Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 09:16:14 AM
(1) If a parcel of public land is one-quarter of a square mile or less in size and is adjacent to a body of public water and the land is or can be used to access the body of public water, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must provide adequate public parking for persons utilizing the land to access the water.
(2) If adequate public parking is not provided, using the land to access the water for other than a governmental purpose is prohibited. If adequate public parking is not provided, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must post a warning sign for the public that clearly shows that using the land to access the water is prohibited and states the sanction for a violation of the prohibition.
(3) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=2342&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=2342&year=2013)
Post by: KFhunter on January 15, 2014, 09:19:40 AM
That's going to piss off a lot of roadside fishermen.
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 09:22:04 AM
whew!
That's going to piss off a lot of roadside fishermen.
No kidding. I have a feeling there is a story behind this one :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 09:25:02 AM
Post by: Bofire on January 15, 2014, 09:27:07 AM
this idea sucks!
Carl
Post by: fastdam on January 15, 2014, 09:27:30 AM
Post by: viva_che1363 on January 15, 2014, 09:30:27 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on January 15, 2014, 09:38:15 AM
Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.
Not just sportsmen, but anyone using the waterfront for any recreation. I guess the property owners don’t like seeing us plebs when they look out their 20 foot, floor to ceiling windows. Poor dears.
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 09:39:49 AM
This must be a senator from the wetside that introduced this bill. Sure hope this one doesnt pass. I have a duck hunting spot that would be affected.
Haler is a Republican from the Richland area
Post by: 724wd on January 15, 2014, 09:41:51 AM
This must be a senator from the wetside that introduced this bill. Sure hope this one doesnt pass. I have a duck hunting spot that would be affected.
Haler is a Republican from the Richland area
then he can go jump off the Blue Bridge!
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 12:54:10 PM
This just shows the utter stupidity of some of the bills that are introduced into the legislature. If this representative truly thinks this bill will get any support, let alone pass I think we need to rethink his position in the legislature. Like I already said, there has to be a story behind this bill.
There are a lot of good bills introduced into the legislature that for whatever reason don't pass. Then there are bills that are introduced simply to make a point. Typically these bills that are introduced to make a point have no intention on passing yet they get the public all riled up.
How much time and money is wasted on bills that a) will never pass or b) are simply there to make a point and have no intention on passing???
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 01:18:04 PM
Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.Or it is an attempt to try to make those agencies add 'adequate parking' to those lands. 1/4 of a square mile is 160 acres and it is not unheard of to have about 1 mile of riverbank on 160 acres. I guess this would prohibit boats from parking on the bank too?
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 01:21:17 PM
Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.Or it is an attempt to try to make those agencies add 'adequate parking' to those lands. 1/4 of a square mile is 160 acres and it is not unheard of to have about 1 mile of riverbank on 160 acres. I guess this would prohibit boats from parking on the bank too?
Yeah I thought of that too.
bigtex, don't these proposed laws also give the reason behind it?
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 01:27:05 PM
Sounds like it's an attempt to lock the public out of hunting and/or fishing on public waters so that private landowners adjacent to the water can have exclusive access.Or it is an attempt to try to make those agencies add 'adequate parking' to those lands. 1/4 of a square mile is 160 acres and it is not unheard of to have about 1 mile of riverbank on 160 acres. I guess this would prohibit boats from parking on the bank too?
Yeah I thought of that too.
bigtex, don't these proposed laws also give the reason behind it?
Some do have an "intent" section written into the law. This one doesn't. If it does eventually go to a committee hearing there will be a formal, easily to read document which will kind of outline the purpose, but until that happens we are stuck with the 3 sections I posted.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 15, 2014, 01:39:31 PM
Same thing with ocean beach access in every community.
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 01:43:43 PM
Post by: arees on January 15, 2014, 01:50:28 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:08:11 PM
This one gets a solid no. There are already parking enforcement laws. We don't need another one.
This one is more along the lines of trespass then parking enforcement
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2014, 02:15:03 PM
This one gets a solid no. There are already parking enforcement laws. We don't need another one.
This one is more along the lines of trespass then parking enforcement
Meaning trespassing on public property?
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:17:15 PM
Meaning trespassing on public property?This one gets a solid no. There are already parking enforcement laws. We don't need another one.This one is more along the lines of trespass then parking enforcement
Basically. It's basically saying "your prohibited from using these public lands to get to the water". The offense would be a misdemeanor, not a parking citation. You can run around on those lands all you want, but if your using the land to access the water you'll have a mandatory court date.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2014, 02:21:59 PM
Nanny state again....Meaning trespassing on public property?This one gets a solid no. There are already parking enforcement laws. We don't need another one.This one is more along the lines of trespass then parking enforcement
Basically. It's basically saying "your prohibited from using these public lands to get to the water". The offense would be a misdemeanor, not a parking citation. You can run around on those lands all you want, but if your using the land to access the water you'll have a mandatory court date.
Big brother going wild And I'm100% with you on that rant, bigtex
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 15, 2014, 02:23:04 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:29:10 PM
but accessing the water via inlet or outlet would be allowed sine this is not publicly owned correct?
The law just has to do with lands. If I want to get to XYZ lake/river/creek and there is a 5 acre chunk of DNR land between the lake and the road, I wouldn't be able to use that DNR land to access XYZ lake/river/creek unless DNR establishes a parking area.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 15, 2014, 02:34:39 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 15, 2014, 02:35:11 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:37:46 PM
Doesn't mention if the parking has to be on the actual land or 1/2 mile away from the land as long as adequate parking is provided.
You are correct but the bill does say "governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must provide adequate public parking for persons utilizing the land to access the water." Basically means if DNR is the owner, DNR must provide adequate parking for persons utilizing the land.
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:38:29 PM
I've got a call into his office for explanation of why he sponsored this bill. His assistant told me to expect a call on Friday. Thanks for posting this Bigtex. You're a huge asset with stuff like this. :tup:
Not a problem. And as of this time, he is the only sponsor.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 15, 2014, 02:48:14 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:50:51 PM
His assistant said the bill was requested by a constituent. I'm imagining a fairly well-off constituent with waterfront property who threw him a fundraiser before his election. Just a guess.
Sure would be nice if every constituent could have a bill made to their liking :twocents:
Post by: canyelk48 on January 15, 2014, 03:07:18 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on January 15, 2014, 05:47:58 PM
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 06:02:18 PM
If parking has to be provided, it would allow access that doesn't exist right now the way I understand it. How can that be bad? Many of these parcels are controlled by adjacent private land owners that don't want strangers or recreating traffic near their property, consequently no access is available. A couple members of the Pierce Co Boating Safety Commission worked on something similar(possibly this)when I was on the committee.access does exist now. You can ride a bicycle, jog, walk, or get dropped off and go use these lands. Under this bill you could still do that and access as long as you aren't going to the water (fishing, duck hunting, trapping), but could still hunt land or look for mushrooms or walk the dog. So certain groups are excluded, but others get a less crowded piece of land.
Post by: BigGoonTuna on January 15, 2014, 06:21:38 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 15, 2014, 06:32:23 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on January 15, 2014, 06:44:46 PM
What am I missing. I do not read that in what Big Tex posted. Is there more to it that I can read elsewhere?If parking has to be provided, it would allow access that doesn't exist right now the way I understand it. How can that be bad? Many of these parcels are controlled by adjacent private land owners that don't want strangers or recreating traffic near their property, consequently no access is available. A couple members of the Pierce Co Boating Safety Commission worked on something similar(possibly this)when I was on the committee.access does exist now. You can ride a bicycle, jog, walk, or get dropped off and go use these lands. Under this bill you could still do that and access as long as you aren't going to the water (fishing, duck hunting, trapping), but could still hunt land or look for mushrooms or walk the dog. So certain groups are excluded, but others get a less crowded piece of land.
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 06:53:36 PM
all I've read is what bigtex posted too. All the text in the bill focuses solely on using the that land for water access and the parking focuses on 'adequate'...which I don't see defined.What am I missing. I do not read that in what Big Tex posted. Is there more to it that I can read elsewhere?If parking has to be provided, it would allow access that doesn't exist right now the way I understand it. How can that be bad? Many of these parcels are controlled by adjacent private land owners that don't want strangers or recreating traffic near their property, consequently no access is available. A couple members of the Pierce Co Boating Safety Commission worked on something similar(possibly this)when I was on the committee.access does exist now. You can ride a bicycle, jog, walk, or get dropped off and go use these lands. Under this bill you could still do that and access as long as you aren't going to the water (fishing, duck hunting, trapping), but could still hunt land or look for mushrooms or walk the dog. So certain groups are excluded, but others get a less crowded piece of land.
Post by: TONTO on January 15, 2014, 07:15:57 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on January 15, 2014, 09:10:12 PM
As for nor hunting or fishing or having to have a discover pass, I think you're reading more into this than there is. Just my :twocents:
Post by: lokidog on January 15, 2014, 09:31:51 PM
The two gentlemen I know that worked on this or a similar project discovered that over 2 dozen public access areas were actually not accessible because of either no place to park or the adjacent land owners treated these areas like their own and made trouble for anyone trying to use them. Basically no access. From what I gather from what Big Tex posted, at least there'd be access which is better than you have now.
As for nor hunting or fishing or having to have a discover pass, I think you're reading more into this than there is. Just my :twocents:
OMG, you think this bill says that the manager HAS TO PROVIDE parking? :bash: This says that if no parking is available the WATER cannot be accessed, which actually has no impact on parking since apparently one could hike all over it as long as you don't go piss in the water.
One more example of why every politician needs to be taken out back and, at the least, beaten and kicked to the curb. >:( >:(
Post by: sakoshooter on January 16, 2014, 07:25:13 AM
The two gentlemen I know that worked on this or a similar project discovered that over 2 dozen public access areas were actually not accessible because of either no place to park or the adjacent land owners treated these areas like their own and made trouble for anyone trying to use them. Basically no access. From what I gather from what Big Tex posted, at least there'd be access which is better than you have now.
As for nor hunting or fishing or having to have a discover pass, I think you're reading more into this than there is. Just my :twocents:
OMG, you think this bill says that the manager HAS TO PROVIDE parking? :bash: This says that if no parking is available the WATER cannot be accessed, which actually has no impact on parking since apparently one could hike all over it as long as you don't go piss in the water.
One more example of why every politician needs to be taken out back and, at the least, beaten and kicked to the curb. >:( >:(
(1) If a parcel of public land is one-quarter of a square mile or less in size and is adjacent to a body of public water and the land is or can be used to access the body of public water, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must provide adequate public parking for persons utilizing the land to access the water.
This is what I read. Do you read something else?
There is 'NO' access to many public waters now and this bill will provide access and you're against it? I don't understand. Enlighten me please.
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2014, 08:13:16 AM
Quote
(2) If adequate public parking is not provided, using the land to access the water for other than a governmental purpose is prohibited. If adequate public parking is not provided, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must post a warning sign for the public that clearly shows that using the land to access the water is prohibited and states the sanction for a violation of the prohibition.
You need to also read this part.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 16, 2014, 08:16:35 AM
Do you really think that if this bill passes that DNR, USFS, etc. is going to jump right up and start spending some of their already tight budgets building you parking areas? Not likely.
The need for a Discover Pass is a good point as well, though I do not see that as the purpose here. More likely a fringe benefit.
Post by: Sandberm on January 16, 2014, 09:13:19 AM
Over the years floating down the Yakima river on inner tubes etc. through West Richland has become a popular thing to do. Theres maybe a spot or two that are popular "put-in" and "take-out" spots. Along the river and at one of the more popular put-in spots are houses.
So imagine cars parked everywhere along the road, in front of peoples houses, young people yelling, car stereos, empty boxs of beer and other litter and in general people being noisy. The people who live along the river are fed up and want there peaceful riverfront back.
I imagine that one goal of this legislation would not be to tell people they can not access the public spot but rather to build a parking lot that will hold only so many cars, thus limiting the number of partiers.
Thats my guess. If you ask me, they should just enforce current parking laws.
Post by: arees on January 16, 2014, 09:45:37 AM
Since I'm a local Tr-City guy I'm going to take a stab at what Haler is trying to do.
Over the years floating down the Yakima river on inner tubes etc. through West Richland has become a popular thing to do. Theres maybe a spot or two that are popular "put-in" and "take-out" spots. Along the river and at one of the more popular put-in spots are houses.
So imagine cars parked everywhere along the road, in front of peoples houses, young people yelling, car stereos, empty boxs of beer and other litter and in general people being noisy. The people who live along the river are fed up and want there peaceful riverfront back.
I imagine that one goal of this legislation would not be to tell people they can not access the public spot but rather to build a parking lot that will hold only so many cars, thus limiting the number of partiers.
Thats my guess. If you ask me, they should just enforce current parking laws.
1) This is why I also said this should be handled by already existing parking laws. Excessive noise and littering are already crimes.
2) Is the road private? If not, we the public are allowed to park on it. We all pay taxes for it.
3) These people bought houses next to a public access point to a popular river. They should have expected the great unwashed to show up and use that public property and resources. As time goes by and populations increase there will be more people showing up. Welcome to what we like to call "the real world."
All I hear are whiners complaining about the public accessing public property and public roads.
If you buy a house next to Safeco Field you don't get to complain about traffic on game days.
Post by: huntrights on January 16, 2014, 01:03:43 PM
Bad Bill
Restrictions on public access to public lands and waters locally and nationally should be of concern to all American citizens.
The description of the bill seems to do a good job of capturing the essence and intent of the bill.
HB 2342: AN ACT Relating to restricting the use of certain parcels of public land to access a public body of water
HB 2342 appears to say in section (1) that the government entity that has jurisdiction of the subject land “must” provide adequate parking for persons utilizing the land to access the water. On the surface, that sounds great for the public. However, section (2) appears to give the government entity the option of NOT providing adequate public parking which then would make it illegal for anyone using the land to access the water for other than governmental purposes.
If section (2) was changed to be friendlier to public use of public land, then the red flags might not be flying so high. For example, the bill might not be so threatening if section (2) were changed to read: “If it is not feasible for the government entity to create adequate parking, or if roadside parking is filled up at that location, then the government entity must post a sign to give directions to the nearest public parking area. The way it is written now, the bill appears to have the intent of keeping the public from using the subject public land to access the public water. The bill will make it illegal for the public to access public waters by using the subject public lands if there are not "adequate" parking areas provided.
Delete section (3) about the threat of prosecution.
Post by: Curly on January 16, 2014, 01:20:51 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 16, 2014, 02:19:51 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on January 16, 2014, 04:56:37 PM
What I do read is that access that has basically been denied for years could change in the near future to allow access without harassment from neighbors and other property owners.
Bobcat, Why did this thread get moved to this location? It has to do with fishing, hiking, mushroom picking, whale watching bird watching, kayaking/canoeing etc just as much as it has to do with hunting.
I enjoy clicking on the "Virtual Campfire" section to see what's going on. I don't have the time nor the ambition to go into every section on this site to do this. Just my :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2014, 09:01:31 PM
Do you really think that if this bill passes that DNR, USFS, etc. is going to jump right up and start spending some of their already tight budgets building you parking areas? Not likely.
The feds wont be impacted. States cant tell federal agencies what to do.
But if DNR wanted to comply with state law, they better do it!
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2014, 09:10:04 PM
Bobcat, Why did this thread get moved to this location? It has to do with fishing, hiking, mushroom picking, whale watching bird watching, kayaking/canoeing etc just as much as it has to do with hunting.
I enjoy clicking on the "Virtual Campfire" section to see what's going on. I don't have the time nor the ambition to go into every section on this site to do this. Just my :twocents:
I moved it here because I felt this was the best fit. If you read the description for this board it says: 2nd Amendment and Sportsman related Legislation & Issues.
This is about legislation and it's sportsman related. I thought it would be better in here as it would be more likely to stay at the top, rather than getting buried under many other topics, like we have in the Virtual Campfire.
Post by: sakoshooter on January 16, 2014, 09:15:59 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2014, 09:19:51 PM
Post by: huntrights on January 16, 2014, 10:56:53 PM
Public waters may be used for waterfowl hunting, various forms of fishing (I.e. fish, clams, crabs, oysters), various forms of boating, swimming, snorkeling, scuba diving, or just walking on the public beach. Access to our public waters is extremely important.
Post by: fireweed on January 23, 2014, 09:40:29 AM
Instead they should streamline the permit requirements for parking areas and make parking and public access to water a priority. One problem is public parking lots that get state grants have to have ADA access which means pavement, marked spots, etc. How about a bill that lets them just fast-tracks gravel parking lots in areas that access water skipping the permits and applications.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 23, 2014, 09:43:56 AM
One problem is public parking lots that get state grants have to have ADA access which means pavement, marked spots,
Pavement would not be required.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 23, 2014, 09:45:39 AM
Post by: csaaphill on January 26, 2014, 07:18:53 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 27, 2014, 05:44:44 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,146218.msg1938670.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,146218.msg1938670.html#new)