft?
enforce discover pass?
Etc?
Trying to figure out the motivation behind it on the bi-partisan support.
Not against it, but curious as to why the late arrival and why the senators didn't include it in the budget. I wrote to one of the sponsors from Spokane to see if he could better explain the motivation.
Post by: Smokepole on April 10, 2013, 04:59:22 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 05:06:09 PM
Is their some background as to why we need more?
Trying to figure out the motivation behind it on the bi-partisan support.
Not against it, but curious as to why the late arrival and why the senators didn't include it in the budget. I wrote to one of the sponsors from Spokane to see if he could better explain the motivation.
Why is it bad their is bi-partisan support?
According to the bill it basically says in order to keep DNR land open and basically not gate it all up is to have more law enforcement on DNR lands. DNR has said a reason for their gates is a lack of enforcement and people doing illegal activites.
Post by: whacker1 on April 10, 2013, 05:13:09 PM
Is their some background as to why we need more?
Trying to figure out the motivation behind it on the bi-partisan support.
Not against it, but curious as to why the late arrival and why the senators didn't include it in the budget. I wrote to one of the sponsors from Spokane to see if he could better explain the motivation.
Why is it bad their is bi-partisan support?
According to the bill it basically says in order to keep DNR land open and basically not gate it all up is to have more law enforcement on DNR lands. DNR has said a reason for their gates is a lack of enforcement and people doing illegal activites.
It is not bad that their is bi-partisan support, but it tells me that there is more going on behind the scenes than just "recreation"; otherwise they would be throwing $500k at Parks instead of the discover pass.
I am not pro or con, but rather questioning the motivation as it is not completely known.
Almost every bill I have ever read has more going on than a 1 paragraph bill digest, and I want to figure out what is going on behind the scenese. What organizations are supporting this or opposing? Tribes had a similar bill in the house to not restrict access to them? Is this a spin off of that? Is timber theft the issue and they are trying to protect D.N.R. timber / schools?
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 05:18:10 PM
Almost every bill I have ever read has more going on than a 1 paragraph bill digest, and I want to figure out what is going on behind the scenese.
Most bills only have a few lines in their digest... The "complex" firearm violator registration bill's digest is only a few lines longer then this bill's.
The hunter ed bill which is about to pass has the following digest "Revises hunter education training program requirements."
Post by: whacker1 on April 10, 2013, 05:23:44 PM
Almost every bill I have ever read has more going on than a 1 paragraph bill digest, and I want to figure out what is going on behind the scenese.
Most bills only have a few lines in their digest... The "complex" firearm violator registration bill's digest is only a few lines longer then this bill's.
Exactly, so you have to ask the questions to determine what the implications might be. I am not ready to make a decision to support or oppose until I know what the "problem" is that we are "fixing", and you won't identify that "problem" or "fix" in one paragraph.
It strikes me as odd that the senate majority coalition that proposed a very conservative budget puts forth a bill for an additional $500,000 budget item that is normally included in the budget. Was it intended to be in there and it got missed? Was it not supported by the coalition, so a dozen senators put forth this bill on their own?
I don't have a problem with it, just trying to understand why it has come out in this fashion:
It appears by your tone that you are in "full" support, is that correct?
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 05:29:40 PM
It strikes me as odd that the senate majority coalition that proposed a very conservative budget puts forth a bill for an additional $500,000 budget item that is normally included in the budget. Was it intended to be in there and it got missed? Was it not supported by the coalition, so a dozen senators put forth this bill on their own?Almost every bill I have ever read has more going on than a 1 paragraph bill digest, and I want to figure out what is going on behind the scenese.
Most bills only have a few lines in their digest... The "complex" firearm violator registration bill's digest is only a few lines longer then this bill's.
It appears by your tone that you are in "full" support, is that correct?
First off, DNR's LE program is not funded like any other state ageny's LE program. DNR's LE program is essentially funded by DNR getting together and putting together a LE program by a way of grants and picking money from different divisions. It's basically like finding a few pennies here and there to fund an officer position. You don't see a DNR LE budget item like you do with WDFW or Liquor Control.
I am in full support.
Post by: netcoyote on April 10, 2013, 05:33:26 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on April 10, 2013, 05:45:30 PM
Just to show how much of an impact this would have. In the 2011 fiscal year DNR's LE budget was $754,000. In 2012 it is $833,000.
If DNR was to use this money solely for DNR LEOs they would probably hire 4-5 new officers. No DNR Officers do not make 100K a year. You need to figure in the fact DNR would need to purchase 4-5 brand new patrol vehicles, outfit them with all equipment, buy gear for the actual officer, etc. DNR LEOs are actually the lowest paid state LEOs (they make right about the same as Park Rangers).
DNR sometimes provides funding to county sheriffs to patrol DNR lands so they could also use some of this funding for that as well.
Key words in that paragraph. Real meaning, one new officer (if we are lucky), two new managers to supervise the new officer, the rest will go to new office furniture for the two new managers. Then claim they still have to lock the land up because of lack of officers.
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 05:50:27 PM
Just to show how much of an impact this would have. In the 2011 fiscal year DNR's LE budget was $754,000. In 2012 it is $833,000.
If DNR was to use this money solely for DNR LEOs they would probably hire 4-5 new officers. No DNR Officers do not make 100K a year. You need to figure in the fact DNR would need to purchase 4-5 brand new patrol vehicles, outfit them with all equipment, buy gear for the actual officer, etc. DNR LEOs are actually the lowest paid state LEOs (they make right about the same as Park Rangers).
DNR sometimes provides funding to county sheriffs to patrol DNR lands so they could also use some of this funding for that as well.
Key words in that paragraph. Real meaning, one new officer (if we are lucky), two new managers to supervise the new officer, the rest will go to new office furniture for the two new managers. Then claim they still have to lock the land up because of lack of officers.
You are reading my explanation, not the bill!
The bill says the $ MUST be spent on OFFICERS.
I was explaining how many officers DNR could gain.
DNR Law Enforcement only has one manager, the LE Chief.
Post by: SCRUBS on April 10, 2013, 06:17:30 PM
Just to show how much of an impact this would have. In the 2011 fiscal year DNR's LE budget was $754,000. In 2012 it is $833,000.
If DNR was to use this money solely for DNR LEOs they would probably hire 4-5 new officers. No DNR Officers do not make 100K a year. You need to figure in the fact DNR would need to purchase 4-5 brand new patrol vehicles, outfit them with all equipment, buy gear for the actual officer, etc. DNR LEOs are actually the lowest paid state LEOs (they make right about the same as Park Rangers).
DNR sometimes provides funding to county sheriffs to patrol DNR lands so they could also use some of this funding for that as well.
Key words in that paragraph. Real meaning, one new officer (if we are lucky), two new managers to supervise the new officer, the rest will go to new office furniture for the two new managers. Then claim they still have to lock the land up because of lack of officers.
You are reading my explanation, not the bill!
The bill says the $ MUST be spent on OFFICERS.
I was explaining how many officers DNR could gain.
DNR Law Enforcement only has one manager, the LE Chief.
You are right, they "could" add officers to prevent the lock up of land. It does not say they "will" add officers to prevent the lock up of the land. Like you said above, officers they "could" gain,not "will" gain. That`s if they don`t mismanage the money, then still lock it up, which is more likely to happen.
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2013, 06:21:54 PM
Just to show how much of an impact this would have. In the 2011 fiscal year DNR's LE budget was $754,000. In 2012 it is $833,000.
If DNR was to use this money solely for DNR LEOs they would probably hire 4-5 new officers. No DNR Officers do not make 100K a year. You need to figure in the fact DNR would need to purchase 4-5 brand new patrol vehicles, outfit them with all equipment, buy gear for the actual officer, etc. DNR LEOs are actually the lowest paid state LEOs (they make right about the same as Park Rangers).
DNR sometimes provides funding to county sheriffs to patrol DNR lands so they could also use some of this funding for that as well.
Key words in that paragraph. Real meaning, one new officer (if we are lucky), two new managers to supervise the new officer, the rest will go to new office furniture for the two new managers. Then claim they still have to lock the land up because of lack of officers.
You are reading my explanation, not the bill!
The bill says the $ MUST be spent on OFFICERS.
I was explaining how many officers DNR could gain.
DNR Law Enforcement only has one manager, the LE Chief.
You are right, they "could" add officers to prevent the lock up of land. It does not say they "will" add officers to prevent the lock up of the land. Like you said above, officers they "could" gain,not "will" gain. That`s if they don`t mismanage the money, then still lock it up, which is more likely to happen.
DNR can use the money to increase LE in two ways:
-Hire more DNR LEOs
-Give sheriff's money to patrol DNR lands which they very rarely do right now. BLM, Forest Service, and State Parks already do this all the time.
By saying "could" I was meaning they "could" hire officers, or they "could" give it to sheriff's. The bill does not say DNR Officers are the ones that need to be the ones patrolling. You are taking my words out of context.
Post by: bigtex on April 15, 2013, 10:48:18 PM
Post by: bigtex on September 22, 2013, 10:29:18 AM
Post by: Button Nubbs on September 22, 2013, 10:37:42 AM
Hate bringing up a "dead" topic. However, I should bring up that while this bill did not pass. The 2013-15 budget did include an additional $500,000 for DNR Law Enforcement. This was simply a cash "gift" and not a personnel increase. Looks more like DNR will be using it to bring on more contracted law enforcement rather than DNR Officers.I know of an area that could use a full time officer. Getting hammered by poachers. Glad to see you guys got some extra ribcage.
Post by: Special T on September 22, 2013, 02:57:48 PM
Post by: Jack Diamond on September 24, 2013, 12:32:19 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 24, 2013, 12:42:55 PM
So we had to park there and walk up the road. Come on people, it's not that expensive to take it to the dump! :bash:
Post by: Bean Counter on September 24, 2013, 12:45:38 PM
Post by: blackdog on September 25, 2013, 10:12:02 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2013, 10:14:04 PM
DNR is currently negotiating tribal agreements for vehicle access behind locked gates.
Why am I not surprised? :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: bigtex on September 26, 2013, 02:50:17 PM
Would this create DNR cops or just give OT for currently patrolling depts to step it up?
DNR already has about 10 law enforcement officers which can enforce all state laws on DNR lands. Some officers, or all DNR officers can also enforce laws countywide in 25 counties which have commissioned them as county deputies.
What this did was essentially give DNR $500,000, not actually more positions. So there will still be 10 DNR Officers (unless they receive positions from another source), but it will allow for DNR Officers to work more OT, DNR contracts with several other LE agencies in the state so it will give those agencies more money, and DNR could even create new contracts in areas where they don't have them
Post by: bigtex on October 24, 2013, 07:25:12 AM