Post by: bigtex on December 13, 2014, 12:44:29 PM
HB 1033 sponsored by Reps Blake, Hurst and Kretz would provide $ to WDFW to create access on private lands. The $ would come from the hazardous substance possession tax in WA. WDFW can use the $ to pay landowners for damages caused by public access, or pay other entities to clean up the damage/mess.
Basically the bill allows WDFW to enter into contracts with landowners that will basically say "if you provide access, we will pay for the cleanup of the littered items and damaged lands"
The bill:
1) The department must use any moneys made available to it under RCW 70.105D.070(7) to fund a program designed to assist private landowners in mitigating the damages and expenses incurred due to allowing public access to their lands for hunting. Specifically, the department may enter into agreements with private landowners who agree to allow free access to their land, or to portions of their land, to licensed hunters in exchange for assistance in removing and disposing of litter, garbage, hazardous materials, and other items that can potentially result from allowing public access.
(2) The department may use the moneys made available to it under RCW 70.105D.070(7) in the manner deemed by the department as the most efficient in implementing the intent of this section. This may include utilizing department staff, contracting with a third party, providing cash payments to the participating landowner, or utilizing
the Washington conservation corps created in chapter 43.220 RCW.
(3) Nothing in this section limits the ability of the departmentto enter into other agreements with private landowners to secure public recreational access with funds other than those provided in RCW 70.105D.070(7).
Post by: TONTO on December 13, 2014, 12:59:55 PM
Post by: bowbuild on December 13, 2014, 01:04:24 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 13, 2014, 01:19:25 PM
Post by: stevemiller on December 13, 2014, 01:53:36 PM
Post by: buckfvr on December 13, 2014, 02:02:44 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2014, 02:35:27 PM
:yike:ed the more are saying no Bleep you!
Post by: Wacenturion on December 13, 2014, 02:42:27 PM
What about those who have participated basically in free access over the years and now they see others who gave nothing, now get paid. Besides there isn't enough money to pay for any meaningful amount of access. Easy way out as far as management is concerned, and another excuse....i.e. we didn't bring in enough yet.....bla, bla, bla.
Oh, and don't forget the couple administrative high paying positions in Olympia to implement and monitor.
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2014, 02:44:23 PM
didnt tex say it's already paid for or something in a fund already set up for stuff like this?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 13, 2014, 02:51:26 PM
:stup: :mor:Where does government money come from? The actual source, not mid points.
didnt tex say it's already paid for or something in a fund already set up for stuff like this?
Post by: Mudman on December 13, 2014, 02:52:25 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2014, 03:01:29 PM
guess no one wants access all :pee: over not having access and hwen it comes people still :pee::stup: :mor:Where does government money come from? The actual source, not mid points.
didnt tex say it's already paid for or something in a fund already set up for stuff like this?
Look not saying I want my fees to go up either or more taxes ifthey can pay this without doing that then good if not then I guess I will change my mind but untill then Im for anything that allows us/me more access insted of miles upon miles of stay ot keep out signs tresspassers will be prosecuted etc crap!
I don't get to go 50-100 miles a year to get to public land and if I do I certainly can't stay because I didnt have the gear or money to do so so ya anything close to home that allows me to go then heck ya.
and FYI I do respect land anyhows I close gates even if they werent when I got there, I do when I leave I dont litter so ya I treat it like your supposed to!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 13, 2014, 03:19:48 PM
I haven't even decided if I support this yet. Just trying to figure out the details first. How much does it cost to clean up a dumpsite? What happens if WDFW runs out of money before hunting season, they can't afford to pay anymore for the year so what does the timber company do--get an IOU or close the gates? How about when people find out that they're paying for trash collection in the form of tax or increased cost to a manufacturer, they decide to cancel home pick up and take it to the tree farms? If they can tax/pass the cost on to everyone for access to private land, why not for state land (disco pass)?guess no one wants access all :pee: over not having access and hwen it comes people still :pee::stup: :mor:Where does government money come from? The actual source, not mid points.
didnt tex say it's already paid for or something in a fund already set up for stuff like this?
Look not saying I want my fees to go up either or more taxes ifthey can pay this without doing that then good if not then I guess I will change my mind but untill then Im for anything that allows us/me more access insted of miles upon miles of stay ot keep out signs tresspassers will be prosecuted etc crap!
I don't get to go 50-100 miles a year to get to public land and if I do I certainly can't stay because I didnt have the gear or money to do so so ya anything close to home that allows me to go then heck ya.
and FYI I do respect land anyhows I close gates even if they werent when I got there, I do when I leave I dont litter so ya I treat it like your supposed to!
Post by: stevemiller on December 13, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2014, 03:32:12 PM
Ya I see that point too and ya don't wan't to pay increased fees so if they can pay without us taking it in the butt then ya I'm for it if not then most assuredly will be against, but as written I'm for for now.I haven't even decided if I support this yet. Just trying to figure out the details first. How much does it cost to clean up a dumpsite? What happens if WDFW runs out of money before hunting season, they can't afford to pay anymore for the year so what does the timber company do--get an IOU or close the gates? How about when people find out that they're paying for trash collection in the form of tax or increased cost to a manufacturer, they decide to cancel home pick up and take it to the tree farms? If they can tax/pass the cost on to everyone for access to private land, why not for state land (disco pass)?guess no one wants access all :pee: over not having access and hwen it comes people still :pee::stup: :mor:Where does government money come from? The actual source, not mid points.
didnt tex say it's already paid for or something in a fund already set up for stuff like this?
Look not saying I want my fees to go up either or more taxes ifthey can pay this without doing that then good if not then I guess I will change my mind but untill then Im for anything that allows us/me more access insted of miles upon miles of stay ot keep out signs tresspassers will be prosecuted etc crap!
I don't get to go 50-100 miles a year to get to public land and if I do I certainly can't stay because I didnt have the gear or money to do so so ya anything close to home that allows me to go then heck ya.
and FYI I do respect land anyhows I close gates even if they werent when I got there, I do when I leave I dont litter so ya I treat it like your supposed to!
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2014, 03:33:40 PM
They could get this going with min.tax hikes just by getting the several volunteer groups involved with these areas.there are a lot of volunteer groups too so ya I'm sure!
Post by: blackdog on December 13, 2014, 07:48:28 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2014, 07:55:11 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 13, 2014, 08:05:24 PM
There is no new tax in this legislation. The model toxics control act was passed years ago by the voters in this State. :hello:Hope this isn't too prying.
Is the existing tax raised? What was the money previously used for? How will the previous recipient of that money make up for the money that would be used by WDFW for this endeavor?
Post by: blackdog on December 13, 2014, 08:09:54 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2014, 08:18:08 PM
Post by: blackdog on December 13, 2014, 08:21:05 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 13, 2014, 08:31:37 PM
Or if it's a shot in the dark. I figure some timber company said they wanted some garbage clean up and some assurances before they allowed access.
still won't keep 'people' from shooting up trees, rutting up roads and driving off road and such.
Post by: bigtex on December 13, 2014, 10:25:04 PM
The existing tax is not raised.:yeah:
Not sure where the tax increase mindset came from??
All it would do is use a small portion of the current tax money for this purpose. No increases
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2014, 10:45:15 PM
:yeah: once in a while i agree with bigtex :chuckle:The existing tax is not raised.:yeah:
Not sure where the tax increase mindset came from??
All it would do is use a small portion of the current tax money for this purpose. No increases
Not sure why theres so many no votes there should be all yes votes on this! :bash:
Post by: stevemiller on December 13, 2014, 11:17:19 PM
Post by: lokidog on December 13, 2014, 11:24:42 PM
Post by: stevemiller on December 13, 2014, 11:30:42 PM
Post by: jasnt on December 13, 2014, 11:34:29 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 14, 2014, 08:54:47 AM
Post by: bowbuild on December 14, 2014, 10:09:08 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 14, 2014, 10:13:06 AM
The only thing I would add is this should ONLY take place during hunting seasons, after hunting seasons March-August big timber needs to be responsible for themselves and shut their gates. This would be good for wildlife, and better for their lands as there are few people to report crimes in the off seasons.Since it is WDFW, my guess is that it would be used for boat launches too. Quite a few have been closed down by private owners because of dumping. Those were some of the main places I think of when I heard about paying to remove garbage. The volume dumped at boat launches can be quite a bit, and I'd imagine the cost is too. That's kind of why I was wondering how much in the fund before it gets depleted.
Post by: csaaphill on December 14, 2014, 02:10:32 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 14, 2014, 04:47:02 PM
Haven't voted yet. There was a question, as yet unanswered... where does this money go now from the toxic whatever tax and how will that entity make up for some of their $$ being taken away? Will they have to create a new tax on something to keep their revenue flow going?Sorry didn't see your question, which is a good question.
The money that is currently being collected can be distributed to fund 24 different litter, toxins, waste, etc cleanup activities. This bill would simply make it number 25. Additionally, any money left over (if any) from these established activities must be transfered to WDFW for this program.
Post by: blackdog on December 14, 2014, 07:42:29 PM
Post by: lokidog on December 14, 2014, 07:47:25 PM
Haven't voted yet. There was a question, as yet unanswered... where does this money go now from the toxic whatever tax and how will that entity make up for some of their $$ being taken away? Will they have to create a new tax on something to keep their revenue flow going?Sorry didn't see your question, which is a good question.
The money that is currently being collected can be distributed to fund 24 different litter, toxins, waste, etc cleanup activities. This bill would simply make it number 25. Additionally, any money left over (if any) from these established activities must be transfered to WDFW for this program.
Thanks for the reply. There is no state tax money, IMO, that goes unspent, so I still wonder what other litter or toxic waste cleanup activity will be shorted and what will they want taxed in order to make up the shortfall.
Post by: bigtex on December 14, 2014, 10:35:49 PM
Actually I disagree. There are some accounts that have a surplus. It seems like this litter/waste account must be a healthy one because there was a proposal last year (maybe 2 years ago) to help fund State Parks off of it.Thanks for the reply. There is no state tax money, IMO, that goes unspent, so I still wonder what other litter or toxic waste cleanup activity will be shorted and what will they want taxed in order to make up the shortfall.Haven't voted yet. There was a question, as yet unanswered... where does this money go now from the toxic whatever tax and how will that entity make up for some of their $$ being taken away? Will they have to create a new tax on something to keep their revenue flow going?Sorry didn't see your question, which is a good question.
The money that is currently being collected can be distributed to fund 24 different litter, toxins, waste, etc cleanup activities. This bill would simply make it number 25. Additionally, any money left over (if any) from these established activities must be transfered to WDFW for this program.
I also think we need to consider just how much money would WDFW be using. I don't think WDFW is going to be paying out millions of dollars in cleanup costs. Need to remember that this $ is solely for cleanup costs. WDFW isn't going to just give $ to landowners to provide access. They will either pay for any damage associated with public access, or do the repairs themselves via funding from this account.
Post by: lokidog on December 14, 2014, 10:53:59 PM
Who would oversee this? Would the money for this person(s) time spent on this come out of the same fund or would someone just be pulled from some other duties? Of course we all know there is a lot of middle/upper management that could be given more work without increasing their work load. :o :chuckle:
Post by: csaaphill on December 14, 2014, 11:06:55 PM
and what numbers or landowners we talking about then?
It says WDFW will enter into contracts with landowners so is there a list of landowers already taged for this project, or will that come later?
and good hope they come my way maybe some of these people around here will loosen up!
Post by: bigtex on December 15, 2014, 05:45:24 PM
Could some of the no votes help me understand their opposition to the bill?Simple. Lots of people on here don't like new laws. Lot's of people think these lands should be forced to be open to the public and that the state shouldn't have to pay a dime.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 15, 2014, 05:57:44 PM
I haven't decided about this proposed item yet. The intent sounds nice, but there is a thing about unintended consequences.Could some of the no votes help me understand their opposition to the bill?Simple. Lots of people on here don't like new laws. Lot's of people think these lands should be forced to be open to the public and that the state shouldn't have to pay a dime.
I really don't know of too many people anywhere that like laws, new or existing. If everyone did everything using common sense there would be NO laws or government. But that's unrealistic.
Post by: stevemiller on December 15, 2014, 06:03:35 PM
Post by: stevemiller on December 15, 2014, 06:07:51 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on December 15, 2014, 06:27:52 PM
The plus on this tax is it is not focused no hunters.
Kind of wish the wording included fishing as there is a lot access denied because of the slobs.
Post by: buckfvr on December 15, 2014, 06:32:03 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 15, 2014, 06:48:36 PM
If it helps keep lands open I am for it. Hunters don't realize that a lot of garbage shows up on timber lands during hunting season. Gates closed all year, open for hunting season. Take a drive through Campbell and Green diamond land in North river. Pretty much spotless before they opened the gates this year. Why, because WDFW & Master Hunters went through and cleaned it last year after hunting season. They will be cleaning it up again this year. Most of it beer cans and coffee cups chucked out the window of ethical hunters along with dump sites from locals who save up their garbage for hunting season and hunters who decided it was a good time to clean out the back of the truck. If not cleaned up it will not be open next year. That's the hand shake deal for public access. Oh and can't forget the target trash. Very said and discouraging. My estimate is there will be a few tons picked up this year just because they opened the gates for hunters.Couldn't agree more.
The plus on this tax is it is not focused no hunters.
Kind of wish the wording included fishing as there is a lot access denied because of the slobs.
I too wish fishing was involved. I think that fishermen simply haven't been as vocal about the issue as hunters have been.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 15, 2014, 06:51:06 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 15, 2014, 07:18:26 PM
I know many people feel taxed to the max and are fed up with more and more taxes, I agree with that thought. I have not read the bill but this sounds like a great way to clean up some of the garbage that is influencing private land managers to close off access. Best of all there is no new tax.
It would seem like this already existing fund (if unused) will grow until the legislature taps into it for one use or another. I would rather see garbage cleaned up than see the money spent on something that has no possible benefit to hunters, fishers, and other outdoor recreationists.
I know some people will resist this thought, but outdoor recreation including hunting is big business. It's all the business from hunting and other outdoor recreation that fuels economies and continues to keep hunting and outdoor recreation strong. There is an old saying in business, "You have to spend money to make money!" Granted, simply spending money on foolish things does not make a business successful. But, this money will be used to influence large landowners to keep lands open for access. When access is probably the #1 issue affecting hunters in Washington it seems that this is a great investment to me.
I know two of the legislators who are sponsoring this bill, one of them I do not know. But I can attest that two of these legislators are two of the best friends that hunters and gun owners have in this state's legislature. It seems these legislators are trying to mitigate one of the big problems (garbage) of why we are losing access to large private lands.
If anyone can offer some well thought out reasons why this bill is bad maybe those legislators can use the advise to modify the language for the better. But if cleaning up some garbage will open up more lands for hunting and recreation it sounds like this bill might be a wise use of the money and there could be a positive return to the state and the citizens with the recreation and the taxes from all the extra business created by the additional recreation.
I think that the governor might sign a bill like this.
Seems like a win/win to me!
Post by: Man Tracker on December 15, 2014, 08:31:06 PM
Post by: blackdog on December 15, 2014, 08:35:57 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 15, 2014, 10:29:14 PM