Post by: bearpaw on May 04, 2014, 03:31:05 PM
I'm thinking this would be a better approach in Washington. Maybe people would quit dumping junk and garbage in the mountains if they could simply take it to the landfill. Maybe this would prevent further loss of recreational access to private and public lands.
Any thoughts!
There have been additional ideas posted. Remember, funding is always an issue, most ideas will need a funding source to be implemented. I added a poll, please vote for any options you like. You can change your vote if desired at any time.
I will add any new ideas that are posted in this topic.
Post by: crschralping on May 04, 2014, 03:35:05 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on May 04, 2014, 03:43:51 PM
Dale, is construction debris also paid for in Idaho?
Post by: buckfvr on May 04, 2014, 03:48:52 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 04, 2014, 03:49:13 PM
I partly feel that a lot of the trash is tossed off cause folks are lazy...they just happen to have a half load of whatever in the truck, and why wait in line at the landfill, just toss if off into a gulley... Some trash piles are also the aftermath of a crime, a convenient way to get rid of evidence of your thefts....toss the junk you don't want. Plus, construction debris. I caught a guy dumping carpet and sent him packing home.
Dale, is construction debris also paid for in Idaho?
I assume it is because I see it at the landfill when I take stuff there. I have taken all kinds of garbage from the place I bought including construction debri, they took it all. The only time I get charged is when I go over my limit for the year, then additional charges do apply.
Post by: snowpack on May 04, 2014, 03:51:20 PM
Post by: tbotts on May 04, 2014, 04:46:30 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 04, 2014, 04:59:46 PM
Post by: Mark Brenckle on May 04, 2014, 05:26:04 PM
How does it work for renters, people who don't pay property taxes?Property owner is paying the property taxes, so the renter would be allowed their set weight limit based on their address.
I think this is a good idea - until the filthy politicians get their mits on another source of income, suck it dry and then say they need more $$ 'for the safety of _______" or "for the kids to get _______" or "in order to continue providing ______" - eventually it wouldn't get the funding required and we'd be in the same boat with higher property taxes.
Post by: Lucky1 on May 04, 2014, 05:35:22 PM
:yeah:How does it work for renters, people who don't pay property taxes?Property owner is paying the property taxes, so the renter would be allowed their set weight limit based on their address.
I think this is a good idea - until the filthy politicians get their mits on another source of income, suck it dry and then say they need more $$ 'for the safety of _______" or "for the kids to get _______" or "in order to continue providing ______" - eventually it wouldn't get the funding required and we'd be in the same boat with higher property taxes.
I don't trust our public servants to run a efficient economical system. I really resist the idea that we should put that responsibility in their control. Maybe higher penalties for illegal dumping would work.
Post by: bearpaw on May 04, 2014, 05:37:58 PM
How does it work for renters, people who don't pay property taxes?
They have garbage service like everyone else and can take items to the landfill. I assume that landowners (landlords) pass the cost on in the rent fee just they would pass on any other associated costs of ownership as part of the rental fee.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 04, 2014, 05:42:07 PM
:yeah:How does it work for renters, people who don't pay property taxes?Property owner is paying the property taxes, so the renter would be allowed their set weight limit based on their address.
I think this is a good idea - until the filthy politicians get their mits on another source of income, suck it dry and then say they need more $$ 'for the safety of _______" or "for the kids to get _______" or "in order to continue providing ______" - eventually it wouldn't get the funding required and we'd be in the same boat with higher property taxes.
I don't trust our public servants to run a efficient economical system. I really resist the idea that we should put that responsibility in their control. Maybe higher penalties for illegal dumping would work.
:yeah: property taxes are already high enough, I'm sure if the county got this started I would pay more than my fair share.
Right now I take a load of garbage every 3-4 weeks in a Dakota for $10-11, pretty cheap compared to pick up service. They would probably want to charge an average to the tax payers which would most likely be higher than current garbage bill. :twocents:
Post by: Eli346 on May 04, 2014, 06:06:01 PM
Post by: Lucky1 on May 04, 2014, 06:08:45 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 04, 2014, 06:12:27 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 04, 2014, 06:17:00 PM
Makes total sense to me........ :tup:
Post by: jackmaster on May 04, 2014, 06:17:39 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 04, 2014, 06:21:51 PM
Dumping will always exist. when an area gets shut down, they will move somewhere else. There isn't a solution. The lazy butts will always existMaybe we can have prisoners pick up the trash. We are already paying for their incarceration. Free garbage service will not stop idiots from littering. :twocents:They already pick up the state highways.
I never see the liberals making one prisoner, pick up litter, to help the lazy DOT workers survive a hard days work.... :tup:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 04, 2014, 06:24:34 PM
ALL trailheads should have a locked box for garbage pickup, with payments of $50 per greenie, not hunters, to clean up their hippie granola bar wrappers, t.p., outhouse leftovers, (Sh!t), broken shoelaces etc.
Makes total sense to me........ :tup:
I can go on about this. 25% of the mess in the woods is from hunters. Why cant people pack up there ugly and wood outhouses after hunting season, and carpet, or how about the garbage that they dump back in the trees 30 yards away from camp? I picked up a camp on Friday and got three bags of garbage and 2 bags of beer and pop cans. I also picked up a few liquor bottles.
Haven't started about the fisherman or the off road guroos yet
I was just given you the business...... :chuckle:
Post by: hughjorgan on May 04, 2014, 06:26:03 PM
Post by: snowpack on May 04, 2014, 06:29:55 PM
Post by: Hawgdawg on May 04, 2014, 06:32:00 PM
Boss, I always
had sour grapes on that issue to. There taxes are rolled into their rent.
Post by: baldopepper on May 05, 2014, 12:34:26 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 05, 2014, 07:22:50 PM
I think bottle and can deposit is a good idea too.There was a bill introduced this year that would create this type of program, however it was introduced way too late for it to even get passed.
Post by: crschralping on May 05, 2014, 07:40:56 PM
It's always a bummer finding trash, I think the ID garbage deal is a great idea.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 05, 2014, 08:55:27 PM
Post by: Halo on May 05, 2014, 09:02:51 PM
Post by: buckfvr on May 05, 2014, 09:03:06 PM
Post by: fireweed on May 06, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
Bearpaw, think about this: every forestland parcel pays $17 or so for forest fire fighting. Most of that money is then refunded if you have lots of parcels. I also think there is a huge firefighting fund out there somewhere. Why couldn't the law be changed to allow use of that money to clean up timberland?
Post by: floatinghat on May 07, 2014, 03:24:53 PM
Post by: buglebrush on May 07, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
In Idaho there is no garbage (appliances, couches, TV's) dumped in the mountains. The reason for no garbage is that the landfill and garbage pickup is part of everyone's property taxes. In addition to garbage pickup I am allowed to take a couple tons of garbage to the county landfill each year at no extra charge. Because garbage is prepaid with property taxes there is no reason for people to dump in the mountains and the result is a much cleaner environment.
I'm thinking this would be a better approach in Washington. Maybe people would quit dumping junk and garbage in the mountains if they could simply take it to the landfill. Maybe this would prevent further loss of recreational access to private and public lands.
Any thoughts!
Having lived in both states I can tell you this makes an enormous difference! Also, in Washington you can't burn plywood, dimensional lumber, etc... :bash: I have little piles of scrap sitting behind my shop that would've gone to the landfill months ago when I lived in Idaho. Also, for those of you worrying about property tax increases my property tax rates were much lower in Idaho even with free landfill use. I did construction, and we hauled everything to the landfill ( except what we burned) Never paid a dime either :)
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 07, 2014, 06:56:31 PM
In Idaho there is no garbage (appliances, couches, TV's) dumped in the mountains. The reason for no garbage is that the landfill and garbage pickup is part of everyone's property taxes. In addition to garbage pickup I am allowed to take a couple tons of garbage to the county landfill each year at no extra charge. Because garbage is prepaid with property taxes there is no reason for people to dump in the mountains and the result is a much cleaner environment.
I'm thinking this would be a better approach in Washington. Maybe people would quit dumping junk and garbage in the mountains if they could simply take it to the landfill. Maybe this would prevent further loss of recreational access to private and public lands.
Any thoughts!
Having lived in both states I can tell you this makes an enormous difference! Also, in Washington you can't burn plywood, dimensional lumber, etc... :bash: I have little piles of scrap sitting behind my shop that would've gone to the landfill months ago when I lived in Idaho. Also, for those of you worrying about property tax increases my property tax rates were much lower in Idaho even with free landfill use. I did construction, and we hauled everything to the landfill ( except what we burned) Never paid a dime either :)
Yep I can see WA lower our taxes and then giving us dumping privileges . :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on May 08, 2014, 07:31:04 AM
Perhaps legislators could write a bill including can/bottle deposits and adding garbage to property taxes?
I would really like to hear additional comments?
Post by: TheHunt on May 08, 2014, 07:39:26 AM
Even in the landfill they should dump the garbage and have the prisoners sort the stuff that individuals did not recycle.
They would get nothing for it but good conduct points.
Post by: bearpaw on May 08, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
I think Washington needs to put our prison folks to work.
Even in the landfill they should dump the garbage and have the prisoners sort the stuff that individuals did not recycle.
They would get nothing for it but good conduct points.
I like this idea too! :tup:
Post by: jackmaster on May 08, 2014, 07:45:44 AM
hell yeah, thats a great idea, my bet though all the friggin bleeding hearts would say its demeaning and embarrassing, but its ok for them to steal and rape and murder and what not..... actually here by my work, des moines uses prisoners to weed whack and other stuff, the inmates look forward to the work detail, i guess i would to if i was locked the hell up everyday.... i agree 100% though, we should use them its free labor and they can use it to payback their free room and board :tup:I think Washington needs to put our prison folks to work.
Even in the landfill they should dump the garbage and have the prisoners sort the stuff that individuals did not recycle.
They would get nothing for it but good conduct points.
I like this idea too! :tup:
Post by: Jingles on May 08, 2014, 08:05:07 AM
I think a couple of the ideas expressed here make perfect sense.
Put small dumpsters at the trail heads. So what if they are used by non hikers it is keeping the trash out of the woods
Reduce the fees at the transfer stations to say 1.00 per bag or 5.00 per pickup load
Also the idea of deposits on all beverage bottles and cans is an excellent idea worked in Michigan where folks actually made extra spending money picking up those thrown beside the road and if memory serves me right the first couple of years in MI they paid the refund on all bottles and cans regardless of whether they were marked return for deposit or not just to get them picked up.
I would also like to add that it isn't just beside the roads and at trail heads where they trash is being dumped Numerous times I have packed out bags of crap collected well into the wilderness and along the trails or from where a deer hunting camp was located and the hunters attempted to hide the stuff away from camp.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 08, 2014, 08:07:17 AM
hell yeah, thats a great idea, my bet though all the friggin bleeding hearts would say its demeaning and embarrassing, but its ok for them to steal and rape and murder and what not..... actually here by my work, des moines uses prisoners to weed whack and other stuff, the inmates look forward to the work detail, i guess i would to if i was locked the hell up everyday.... i agree 100% though, we should use them its free labor and they can use it to payback their free room and board :tup:I think Washington needs to put our prison folks to work.
Even in the landfill they should dump the garbage and have the prisoners sort the stuff that individuals did not recycle.
They would get nothing for it but good conduct points.
I like this idea too! :tup:
I commonly see corrections inmates cleaning up 522. So I guess I don't see why your little diatribe about the "bleeding hearts" has a place in this discussion, except as a vehicle for you to show off that chip on your shoulder
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 08, 2014, 01:13:58 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 09, 2014, 07:47:28 AM
hell yeah, thats a great idea, my bet though all the friggin bleeding hearts would say its demeaning and embarrassing, but its ok for them to steal and rape and murder and what not..... actually here by my work, des moines uses prisoners to weed whack and other stuff, the inmates look forward to the work detail, i guess i would to if i was locked the hell up everyday.... i agree 100% though, we should use them its free labor and they can use it to payback their free room and board :tup:I think Washington needs to put our prison folks to work.
Even in the landfill they should dump the garbage and have the prisoners sort the stuff that individuals did not recycle.
They would get nothing for it but good conduct points.
I like this idea too! :tup:
I commonly see corrections inmates cleaning up 522. So I guess I don't see why your little diatribe about the "bleeding hearts" has a place in this discussion, except as a vehicle for you to show off that chip on your shoulder
Those are county corrections inmates. State would take an act of god . But they do have fire fighting groups out of Monroe. Seen 'em at work in our back yard in 2004
Post by: bearpaw on May 09, 2014, 07:52:17 AM
Remember, funding is always an issue, most ideas will need a funding source to be implemented. I added a poll, please vote for any options you like. You can change your vote if desired at any time.
I will add any new ideas that are posted in this topic.
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2014, 08:03:39 AM
There are only two "ticketable" litter offenses which don't require a visit before a judge:
1- Littering less than or equal to one cubic foot is currently a Class 3 civil infraction with a fine/ticket of $103. This year the legislature reclassified the offense as a Class 2 infraction and it will take effect next month and the fine will be increased to a little over $250.
2- Discarding "potentially dangerous litter" is a Class 1 civil infraction with a legislatively adopted fine of $1,025. Potentially dangerous litter" means litter that is likely to injure a person or cause damage to a vehicle or other property. "Potentially dangerous litter" means:(a) Cigarettes, cigars, or other tobacco products that are capable of starting a fire; (b) Glass; (c) A container or other product made predominantly or entirely of glass; (d) A hypodermic needle or other medical instrument designed to cut or pierce; (e) Raw human waste, including soiled baby diapers, regardless of whether or not the waste is in a container of any sort; and (f) Nails or tacks.
Now littering outside of those two circumstances require a mandatory court date.
It is a misdemeanor for a person to litter in an amount greater than one cubic foot but less than one cubic yard. The person shall also pay a litter cleanup restitution payment equal to twice the actual cost of cleanup, or fifty dollars per cubic foot of litter, whichever is greater. The court shall distribute one-half of the restitution payment to the landowner and one-half of the restitution payment to the law enforcement agency investigating the incident. The court may, in addition to or in lieu of part or all of the cleanup restitution payment, order the person to pick up and remove litter from the property, with prior permission of the legal owner or, in the case of public property, of the agency managing the property. The court may suspend or modify the litter cleanup restitution payment for a first-time offender under this section, if the person cleans up and properly disposes of the litter.
It is a gross misdemeanor for a person to litter in an amount of one cubic yard or more. The person shall also pay a litter cleanup restitution payment equal to twice the actual cost of cleanup, or one hundred dollars per cubic foot of litter, whichever is greater. The court shall distribute one-half of the restitution payment to the landowner and one-half of the restitution payment to the law enforcement agency investigating the incident. The court may, in addition to or in lieu of part or all of the cleanup restitution payment, order the person to pick up and remove litter from the property, with prior permission of the legal owner or, in the case of public property, of the agency managing the property. The court may suspend or modify the litter cleanup restitution payment for a first-time offender under this section, if the person cleans up and properly disposes of the litter.
Again, this is another one for me where a mandatory minimum penalty needs to come into play. For the misdemeanor offense you can be fined for criminal penalties $0-1,000 and 90 days in jail plus the cleanup costs. The gross misdemeanor criminal penalties are $0-5,000 and 364 days in jail plus the cleanup costs.
Just in my experience, the criminal fines are suspended (be a good boy for a month/year) and the cleanup restitution are suspended as well.
Like I said, the potential is there already, it's just up to the judge/prosecutor to actually use their heads...
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 09, 2014, 08:06:57 AM
Those are county corrections inmates. State would take an act of god .
Sorry, but no.
WDOC
Post by: Tbar on May 09, 2014, 08:20:34 AM
I would like to see a volunteer (cleanup) x number of hours in exchange for access to gated land. If I had a parcel of any size I think I would be forced to gate it. I do like the idea of using prison workers also. :twocents:
Post by: Southpole on May 09, 2014, 08:20:59 AM
I don't think Washington St. is responsible enough to handle extra tax monies and allocate it to garbage management for the whole state. They can't manage the basics as it is. I agree with Mark_436, they'll some how screw it up and use the tax dollars else where.How does it work for renters, people who don't pay property taxes?Property owner is paying the property taxes, so the renter would be allowed their set weight limit based on their address.
I think this is a good idea - until the filthy politicians get their mits on another source of income, suck it dry and then say they need more $$ 'for the safety of _______" or "for the kids to get _______" or "in order to continue providing ______" - eventually it wouldn't get the funding required and we'd be in the same boat with higher property taxes.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 09, 2014, 08:32:19 AM
Could maybe have FS/DNR do before/after checks on areas they allow for brush picking. If the area has more trash than when they started, the permit holder could be required to clean it up.
Slippery slope
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2014, 08:38:11 AM
:yeah:Could maybe have FS/DNR do before/after checks on areas they allow for brush picking. If the area has more trash than when they started, the permit holder could be required to clean it up.Slippery slope
Sounds nice but it really isn't feasible. It would be like saying a WDFW Officer finds a poached deer then pulls over the guy that passed him on the road. He was the last one in the area so he must've poached the deer. Also need to realize that there are a ton of brush picking areas open in this state, it's not like Christmas tree cutting where it's typically limited to zones.
Also need to realize there are only 12 DNR Officers for the entire state which cover multiple counties. On the USFS side the average is less than 1 LEO per USFS District in WA. Simply isn't feasible.
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2014, 08:41:44 AM
And who would pay for this service???
Remember an old economics teacher that said "there's no such thing as free"..............
Post by: Bean Counter on May 09, 2014, 08:53:48 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2014, 08:56:36 AM
If there identified problem areas: how about sting operations? I know they're resource intensive for LE, but it would send a clear message when the fines are laid to them.It's done. About 4 years ago there was an article in the paper about a DNR "sting" on the Kitsap Peninsula involving 3 DNR LEOs. No cases were made and people complained to DNR about a waste of taxpayer dollars having three LEOs there and no cases being made.
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.....
Post by: jackmaster on May 09, 2014, 09:47:23 AM
there are alot better ways than to post up 3 leo,s once the word gets out people will go else where, ya got to do a covert mission my son, many a way to skin a cat without the cat knowing he's been skinned :tup:If there identified problem areas: how about sting operations? I know they're resource intensive for LE, but it would send a clear message when the fines are laid to them.It's done. About 4 years ago there was an article in the paper about a DNR "sting" on the Kitsap Peninsula involving 3 DNR LEOs. No cases were made and people complained to DNR about a waste of taxpayer dollars having three LEOs there and no cases being made.
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.....
Post by: fireweed on May 09, 2014, 12:29:01 PM
At first I was not happy about garbage being added to my property taxes in Idaho, but after seeing how convenient it is to get rid of garbage and yard debri and how much Idaho has benefitted verses Washington's significant garbage problem, I am now a big proponent of the idea.
Perhaps legislators could write a bill including can/bottle deposits and adding garbage to property taxes?
I would really like to hear additional comments?
Around here the tweekers are actually REMOVING garbage from the woods--IF it is metal. We've got old railroad tracks and they comb those things pulling out rusty buckets, pieces of spike or rail (not to mention fence posts still holding up fences) They work hard! The bottle bill could get them doing something else useful--scouring for glass and Aluminum.
Post by: fireweed on May 09, 2014, 12:33:09 PM
FW, can you expand on the $17 / parcel. When you say most is refunded to who and when?
I haven't really researched it but each forestland parcel I pay has a separate Firefighting fee, and if you have a bunch of small parcels instead of one big one you can apply for a partial refund--the kicker is you have to apply. If you forget, they keep extra money (so you can bet there is some extra somewhere). Sort of like the $5 opt-out for Parks, only you have to pay, then apply for a refund. DNR would know more.
Post by: bearpaw on May 09, 2014, 01:21:04 PM
"Offer free cleanup to large landowners who keep properties open to public access"
And who would pay for this service???
Remember an old economics teacher that said "there's no such thing as free"..............
Precisely why I offered funding choices in the poll! If you have additional funding options I will gladly add them to the poll.
Post by: bearpaw on May 09, 2014, 01:24:04 PM
FW, can you expand on the $17 / parcel. When you say most is refunded to who and when?
I haven't really researched it but each forestland parcel I pay has a separate Firefighting fee, and if you have a bunch of small parcels instead of one big one you can apply for a partial refund--the kicker is you have to apply. If you forget, they keep extra money (so you can bet there is some extra somewhere). Sort of like the $5 opt-out for Parks, only you have to pay, then apply for a refund. DNR would know more.
I could add this to the poll, can you verify there are in fact fire funds somewhere?
Post by: arees on May 09, 2014, 01:49:06 PM
I like this idea but it will do absolutely nothing to open up the private timberland again. But it could remove on of the "excuses" for closing.
Bearpaw, think about this: every forestland parcel pays $17 or so for forest fire fighting. Most of that money is then refunded if you have lots of parcels. I also think there is a huge firefighting fund out there somewhere. Why couldn't the law be changed to allow use of that money to clean up timberland?
I don't know about this fund, but the proposal sounds like taking money that was raised for one purpose and deciding to spend it on another. If the state took the Discover Pass funds and decided to spend it on highway maintenance, wouldn't we all be pissed? How is this different?FW, can you expand on the $17 / parcel. When you say most is refunded to who and when?
I haven't really researched it but each forestland parcel I pay has a separate Firefighting fee, and if you have a bunch of small parcels instead of one big one you can apply for a partial refund--the kicker is you have to apply. If you forget, they keep extra money (so you can bet there is some extra somewhere). Sort of like the $5 opt-out for Parks, only you have to pay, then apply for a refund. DNR would know more.
I could add this to the poll, can you verify there are in fact fire funds somewhere?
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2014, 02:29:47 PM
Here is a quick recap of the law for firefighting.I could add this to the poll, can you verify there are in fact fire funds somewhere?FW, can you expand on the $17 / parcel. When you say most is refunded to who and when?I haven't really researched it but each forestland parcel I pay has a separate Firefighting fee, and if you have a bunch of small parcels instead of one big one you can apply for a partial refund--the kicker is you have to apply. If you forget, they keep extra money (so you can bet there is some extra somewhere). Sort of like the $5 opt-out for Parks, only you have to pay, then apply for a refund. DNR would know more.
RCW 76.04.600 states "Every owner of forest land in the state of Washington shall furnish or provide, during the season of the year when there is danger of forest fires, adequate protection against the spread of fire thereon or therefrom which shall meet with the approval of the department." Basically this means you need to have firefighting department or some similar type of protection. Now obviously most people don't have their own fire departments. So...
RCW 76.04.610 states "If any owner of forest land within a forest protection zone neglects or fails to provide adequate fire protection as required by RCW 76.04.600, the department (DNR) shall provide such protection and shall annually impose the following assessments on each parcel of such land: (i) A flat fee assessment of seventeen dollars and fifty cents; and (ii) twenty-seven cents on each acre exceeding fifty acres."
Regarding the refund: "(b) Assessors may, at their option, collect the assessment on tax exempt lands. If the assessor elects not to collect the assessment, the department may bill the landowner directly.
(2) An owner who has paid assessments on two or more parcels, each containing fewer than fifty acres and each within the same county, may obtain the following refund:
(a) If all the parcels together contain less than fifty acres, then the refund is equal to the flat fee assessments paid, reduced by the total of (i) seventeen dollars and (ii) the total of the amounts retained by the county from such assessments under subsection (5) of this section.
(b) If all the parcels together contain fifty or more acres, then the refund is equal to the flat fee assessments paid, reduced by the total of (i) seventeen dollars, (ii) twenty-seven cents for each acre exceeding fifty acres, and (iii) the total of the amounts retained by the county from such assessments under subsection (5) of this section.
Applications for refunds shall be submitted to the department on a form prescribed by the department and in the same year in which the assessments were paid. The department may not provide refunds to applicants who do not provide verification that all assessments and property taxes on the property have been paid. Applications may be made by mail.
In addition to the procedures under this subsection, property owners with multiple parcels in a single county who qualify for a refund under this section may apply to the department on an application listing all the parcels owned in order to have the assessment computed on all parcels but billed to a single parcel. Property owners with the following number of parcels may apply to the department in the year indicated:
Year Number of Parcels
2002 10 or more parcels
2003 8 or more parcels
2004 and thereafter 6 or more parcels"
Post by: fireweed on May 09, 2014, 03:07:58 PM
Affects forest land owners
Could cost landowners money but costs aren't predictable each year
Cost Isn't caused by the forest land owners themselves
Flat fee on parcels (vs. on value or stumpage)
Fund can build up over time (and I've heard it's out there somewhere...)
fund acts sort of like insurance
Something similar for cleanup costs or rolling cleanup into this program could be an option.
Post by: bearpaw on May 09, 2014, 03:30:54 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 09, 2014, 05:24:32 PM
I'm looking for ideas and solutions and I'm willing to add any possible solutions to the poll, let me know if this fire fund is real and if you want it added to the poll.Good luck trying to take any money away from wildland fire funds. The past couple of years state and federal governments have underfunded fire programs so much they have to dip into other accounts to even fund the fire program because of the amount of fires we're having. If anything I think we'll see the $17 current fee increase if we continue to see bad fire years.
Post by: PLUVIUSWAPITI on May 09, 2014, 07:27:14 PM
picking up the litter on the highway. The guards were always packing a rifle of some kind. Bearpaw I have known about this Idaho tax and I would be willing to pay that yearly tax for free access to the dump.
Post by: Humptulips on May 09, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
Dumping which to me is someone dumping a pick up load or a mattress or something large. They are intentionally loading it and hauling it out to dump.
The other is littering ie; lunch wrappers or what have you out the window.
I just don't see much dumping but what there is could best be stopped by making it easier to get rid of the stuff. As far as I know there is only one place to dump your garbage in GH County. It's about a 90 mile round trip for me to dump. We used to have a local dump back in the good old days bout 3 miles away and there was zero dumping elsewhere. It was free too.
Littering, I'm not sure you can solve it. The guy that throws cans and stuff out his window is too slovenly to change. Would it be more work to take it home, stop at a dumpster along the way or pitch it out the window.
The worst litterers around here are the brush pickers and the timber companies are fine with it.
Someone said the tweakers pick up all the metal and that is so true. You never see an appliance dumped anymore.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 10, 2014, 08:21:07 AM
Post by: SCRUBS on May 10, 2014, 08:39:39 AM
If there identified problem areas: how about sting operations? I know they're resource intensive for LE, but it would send a clear message when the fines are laid to them.It's done. About 4 years ago there was an article in the paper about a DNR "sting" on the Kitsap Peninsula involving 3 DNR LEOs. No cases were made and people complained to DNR about a waste of taxpayer dollars having three LEOs there and no cases being made.
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.....
I hear ya, them pesky tax payers wanting something for their money, expecting them to produce something? What do they think it`s the private sector or something :chuckle:
In all seriousness, unless it`s one or two specific sites they are dumping it would be next to impossible to catch them.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 10, 2014, 09:24:18 AM
Post by: buckfvr on May 10, 2014, 09:29:57 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 13, 2014, 03:25:05 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 04:15:00 PM
Post by: mkcj on May 27, 2014, 04:33:56 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 27, 2014, 04:34:15 PM
I would also like to see free pickup of old appliances be offered. There are tons of guys scrapping metal that if they were on call to pick stuff up would love to turn it into cash.
Post by: logger on May 27, 2014, 04:39:00 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 28, 2014, 08:40:17 AM
By advertising that the garbage will be picked up by someone else will only increase the problem! why would someone pay when they know someone else will pick up the mess they leave behind.
The thought is that people will use the landfill or a dumping station if it doesn't cost them to take their trash there.
Post by: bigtex on May 28, 2014, 08:43:51 AM
I kinda like the idaho system I think, problem is some people are just to lazy period to go out of their way to dispose of it correctly even if you picked it up for em.:yeah:
Why drive 10 miles to drop it off in a dumpster if you can just dump it on public land in 3 miles?
Post by: Gringo31 on May 28, 2014, 08:45:29 AM
I've too have seen it work in Idaho.
I think people have a bunch of garbage in the back of their truck, realize that it may cost them $200 to dump the load and figure they'll save money by just dumping it in the forest.
Post by: bearpaw on May 28, 2014, 08:46:21 AM
I voted for five of the top six. I didn't vote for taxes on property. The reason I think it works in Idaho to tax the property owners but wouldn't be fair in Washington is I believe there is probably a much higher group of renters in Washington that wouldn't get taxed. I believe renters may have a higher likelihood of dumping trash, at least they do in my area. Not to say that homeowners don't dump also.
I would also like to see free pickup of old appliances be offered. There are tons of guys scrapping metal that if they were on call to pick stuff up would love to turn it into cash.
Landlords could add the cost of garbage onto the rent fee just as they do other expenses, the result is that the renter is paying for garbage but since there is no cost when they take their garbage to the landfill or dumping station that they will take it to the landfill or dumping station rather than drive to some place to dump it on the ground.
I will add your idea about old appliances to the poll, thanks for commenting.
Post by: buckfvr on May 28, 2014, 09:13:20 AM
Even in my Toyota, for me to run to Kettle to dump is 50+ miles round trip, and then add on the 12 to 14 bucks to just get rid of a short bed load of house hold.....usually 6 to 8 contractor bags of garbage.
Many of the folks around here just dump on their own land......disgusting in its own right.
If we are going to pay a tax, it has to be free ( dumping ) and localized, and in no way should this be rolled into a State Income tax......everything we ask for is immediately ran in that direction by Olympia......you'll see........