Post by: bigtex on January 09, 2014, 10:04:34 AM
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that the citizens of the state will benefit from a coordinated state-led effort to plan recreational trails that are accessible by the greatest number of people and are constructed to common sense standards that are consistent statewide. The legislature further finds that these goals can be met by removing local control over standards, recognizing trails as the temporary structures that they are and thereby eliminating public controversy and user conflicts when they are built and maintained, establishing a respected system or process that allows for public involvement in both the creation and development of trails, and establishing a staffing balance that consists of those who have shared experience with the public in their field of recreation so as to eliminate unnecessary extra costs and establish guidelines for trail design, development, construction, usage, and competitive use.
A new section is added to chapter 79A.80 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Each agency must develop and implement an official recreational trail policy applicable to that agency that is consistent with this section and the management mandate of the agency.
(2)(a) A recreational trail policy developed by an agency under this section must consider a recreational trail to be a temporary use of the land it is situated upon and the impacts on soils as part of the soil use and not damage to the forest floor or other resource. As such, recreational trails should be developed and managed in a manner that ensures the lowest construction and maintenance costs by requiring the least amount of manufacturing, introduction of new materials, and dirt displacement, removal, and disturbance while emphasizing water and sediment delivery to the forest floor as frequently as possible. When possible, the agencies should use trail standards developed by the United States forest service as primary guidelines for trail construction and maintenance.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2151&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2151&year=2013)
Post by: bigtex on January 09, 2014, 10:23:59 AM
I think each of the land management agencies in WA have lands that don't really fit their "mission" statement.
DNR's main responsibility is to bring in revenue to the state via logging, agricultural, and shellfish leasing and so on. Why do they need to manage the Beverly Sand Dunes which the only revenue it brings in are Discover Pass and special use permits? Those lands could easily be exchanged with BLM which is known for it's sand OHV/ATV programs, yet Beverly is the only one DNR manages in terms of sand OHV areas. Mt Si in King County is again managed by DNR, but no logging occurs there, basically no hunting (if at all) and most people think it's a state park, again only money being generated there is Discover Pass, Mt Si could be moved to State Parks (if we forgot about all the budgetary issues) because it is essentially being ran as a state park already and most people think it is already a state park. DNR spends a ton of money on these two areas from everything from law enforcement to general maintenance, yet basically no revenue is being received from them.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 09, 2014, 10:29:20 AM
Blake has also sponsored 2150 Encouraging recreational access to private property.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2150&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2150&year=2013)
Here's a link to all 130+ prefiled
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/prefiled.aspx?year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/prefiled.aspx?year=2013)
Post by: Jingles on January 09, 2014, 10:31:14 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 09, 2014, 10:34:08 AM
Can't see where this is a good bill either bigtex
Blake has also sponsored 2150 Encouraging recreational access to private property.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2150&year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2150&year=2013)
Here's a link to all 130+ prefiled
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/prefiled.aspx?year=2013 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/prefiled.aspx?year=2013)
How can the state pass a law to let people on private land for fire wood cutting?
All it says is if you do let people on your land you will not face liability issues.
Post by: LRP on January 09, 2014, 10:47:59 AM
Post by: arees on January 09, 2014, 10:53:48 AM
Post by: Northway on January 09, 2014, 10:56:36 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 09, 2014, 10:57:56 AM
Bad idea. Another unfunded mandate that is contrary to WDFW's mandate. Who pays for the building of those trails
:yeah:
These agencies can already build trails on their lands right now, if WDFW wanted to build a trail in the Colockum they could go out and do it. But now they would be required to set up plans, and so on in order to be in line with this bill.
Post by: huntnphool on January 09, 2014, 11:04:43 AM
Personally, I don't like the bill. Agencies manage their lands to their agency mission/usage. I just see it as another requirement that the agencies need to fulfill that they don't need to. If DNR wants to build a trail, they can do so, etc. But now each agency would be required to build a trail system. Why should WDFW be required to build trails on their lands?+1
I think each of the land management agencies in WA have lands that don't really fit their "mission" statement.
DNR's main responsibility is to bring in revenue to the state via logging, agricultural, and shellfish leasing and so on. Why do they need to manage the Beverly Sand Dunes which the only revenue it brings in are Discover Pass and special use permits? Those lands could easily be exchanged with BLM which is known for it's sand OHV/ATV programs, yet Beverly is the only one DNR manages in terms of sand OHV areas. Mt Si in King County is again managed by DNR, but no logging occurs there, basically no hunting (if at all) and most people think it's a state park, again only money being generated there is Discover Pass, Mt Si could be moved to State Parks (if we forgot about all the budgetary issues) because it is essentially being ran as a state park already and most people think it is already a state park. DNR spends a ton of money on these two areas from everything from law enforcement to general maintenance, yet basically no revenue is being received from them.
Post by: blackdog on January 13, 2014, 08:08:05 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 13, 2014, 08:11:12 PM
Post by: Brad Harshman on January 13, 2014, 08:42:05 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 13, 2014, 09:06:41 PM
Post by: japerry on January 16, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
I'm opposed to this bill.
I hope I can change your mind =)
This bill has been the work of those user groups who've been having to deal with the red tape that is causing projects to balloon in time and cost, and forcing recreationalists to find their own 'secret' trails which leads to conflict or worse....
If this bill passes, DNR will be able to revamp how it deals with the Reiter project, and start working on implementing user-built trails into systems. It'll encourage volunteers to lead trail design with documented knowledge of their experience with their respective hobby.
In the end, it should increase the miles of trails for motorized and non-motorized users, bring a public forum for making sure user groups don't conflict with each other, and eventually give everyone what they want. The amount of land is vast, and I believe that with the right cooperation almost every user group can get what they want.
I'll be testifying on this bill tomorrow, and will pass on any comments from this thread.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 16, 2014, 07:49:00 PM
The bill is an attempt to reduce the 110k per mile that DNR is charging to build motorcycle trails. The bill will be clarified so that Parks and DFW are not included.
The major proponent of the bill is the ORV community that has been working with DNR on trails access.
Im in recreation management. This bill should alleviate agencies from the rediculous red tape involved in building a trail. In my experience it costs almost as much to plan, design, and permit a trail construction project as it does to just build the stupid thing. Agencies shouldn't have to spend two years planning a summer project that boyscouts could build. At first glance I like the bill. But I'll need to read more about it.
Its simple, forest trails should not be built to urban standards. :tup:
These posts are making me look at it from a different perspective, since :tree1: are even more ruthless than anti hunters, not caring what it costs to TRY to get their way and they love lawyers, wolves and bunnies also. I'll keep and open mind.
Post by: steen on January 16, 2014, 08:06:02 PM
Post by: japerry on January 16, 2014, 08:14:22 PM
This bill won't change that, but at least will force DNR to look at incorporating user-built trails into recreation areas.
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 10:03:31 AM
The bill is an attempt to reduce the 110k per mile that DNR is charging to build motorcycle trails. The bill will be clarified so that Parks and DFW are not included.The major proponent of the bill is the ORV community that has been working with DNR on trails access.Im in recreation management. This bill should alleviate agencies from the rediculous red tape involved in building a trail. In my experience it costs almost as much to plan, design, and permit a trail construction project as it does to just build the stupid thing. Agencies shouldn't have to spend two years planning a summer project that boyscouts could build. At first glance I like the bill. But I'll need to read more about it.Its simple, forest trails should not be built to urban standards. :tup:
These posts are making me look at it from a different perspective, since :tree1: are even more ruthless than anti hunters, not caring what it costs to TRY to get their way and they love lawyers, wolves and bunnies also. I'll keep and open mind.
I agree this puts the bill in a different light for me, I think I would support this bill.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 17, 2014, 12:04:49 PM
Just remember, building trails and any other maintenance except for emergencies is a gross misdemeanor.
This bill won't change that, but at least will force DNR to look at incorporating user-built trails into recreation areas.
Really? Up where we hunt the upper Colockum there is an established camp that has been building and maintaining trails since about 1963,and doing a good job of it. I don't see any crime....
Post by: Curly on January 17, 2014, 12:14:49 PM
Post by: japerry on January 17, 2014, 03:59:24 PM
Really? Up where we hunt the upper Colockum there is an established camp that has been building and maintaining trails since about 1963,and doing a good job of it. I don't see any crime....
WAC 332-52-405:
Quote
Construction and maintenance of trails and structures.
(1) May a person construct, modify, repair or maintain a new or existing recreation trail, structure, or other facility or improvement or cause such activities to occur on department-managed lands? No. With the exceptions noted in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person shall not construct, modify, repair or maintain a recreation trail, structure, or other facility or improvement, or cause such activities to occur on department-managed lands, without written authorization from the department.
(2) May a person perform routine maintenance of recreational trails or facilities on department-managed lands? Yes. With an approved department of natural resources volunteer agreement, individuals may conduct routine maintenance of recreational trails or facilities.
(3) May a person perform emergency maintenance of recreational trails without written authorization from the department? Yes. A person may perform emergency maintenance on recreational trails. Emergency maintenance for purposes of this subsection means the reasonable mitigation of immediate safety hazards, and brushing, weeding, windfall removal, clearing drain ditches or culverts, or tread repair to prevent immediate resource damage.
(4) Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW except violation of subsection (1) of this section is a misdemeanor.
But come to think of it, this might not be applicable to WDFW land.
Also, a sub was released just before the hearing. It gets rid of Parks and WDFW, and while Blake is the prime sponsor, it was written by ORV people and has tentative blessings from non-motorized groups as well.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/CMD/Handler.ashx?MethodName=getdocumentcontent&documentId=CE3mpaM8Pv8&att=false
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2014, 04:02:39 PM
Really? Up where we hunt the upper Colockum there is an established camp that has been building and maintaining trails since about 1963,and doing a good job of it. I don't see any crime....
WAC 332-52-405:QuoteConstruction and maintenance of trails and structures.But come to think of it, this might not be applicable to WDFW land.
(1) May a person construct, modify, repair or maintain a new or existing recreation trail, structure, or other facility or improvement or cause such activities to occur on department-managed lands? No. With the exceptions noted in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person shall not construct, modify, repair or maintain a recreation trail, structure, or other facility or improvement, or cause such activities to occur on department-managed lands, without written authorization from the department.
(2) May a person perform routine maintenance of recreational trails or facilities on department-managed lands? Yes. With an approved department of natural resources volunteer agreement, individuals may conduct routine maintenance of recreational trails or facilities.
(3) May a person perform emergency maintenance of recreational trails without written authorization from the department? Yes. A person may perform emergency maintenance on recreational trails. Emergency maintenance for purposes of this subsection means the reasonable mitigation of immediate safety hazards, and brushing, weeding, windfall removal, clearing drain ditches or culverts, or tread repair to prevent immediate resource damage.
(4) Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW except violation of subsection (1) of this section is a misdemeanor.
WAC 332 doesn't apply to WDFW land
Post by: japerry on January 17, 2014, 05:20:05 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 17, 2014, 05:34:37 PM
Just remember, building trails and any other maintenance except for emergencies is a gross misdemeanor.
This bill won't change that, but at least will force DNR to look at incorporating user-built trails into recreation areas.
Really? Up where we hunt the upper Colockum there is an established camp that has been building and maintaining trails since about 1963,and doing a good job of it. I don't see any crime....
But I would bet this was Game Department land that has been traded throughout the years with DNR in the 328. Maybe not